[To ma EDITOR OP THE "EPROTATOR.1
SIR,—Mr. Arnold-Forster has now told us that he never wished to lay any claim to be the creator of the new Imperial Yeomanry, and that be quite acknowledges the fact that Mr. Brodrick was the originator of this force. So far, so good; we now seem to be forging ahead of Mr. Arnold-Forster's letter of August 4th. Still, Mr. Arnold-Forster does not wish to be treated as a quantity that can be entirely neglected in this matter of the Yeomanry, and be therefore takes some credit to himself for having reduced the establishment of the force. His reasons, as given by himself, I shall try to tabulate as follows :— (1) "My reference, as I should have thought was obvious, is to the Order which instituted a fixed establishment in the Yeomanry regiments."—It is impossible for any one, who has the most elementary knowledge of the subject, to understand what this scheme means. Mr. Arnold-Forster did not introduce a fixed establishment in Yeomanry regiments ; Mr. Brodrick had already done so, but the two establishments were different.
(2) "The result of the Order has, however, fully justified those who advised its issue. The total number of the Yeomanry has increased."—It must be remembered that the " Order " referred to here is the one issued in 1904 reducing the establishment of the force. It is not true that the Yeomanry has increased since' this date ; it has diminished in numbers.
(3) "Commanding officers can now afford to pick their men." —They certainly can, but this may surely be attributed to the grant by Mr. Brodrick of liberal pay and allowances, and not to Mr. Arnold-Forster's reduction of establishment.
(4) "Your correspondents' remark with respect to the reduc- tion of the establishment of the Imperial Yeomanry is either meaningless or misleading. The establishment which was reduced was a war establishment which bore no relation whatever to actual numbers."—This is not the case. This establishment, which I drew up, was a peace establishment, and as such was published in Army Orders.
Mr. Arnold-Forster's version of his official views on the Volunteers seems to be as fanciful as those he has advanced about the Yeomanry. His proposal to disband more than sixty thousand Volunteers was made some time before his unfor- tunate and illegal attempt to ascertain their medical fitness for foreign service.—I am, Sir, &c., H. LE ROY-LEWIS.
Hubborn, Christchurch.
Previous page
