Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:08:38.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

St. John Brodrick and Army Reform, 1901–1903

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Lowell J. Satre
Lowell J. Satre*
Affiliation:
Youngstown State University, Ohio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Edwardian England has become an increasingly significant period for scholarly research. One of the more carefully examined subjects is the interrelationship between politics and army reform. The debacles of the South African War forced the governments to examine England's army, and reforms emerged after 1901. Historians have concentrated on the efforts of Balfour's administration of 1902-05 and Haldane's sojourn at the War Office from 1906 to 1912; these periods witnessed the emergence of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the reorganization of the War Office, the shaping of the General Staff and the development of the British Expeditionary Force. All of these have been subjected to detailed examination — notably, the C. I. D. in recent works by Peter Fraser and Nicholas d'Ombrain, and the War Office by W. S. Hamer.

There is, however, at least one gap in the historical literature on politics and army reform: St. John Brodrick's term as Secretary of State for War, 1901-03. An understanding of Brodrick's activities is necessary, since he was, of course, the first War Secretary to attempt reforms as a response to the obvious shortcomings of the army in the South African War. A careful examination will explain why he failed in many of his programs, the political consequences of these failures, and some of his more positive contributions.

The breakdown of the British army in the first few months of the South African War, which began in October 1899 and ended in May 1902, shocked and dismayed both the public and the Government.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , Spring 1976 , pp. 117 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Fraser, Peter, Lord Esher: A Political Biography (London, 1973)Google Scholar; d'Ombrain, Nicholas, War Machinery and High Policy: Defence Administration in Peacetime Britain 1902-1914 (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

2. Hamer, W. S., The British Army: Civil-Military Relations, 1885-1905 (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar.

3. A. V. Tucker has two excellent articles but neither examines Brodrick's activities in sufficient depth: “Politics and the Army in the Unionist Government in England, 1900-1905,” The Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting (1964), with Historical Papers, pp. 105–19Google Scholar; and “The Issue of Army Reform in the Unionist Government, 1903-5,” Historical Journal, IX (1966), 90–100Google Scholar.

4. BM, copy of letter, Balfour to Lansdowne, Dec. 30, 1899, Balfour Papers, Add. MS 49727.

5. Balfour, in 4 Hansard 94: 383 (May 16, 1901)Google Scholar.

6. Lansdowne, , 4 Hansard 83: 1261–62 (June 25, 1900)Google Scholar.

7. “The War in South Africa,” Edinburgh Review, CXCII (Oct., 1900), 275Google Scholar; Col.Hale, Lonsdale, “The Staff in the War,” Nineteenth Century, XLVIII (Sept., 1900), 357–72Google Scholar; Lieut.-Col.Maude, F. N., “National Military Reform,” Contemporary Review, LXXIX (Feb., 1901), 249Google Scholar. Also see Bond's, Brian excellent The Victorian Army and the Staff College, 1854-1914 (London, 1972), pp. 187–94Google Scholar.

8. Infantry Officer, “Army Shooting and Its Improvements,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, CLXIX (March, 1901), 320–29Google Scholar; Lt. Col.Pennington, R. L. A., “Army Reform from a Battalion Point of View,” Fortnightly Review, LXIX (Feb. 1, 1901), 312–19Google Scholar.

9. “Togatus,” “The War Office,” Contemporary Review, LXXIX (Jan., 1901), 38–48Google Scholar; Gordon, Harold, “A Future for War Office Reform,” Westminster Review, CLV (March, 1901), 244–54Google Scholar.

10. Clarke, G. S., “The Defence of the Empire and the Militia Ballot,” Nineteenth Century, XLVII (Jan., 1900), 2–13Google Scholar; Sidney Low, “The Military Weakness of England and the Militia Ballot,” ibid., 14-28; MajorGriffiths, Arthur, “Great Armies and Their Cost,” Fortnightly Review, LXIX (Feb. 1, 1900), 249–59Google Scholar.

11. For examples, see campaign speeches or addresses of Chamberlain, Salisbury, and Hicks Beach, in respective order, in Times, Oct. 2, 1900; Sept. 24, 1900; Oct. 1, 1900.

12. For an uncritical account of Lansdowne's term at the War Office, see Newton, Lord, Lord Lansdowne: A Biography (London, 1929)Google Scholar.

13. Christ Church, Oxford (hereinafter CC), copy of letter, Chamberlain to Balfour, Oct. 21, 1900, Salisbury Papers, Balfour correspondence; Milner to Lady Edward Cecil, Nov. 13, 1900, Headlam, Cecil (ed.), The Milner Papers (London, 1933), II, 130Google Scholar.

14. India Office (hereinafter IO), Brodrick to Curzon, Jan. 3, 1900, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/10.

15. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Oct. 28, 1900, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence.

16. IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Nov. 9, 1900, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/10.

17. Earl of Midleton, Records and Reactions, 1856-1939 (London, 1939), pp. 121–22Google Scholar; New College, Oxford, (now in Bodleian Library), Brodrick to Milner, Nov. 3, 1900, Milner Papers, Vol. 29. The new parliamentary representatives included Lord Raglan, Under-Secretary of State and spokesman in the House of Lords, and Lord Stanley, Financial Secretary, who was in South Africa when Brodrick became War Secretary and could not, as a result, immediately assume his new duties. Lord Wolseley, the Commander-in-Chief, basically refused to give advice; Roberts did not assume the post until January, 1901. Sir Ralph Knox retired as Permanent Under-Secretary in 1901 and was replaced by Sir Edward Ward.

18. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Dec. 5, 1900, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence.

19. Times, Aug. 30, 1900.

20. PRO, Brodrick to Kitchener, Dec. 28, 1900, Kitchener Papers, PRO 30/57/22.

21. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Jan. 20, 1901, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence.

22. Steiner, Zara, The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898-1914 (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

23. For a criticism of the use of this term, see Howard, Christopher, Splendid Isolation (London, 1967)Google Scholar.

24. Monger, George, The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900-1907 (London, 1963), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

25. Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy: The Close of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1964), pp. 269–90Google Scholar.

26. Howard, Monger, End of Isolation, pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Michael, , The Continental Commitment: The Dilemma of British Defence Policy in the Era of the Two World Wars (London, 1972), pp. 10–13Google Scholar.

27. Ibid., pp. 13-20.

28. For excellent examinations of Curzon and Brodrick's relationship, see Dilks, David, Curzon in India (New York, 1969), 2 vols.Google Scholar, and Rose, Kenneth, Superior Person: A Portrait of Curzon and his Circle in Late Victorian England (New York, 1969), pp. 354-57, 361–67Google Scholar.

29. Written in 1888 and printed in 1891, it may be found in Parliamentary Papers, 1901 (Cd. 607), XXXIXGoogle Scholar. Parliamentary Papers (hereinafter P.P.).

30. 4 Hansard 90: 1057–89Google Scholar. The best description of Brodrick's reforms (including the role of the auxiliary forces) and that of his successors (Arnold-Forster and Haldane) is found in Col.Dunlop's, John K.The Development of the British Army, 1899-1914 (London, 1938)Google Scholar.

31. 4 Hansard 93: 1487–1504Google Scholar.

32. For a study of Liberal leadership in the 1890s, see Stansky, Peter, Ambitions and Strategies: The Struggle for the Leadership of the Liberal Party in the 1890's (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar.

33. Wilson, John, CB: A Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (London, 1973), pp. 299–356Google Scholar.

34. 4 Hansard 93: 1568-70, 1575–76 (May 13, 1901)Google Scholar.

35. IO, Hamilton to Curzon, April 25, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/148. Churchill did not move the amendment, but deferred to Campbell-Bannerman's motion.

36. 4 Hansard 94: 309 (May 16, 1901)Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., 310.

38. James, Robert Rhodes, “The Politician,” in Churchill Revised (New York, 1969), p. 64Google Scholar.

39. Griffith-Boscawen, A. S. T., Fourteen Years in Parliament (London, 1907), pp. 196–97Google Scholar. The last four named and Churchill made up the “Hooligans”; Churchill, Randolph, Winston S. Churchill (Boston, 1969)Google Scholar, Companion Vol. II, Part I, 75-76 fn.

40. Griffith-Boscawen, , Fourteen Years, p. 197Google Scholar; 4 Hansard 94: 387–92 (May 16, 1901)Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 384-86.

42. Ibid., 90: 1059-60, 1079-80 (March 8, 1901).

43. For example, see John Colomb's speech in ibid., 94: 111-23 (May 14, 1901).

44. Preston, Richard A., Canada and “Imperial Defense”: A Study of the Origins of the British Commonwealth's Defense Organization (Durham, N. C., 1967), p. 277Google Scholar.

45. Monger, , End of Isolation, p. 36Google Scholar.

46. IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Feb. 15, 1901 and Nov. 6, 1903, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/10; Army Museum's Ogilby Trust, Brodrick to Roberts, Sept. 3, 1901, Roberts Papers, Case 20931, Box 4, R. 13/95.

47. For War Office changes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including an excellent section on the Dawkins' Committee report, see Hamer, , British Army. The report itself is Report of the Committee to Enquire into War Office Organisation, in P.P., 1901 (Cd. 580), XLGoogle Scholar.

48. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, in P. P., 1904 (Cd. 1790), XL, 87-88, 199, 458Google Scholar.

49. d'Ombrain, , War Machinery, pp. 2-3, 26–27Google Scholar.

50. IO, Dawkins to Curzon, Feb. 28, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. MSS, F. 111/10.

51. Order in Council, dated the 21st day of November, 1895, defining the Duties of the Commander-in-Chief and other War Office Officials, in P. P., 1896 (59), LIGoogle Scholar; for changing powers of the Commander-in-Chief, see also Hamer, British Army.

52. 4 Hansard 90: 329–57 (March 4, 1901)Google Scholar, 91: 6-22 (March 15, 1901). Also see Wolseley's memorandum to Salisbury on military administration, Nov., 1900, in PRO, Cabinet Papers (microfilm collection, University of South Carolina) CAB 37/53, No. 78. All Cabinet Papers are from the microfilm collection.

53. Roberts to Brodrick, Dec. 27, 1900, quoted in James, David, Lord Roberts (London, 1954), pp. 372–73Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Henry Spenser, Thirty-Five Years, 1874-1909 (London, 1933), pp. 247-48, 255–56Google Scholar.

54. For Brodrick's criticisms, see his “Notes on the Proposals Contained in Lord Roberts' Letter of December 27, 1900,” of Jan. 19, 1901, Cabinet Papers, CAB 37/56, No. 10; James, , Roberts, pp. 371–75Google Scholar.

55. Order in Council Defining the Duties of the Principal Officers of the War Department, issued November 4, 1901, in P. P., 1902 (Cd. 794), LVIIIGoogle Scholar.

56. Midleton, , Records and Reactions, pp. 151–52Google Scholar.

57. PRO, Brodrick to Kitchener, May 11, 1901, Kitchener Papers, PRO 30/57/22.

58. Minutes of Evidence, in P. P., 1904, XL, 456Google Scholar.

59. Roberts to Brodrick, Sept. 2, 1901, and Roberts to Ian Hamilton, Sept. 2, 1901, quoted in James, , Roberts, pp. 379–82Google Scholar. The Roberts Papers (Army Museum's Ogilby Trust, Case 20931, Boxes A, 5, 6) contain a vast correspondence on discipline and honors.

60. Midleton, , Records and Reactions, p. 152Google Scholar.

61. Beach, Lady Victoria Hicks, Life of Sir Michael Hicks Beach (London, 1932), II, 56-57, 63–64Google Scholar; for relationship of the Treasury to the War Office, see Hamer, , British Army, pp. 62–72Google Scholar.

62. BM, copy of letter, Balfour to Salisbury, Oct. 20, 1900, Balfour Papers, Add. MS 49835.

63. University of Birmingham, copy of letter, Chamberlain to Milner, Sept. 2, 1899, Chamberlain Papers, JC 10/9/55; IO, Selborne to Curzon, Oct. 6, 1899, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/229.

64. 4 Hansard 78:32.

65. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Jan. 20, 1901, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence; IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Feb. 15, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/10.

66. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Jan. 20, 1901, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence.

67. A review of arguments used by conscription advocates is found in Cairnes, W. E., “The Militia Ballot,” Fortnightly Review, LXXI (April 1, 1902), 682–89Google Scholar.

68. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Jan. 20, 1901, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence; IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Feb. 15, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111′10.

69. IO, Hamilton to Curzon, June 27, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/149; IO, Brodrick to Curzon, No. 22, 1901, ibid., F. 111/10; Army Estimates, 1902-1903,” by Brodrick, Dec. 7, 1901, Cabinet Papers, CAB 37/59, No. 128.

70. “Pay and Terms of Service in the Army,” by Hicks Beach, Jan. 9, 1902, Cabinet Papers, CAB 37/60, No. 2; Gloucester Record Office (hereinafter GRO), Hicks Beach to Francis Mowatt, Dec. 23, 1901, Hicks Beach Papers, PCC/85.

71. National Library of Scotland (hereinafter NLS), Esher to Rosebery, Oct. 7, 1901, Rosebery Papers, Box No. 6; NLS, Spender to Rosebery, Oct. 2, 1901, ibid., Box No. 76.

72. GRO, Hicks Beach to Brodrick, Jan. 9, 1902, Hicks Beach Papers, PCC/85. Brodrick carried his proposals in a Cabinet meeting of Jan. 24, 1902, by a small majority of eleven to eight. Salisbury to the King, Jan. 24, 1902, in PRO, Cabinet Letters (microfilm collection, University of South Carolina), CAB 41/27/2.

73. Dilks, , Curzon, I, 209–10Google Scholar.

74. IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Oct. 25, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/10. Also see IO, Brodrick to Curzon, Nov. 15, 1901, ibid.

75. IO, Selborne to Curzon, July 13, 1901, ibid., F. 111/229.

76. Chamberlain to Hicks Beach, Sept. 30, 1901, and Hicks Beach to Chamberlain, Oct. 2, 1901, in Beach, Hicks, Hicks Beach, II, 154–58Google Scholar.

77. IO, Northbrook to Curzon, Dec. 12, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/182; and speeches in 4 Hansard 104: 612–28 (March 6, 1902)Google Scholar.

78. Midleton, , Records and Reactions, pp. 127–28Google Scholar.

79. Dilks, , Curzon, II, 32Google Scholar.

80. University of Birmingham, copy of letter Chamberlain to Hicks Beach, Sept. 30, 1901, Chamberlain Papers, JC 11/18/13; IO, Dawkins to Curzon, Oct. 30, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/182; University of Birmingham, Hicks Beach to Chamberlain, Oct. 2, 1901, Chamberlain Papers, JC 11/18/14.

81. IO, Hamilton to Curzon, July 18, 1901, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/149.

82. CC, Brodrick to Salisbury, Aug. 27, 1901, Salisbury Papers, Brodrick correspondence; SirPonsonby, Frederick, Recollections of Three Reigns (London, 1951), pp. 126–27Google Scholar.

83. For tactlessness, see Rose, , Superior Person, pp. 182–83Google Scholar, and The Daily Chronicle, Feb. 24, 1903. For Brodrick's deafness, which very much bothered him personally, see Brodrick to Salisbury, Oct. 2, 1898, cited in Steiner, , Foreign Office, p. 32Google Scholar, and IO, Hamilton to Curzon, Feb. 13, 1902 and Feb. 27, 1903, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/154.

84. Amery, L. S., My Political Life, I (London, 1953), 153Google Scholar; Symons, Julian, Buller's Campaign (London, 1963), pp. 286–90Google Scholar.

85. University of Birmingham, Brodrick to Chamberlain, Oct. 7, 1901, Chamberlain Papers, JC 11/18/49.

86. For official reports, see Report of the Committee on Hone Purchase in Auslro-Hungary, in P. P., 1902 (Cd. 882), XGoogle Scholar, and Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry on the Administration of the Army Remount Department, in P. P., 1902 (Cd. 993), LVIIIGoogle Scholar. Also see debate in 4 Hansard 102: 49-154, 207–64 (Jan. 31 and Feb. 2, 1902)Google Scholar. For the seriousness of the situation, see Army Museum's Ogilby Trust, Brodrick to Roberts, June 11, 1902, Roberts Papers, Case 20931, Box 5, R. 13/212.

87. The articles appeared on the following days: Jan. 21, 23, 27, 29; Feb. 3, 4, 11, 17, 21, 23, 24.

88. Amery, , My Political Life, I, 195–97Google Scholar.

89. For example, see SirDilke's, Charles speech in 4 Hansard 118: 546–49 (Feb. 23, 1903)Google Scholar.

90. The Rt. Hon. Seely, J. E. B., Adventure (London, 1930), pp. 96–97Google Scholar.

91. For the debates of Feb. 23-24, 1903, see 4 Hansard 118; for March 10-11, 4 Hansard 119.

92. BM, Asquith to Herbert Gladstone, Feb. 9, 1903, Gladstone Papers, Add. MS 45988.

93. 4 Hansard 119:302 (Mar. 10, 1903)Google Scholar.

94. Ibid., 118: 789-92 (Feb. 24, 1903); and 119; 467-68 (March 11, 1903).

95. Balfour to Lady Elcho, Feb., 1903, quoted in Young, Kenneth, Arthur James Balfour: The Happy Life of the Politician, Prime Minister, Statesman, and Philosopher, 1848-1930 (London, 1963), p. 229Google Scholar; IO, Hamilton to Curzon, March 5, 1903, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/154.

96. IO, Hamilton to Curzon, Feb. 27, 1901, ibid.

97. Ibid.; Lucy, Henry W., The Balfourian Parliament, 1900-1905 (London, 1906), pp. 240–41Google Scholar.

98. Griffith-Boscawen, , Fourteen Years, p. 252Google Scholar. For Churchill's rather noble evaluation of the army reform group, see his letter to J. T. Travis-Clegg, April 24, 1903, in Churchill, , Winston S. Churchill, Companion Vol. II, Part I, 180-82Google Scholar. Churchill also sent a rough sketch of his envisioned army to C. T. Ritchie, April 10, 1903; University of Birmingham, copy of letter in Chamberlain MSS, JC 18/12/35.

99. Rempel, Richard, Unionists Divided: Arthur Balfour, Joseph Chamberlair and the Unionist Free Traders (Hamden, Conn., 1972), pp. 107–08Google Scholar.

100. The twenty-six Unionists were James Tynte Agg-Gardner, *Emest William Beckett, *Thomas Gibson Bowles, *Lord Hugh Cecil, +* Winston Spencer Churchill, Henry John C. Cust, +*John Dickson-Poynder, W. E. Evans-Gordon, George Denison Faber, Vicary Gibbs, +*J. Eldon Gorst, Edward Alfred Goulding, +*Ivor Guest, +*Ernest Frederick G. Hatch, Claude George Hay, +*George Kemp, Ian Malcolm, Gilbert Parker, *John S. G. Pemberton, George Renwick, Henry Charles Richards, +*J. E. B. Seely, +*Sir Edgar Vincent, Alfred C. E. Welby, +J. W. Wilson, and *Robert Armstrong Yerburgh; 4 Hansard 119: 467–68 (Mar. 11, 1903)Google Scholar. Those who became Unionist Free Traders are indicated by *. Those who later crossed the floor are indicated by +. Rempel, Unionists Divided, appendices.

101. The maintenance of a large permanent garrison in South Africa had been included in Amery's reform plan; he had a substantial correspondence with Milner and Chamberlain on the issue; see several letters, New College, Oxford, Amery to Milner, Feb.-June, 1903, Milner Papers, vol. 33. Among the many interesting sources on this issue are Joseph Chamberlain's “Notes on a Proposal to Keep 30,000 Men in South Africa as a Part of the Home Establishment,” dated April 11, 1903, Cabinet Papers, CAB 37/64, No. 23, and an explanation of this crisis by Brodrick, sent to Austen Chamberlain, Sept. 14, 1920, University of Birmingham, Chamberlain MSS, JC 18/12/56.

102. Knollys to Akers-Douglas, Sept. 13, 1903, Chilston, Viscount, Chief Whip: The Political Life and limes of Aretas Akers-Douglas, 1st Viscount Chilston (London, 1961), p. 313Google Scholar.

103. Dilks, , Curzon, I, 210Google Scholar; speech by Arnold-Forster, , 4 Hansard 136: 1491–94 (June 28, 1904)Google Scholar; Balfour to the King, Aug. 8, 1904, Cabinet Letters, CAB 41/30/32.

104. IO, Dawkins to Curzon, Feb. 20, 1903, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/182.

105. Report of His Majesty's Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Military Preparations and other Matters Connected with the War in South Africa, in P. P., 1904 (Cd. 1789), XLGoogle Scholar. Also Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, in P. P., 1904 (Cd. 1790), XL, and 1904 (Cd. 1791). XLIGoogle Scholar; Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, in P. P., 1904 (Cd. 1792), XLIIGoogle Scholar.

106. For a comparison of statements by Brodrick and War Office officials, see Report of the Commission on the War in South Africa, in P. P., 1904, XL, 140–41Google Scholar; Minutes of Evidence, in ibid., 87-88, 199, 458-59; Minutes of Evidence in ibid., XLI, 539-40.

107. Ibid., XL, 217.

108. Ibid., 195.

109. Ibid., 200; and ibid., XLI, 347.

110. Report of the Commission on the War in South Africa, in ibid., XL, 83.

111. BM, Sanders to Balfour, Oct. 29, 1903, Balfour Papers, Add. MS 49761; IO, Ian Malcolm to Curzon, Oct. 6, 1903, Curzon Papers, Eur. MSS, F. 111/225; Griffith-Boscawen, , Fourteen Years, p. 282Google Scholar.

112. Chilston, , Chief Whip, pp. 313–21Google Scholar.

113. d'Ombrain, , War Machinery, pp. 35–36Google Scholar.

114. Ibid., pp. 2, 35-36; Fraser, , Esher, pp. 19, 92Google Scholar.

115. Fraser's account of Esher is excellent; one should also read Brett, Maurice V. (ed.), Journals and Letters of Reginald Viscount Esher (London, 1934, 1938), 4 volsGoogle Scholar. Brodrick suspected that many of his difficulties, especially those with the King, were caused by Esher, who enjoyed power without responsibility.

116. For these developments, see especially Fraser, Esher; d'Ombrain, War Machinery; Tucker, , “The Issue of Army Reform in the Unionist Government, 1903-5,” Historical Journal, IXGoogle Scholar; and Bond, , Victorian Army, pp. 212–29Google Scholar. Of some value is Judd's, DenisBalfour and the British Empire; A Study in Imperial Evolution, 1874-1932 (New York, 1968)Google Scholar.

117. Brodrick played a minor role in the creation of the C. I. D. This committee gained some impetus for its formation from the 1902 Colonial Conference, when the imperial defense policies were at variance. This lack of coordinated policy led Brodrick and the First Lord of the Admiralty (spurred on by a memorandum submitted to Selborne by his Parliamentary Secretary Arnold-Forster) to threaten resignation unless Balfour created some type of authority to coordinate the two defense departments. Balfour, at first reluctant, soon responded by setting up a new Cabinet Defence Committee (a forerunner of the C. I. D.) for studying the broad strategical problems of defense. Fraser, , Esher, p. 85Google Scholar; d'Ombrain, , War Machinery, p. 27Google Scholar; Johnson, Franklyn A., Defence by Committee: The British Committee of Imperial Defence, 1885-1959 (London, 1960), pp. 50–54Google Scholar.

118. Russell, A. K., Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906 (Hamden, Conn., 1973), pp. 92, 114Google Scholar.

119. For some idea of Haldane's personality and his great intellectual powers, see his An Autobiography (Garden City, New York, 1929)Google Scholar, Sommer, Dudley, Haldane of Cloan: His Life and Times, 1856-1928 (London, 1960)Google Scholar, and Koss, Stephen E., Lord Haldane, Scapegoat for Liberalism (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.

120. For a review of Haldane's army reforms, see Dunlop, Development of the British Army; d'Ombrain, War Machinery; and Major-General SirMaurice, Frederick, Haldane, 1856-1928: The Life of Viscount Haldane of Cloan (London, 1937), Vol. IGoogle Scholar.

121. Esher, who did not think very highly of Brodrick's reform efforts, saw the first army corps as his greatest achievement; Fraser, , Esher, p. 121Google Scholar.