In physique and temperament Hugh Dawnay and John Gough[4] were in most respects as unlike a pair of friends as ever walked this earth; but we might have searched far before we could have found two minds which, on most matters connected with their profession, were in more perfect accord. Dawnay, younger by four years, had served under Gough in trying times, and regarded him (an opinion which is very widely shared by seniors as well as juniors) as one of the finest soldiers of his age. Though Dawnay was slender and of great height, while Gough was rather below the middle stature, broad and firmly knit, there was one striking point of physical resemblance between them, in the way their heads were set upon their shoulders. There was something in the carriage of both which seemed to take it for granted that they would be followed wherever they might chose to lead. In Lord Roberts, and also in a strikingly different character--Mr. Chamberlain--there was the same poise, the same stable equilibrium, without a trace in it of self-consciousness or constraint. It may be that the {xxxi} habit of command induces this bearing in a man; or it may be that there is something in the nature of the man who bears himself thus which forces him to become a leader. Gough took no part in the preparation of the original Memorandum; but in March 1913 he discussed it with me[5] and made various criticisms and suggestions, most of which have been incorporated here. His chief concern with regard to all proposals for a National Army was, that the period of training should be sufficient to allow time for turning the average man into a soldier who had full confidence in himself. "When war breaks out"--I can hear his words--"it's not recruits we want: it's soldiers we want: that is, if our object is to win the war as speedily as possible, and to lose as few lives as possible." Under normal peace conditions he put this period at a minimum of two years for infantry; but of course he would have admitted--and did, in fact, admit when I saw him last December--that under the stress and excitement of war the term might be considerably shortened. His chief concern in 1913 was with regard to shortage of officers. He criticised with great severity the various recent attempts at reforming our military {xxxii} system, not only on the ground that we had chosen to rely upon training our national forces after war had actually broken out (in his view a most disastrous decision); but also because we had not taken care to provide ourselves against the very emergency which was contemplated, by having a reserve of officers competent to undertake the training of the new army in case of need.