Some time ago the London " Specta-for," although it is a strong supporter of the Government, urged Lord Lansdowne to think more of his country that of himself and resign the portfolio of War, to which he had shown himself distinctly unequal. The "Spectator" did not wish to turn him out of the Cabinet altogether, but proposed that he should be entrusted with some less important portfolio, That was long before the publication of the. Spion Kop dispatches, a betise which must have convinced anyone who was not convinced before, of the utter unfitness of Lord Lansdowne for the post of Minister of War. Fortunately, our disasters so far have not been so serious as to make the British public rise up and demand a complete overhauling of the War Office; and so the good old "Take care: of Dowb" system continues to prevail. Generals are appointed because their claims are supported by women in the "smart" set in London; an_utterly incompetent man is retained in his command because he has friends at Court; a disaster like that which occurred to Broadwoou's force is hushed up because an enquiry might bing out something annoying to those in the seats of the mighty; anda well-meaning but weak Pecr who ought to have been replaced long ago continues to direct the course of the war.
We printed yesterday morning "Mr. Panch's" view of the publication of the Spion Kop dispatches; it was treated merely as a blunder, but many of the papers which ordinarily support the Government take a very much more condemnatory view of it. The " New York Nation" has a very moderate note on the subject, in which it says Lord Roberts's report on the Spion Kop affair, severely censuring Col. Thorneyeroft, and reflecting seriously upon both Gen. Warren and Gen. Buller, is, in itself, only a routine matter, a part of the regular duty of the commander-in-chief. The astonishing thing is that. it should have been published at the present time by the vernment. How it can have anything but the most unhappy effect on the morale of the army it is difficult to see. It is one thing for the authorities to receive information discrediting officers in the field, but quite another to give it to the public while the men are still holding important commayds. If there are bitterly quarrelling factions in the English army—if the higher officers are divided between the Wolseley camp and the Roberts camp, and if the Roberts men have now got Lord Lansdowne's ear, and are rubbing salt into the wounds of the Wolseley men by means of this surprising teport—why, the strange course pursued may be intelligible, but must be held none the less deplorable. Tt was years after the Franco-German war before the German military authorities would allow the reports to be published expose the misconduct of German officers at Gravelotte. Perhaps, however, Lord Roberts will say, as Gen. Grant said of his reference to Butler's being bottled up" at Bermuda Hundred, that he did not think
attention"—'as this did," Grant innocently. his eondgumatory phrase would "attract added, "very much to the annoyance, no doubt, of Gen. Butler,"
The "Economist," in an article headed "The Disciplining of Geneals," holds that the publication of the dispatches was an "inexcusable blunder," unless it was intended to remove the officers censured, including Sir Redvers Buller. Referring to the publication of the dispatches, it goos on to s:
Every word of them will be road and understood by the men, as well as the subordinate officers, already disposed to criticism, and will convince then, General Roberts being implicitly trusted, that they are being asked to throw away their lives at the bidding of incompetent chicks, Their reward, for which they will sacrifice anything, is victory, and they are told that under such generals as immediately lend them, victory is not to be expected. Tt is impossible for an army to keep in full heart under such conditions, and as Lord. Lansdowne and Lord Wolseley must see that. more clearly than outside critics can, we do not doubt that a further considerable "change in commands" has already been authorised, and will be accepted by the nation as judicious. The nation, in fact, is not the obstacle in the way to the dit ciplining of superior officers. It is a kindly people, and is sorry, as was shown by the comments on General Gatacre's fate, when a gallant man is removed for faults possibly beyond his own control, but when taken into confidence it approves and, indeed, expects such removals. It is only too well aware that our system in time of porce does not breed able generals, that they are too often selected for their social influence, that they are not punished for blundering' in the great_manquvres, that, in short, competent leaders can only be found through the weeding of the battle field. Above all, they are pining for decided and rapid success, and are willing to allow of any promotion or re-Is, even if they involve hardship to duals, which will conduce to that end. What do the people care for the mental suffering of General Wellborn if under his incompetent leadership the lives of two thousand men have been thrown away only to secure 'a disaster?" may be thought that under a sterner system a deserving general will now and then be ruined for what was not his fault, but even then his misfortune is not so great as that of the regiments which under "some inexplicable mistake" are uselessly swept away. If we are' to trust Lord Roberts with the full guidance of a campaign, which strains even our resources, we must trust him also to select, to supersede, and to send home all beneath his command.
In another part of the sarah article the "Economist" says that our disasters have been due to " want of care in the selection of the higher offices, want of severity in the discipline applied to Generals, and want of resolution in command upon the part of the Generals ultimately responsible."
We had other quotations to make, but this question loses its interest in the face of the news that comes as we are writing, thatthe war is formally over. On Wednesday morning the British officers were dictating the terms of the Boer surrender at Johannesburg, the British advance
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.