|
ARMY EDUCATION IN THE 19TH CENTURY
Issues raised by Art Cockerill over the reputation
of the Rev. G. R. Gleig with regard to the development of Military Education
in the mid-19th century with particular reference to Leslie Wayper's
Mars and Minerva |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The aim of this Paper is to assess the reputation of the Rev. George
R. Gleig in the development of military education in the mid-19th Century,
in the light of criticisms made by Art Cockerill of Leslie Wayper in
his book Mars and Minerva published in 2004. The Paper looks first at
Cockerill's specific criticisms of Wayper and then widens the debate
to consider Cockerill's view that Gleig was not a key figure in the development
of military education, as depicted by successive writers including Wayper
and also Colonel A. C. T. White in his 'Story of Army Education, 1643-1963',
published in 1963.
Cockerill's central tenet is that Gleig played virtually no part in the
foundation of the Corps of Army Schoolmasters, nor the Normal or training
school at the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea in 1846. He alleges that
Gleig himself claimed credit, quite unjustifiably, for the advances in
military education that came about at this time, and that subsequent
historians have been duped into believing him. In this way Gleig's role
has been greatly exaggerated, according to Cockerill. The latter draws
attention to White's book. Whilst describing it as telling 'the story
in a lively, active, scholarly, but not overly-academic, style', he adds
'that is not to say that it is without criticism', believing that White
took at face value what Gleig wrote about his own achievements. Certainly
Cockerill criticizes subsequent authors for 'blindly' following White's
views without going back to the primary sources to ascertain at first
hand the truth of the matter. This is Cockerill's main criticism of Wayper's
book, although not the only one, as outlined in passage below.
COCKERILL'S CRITICISMS OF WAYPER'S MARS AND MINERVA Art Cockerill's specific criticisms of Wayper's work are based on a)
a lack of use of primary sources; and b) some factual inaccuracies.
In his letter dated 7 Dec 2006, Cockerill states that there 'is not a
single reference to the registers, correspondence or documents available
in the National Archives ... ' instead 'relying on secondary material
... [thereby risking] criticism for repeating the errors, omissions and
misconceptions of other academics and scholars.' On page 3 of the same
letter he says that Wayper presumably had 'at his beck and call the services
of researchers with access to the same records ... ' He did indeed -
it was me!
I cannot claim that Wayper had access to every relevant document, but
he certainly had available to him all the key documents and certainly
those referred to by Cockerill in his correspondence. Copies of the primary
sources from the Public Record Office, Scottish Record Office, The Royal
Army Chaplains' Department Museum, RAEC archives, War Office, MOD Library
etc that I found were given to Wayper by me.
I do not have a copy of Wayper's book, only a small extract, and so it
is difficult to comment on his footnoting. However, if Cockerill is correct
in stating that there are no references to primary sources, this is a
pity because it reflects a lack of acknowledgement rather than a lack
of access to, or use of, primary materials. Understandably, anyone reading
a book without any reference to primary sources in the footnotes might
reasonably assume that the author had relied on secondary sources alone.
SOME FACTUAL INACCURACIES Cockerill alleges that Wayper made a number of factual errors. For example,
in the same letter dated 7 Dec 2006, Cockerill states that Gleig became
Inspector of Schools in 1846, not Inspector-General. I am not convinced
that Cockerill is correct but, in any event, Cockerill himself admits
in his correspondence dated 10 Mar 2005, this 'is of small consequence
... mentioned only in passing.' 1
There are also some statements in Wayper's book and identified by Cockerill
that might appear inaccurate. For example, on page 25 of 'Mars & Minerva'
Wayper states: 'Gleig's greatest achievement [was] the founding of the
Corps of Army Schoolmasters' and later he refers to, 'Gleig's school,
known as the Normal School'. If one takes these statements literally,
then they could be construed as misleading at best or inaccurate at worst.
This is where Wayper's style isn't helpful. He liked the grandiose, sweeping
statements which Cockerill might accept in a 'story of Army education'
but not a 'history' or more scholarly publication. Arguably, it should
be apparent to the intelligent reader that Gleig did not act alone in
establishing the Corp or founding the Normal School, and that to realise
his ambitions in this field he needed political and military support
at the highest levels. Perhaps, however, Wayper might have expressed
himself more precisely, thereby removing any possible ambiguity. I am
not sure.
GLEIG'S ROLE IN THE FURTHERANCE OF MILITARY EDUCATION IN THE MID-19TH CENTURY Cockerill's criticisms of Wayper here are more serious and substantial,
describing Gleig's role in the founding of the Corps of Army Schoolmasters
as 'minimal' and Gleig's assertions on his own role as 'outrageous'.
Nor is he attacking Wayper alone. As already stated, Cockerill's main
thesis is that every writer on this subject has followed White's lead:
'White was in adulation first; others have relied on his word'. Consequently,
this section of the Paper is widened to look beyond Wayper's book and
to assess Cockerill's criticisms of successive writers on Gleig's work
and reputation.
There are many accounts of developments in military education in the
mid-19th century, from a variety of sources. Gleig himself was a prolific
writer, as his articles in a number of journals, including the 'Quarterly
Review' show. 2
There is no reason why historians should not use autobiographical
accounts, provided that they recognise them as such. However, one does
not have to rely on Gleig's own writings to demonstrate that he played
a central role in the furtherance of military education at this time.
Some of these works are contemporary, or nearly so; others were written
a long time after Gleig's retirement. They include, for example, contemporary
War Office documents written by the Secretary at War and held at the
Public Record Office. Subsequent reports produced by Gleig's successors
pay tribute to his work. In the 20 century, Jarvis, Chaplain General
to the Forces, wrote extensively on the role of Gleig in military education. 3
In more recent times, there have been further accounts. Collectively
they provide a fairly comprehensive picture of what Gleig did and what
he achieved. While some writers may have followed White's 'lead', as
Cockerill puts it, I think that it is reasonable to assume that others
took a more scholarly approach and went back to original sources.
The section below endeavours to show that Gleig's part in the developments
that took place in military education at the time and, in particular,
the establishment of the Corps of Army Schoolmasters and the Normal School
at the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea was anything but insignificant
or 'minimal'. Gleig travelled widely in his capacity as Principal Chaplain
and was able to see the weaknesses in the regimental education system,
although he was not alone in this. He wrote extensively on the subject
and ensured that his thoughts and ideas on reform reached those in authority.
These reforms ranged from the training of schoolmasters to school accommodation
and materials. Gleig alone might not have been able to implement change,
and he had the support of men in high places who could, including Sidney
Herbert, Secretary at War, 1845-6 and Alex Baring, Paymaster General,
1845-6. But one can suggest that Gleig was the catalyst for change. Following
the reforms of 1846 and his appointment as Inspector of Schools, Gleig
continued to play an important role in the further development of the
regimental school system and the training of Army schoolmasters, before
his retirement from his post as Inspector in 1857.
GLEIG'S ACHIEVEMENTS Weaknesses in Military Elementary Education at the Time: Background.
The need for reform of the regimental school system, including the training
of regimental schoolmasters at the Asylum at Chelsea, had been identified
before Gleig became involved in 1844, when he was appointed Principal
Chaplain to the Forces.
In 1836, a Royal Commission on Military Punishments 4 had argued in favour
of a more useful occupation of the soldier's time through greater provision
of schools and libraries etc. More significantly in the context of this
Paper, Henry Hardinge, as Secretary at War, clearly identified the need
for reform. In a letter to the Commissioners of the Asylum in 1842, he
expressed the view that there was room for improvement in the standard
of the regimental schools and suggested that a better training course
for Army schoolmasters, coupled with an effective system of inspection,
would improve matters. 5 Hardinge asked the Commissioners for their assistance,
but no support was forthcoming and no further action was taken at the
time.
It is interesting that the Secretary at War himself appreciated the deficiencies
in the education system but was unable to bring about change at that
time. There may have been good reasons for this: as the Commissioners
pointed out, the resources at the Asylum were over-stretched. Yet, following
a burst of activity by Gleig on appointment as Principal Chaplain, a
formal visit was made to the Asylum at Chelsea by Henry Moseley at the
Privy Council Office. This was followed quickly by major changes to the
military education system.
GLEIG'S CONCERN FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE SOLDIER: Gleig wrote extensively on the background of the soldier, his reasons
for enlisting and the conditions he endured. In examining life in the
Army at the time, Gleig sought educational reform which he believed should
go along with other reforms being demanded in the lifestyle of the soldier.
He articulated these views in journalistic writings, a practice not uncommon
at the time. In a series of articles in the Quarterly Review, 1845-48,
Gleig did just that. He deserves credit for identifying these deficiencies
at a time when such views would have been unpopular amongst many in the
upper echelons of the Army.
GLEIG'S RECOGNITION OF THE WEAKNESSES IN MILITARY EDUCATION AND HIS ACTIONS ON BECOMING PRINCIPAL CHAPLAIN IN 1844. It is worth recording factually Gleig's activities during these years
and which demonstrate his interest in the subject and his commitment
to bringing about change.
Soon after his appointment, Gleig visited all the home stations in 1844,
looking at the work of chaplains and schoolmasters. 6 According to Jarvis,
Gleig immediately instructed his chaplains to visit their schools weekly
and the library periodically.
As he toured the country, Gleig was appalled at some of the schools and
church buildings and so suggested the idea of 'chapel schools' serving
a dual purpose. 7 This idea was approved by the Secretary at War and the
Ordnance Officer and in 1846-7 rooms of this kind were established in
a number of locations.
In Sep 1844, within six months of his appointment, Gleig submitted his
first official report on the regimental schools in which he drew attention
to the weaknesses of the current system and the rapid improvements being
made in civilian education. 8 Gleig had visited civilian training colleges
for schoolteachers in 1843, including the one in Battersea, which greatly
impressed him. In his report to the Secretary at War in 1844, Gleig put
forward proposals for a reformed, non-sectarian training establishment
at the Asylum, Chelsea. 9
In the summer of 1845, Gleig visited the Asylum with A Baring, the Paymaster
General of the Forces and, ex-officio, commissioner of the Asylum. Both
were unimpressed at what they found by way of instruction. 10 Gleig's account
is lengthy and persuasive, although Cockerill claims that it is 'inaccurate
and false' (see para lib below).
Gleig's visit to the Asylum was followed up by an official inspection
carried out by Henry Moseley of the Privy Council Office. His report,
published in April 1846, was submitted to the Committee of the Council
on Education. It was damning in terms of the curriculum, lack of resources
and inadequacy of the schoolmasters. 11 His condemnation was total, as had
been Gleig's assessment of standards at the Asylum the previous year.
THE OUTCOME The outcome of Moseley's report in Apr 1846 led the Secretary at War,
the Commander-in-Chief and the Treasury to agree to the establishment
of the Corps of Army Schoolmasters in July and a training or normal school
in which they would be trained in November 1846. 12 Cockerill states in
his letter dated 7 Dec 2006, that these development had little to do
with Gleig and were the outcome of Moseley's visit. It seems a reasonable
assumption that it was Gleig's earlier visit and damning report that
provided the impetus for a second inspection within the year.
July 1846 also saw the appointment of Gleig as Inspector of Military
Schools. This presumably reflected the high regard in which he was held,
at least by some in positions of authority: otherwise he would not have
been appointed. Records at the PRO show that the Secretary at War, Sidney
Herbert (Secretary at War from I845-Jul 1846), believed that Gleig was
the person best qualified for the post and recommended that he be offered
the position of Inspector. 13 The Commander-in-Chief concurred, 14 as did the
Treasury. 15
Gleig's duties were substantial and wide-ranging: he was to inspect the
training and model schools at the Asylum, the Hibernian School in Dublin
and all regimental schools and make recommendations to the Secretary
at War. He was also to recommend candidates for training as schoolmasters
and in due course examine and certify them. In all, he was to be adviser
to the Secretary at War on all educational matters concerning the education
of the soldier and his children. 16 This was not Gleig speaking but the
authority of the Secretary at War.
Gleig remained in post for a further 11 years until 1857. During that
time he continued to play an important role in the development of military
education. Cockerill is at pains to point out that it was the Rev Du
Santoy and Walter McLeod, headmasters of the Normal and Model Schools
at Chelsea, respectively, who took the lead in developing the curriculum
at both schools. 17 No doubt they did; their contributions are recognised
by later writers, although perhaps not Wayper. But this does not detract
from Gleig's work in his official capacity as Inspector, with a mandate
to inspect both schools at the Asylum, to recommend candidates for training
as Army schoolmasters and to help improve educational standards in the
regimental schools throughout the country.
SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS With regard to Wayper's 'Mars and Minerva', I believe, as I have always
believed, that there are weaknesses in his work: his sweeping statements;
his overly long sentences and paragraphs, the latter straddling several
pages; his elaborate (albeit amusing) use of language; the apparent lack
of structure to his work and lack of acknowledgement of sources. However,
without sight of his book (other than an extract without footnotes) it
is difficult to be too categorical.
More widely, and looking beyond Wayper's specific contribution, I believe
that Gleig's place as one of the key personalities in the furtherance
of military education in the Army of the 19th century holds true and
has not been diminished by the views of Art Cockerill.
The thrust of what White, Wayper and others have written about Gleig
appears to be fair. The evidence suggests that he was a real driving
force in identifying the weaknesses in military education at the time,
in drawing the authorities' attention to them and in persuading the latter
to do something about them. Obviously he did not act alone and required
political support to realise his ambitions. But that is very different
from suggesting that he had no role to play. I refute completely Cockerill's
assertion that Gleig had 'virtually nothing to do with the creation of
the CAS' (Cockerill's second letter dated 7 Dec 2006, page 1). Of course,
he did.
Hopefully, the foregoing paragraphs have gone some way to redressing
the claims made by Cockerill regarding Gleig's achievements and to show
that Gleig did not make 'outrageous claims of his deeds and accomplishments'.
Perhaps in one way Cockerill's assertions have been useful in that they
have led those interested in this subject to revisit Gleig and his role
in the furtherance of military education in the mid 19th century. One
may conclude that Gleig's record and reputation remain intact.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editing note: This paper, received from Brigadier (Retd) T. C. Sherry, OBE, was undated and carried no credit of authorship. It was transcribed and reformatted 10 February 2007 to make it suitable for publication on this website. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARMY EDUCATION IN THE 19TH CENTURY
Brigadier defends the indefensible The single aim of this paper is to answer, if not to disprove entirely, the paper received under a covering letter dated 2 February 2007 and signed by Brigadier (Retd) T. C. Sherry, OBE. 1 Brigadier Sherry it transpires is President of the Board of Trustees of the RAEC Association. The paper he sent is undated and had no by-line, so is referred to throughout this response as the 'Sherry Paper'. It has a sturdy title: Issues raised by Art Cockerill over the reputation of the Rev. GR Gleig with regard to the development of military education in the mid 19th Century with particular reference to Leslie Wayper's 'Mars & Minerva'. 2 The introduction provides background information to the argument. Similarly, the setting for this response is written from this writer's perspective.
A letter of inquiry dated 4 October 2006 to a Colonel R. Fairclough asking
for information on the Queen's Army Schoolmistresses 3 (QAS)
was passed to Sherry to answer. That letter included a mild criticism
of the first chapter of the Mars and Minerva book under the
title The
Origins of Army Education. In short, I expressed disappointment
that Wayper had '... accepted without criticism everything White wrote
in his Story
of Army Education'. 4 In his
letter dated 30 November 2006, Sherry explained the inquiry had been
given to him because he was better placed to answer the question because
he had '... been involved in army schools work in various tours of duty.'
Next, he stated that he had passed the inquiry to the Corps Museum curator
to answer. 5 In the main, Sherry's
letter, showing evidence of composition by more than one hand, stoutly
defended Wayper. The Brigadier concluded by accusing me of having a '...derogatory,
sneering air of superiority...', 6 which
is near to, if not outright, slander. [Editing note: 'slander' is
incorrect; 'libel' is the right word.] Here are the reasons
for suspecting involvement in the response by committee.
First, Sherry is President of the Association. The delay in answering
my letter indicates Sherry considered the criticism serious enough for
discussion at the board of trustees level. His letter has a fully-justified
text with salutation and signature only hand-written; indicative work
by secretarial help familiar with the stilted style of military correspondence.
If emanating from committee, the president and no other would sign the
letter. As designated spokesman, therefore and to my mind, he stands
in relation to the board as Goliath stood champion for the Philistines.
This thought may produce an acidic charge that I might therefore be supposed
to see myself as a David. Not at all, although facing a solid phalanx
assembled to defend the Corps mythologies requires a dependable sling
and ample supply of lethal pebbles. However, at least two officers support
the view I expressed. One wrote, 'The former senior officers of the RAEC
were always very defensive about the corps and its roles.' 7
Sherry admitted consulting with colleagues, as well as availing himself
of the services of a scholar with specialist knowledge of 19th Army education,
to help support his defence. He named Dr. Elaine Smith as sharing with
others consulted and having had a hand in producing the Sherry Paper.
She may have written it. If so, why not add her name and date the paper?
An observation on Smith, then, whose academic qualifications are not
in dispute.
The name of plain Elaine Smith appears in the acknowledgement section
of Wayper's book, Mars and Minerva. She is cited for her '...unrivalled
knowledge of the Corps' archives she so kindly put at my disposal and
whose writings on the early days of Army Education have been so valuable.' 8
From this citation one deduces that this scholar's doctorate is newly
minted. She is to be congratulated, which remark should not be taken
as any more than a vote of confidence one is dealing with a scholar of
unrivalled knowledge in the field.
Confidence in the scholarship in the opposite camp is a prerequisite
to understanding this step-by-step response to the Sherry Paper. The
same sequence of argument used in the Sherry Paper is followed here,
beginning with Wayper's Mars and Minerva; also in the use
of endnotes, although for plain texts this is a pretentious form of
writing; Orwell would gag in his grave.
MARS AND MINERVA
Contrary to the impression given that I criticised the entire Mars and
Minerva book, my remarks applied to Chapter One headed The origins of
Army Education. I did not and will not comment on the balance of the
book. I believe also that anyone presuming to field counter censure should
have a copy of the book to consult, yet the Sherry Report states, 'I
do not have a copy of Wayper's book, only a small extract, and so it
is difficult to comment on his footnoting.' 9 Indeed it is, especially
for one who specializes in the field. Assertion that Wayper had available
all the references to 'original sources' given him by the writer of this
statement is unacceptable.
To settle the argument regarding the source references of Chapter One,
the charge is here repeated. The Chapter has 124 endnote references,
yet none cites an original source. Every reference is to secondary sources,
meaning what others have written. The claim that Wayper had all the 'key
source documents' available is not good enough. It is not evidence. The
footnotes are and they are clear evidence of this writer's claim. The
difference between primary and secondary source documents will be demonstrated
when dealing with the charge of 'factual inaccuracies'.
Admitting some faults in Mars and Minerva the second paragraph of that
passage in question concludes with yet another admission, 'I am not sure.' 10
A copy of the volume on the bookshelf to consult might have helped the
writer to certainty, so here to assist are some specific inaccuracies
in Chapter One. In his introduction to the section with the sub-heading
The Corps of Army Schoolmasters, Wayper writes:
The reference to '...the original twenty-four applicants ...' derives
from National Archives document WO 143/49, Normal
School Register 10 March 1847 to 17 January 1851. Hooray! We are reading from the same script.
The total applicants to take the course is unknown because their names
were not recorded. Of the twenty-four engaged to take the course, ten
were dismissed for various reasons: drunkenness, disorderly conduct,
gross breach of the rules - e.g. going AWOL - one publicly expelled,
three absconded, one withdrew, and one was 'encouraged to leave'. According
to Gleig, 12 (to go under the microscope shortly), candidates for training
came from '... well connected backgrounds, from clerical, Army Officer
and medical backgrounds.'
Again, with reference to Wayper's op. cit. source, speculation on the
probability that the '... very high standards required from the first
Schoolmasters were later considerably lowered' has no foundation in fact.
The standards of the first intake of could not have been lower than they
were. Why? The Normal School Register includes a summary of each student's
knowledge of set subjects during his interview. The examiner's comments 13
are subjective. Although tabulation of the record is not practical in
so short a paper, following is a representative list of what the first
intake knew or, more to the point, did not know.
If the '... very high standards required ... were later considerably
lowered' as Wayper states, one has to ask how low did they fall? Perhaps
the answer is to be found in Smith's MA dissertation. Enough! These examples
of factual inaccuracy should put to rest the fierce reaction and groundless
accusations in the Sherry Paper regarding my, I repeat, mild criticism
of Chapter One.
In 1847, the first year of teacher training, 43 students registered;
13 left or were dismissed, 23 signed the 'bond of service' 15 required including
12 enlisted men. Judging from the record of those who registered for
the course, the majority were serving soldiers from the ranks. So much
then for gentlemen of 'well-connected backgrounds'.
GLEIG'S ROLE To deal fully with the Rev. George R. Gleig's role in 19th Century Army
education is not a job to be undertaken here. One seeks only to challenge
the counter-criticism of the charge levelled against the Gleig in two
books 16 and elsewhere. This is a challenge when, with the precision of
a blunderbuss sniper, the Sherry Paper dwells tiresomely on what other
writers have written about Gleig. Where research involves examination
of a mid-19th Century Victorian, especially one charged with self-aggrandizement
and self-promotion, the orders, correspondence, reports and papers of
that person are the only evidence worth examining. 'Father of Army education'
and like shibboleths of the Army education community repeated often enough
may convince many, but that is propaganda, a technique totalitarian regimes,
societies and associations use to solidify their mythologies.
What records of his directives exist, what regulations did he issue,
where are the inspection reports, curricula, examination records, teaching
standards, statistical data and personnel records from 1846 to 1857?
There are none. The RAEC archival cupboard is bare. If those documents
existed, they would constitute the evidence of performance during the
period of Gleig's stewardship? No such accounts have come to the public
or scholarly notice. 17 As a consequence, we are left only with a record
of his appointments, letters, reports and published works over his by-line.
They are few enough, so let us examine what evidence does exist, beginning
with appointments.
In this regard, Gleig's appointments as stated the Sherry Paper are not
in contention. These include his Chaplaincy of the Royal Chelsea Hospital,
Chaplain-General (1844-1875), and Inspector of Military Schools 18 (1846-1857).
Of Gleig's reports we might begin with the WO 143/30 (footnote 5 in the
Sherry Paper), Minutes of HM Commissioners RMA Chelsea, 1833-46 and the
inference he was involved. The reference is to a response by the Board
of Commissioners of the RMA to the Secretary at War in which appears
the statement, 'It will be in their recollection that Sir Henry Hardinge
addressed to us a letter in March 1842.' 19 There is no paper trail to Gleig,
not a mention of him. The only time he is identified by name in document
WO 143/10 is in a petition discussed by the RMA board at its 19 March
1845 meeting for admission to the Asylum of the son of a storekeeper
in the Royal Hospital. Included with the petition is a certificate of
good character over Gleig's signature. 20
The use of Gleig's National Education No. 95 article, published in April
1852, 21 to prove his involvement in the early development of Army education
from the mid-1840s on is more serious. In his introduction, Gleig writes,
'Some time in the summer of 1846, two gentlemen met on the deck of a
river steam boat...' Really, this will not do. The Sherry Paper puts
the meeting of the two gentlemen in 1845. How could the two men visit
the RMA a year before they met? It is not acceptable for the writer of
this passage to say she did not have a copy of the National
Education No. 95 article. Here we go again. No book? No article? Where now does
the charge of 'inaccurate and false' reporting lie? But wait! Let us
stick with Gleig. He reports seeing, during his inspection visit, '...
a few [children] wandered about dragging heavy logs which were fastened
with chains to their ankles.' This is patently untrue and alone justifies
the claim that Gleig made outrageous and false statements.
There is no record whatever in any RMA document of children having to
drag about heavy logs chained to their ankles. The RMA authorities kept
accurate records in the punishment registers. The worst punishment inflicted
occurred in the very early days of the Institution when confinement to
a cage hauled to the ceiling by rope and tackle was visited on those
judged guilty of bad behaviour. Even here, one mention only is recorded
of the punishment cage in the board minutes for the 1803-7 period. 22 Ample
were punishments inflicted on children by other means: confinement in
the 'black hole', they were caned, thrashed and birched, but there is
no entry in the punishment books of logs chained to their limbs. The
Paper mocks this writer for use of the word 'porky', but here is a clear
case of lying and I challenge Sherry's experts to prove me wrong.
One last example of inaccuracy; there are more anomalies. In Gleig's
own words, he visited the RMA in the summer of 1846. School Inspector
Henry Moseley delivered his report in April 1846, so Gleig is incorrectly
credited with instigating Moseley's inspection. Again, no direct connection.
Sherry's experts should get back to the drawing board.
In a strong belief that this response more than fully answers the Sherry
Paper, two conclusions come to mind. The first is to express full agreement
with the Association President, or his mercenary expert, that this writer's
assertions '... have led those interested in this subject to revisit
Gleig and his role in ... military education in the mid 19th Century.'
This is the most sensible idea offered by the paper. The second conclusion
is to affirm that no contempt is here directed at the membership of RAEC
Association or its board of trustees. The board may adhere to Robert's
Rules. As Brigadier (Retd) Sherry mounted on his charger struck at me
with spiteful intent, he cannot complain if I follow Lonsdale's bare-knuckle
rules for public entertainment on Clapham Common.
Within the ranks of the RAEC Association, there are no doubt those who
can with ease recite Seneca's De Brevitate Vitae backwards, in the original
if necessary, or calculate the effect of the third harmonic on a salient
pole generator to the nearest volt. 23 They might be few in number, but
not so the historians in their ranks, who must be many. The RMA Normal
School registers and records were in the RAEC archives for many years
from 1955 on, before being transferred to the National Archives. The
Association missed its chance then. It yet has time to research its history,
including Gleig's role in it. It will not then rely so heavily on the
mythology in which it has wrapped itself. Also, it will be unnecessary
to be so easily offended by what others write of the Corps' history.
Here rests the case for the defense. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||
|
© A. W. Cockerill 2007 Site Map Contact me | ||||
|
|
|
||