the better time of the two. He at least has the kind of liberty
which belongs to utter irresponsibility. If he breaks bounds in the
exuberance of his spirits, no one thinks much worse of him as long as
he does not make a song about paying the penalty!

Of course he has to be punished. So many days of sleeping in the guard
tent, extra fatigues, pack-drill, and perhaps a couple of hours tied
up, as an example to evil-doers. But if he has counted the cost, and
pays the price with a grin, we just say "Young scamp!" and dismiss
the matter. But if a sergeant or a corporal does the same, that's a
very different matter. He has shown himself unfit for his job. He
has betrayed a trust. We cannot forgive him. Responsibility has its
disadvantages. The senior N.C.O. gets no relaxation from discipline.
In the line and out of it he must always be watchful, self-controlled,
orderly. He must never wink. These men have not the glamour of the boy
private; but their high sense of duty and discipline, their keenness
and efficiency, merit all the honour that we can give them.

Finally--for it would not do for a subaltern to discuss his
superiors--we come to the junior officer. Somehow I fancy that in the
public eye he too is a less romantic figure than the private. One does
not associate him with privations and hardships, but with parcels from
home. Well, it is quite right. He has such a much less uncomfortable
time than his men that he does not deserve or want sympathy on that
score. He is better off in every way. He has better quarters, better
food, more kit, a servant, and in billets far greater liberty. And yet
there is many a man who is now an officer who looks back on his days
as a private with regret. Could he have his time over again ... yes,
he would take a commission; but he would do so, not with any thought
for the less hardship of it, but from a stern sense of duty--the sense