Second Lieutenant Snooker

Morning Post, Thursday 26 October 1893

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST.

Sir,—As regularly as the Sandhurst list is published so in due course follow letters to the daily papers crying out against the dearth of Cavalry officers, its causes and effects. As an officer of some experience, having served in two different Cavalry regiments, I champion the cause of the “Cavalry Colonel” and smile at “F. D. G.,” who lays down that only officers of means can live in Cavalry. That is “piffling” with the question. The in-barrack expenses of a Cavalry regiment are no more than they should be. The books are always open to inspection. But the outside expenses are those that need looking into. If some of our legislators would exert themselves and take action to make it criminal for a money-lender to advance sums to an officer on full pay under the rank of captain (by which time it must be assumed he has sense), that would do more good to the United Services than loud complaints against the much-maligned “C.O.’s.” Gambling is a hereditary vice in many, if not all, Cavalry regiments. But why hold a commanding officer responsible? Whatever the profession a man selects, if weak he will be led away. It is not the regiment’s fault; it is the man’s. Why convict the unfortunate “C.O.” if Second Lieutenant Snooker loses £10 at Sandown? It is unfair of parents to put the blame of their sons’ folly on the “C.O.’s” shoulders, who while at their work has all his officers under his eye, but in their own time is he still to be held responsible?