QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 10 July 1882)

§ LORD TRURO

asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, after the Report of His Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, who commanded-in-chief at the late Volunteer review at Portsmouth, stating "that 40-pr 1908 guns are unsuited to field manœuvres, and far too ponderous to be used otherwise than as guns of position," they will consider the propriety of issuing a certain number of light guns to Volunteer corps where the inspecting officers reported their ability and fitness to horse and man them effectively? The noble Lord said, he regretted that the Volunteers were not now permitted to have that share in higher command, such as brigadiers, which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to which he thought their efforts entitled them. The history of field guns in the Volunteer Service was this—that on application being made for them to Lord Palmersston and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, it was decided that a reasonable number should be provided. Subsequently, on the death of Lord Palmerston, these were withdrawn. The number of guns in the Field Artillery to support the Regular Army was 160. But there was not one single Field battery to support the whole of the Auxiliary Forces, which included Reserves, Militia, Yeomanry, Pensioners, and Volunteers. In consequence, however, of some remarks in the Press that a Volunteer field day without artillery was absurd, a certain number of guns were issued. But were they available guns? No; they were 40-pound Armstrong guns which had been made for India, which could only be properly drawn by 12 horses—guns of position, in fact, weighing three or four tons. He thought it right, therefore, to ask whether these guns were to be continued? The Volunteer Artillery Force occupied a ridiculous position through not being properly provided with the weapons which the country intended for them, and without those weapons they would be of little avail should a day of trial come.

THE EARL OF MORLEY,

in reply, said, he must complain that some of the noble Lord's (Lord Truro's) observations were not closely relevant to the subject-matter of the Question, which in itself was a very reasonable one. The noble Lord had mentioned the Report of a distinguished General on the Portsmouth Review. He (the Earl of Morley) maintained that the question of the accuracy or inaccuracy of that Report was wholly irrelevant to the matter under consideration; but he must say that on such a 1909 subject as the conduct of Regulars or Volunteers, he should prefer the opinion of a General possessing such experience as Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, to the opinion even of so experienced a Volunteer as the noble Lord. The inference which the noble Lord appeared to wish the House to draw from his arguments was that the military authorities were responsible for not having afforded the Volunteer Artillery an opportunity of practising with field guns. The expediency of arming the Volunteer Artillery with field guns was not a new question, and there had not been absolute unanimity with regard to it. He would refer his noble Friend to the Report of a Committee which was presided over by his Predecessor in Office (Viscount Bury), and included among its Members Sir Robert Loyd-Lindsay and other experienced officers. In that Report the difficulties accompanying the formation of Volunteer field batteries were pointed out, to the effect that it would be an unsatisfactory measure, owing to the difficulty of training the men to the variety of operations that were required of field artillerymen and the great expense and trouble involved in obtaining and training the necessary horses. The noble Lord seemed to look down upon the proposal to employ Volunteers as garrison artillery, and in working guns of position; but, from all that he (the Earl of Morley) had been able to gather, the opinion of high military authorities was that that was the kind of service in which Volunteers would be most useful. England had an immense seaboard to protect, and he thought he was right in saying that in no branch of the Service did the Volunteers show themselves more efficient than in the Artillery. The opinion of the noble Lord as to the guns of position differed from that of any military officer of experience with whom he conversed. He could not encourage the noble Lord in the hope that field batteries would be organized from the Volunteer Artillery, there being too many difficulties in the way of such organization. If it could be done cheaply and effectively, something might be said for it; but to organize batteries which would not be efficient would be almost worse than having none at all.