Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

a pride in one's work; whereas if one never sees the men, and they are always doing dirty work, and nearly always in shirtsleeves or canvas trousers, as garrison artillery men ought to be to do their work, one cannot take a pride in that sort of thing.'

The scarcity of subalterns in the garrison artillery is a crying evil, proceeding from two causes. One is that till lately, at all events, the field batteries have always been completed in subalterns before the wants of the garrison batteries have been attended to. Another is that the garrison batteries at home have, till this year, only been allowed an establishment of two subalterns each, and that one of these has generally been absent from duty with his battery by being either sick, on leave, going through a course of instruction, or on the journey from another battery. A little while ago the state of the garrison artillery was such that the authorities determined to give the latter its fair share of subalterns, but we learn that as regards captains the field artillery are still completed first. Moreover, there is always, as regards the whole of the artillery, a deficiency of duty subalterns. The establishment is but nominal, for second lieutenants are only gazetted twice a year, and for five or six months after they have received their commissions they are undergoing instruction at the artillery school. Colonel Markham, the Deputy-Assistant Adjutant-General Royal Artillery, states that out of an establishment of 1,399 officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel,

'there is always a deficiency of from thirty to sixty, in addition to which must be taken the last joined batch from the academy (thirty to thirty-five), which remains in a state of instruction until a succeeding batch has been commissioned, when the course is repeated, thus making the actual deficiency for battery duty from sixty to ninety and upwards.'

We are told that certain measures are to be taken to remedy this deficiency of officers. These measures are, doubling the number of commissions in the artillery in February next,' discontinuing the instruction of officers after being gazetted, thus enabling them to join their batteries at once, and employing a certain number of militia subalterns for six months at a time. These measures are all objectionable makeshifts. The occasional doubling of the commissions given to the Royal Military Academy can only, with the present accommodation of that institution, be accomplished by crowding the work of two of the years or terms into one. The dispensing with a course at the artillery college will have the effect of sending officers to their

batteries insufficiently trained unless the course at the academy be lengthened, whereas the tendency, as we have seen, is to shorten it. The making use of militia subalterns for six months at a time is a vicious arrangement, for if these subalterns are, in the event of war, to be transferred or temporarily attached to the Royal Artillery, the Artillery Militia will be deprived of their best officers just when they are most needed; for we have it in evidence that our home fortresses will, in the event of hostilities, be mainly manned by the auxiliary artillery, there being only one regular gunner for every gun at home. The new system by which Artillery Militia officers can, on passing a certain examination, obtain direct commissions in the artillery is also objectionable, seeing that their professional practical training must be very inferior to that which officers obtaining commissions from the academy receive. The point is this-the supply of officers trained in the manner decided to be the best is insufficient, and from this insufficiency the garrison artillery have in the past, and from the nature of things will in the future, suffer most. Also, the normal peace establishment of the garrison batteries has been, as regards subalterns for batteries out of India, too small, and there is no proper reserve of officers for the artillery, for the existing system resembles the one described as robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Not an unimportant cause of the comparative unpopularity and inefficiency of the garrison artillery is that an enormous amount of time is wasted on infantry drill and musketry. This practice not only absorbs time and energy which should be devoted to the proper duties of garrison gunners, but also lowers them in their own estimation. Colonel Richardson's evidence on this subject is as follows:

'Taking them away to do infantry work, and showing them off as bad infantrymen, has had a most deterrent effect upon the garrison artillery. . . . I was sent out on Southsea beach to skirmish against our own ironclad forts.'

Practising marching past' and the attack formation' cannot be viewed as other than a waste of time, seeing that one officer testified that out of his garrison battery it was with the greatest difficulty that he could get together twice a week enough men to man one gun. Then there is the manual exercise and the musketry practice with the carbine, which cannot be of much use to men whose proper weapon is a piece of artillery. Indeed, there seems considerable force in the suggestion that the carbine should be altogether abolished for the artillery.

So much for the unpopularity of the garrison artillery necessarily resulting in comparative inefficiency. But there are other causes of inefficiency which have not yet been mentioned. One of those causes is the great variety of guns and mountings-so great, indeed, that an officer or man on being transferred from one garrison to another finds frequently that he has as it were to begin to learn the mechanical part of his profession; yet there is not a sufficiency of appliances at the various stations to enable them to acquire or rub up that knowledge. Even at Shoeburyness there are not sufficient ranges for the garrison artillery, and in the yearly course at Lydd only six out of thirty-eight service batteries at home take part. A similar want of appliances and opportunities of target and field practice is felt by the field artillery; while the number of officers of all branches who can go through a course at Shoeburyness is restricted. With regard to the horse artillery, we have a remarkable statement. Major-General Stirling asked Major Ritchie, employed on the staff of the artillery at the Horse Guards, whether subalterns of the horse artillery serving in this country were debarred from going through the long course at Shoeburyness, and received the following answer:

'Yes, they have been debarred unless they resigned; and that has arisen owing to the difficulty of foraging their horses. The SurveyorGeneral's department some years back refused forage for the horses of those officers, as they were not using them for the public service, and they were not required to be left at certain stations for the public service; they could not be used at Shoeburyness because there were no mounted duties for them, and it was considered a very great hardship to call upon these officers to sell their horses for a year and then repurchase them or replace them by others; so that the rule has grown up that they are not called upon to find officers for Shoeburyness for the long course.'

From the evidence which we have extracted it will, we think, be evident that not only an improvement in administration is needed, but also a somewhat radical reorganisation. Of the thirty-four artillery officers whose opinions were elicited by the Committee nineteen were in favour of a greater or less amount of subdivision of the artillery arm into distinct branches, while fifteen were opposed to it, though all agreed that changes in administration were called for. Lord Wolseley was in favour of separation, while the Duke of Cambridge was opposed to it. Of the separatists, as we may style them, three were generals, five were

VOL. CLXIX. NO. CCCXLV.

S

colonels, two were lieutenant-colonels, and nine were majors. The non-separatists were composed of seven generals, four colonels, two lieutenant-colonels, and two majors. Had captains been examined, we have reason to believe that they would have been quite as much in favour of separation as the majors appear to be.

In justice to the non-separatists we propose to state and deal with some of their principal arguments. These are few, and may be summed up as follows. Under the present system one part of the regiment serves as a reserve for the other; the garrison artillery benefit in smartness and discipline by containing a large number of officers who have served in the horse or field artillery; while the two latter gain by the artillery knowledge of the garrison artillery officers transferred to them; the fact that a division into separate branches would create possible administrative difficulties. Really, however, with the non-separatists among the artillery witnesses sentiment biassed their minds to a certain extent, and led them to believe that all existing defects could be removed by an improved administration. As to the Duke of Cambridge, it is notorious that the conservative turn of his mind is such that he resists all organic changes as long as possible, and his evidence really comes to this: Matters go on very 'well under the present system. It is an admirable system. The Royal Artillery is a splendid corps. Why change? Well, I admit that there are certain little defects, but 'really all that is wanted is an increase of men, material, and expenditure.' Asked if an officer going from a field battery is competent to do duty with the big guns at Malta and Gibraltar, he replied, Certainly; it is only a matter of study and drill.' Study without practice would, however, hardly suffice, and drill-i.e. practice-is precisely what a field battery officer would be wanting in. Questioned as to whether he considered that the corps as organised as at present compared favourably with other branches, he replied in the affirmative.

6

The Duke, in answer to a question put by Sir Robert Biddulph as to whether the separation of the mounted and dismounted artillery into two branches would be a source of difficulty in preparing for the field in any emergency, replied:

'I am sure it would. We can do what we like now. We might have ten more batteries of garrison artillery, or ten more batteries of field artillery at the shortest notice. There is nothing to do but to have horses given to them and field equipment in order to convert a

garrison into a field battery, and in like manner field batteries could be rapidly converted into garrison batteries.'

His Royal Highness does not say where the trained horses and trained drivers are to be obtained, and he ignores the fact, admitted by every witness questioned on the subject, that field artillerymen require a certain amount of drill before they become efficient garrison artillerymen, and the converse. Asked whether the separation above referred to would prove injurious to the horse and field artillery, he gave it as his opinion that it would make the officers of the mounted branches less scientific; yet he admitted that science was less needed in the horse than in the garrison artillery. He also ignored the fact that a garrison artillery officer on being transferred to the mounted branch would need considerable training and practice and tactics, assuming, as most of the non-separatists did, that the cry for separation comes only from young officers. The Commander-inChief said, in a somewhat pedagogical style, 'What do these young gentlemen know about it? Nothing.' A young gentleman likes to mount a horse, that is all he cares about, and therefore he says, 'I wish to have the corps divided.' The Blue Book shows that a large majority of the field officers of the artillery advocate separation; but even if the advocates of that measure were chiefly subalterns it is surely a bad compliment to pay them to suppose that they desire to break up the corps simply because some of them would be able to ride a horse when on duty. The Duke eulogises highly the officers of the artillery, yet apparently he considers them selfish, frivolous, and devoid of a feeling of responsibility. As a matter of fact, the majority of the Royal Artillery officers, from the rank of colonel down to the rank of major, both included, gave evidence in favour of separation, and field officers can scarcely be styled 'young ' gentlemen,' or be supposed to be influenced very much by the desire of riding. The spirit in which he approached the subject was especially shown on two occasions. It had been proposed by the Committee, when he was first examined, that printed questions should be sent round, to be answered by all artillery officers. The Duke objected, saying, 'Do not do it. 'What do these young gentlemen know about it?'-evidently being unable to get the idea out of his head that those who were not examined were all young gentlemen,' and being afraid of their opinions. Asked again at his second examination, he said, I think you should not, because they cannot be conversant with the intricate details of our requirements.

6

« AnteriorContinuar »