THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1881. OUR VOLUNTEERS.—No. III.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2268, 9 July 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1881. OUR VOLUNTEERS.—No. 111.

In our article on Thursday we alluded to the purely popular method of electing our Volunteer officers, and stated our belief that, in consequence of its being unchecked by a stiff examination, by a reasonable possibility of an inefficient officer being removed on well-grounded complaint, or by a really efficient supervision from Head Quarters, the system has broken down. Another point that claims attention is the manner in which arrangements are at present made for instructing the rank and file of the Volunteers in their duties. It would appear that in this matter the acme of how-not-to-do-it has been reached. "We wish to bring no railing accusation against any man, but merely te call attention to facts that are patent to anyone who will take the trouble of looking into the matter. The system, and not individuals, is to blame. Whatever may be the idea conveyed to the Canterbury hyper-military mind by the word ‘‘ instruction,” a layman will build up some such theory as the following as to the plain duties of a military instructor. Being thoroughly well posted in his knowledge of drill, and being, besides, somewhat of an enthusiast, the instructor should place his time at the disposal of the Volunteers in his district. There should not only be constant opportunities for drill, but the drill should be made as interesting and as varied as possible. The raw recruits should be the special care of the instructor, who should endeavor to work them up as rapidly as possible to a point where they would not prove a drag on the remainder of their respective companies. The inspector, looking upon his own time as valuable, should apportion it among the various parts of the district under his charge, and should there happen to be apathy shown in any locality in Volunteer matters ho should try, by showing that drill is not all mere dry detail, to dissipate it. All this might surely be expected from an official paid by Government for the very work we have alluded to. But, as far as we have been able to ascertain, a functionary bolding the views just described does not exist in this province. At least the result of his work is not apparent. The drill is insipid and uninteresting to a degree, the men are not “ whipped up,” the out-districts are neglected, and far too much time of the drill instructor is taken up in carrying out a routine of officialdom ridiculously disproportioned to the size of the staff or the number of the troops, efficient or otherwise. As to the character of the instruction imparted when a drill really does come off, perhaps the least said about it the better. It may be diapered with certain ideas gleaned from the red book, but the system of drill, as a system, is essentially oldfashioned, and does not embrace the wider principles brought into vogue by the later developments in the science of war. It is needless to say that any course of drill that does not include these developements is more or less useless. In England this fact is quite recognised. A few years back it was thought sufficient if volunteer adjutants were military men who had retired from service. But it was found that such men imperceptibly and from no fault of their own, but in the natural order of events, fell behind their time. A change was accordingly made by which adjutants were procured from among the army captains on active duty. These were appointed for five years, and at the expiration of that period they rejoined their several regiments. It was thnsinsured that the Volunteers were drilled by men who were well posted in all the latest developments, and a fresh and invigorating flow of instructive matter was always within roach of the Volunteers. Such a complete system is of course not possible in New Zealand, but it might surely be an instruction to drill instructors that they not only study, but, as far as possible, bring into practice the very latest improvements. And when the Government was able to procure experts to report on Volunteer matters, it might well lie within the province of such experts to state whether the system of drill employed was up to modern requirements, and to make suggestions on this particular point. We have now briefly alluded to soma of the blots in our present Volunteer system, more particularly as they are illustrated in Canterbury. What the Volunteers want may be summed up as being : —More efficient officers; more efficient drill instruction; camps where the practical duties of a soldier could bo properly learnt; more opportunities of learning how to skirmish ; some practical outcome to the various reports that are furnished to Government by experts, both in the direction of attaching responsibility for failure where it should lie and in more general diroctieus. If these points were attended to a surprising stimulus would bo given to the Volunteer movement. Wo go so far as to say that many a Volunteer would prefer a revivifying of the system in this direction to a capitation grant. Doubtless assistance is required by the Volunteers, but re-organi-sation is even more required. It is no use spending public money on a system as fly-blown as the present one.