Earl Roberts, too, has made things unpleasant for the War Secretary by declaring in the House of Lords that our regular army is in no better state of preparation to-day than it was' when the South African War broke out. It is true that he went on to say that the Government was not in fault, and that the evil was due to the lack of national interest in our army. What Lord Roberts really meant—as Mr, Arnold Forster had the courage to point out last night in the Commons—was that conscription is the only remedy; but whatever the remedy may be, such a criticism coming from such a quarter must cause serious con-cora, and it is natural that, in spite of Lord Roberts' qualification the Government should be held to blame for the state of things he describes. Lord Roberts has, at the same time, earned a certain measure of public' disapproval through the discovery that his salary of £8,000 a year has continued ever since his off of Commander-in-Chief was abolished. Mr. Arnold Forster, when questioned about it in the Commons, referred to Lord Roberts's services on the Defence Committee; but he had to acknowledge that other members served on that' Committee without pay. Everybody ackuowledges that Lord Roberts has rendered services to the country which should be generously acknowledged; but it is pointed out that it is not long since he had a grant of £100,000, and it is urged, toc, that if on the abolition of his olticg it was thought right to continue his pay,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.