60 
RECEUITlNGr. 
practice. I am not going to go back to what has been done in the 
past. I regret greatly that it should have been thought necessary iii 
the cause of efficiency to confuse (and they were confused), existing 
regimental traditions (hear, hear). I believe it was done to an extent 
quite unnecessary, and has not been of any great value to the service. 
But when I see that we are promised a still further departure from 
what I believe to be the true course, I think it is greatly to be lamented, 
and when I heard we are to have another break up of the regimental 
organisations, and that the regiments which possibly have by this time 
accommodated themselves to their new classification and learnt what it 
is that they ought to learu, and learnt what they ought to forget and 
what it is permissible that they should remember, should now be called 
upon to make another effort and to divide their affections over two 
more battalions, I confess I think a great mistake 1 is being made 
(loud applause)— 
And if I wanted a proof of this tendeucy to neglect what seems to me 
to be the A.B.C. of all truths with which human nature is acquainted, 
I should find it in the recent arrangement which, to my knowledge is 
acting detrimentally, and is bound to act detrimentally, with regard to 
another branch of the service, I allude to the cavalry. Now, if there 
be one branch of our service more than another, which to the knowledge 
of every soldier, depends on the individual character of the regiments, 
it is the cavalry. You may take the ornament on the uniform, the 
badge and motto on the colours, you may take the colour of the horses, 
the name of the regiment, everything stamps that regiment as a unit, 
a thing in itself, with a past, present and future. And men, as ;you 
know, and as I know, enlist over and over again, not for the cavalry 
but for the regiment of cavalry (applause). When I am told that 
something is to be gained so vital, so valuable, that it is worth 
attaining by the process which has recently been introduced into our 
cavalry regiments, I confess I cannot accept the statement. What 
has beeu done we all know is this, that a man if he desires to enlist, as 
many men do desire to enlist, for a particular cavalry regiment, I do 
not wish to be invidious, but I will say the 1st Royals or the 17th 
Lancers, or the 10th Hussars, or any other regiment you like, he goes 
into that regiment because he knows about it as his father knew about 
it, and because his friends know about it, and because he has read 
about it, and I know this is so because in my mind’s eye I have clear 
examples of every one of those generalisations I have made. When a 
man desires to serve in a particular regiment what is he told now ? 
that he is told he cannot enlist in that regiment, that if he does join it 
within a month he may be turned out of it, that he enlists for a corps of 
Lancers, or Hussars, or Dragoons, and that he not only may be passed on, 
but in all probability will be passed on willy nilly to some other 
regiment before six months of his service have gone. That does seem 
1 The recent speech, of the Secretary of State for War lends itse-f to the construction which has 
been placed upon it by some, namely, that the War Office intends to group existing battalions in 
sets of fours, to make “ four battalion regiments.” There is, however, some reason to believe, 
and every reason to hope that only where the new battalions are added to existing regiments is the 
“ four-battalion ” scheme to be inflicted on the infantry.—H.O.A.-E. 
