Most of these recommendations have been adopted, with modifications, in the arrangements which have since been made for the Volunteers under the new name “The Territorial Force.”

The Norfolk Commission felt no great confidence in the instructions given it by the Government on the subject of the standard of efficiency and of numerical strength.  Accordingly the Commission added to its report the statement:—­

“We cannot assert that, even if the measures recommended were fully carried out, these forces would be equal to the task of defeating a modern continental army in the United Kingdom.”

The Commission’s chief doubt was whether, under the conditions inseparable at any rate from the volunteer system, any scheme of training would give to forces officered largely by men who are not professional soldiers the cohesion of armies that exact a progressive two-years’ course from their soldiers and rely, except for expanding the subaltern ranks on mobilisation, upon professional leaders.  The Commission then considered “Measures which may provide a Home Defence Army equal to the task of defeating an invader.”  They were unable to recommend the adoption of the Swiss system, partly because the initial training was not, in their judgment, sufficient for the purpose, and partly because they held that the modern method of extending the training to all classes, while shortening its duration, involves the employment of instructors of the highest possible qualifications.  The Commission concluded by reporting that a Home Defence Army capable, in the absence of the whole or the greater portion of the regular forces, of protecting this country against invasion can be raised and maintained only on the principle that it is the duty of every citizen of military age and sound physique to be trained for the national defence and to take part in it should emergency arise.

The Norfolk Commission gave expression to two different views without attempting to reconcile them.  On the one hand it laid down the main lines along which the improvement of the militia and volunteers was to be sought, and on the other hand it pointed out the advantages of the principle that it is the citizen’s duty to be trained as a soldier and to fight in case of need.  To go beyond this and to attempt either to reconcile the two currents of thought or to decide between them, was impossible for a Commission appointed to deal with only a fraction of the problem of national defence.  The two sets of views, however, continue to exist side by side, and the nation yet has to do what the Norfolk Commission by its nature was debarred from doing.  The Government, represented in this matter by Mr. Haldane, is still in the position of relying upon an improved militia and volunteer force.  The National Service League, on the other hand, advocates the principle of the citizen’s duty, though it couples with it a specific programme borrowed from the Swiss system, the adoption of which was deprecated in the Commission’s Report.  The public is somewhat puzzled by the appearance of opposition between what are thought of as two schools, and indeed Mr. Haldane in his speech introducing the Army Estimates on March 4, 1909, described the territorial force as a safeguard against universal service.