SPRING-RICE, SIR CECIL ARTHUR (1859-1918), English diplomatist, was born in London Feb. 27 1859, the second son of the Hon. Charles Spring- Rice (1819-1870), sometime assistant under-secretary for foreign affairs, and grandson of the ist Baron Monteagle. He was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, and entered the Foreign Office in 1882, becoming private secretary to Lord Granville in 1884 and precis writer to Lord Rosebery in 1885. He went to Washington as third secretary in 1886, and after various brief appointments went in 1895 to Berlin. In 1898 he became secretary at Teheran, and from there went in 1901 to Cairo as British commissioner on the Caisse de la Dette. In 1903 he went to St. Petersburg, first as secretary and later as councillor of embassy, remaining in Russia during the war with Japan of 1904-5 and the revolution of 1905. In 1906 he was sent to Persia as minister, having lately been created K.C.M.G., and his stay there coincided with the period of the delicate negotiations which preceded the signing of the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1007. In 1908 he was created G.C.V.O. and went to Sweden as minister, and in 1912 was appointed ambassador to the United States. Ill-health, however, prevented his un- doubtedly brilliant capacity from making his work at all prominent during his tenure of this position. He died at Ottawa on his way home to England Feb. 14 1918. He married in 1904 Florence, daughter of Sir Frank Lascelles, and left two children.
SQUIRES, RICHARD ANDERSON (1880- ), Newfoundland
politician, was born at Harbour Grace, Newfoundland, Jan. 18 1880. He was educated at the Methodist College, St. John's, and
Dalhousie University, Halifax. In 1902 he was admitted a
solicitor, and in 1911 was called to the bar (K.C. 1914). In 1909
he entered the Legislature as Liberal member for the Trinity
district, for which he sat until 1913. In 1914 he became Minister
of Justice and Attorney-General, fromi9i4toi9i7 was a member
of the Legislative Council, and from 1917 to 1918 Colonial
Secretary. He was nominated leader of the Liberal party in Aug.
1919, and the same year became Prime Minister.
STAFF, MILITARY (see 25.752). One result of the unqualified success which Prussian arms achieved in the wars of 1866 and 1870-1 was that the general staff principle, which had so largely contributed to give victory to the hosts controlled by von Moltke in those contests, was adopted by almost every military power during the last quarter of the igth century. The exact nature of
the arrangements necessarily varied in different countries, but
the ideals sought after were the same. Thus in the different staff
organizations as they were constituted in peace-time, work in
connexion with devising plans for offensive operations and for
ensuring territorial defence, duties dealing with the collection of
military information, the superintendence of the education of
officers, the conduct of manceuvres and the training of troops,
were kept as far as possible distinct from administration
" adjutantur," as the Germans call it. Before the year 1900 most
armies possessed a general staff which was more or less in close
touch with its Government on the one hand and, thanks to its
ramifications, with the troops on the other.
Only two of the more important nations the United Kingdom and the United States adhered for all practical purposes to previously existing systems, under which preparation for war was relegated to the background in staff duties. It is true that in either state certain improvements were effected by the military authorities, tending towards ensuring that at least some of the functions properly performed by a general staff should be allo- cated to special branches of the staff; but, such as they were, they did not go very far. Then came the S. African War of 1899-1902. The difficulties and disappointments encountered by British military forces in that protracted struggle, coupled with the unsatisfactory working of the staff in the field (especially in its higher grades) during the progress of the operations, made plain the need of reform, and the War Office was considering the ques- tion of far-reaching modifications of the system in force when, in 1904, the Government suddenly set up a " War Office Reconsti- tution Committee " charged with the duty of reorganizing the cen- tral administration of the army. The committee recommended a number of drastic alterations, but by far the most im-
portant of its proposals was that a General Staff Department, which was to constitute the foremost branch of the professional side of the War Office, should be created forthwith out of certain existing sections, with entirely new sections superposed. The committee further urged that a general staff organization, acting under the aegis of, and in close touch with, the general staff in Whitehall, should be introduced into military districts and commands. The recommendations of the committee were ac-- cepted by the Government, and so it came about that a British general staff was established ten years before the outbreak of the World War. During those ten years remarkable progress was made, and when the nation was confronted by the tremendous emergency of Aug. 1914 it had at its disposition a body of well- trained general staff officers, sufficient for the comparatively small army that was available to take the field at the opening of hostilities, although totally insufficient to meet the requirements of the vast forces which had to be improvised after war had broken out. The Government of the United States was still later than that of the United Kingdom in establishing a general staff of the kind that Scharnhorst had thought of a century before. This was only set on foot in 1911, six years before the entry of the Republic into the great conflict which was to upset so many preconceived ideas on the subject of conducting war, but which was to prove even more conclusively than had the Franco- German War and the Japanese triumphs of 1904-5 how im- perative it is under modern conditions for a state which embarks upon a serious struggle with a foreign foe to have an efficient and suitably organized military staff at its command. Owing to the very small number of trained general staff officers that were available when the country became committed to hostilities on a vast scale, the U.S. forces were even worse equipped in this respect when they took the field in Europe than were those of the United Kingdom in their greatly expanded form.
The remarkable progress that has taken place in science of recent years has tended to impose some entirely new duties upon military staffs, brought about their expansion in certain direc- tions, and even necessitated the creation of some entirely new branches as part of their organization. There is, for instance, in the first place that development in railway communications which has occurred in most civilized countries and in many possi- ble and actual theatres of war, as also the contriving of number- less devices by which the construction of new lines of rail is facilitated during operations in the field. Then again there is the question of electric communications, which to-day play so conspicuous a part in war. Improvements in small arms and in ordnance have brought it about that the volume of ammu- nition needed for the weapons in the hands of troops has come to be out of all proportion to the amount which experience had proved to be ample in campaigns of the past. Developments in mechanical traction are giving this an ever-increasing military importance, not merely from the point of view of the supplying of armies but also from that of their tactical employment. The appearance of the tank on the battlefield is another feature of very recent date which tends to increase staff work. Finally, there is the establishment of air power which has introduced a factor of incalculable importance as affecting the control of belligerent armies; whether the combatant aeronautical service of a nation form part of its military organization or be independ- ent, its operations in time of war impose duties upon military staffs such as had not to be performed by them in any contest previous to the World War. In some cases it is mainly the gen- eral staff that finds its labours increased by these modern de- velopments, in other cases the new work falls rather upon the administrative staff. But in all cases both subdivisions of the staff are, at least to some extent, affected.
One most important duty which devolves upon the general staff in a State compelled by its geographical position and by political and international problems to maintain fighting forces both by sea and by land is the establishing and the maintenance of intimate relations with the naval authorities. Such conditions prevail in the case of most maritime nations, and, where this is so, it is imperative that the two services shall be capable of
