Having arrived at the conclusion that professional military education as hitherto given in this country has been begun at too early an age, we are met by what may be called the extreme opposite view, which would suggest the desirableness of giving up altogether education in military colleges previously to entering the army, or to entering a purely practical class or college for the special corps of Artillery and Engineers. An opinion appears to exist that the ordinary schools of the country are the best means of giving nearly the whole teaching of general and even military science which is desirable for all classes of officers before entering the army. It seems to be thought that not only modern languages and mathematics, but military history and topography are likely to be taught in such schools sufficiently for the highest military purposes, and that even young men intended for the special arms of the service may, on joining a military academy, be absolved, or almost entirely absolved, from any other studies than those included under the expression “a purely practical course.”
The Commissioners expressed their unhesitating dissent from this view. After pointing out the difficulties of giving at ordinary schools a complete preparation even in studies of a general preparatory character, such as modern languages and mathematics, and the still greater difficulties of teaching special subjects, like military history and topography, the Report proceeds:
Agreeing, therefore, as to the fact of a “sound general education being given by public schools,” we are unable to draw from it the conclusion that they will “give a specific military education.” They may indeed assist our military education, in a manner which the true sense of the term “sound general education” expresses, by encouraging preliminary tastes and studies, such as general history, mathematics, and modern languages, English included, to a greater extent than they do at present. But if there is such a thing as a science of war at all, it stands to reason that it can only be taught fully in cases where young officers have the passion and the capacity to begin it early, by its own teachers, and in its own place. The teachers should be practical men, as well as men of military science; the place a military college. And the great schools of the country will perform the same service to such an academy for young scientific officers as they do for places which give a specific education for other professions; they will prepare for it, but disclaim any attempt to complete it.
The Report of the Public Schools Commission does not appear to have made any direct reference to the question of the possibility of giving technical military instruction at civil schools; but the disinclination shown by the Commissioners to recommend even the general institution of “Modern Departments” would lead to the conclusion that they were not disposed to view with favor the introduction of any system of special instruction into the ordinary school course.
The question has been dealt with at considerable length in the evidence taken before the present Commission. In addition to the evidence given by Dr. Barry, Mr. Southwood, Dr. Benson, and Dr. Temple, to which particular reference is made in the Report, opinions on the subject were expressed by several military witnesses. Major-General Sir P. Herbert considers that all which is learnt at Sandhurst—all the knowledge requisite for a line officer—might equally well be acquired at a public school, if proper arrangements were made for teaching it. In his opinion fortification (including the practical construction of field-works), military drawing and surveying, military history and drill, could all be taught by military instructors at public schools without difficulty, and without interference with the subjects of general education. Major-General White considers that military history, modern languages, and drawing might be taught with advantage at public schools to boys intended for the army, although it would be difficult to teach the practical work of field fortification, artillery, and surveying. Colonel Baker appears to be of opinion that at the Universities, certainly, a special preliminary education might be given to candidates for the army, on a system similar to that which it was at one time proposed to introduce at Cambridge, but which does not appear to have ever been actually adopted. At the same time, though this instruction would be of a special character, Colonel Baker does not seem to contemplate its embracing strictly technical military subjects. On the other hand, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge is of opinion that special military classes at public schools would fail; Major-General Sir F. Abbott thinks it unnecessary to establish such classes; Colonel Hort is decidedly opposed to an attempt to give military instruction at any but a military college, on the ground that it could not be so effectively given at a civil establishment, and would, moreover, interfere with the acquisition of a general education; and Lieut.-General Sir D. Cameron considers that it would be impossible for public schools to give a thorough or perfect knowledge of the practical subjects taught at Sandhurst, such as fortification, artillery, military drawing, and surveying.
In connection with the same subject suggestions have been made by some witnesses that the Government should assign a certain number of free commissions annually, as prizes to be competed for, either at particular public schools, or more generally amongst candidates educated at such schools. The institution of military exhibitions or scholarships at civil schools, and of military degrees at the Universities, has been also suggested. By some witnesses these proposals are advocated with the special view of inducing public schools to adopt a system of military instruction; by others with the more general object of holding out increased encouragement to enter the service to candidates who have had the advantage of a public school education.
Although the question of giving military instruction at public schools was not specially discussed by the Public School Commissioners, their attention was directed to the results of public school education in preparing candidates for the military examinations. Their Report speaks as follows in reference to this subject:
The number of public-school boys who enter the army is not large. Of 1,976 candidates for direct commissions within three years, 122 only had been at any of these schools. Of these 102 succeeded and 20 failed. It will be observed, on reference to the returns, that this proportion of failures is considerably below the average; the public school men, therefore, were better prepared than the general run of candidates. Of 96 who passed at their first examination, 38 came immediately from school, 58 had had intermediate tuition. Of the 20 who failed, 14 had had such tuition.
The public-school candidates for Sandhurst during the same period were 23 out of 375; the proportion who succeeded being here also above the average. Of 18 who succeeded, 11 came straight from school; of five who failed, only one.
The scheme of examinations for direct commissions, framed to meet the suggestions of the Head Masters of public schools, is simple and easy, and requires nothing that is beyond the reach of any boy of moderate industry and ordinary capacity; and it is clear that no boy, who will give himself a little trouble, needs to forego the wholesome influences of a great school for the sake of being “crammed” in the house of a tutor. The Sandhurst examination is also evidently within the reach of the schools.