_May 28th, 1916._

I note that Winston Churchill suggested in the House of Commons
the other day that the Cavalry should be turned into Infantry.
With due respect to him, I think that he is all wrong. Whenever
the "Push" comes, cavalry will be not only desirable, but
absolutely and vitally essential. The day of cavalry charges may
have gone, but I agree with Conan Doyle that "the time will never
come when a brave and a capable man who is mounted will be
useless to his comrades." You might, indeed, mount them in motor
cars, but a man with a horse has three times the freedom and the
scope for scouting and independent action that a man has who is
brought up in a motor and then dumped to shift for himself. I
entirely agree with Churchill, nevertheless, about the large
number of able-bodied men employed behind the fighting-lines. I
only wish I were in the trenches myself, I can tell you. My
rejection for the Infantry was a bitter blow!

Everybody here is grieved at the death in action of Captain
Platt, ---- Hussars, attached Coldstream Guards. I knew him quite
well, and we were great friends. He was a chivalrous gentleman,
and very clever intellectually, quite a bit of a poet in his way.

_June 2nd, 1916._

We are now in bivouacs in a big field. I have rigged up a
first-rate tent, made out of cart-cover, with a sort of enclosed
dressing-room for washing, etc., attached. We've got a fine
mess-tent, 30 feet long by 20 feet wide, made out of
wagon-sheetings. It is not only much more pleasant, but a good
deal cheaper, to live in the open like this.

So Churchill has once again leapt to the fore as a critic of the
Army. Mind, I have a lot of sympathy with some of his arguments,
but in general this last speech seemed to me mere wild and
whirling words. I note that L. G. now appears in the role of
Conciliator-in-General to Ireland. If anyone can settle this
miserable Irish question, he will.

The war drags wearily along on its monotonous course. Are you
reading Conan Doyle's review in the _Strand_ of the early stages
of the war? The style is not so good as John Buchan's, and
perhaps he is inclined to miss the broad issues of the conflict.
But for details, and for