The Times - Letters to the Editor
Introduction
Derek Driscoll's original site had a page of extracts from The Times newspaper. One section is interesting and is a series from "Letters to the Editor" from 1871, and consists of senior Territorial Force officers as it was and then and their thoughts on its use, training, how it should be financed, and how it should be equipped.
Carbines
The Times of Saturday, 14 January 1871, carried this letter from Lieutenant-Colonel J. D. Shakespear regarding the use of carbines and the learning f infantry drills by members of the Volunteer Artillery:
Sir, Often in your columns has been discussed the question of our garrison Royal Artillery being armed with carbines and learning infantry drill, as if it was an essential; that matter, however, has but an inferential bearing on the purport of this letter. Tt is extremely doubtful whether the Royal Artillery ever used their carbines against an enemy, and most certainly the probabilities and possibilities of their ever being used are on the decrease.
What useful purpose is likely to result from occupying the time which many a Volunteer artilleryman can ill afford by teaching him that which is practically known to be of such very little use to artillery, as the manual and platoon carbine exercise and company drill?
Of course, if no other method were ln practice for the movement of artillerymen than by the evolutions of a company then must company drill be taught them. But it so happens that when artillerymen are about to exercise their legitimate office as gunners they, without carbines, fall in by gun detachments, and from that formation move in file or by fours, and can form line or column.
Except for any displeasing irregularity in height, there is no reason why Volunteer Artillery should not march past by batteries in line of gun detachments.
Now, I am very mush interested in the common sense of this subject, having accepted the command of an Artillery Volunteer corps, and my hope in giving publicity to this letter is that the Artillery Volunteer may be influenced by the same views.
So long as the enemy is in front of the big gun it must be stuck to, and should ho by chance close hand to hand, then hand-spikes, &c., which are certain to be there, are far more effective than carhines, which are as certain to be elsewhere.
As for as concerns Volunteer Artillery, I am decidedly of opinion that teaching the evolutions of a company is simply putting tine to a mistaken use, and each man posessing a carbine, they have in charge a number of weapons practically useless to them, which are annoying and troublesome to keep.
Your obedient,
J. D. SHAKESPEAR, Lieutenant-Colonel,
January 12
Autumn 1871 Exercise
It seems that Lieutenant-Colonel J. D. Shakespear wrote another letter to The Times in September 1871, talking about the Volunteer Artillery's non-participation in an upcoming exercise later in the year. This drew replies from everal people regarding the issue.
The following was printed in The Times of Wednesday, 20 September 1871:
Sir, — Colonel Shakespear's recent letter to The Times will have informed the public that Volunteer Field Artillery have no part in our autumn "campaign." Many will regret the absence of this force from maneouvers the ostensible object and value of which are to test each link in our military chain which we have boldly invited foreign critics to examine. Why is this link wanting? Because the War Office, while about to spend a sum on those maneouvers which I have heard estimated at considerably more than 100,000l. grudged 600l. to enable a battery of Volunteer Field Artillery to take the field. My knowledge of this arose as follows: At Brighton Easter Monday Review I was standing with my regiment drawn up on the top of a precipitous incline of the Down watching a brigade of Volunteer Field Artillery coming up it. The officer in command exclaimed as he passed me, "By Jove, I never thought they could have done it." This officer turned out to be Colonel Shakespear, and since then I have had frequent communication with him on the subject of Volunteer Field Artillery. He told me that he had received a circular inviting him to take his brigade to the autumn maneouvers, but that hd had been obliged to decline, as they could not afford it. On my asking what amount of money it would take he said 100l. per gun.
The importance of testing practically the value or the valuelessness of Volunteer Field Artillery appeared to me to be such that I ventured to address a letter to the Secretary of State for War, urging the desirability of enabling a portion of the force to take part in the coming campaign, and pointing out that this could be done, according to Colonel Shakespear, at the cost of 1001. per gun, which sum would allow of each gun being out for 20 days.
The answer was a refusal stating that it was not thought desirable to encourage Volunteer Field Artillery, and the letter ended with an official snub to Colonel Shakespear and myself, as it said that any communication he had to make should have been made through the Lord-Lieutenant of his county.
An appeal to the public for 600l. appeared then to be the only chance, and this I should have ventured to male, having obtained about 50l. from Lord Westminster and other friends wherewith to start it, bat Colonel Shakespear informed me that his men could not delay making their holyday arrangements on the chance of the required sum being forthcoming, and this idea of a public subscription had thus to be abandoned. Now, of two things, one either it is desirable to have and to encourage Volunteer Field Artillery or it is not. If it is surely it is a mistaken policy to grudge the small sum of money required to take 6 guns to the maneouvers and thus test the value and capability of this description of force? If it is not desirable to have or to test it, why nominally have such as Force at all? Why invite it to take part in the "campaign?"
The Director-General of Artillery and the Artillery officers, as a rule, are said to disbelieve in Volunteer Field Artillery and in the possibility of their becoming efficient. There are, however, notable exceptions, and whoever has seen the 1st Middlesex Artillery (others I doubt not are as good at work) must be convinced of the capabilities of Volunteer Field Artillery, if properly commanded and trained. The ability of the men to work the guns is not questioned; the doubt arises ss to the drivers and horses. Now I have spoken of the precipitous incline at Brighton, but wishing to see how his guns worked, I accompanied Colonel Shakespear lately to Wimbledon, and T would in a very few words relate what saw, leaving Royal Artillery officers to form their own opinion from the facts stated. On the march I heard the order given to trot, and I saw the men mount on the limbers and guns, which are so seated that at least five men can always be thus carried when it is desirable to move quickly, a practice in use in foreign armies, but only now about to be introduced in our Royal Field Batteries. On arriving at Wimbledon, instead of keeping on the smooth plain, the guns were taken on to the rough broken ground near and in rear of the Butts, at the bottom of which there is a deep water cut, the drivers never lost their seats, and, by flogging the leader, the fallen horses were dragged no to their legs again, and the guns all carried safely across the ravine.
If, then, we have facts such as these before us and if Artillery officers of experience and distinction believe in the capabilities of the Volunteer Field Artillery, I venture to think that, in the interest in the interest of the nation and of the taxpayer, it in essential that this disputed point should be definitely settled one way or other. It is now the fashion to talk boastfully of our imposing force of Royal Artillery because we have 90 field guns in the "campaign" and 336 in Great Britain. But, without indulging in "alarmism" it would be well to bear in mind that the proper proportion of guns for the armies, 40,000 strong, now assembled in Hampshire, is 130, and not 90; that the 336 are insufficient for our Regular Forces and Army Reserves, while there is absolutely no provision whatever for Field Artillery for the Militia or Volunteers, with the exception of a few heavy guns of position moved by agricultural horses and» waggoners; and I am inclined to think that a knowledge that such a provision in some effective form wither exists or is in serious contemplation would do more to diminish "alarmism" than any number of reassuring speeches. Colonel Shakespear's letter shown the comparative cost of a battery of Royal and Volunteer Field Artillery to be as follows :—Royal Artillery, 2,0001. per gun; Volunteer Field Artillery, 50l. per gun, or 150l., allowing for horse hire — that is to say, an expenditure of 15,000l. would give us 100 Volunteer Field guns, but only 75 Royal Artillery guns. Our chance of ever having Royal Artillery sufficient for the Militia and Volunteers is nil, and although it is not pretended that Volunteer Field Artillery can ever approach in effectiveness to our very prefect Royal Artillery, still experienced practical artillerists maintain that, for all practical purposes, it can by a small additional outlay be made a valuable element of national strength for home defence, and it is to be hoped, even on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, that this link in our military chain will be strengthened before next year, and fairly tested in the “campaign” of 1872. Taxpayers and economists should insist upon this. It is also to be hoped by that time that the War Department will have done something to perfect and extend that admirable system of what I may call agricultural heavy Field Artillery to which I have referred, which was originated in Sussex by Captain Darby, which I know to be approved by the highest military authorities, sad without which our autumn maneouvers are incomplete as an exhibition and trial of our military resources.
Pray bring your influence to bear upon this important question of Artillery for the Reserve Forces
In the name of economy and of common sense do not let us condemn Volunteer Field Artillery without full and public trial.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
St. James-place, Sep 16 ELCHO.
Lord Elcho was Francis Richard Charteris, 10th Earl of Wemyss (pronouned weems) GCVO DL (4 August 1818 - 30 June 1914), styled as Lord Elcho between 1853 and 1883, was a British Whig politician. He was commanding officer of the London Scottish Rifles Volunteers regiment for 17 years from its formation in 1859, gaining the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
The following was printed in The Times of Saturday, 23 September 1871:
Sir, - In your number of this day Lord Elcho pleads for the Volunteer Field Artillery, and argues that it would have been wise to give that class of our Volunteers an opportunity of showing what they could do during the present Hampshire Campaign, even at the charge to the public of 100l. per gun. He justly remarks that if Volunteer Field Artillery is to be discouraged by the War Office, it is tine to decide whether it be advisable to retain that description of force at all.
Now, from the first, many experienced officers of Artillery doubted the wisdom of attempting to create so elaborate and complex an arm as Field Artillery out of Volunteers, however intelligent and zealous they might be as individuals.
Without going as far aa an old Peninsular officer of Artillery, who used to any that "a perfect shaft driver was the most perfect of God's creatures, and more difficult to find than a Lord Chancellor," it is apparent that a body of men, many of them, it is believed, gentlemen, unaccustomed to grooming and working horses in harness, cannot be expected to do and endure through a campaign all the rough and hard work of looking after a pair of horses, and driving over all kinds of roads and ground where a gun can possibly go. They may drive tolerably under certain circumstances, and with hired help from men accustomed to horses; they may get through their duties incident to a Brighton Review or do a week or two of campaigning; but could a battery with such drivers be depended upon for a continuance of such work before an enemy?
There are more questions than that of the efficiency of the drivers.
Unless the horses are efficient, and kept permanently at the command of the Volunteers, it is not to be conceived that these Volunteer batteries could be fit for service, if called out at short notice, which is the case to be provided for.
Again, Volunteers may learn to work their guns respectably and fire blank cartridges at a sham fight, but is it to be looked for that they can have practice enough, and receive instruction enough, to fire round shot, cannister, and shells, and fix fuzes under fire with the requisite accuracy and rapidity?
There are also the duties of foraging, encamping, bivouacking and getting the guns out of difficulties, and the ceaseless work of keeping the whole matériel of the battery in good order.
Above all, there is the question of the efficiency of the officers, for without duly qualified officers a battery can be of little value.
With every respect for the officers of Volunteer Artillery, they can scarcely be efficient unless the greater part of the instruction given to the officers of the regular Artillery be deemed superfluous.
How can it be expected that the Volunteer officer can have that knowledge of the tactics of infantry and cavalry, of the best choice of positions for the action of his guns, of the mode of attacking field works by artillery fire, and of many other branches of the art of war which go to make a good commander of a field battery? In truth, sufficiently good field artillery cannot be improvised, cannot be got together io a hurry, and if inefficient be little more than an encumbrance to an army in the field.
Lord Elcho estimates that an army of 40,000 men should have 130 guns. This seems to be somewhat of an over-estimate - 120, or three guns per 1,000 men would be a very full proportion for a British army, for it is a well-established maxim, the better the infantry the smaller the proportion of artillery they require, Assuming that 100,000 men is the greatest hostile force that could be landed in this country, we may well consider that 336 guns, are more than requisite for a defensive army of that amount, constitute a very satisfactory provision of Field Artillery in time of peace, and in case of danger threatening it would be probably be easier to expand that force of regular Artillery, so as to increase the number of batteries we now possess by drawing upon the garrison Artillery, than to prepare for the field thoroughly efficient batteries of Volunteers.
The Volunteer Field Artillery deserve the greatest credit for their zeal, patriotic exertions, and for the pecuniary sacrifices they make, but they seem to many military observers to be attempting impossibilities under the circumstances in which they are placed.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
E. N. WILFORD, Major-General.
Winchester, Sept. 20.
The following was printed in The Times of Tuesday, 26 September 1871:
Sir, - in common with all who have interested themselves in such matters, I have been attracted by the heading "Volunteer Field Artillery" which introduces Lord Elcho's letter in The Times of the 29th of September.
In common with all who are acquainted with Lord Elcho, I am convinced that what he writes on such subjects is written with the dep purpose of promoting the real efficiency of the Force of which he may be called the "father."
But I must add that, in common with many who, as Volunteers, have followed in his steps, non pasubus requis (with unequal steps), I should be sorry to think his solution of the thesis "either it is desirable to encourage Volunteer Field Artillery or it is not" is one which is accepted by the majority of Volunteer gunners.
As Chairman of the Council of the National Artillery Association I have been brought in contact during the last seven years with most of the commanding officers of the Volunteer Artillery, and can speak with some certainty of the views of the majority. I have, moreover, been in constant communication with Artillery officers of experience distinction who believe in the capabilities of Volunteer Artillery (not field); and I aver that the opinion of the great majority of these officers of both services is in accordance with that of the War Office, "that it is not desirable to encourage Volunteer Field Artillery." Lord Elcho may very properly and logically ask, as he does ask, then "why nominally have such a Force at all?" My belief is that the authorities would most gladly dispense with such a Force; the official "snub" complained of by Lord Elcho is the best possible proof in support of this belief. At the first formation of the Volunteers, Field Artillery in towns destitute of Artillery ranges were allowed to be enrolled without much forethought; but from my own personal knowledge I can state that as far back as ten years ago the mistake was found out and regretted. To dissolve corps already in existence, whose only fault was their existence, was, however, an awkward matter for the authors of their existence, and so they were allowed to remain, when "in the name of economy and common sense" they would have been far better dispensed with. Far be it from me to assert that individual batteries or corps of Volunteer Field Artillery may not exist in a state of creditable efficiency "if properly commanded and worked" by distinguished officers like Colonel Shakespear, and if composed of men of independent means like the 1st Middlesex and the Honorable Artillery Company, but such rare exceptions would surely not justify the authorities in attempting to "diminish alarmism" by giving their sanction to an impression that Volunteer Field Artillery can ever "be made a valuable element of national strength for home defence."
All those who have had a varied experience of 12 years with Volunteer gunners must be practically aware that tine and money are two insuperable obstacles in the way of any general extension of Field Artillery Service. With the exceptions of rare holydays, the drive of the Volunteers is carried on at night through winter and summer, and usually commences at 8 pm. Under such circumstances, garrison or siege gun drill and repository exercises may be brought, as it is proved at Shoeburyness, too some perfection, but as to the question of the proper training of drivers and horses, even if the Government were most lavish in their gifts from the Treasury, volunteer commanders are well aware that the requisite time could never be afforded by the men; and I believe that I am giving more than a personal opinion when I refuse to admit that "half a loaf is better than no bread," if the result is to be that for an expense of 15,000l. we are to have 100 half-trained Volunteer field guns instead of 75 Royal Artillery guns. Lord Elcho refers to the good work done by my friend Captain Darby in organizing "agricultural heavy Field Artillery," which would be better named "Facilities for moving guns of position with farm cattle." I am the first to admit its value; but it must be remembered that in case of threatened invasion all such cattle would be impressed, and, as there is not now the smallest difficulty in obtaining the gratuitous service of such cattle almost to any extent on the occasion of the great reviews, I think we need to be under no fer but that the system may be indefinitely extended in as systematic a manner as the authorities may choose, I quite agree with Lord Elcho in thinking it would be far better that "this disputed should be definitely be settled one way or another;" but I believe I am only speaking the sentiments of the great majority of both Volunteer and Royal Artillery officers when I say that I believe the Government has come to a practically wise decision in the matter, and that what further assistance is given should go to that really useful and reliable force, the Volunteer garrison and moveable siege artillery, or, if need be, in increasing the strength of the Royal Field Artillery.
I am, Sir, your obedient Servant
R. W. Harcourt
Sept. 23.
Sources and Resources
Derek Driscoll's original pages
Other Resources
Francis Charteris, 10th Earl of Wemyss - Wikipedia