e British army in the field. His
colleagues in the Cabinet were patriots and were able men, but they had
not his lively imagination. Some of them had more technical knowledge,
but their pedestrian processes of mind took very different channels
from his lightning intuitions. I imagine sometimes that he was not
very tactful. It is impossible to doubt that this was the time when he
first became impatient with the methods of his chief, Mr. Asquith. It
is equally impossible to doubt that at this time, also, he was moved
sufficiently to challenge the policy of those in charge of the War
Office, those on whose advice the Prime Minister naturally relied.

The existing methods were subsequently criticised as slow,
conventional, unillumined by modern experiences. Our soldiers, it was
said, were being swept out of action by an intensity and plenitude of
new high-explosive shells, while we proceeded in the use of ordinary
shells in ordinary quantities. We needed immensely greater numbers of
shells, enormously improved shells, vast amounts of high explosive, new
big guns, indeed a score of things, which were afterward obtained.
Lloyd George at this period saw that, as usual, Britain was just
"muddling through," relying on her stolidity and her power of
endurance, rather than on her initiative and striking strength. His
efforts to improve matters within Government circles could not have
endeared him to his Government colleagues. But his blood was up, and
he cared as little for their good opinion as he did for the good
opinion of the squires and clergymen when he started professional life
in Wales.

A movement was made to increase and better equipment, but it was slow
and, in Lloyd George's view, it was ineffective. He fought on. At
length he succeeded in impressing the seriousness of the situation on
the Government, and it was just about this time that he became
possessed of a powerful ally. The _Daily Mail_, in past years the most
vindictive foe of Lloyd George, swung around to his support, took up
the cry of insufficient shells, attacked Lord Kitchener, raised a
scandal in the country. The _Times_, which now, like the _Daily Mail_,
was under the proprietorship of Lord Northcliffe, joined in the fray.
Extravagant and unjustifiable condemnation of Lord Kitchener shocked
the public, but, at the same time, there was revealed an undoubtedly
grave state of affairs in the insufficient provision of shells and
explosives and