THE BATTLE OF DORKING.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VI, Issue 205, 30 August 1871, Page 4

THE BATTLE OF DORKING.

The clever writer of the Battle of Dorking writes thus to the editor of tlie Spectator : — May I ask for space to thank you for having pointed out. as you did «o dearly in last week's Spectator, that "The Battle of Dorking is not intended to be a " Tory alarmist " article, or a political article in any sense. Although not the person for whom you have done tne the honor to mistake me, I may at least say that I am nothing if not a Liheral, while if the Army Regulation Bill does not carry us very far on the j road to Army reform, still, as Mr. Disraeli himself admits, the present Government has at any rate been the first to attempt to deal with the matter at all. And with respect to what I would venture to characterise as the very feeble criticism of -the Times on the subject, I would /observe that I am one of those who think the present rate of military expenditure is sufficient, and more than sufficient, to give us a proper defence of the country, and that larger establishments are not wanted. What we need is organisation, and it is our painful deficiency in this respect, which extends from the cumbrous and over-centralised War Office itself through all the departments under its control; it is our conviction of the existing defects of our military system, of the imperfect condition of tbe Reserve forces, aud of the defenceless state of our only arsenal an J of the capital itself, that causes our anxiety. The Times says that the overthrow of our fleet is improbable; but the question is surely not one of probability, but of possibility. Unless an invasion is, under any circumstances impossible, then clearly the Volunteers have no raison d'etre, for they are not ■wanted for offensive warfare. And if it be possible, then is it not the height of infatuation to grudge the trifling insurance of the national wealth needed for protecting London and creating a reserve arsenal in a central position, as well as the moderate trouble and self-denial requisite for properly organising our defensive forces ? When our dockyards were unprotected, it was they that used to be the source of panics ; they have been fortified, and the nation is now justifiably at ease on that score. But so long as London and Woolwich lie open to tempt a successful coup de main, and our final defence rests on an organisation which hardly works in peace, and would infallibly break down under the first strain of emergency, others may alternate between fits of panic and parsimony, but the state of the better informed, who know what is possible in war, must need-* be that of permanent uneasiness, because tbey feel that the fate of tbe country is dependent on good luck and the forbearance of possible enemies. Tbe Times says we are safe been use our army i-_ larger than that which fought a« Waterloo. It would be as logical to say that we are unsafe because Julius C-0-"--ir effected an invasion with three legiou.. In the present state of European armament?, the one precedent is about as apposite as the other.