TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY. (Hansard, 1 April 1908)

§ THE EARL OF ERROLL
My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of the 196 batteries it is proposed to raise for the Territorial Army, supposing the ranks are all full, including the hire of the horses for fifteen days training, cost of gun sheds, harness, ammunition for practice, and generally for the administration and training of the artillery; also the proportion due for the expenses of the County Associations; and whether he can also state the whole annual cost of a battery of Regular field artillery on the higher and lower establishment respectively. I understand that there will be a debate on Monday, initiated by Lord Denbigh, into the whole question of the Territorial artillery, and I cannot help thinking that it will be of great advantage to your Lordships that we should possess the information for which I am asking before that debate takes place. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, told us the other day that imperfectly trained artillery were absolutely useless in war and liable to become a danger. After that statement from so high an authority it would be only prudent to consider whether it would not be preferable to have a smaller number of Regular and very highly trained artillery in the place of a larger number of imperfectly trained gunners. It is an acknowledged principle on the Continent of Europe that the less trained the infantry the more important it is that the artillery should be very highly trained. I have 471 put clown the Question as to the cost of a Regular battery because I think it is important that we should have some idea how the cost compares with that of a Territorial battery, with a view to seeing whether we cannot secure fewer highly trained Regular artillery for the same price that we should get this larger number of less perfectly trained Territorial artillery.

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, as we shall be debating the general question of the artillery on Monday, I hope my noble friend will excuse me from entering into the various matters to which he has referred in putting his Question. I am glad to be able to give him the information for which he asks, subject to one or two reservations. The total number of batteries to be raised is 182, not 196 as stated in the Question. I do not know exactly how my noble friend arrived at the number of 196, but I think it is possibly a miscalculation arising from reckoning three batteries instead of two to a brigade of howitzers. The number of field and howitzer batteries to be raised for the Territorial Force is 148, the annual cost of which will be about £350,000, which includes the expenses of the County Associations. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl any accurate estimate as to the proportion due for the expenses of the Associations, as the Associations administer other units. The other batteries to be raised are fourteen horse, and twenty heavy batteries. The grants for these cover their ammunition columns and are not comparable with the figures for batteries of field artillery. As to the Question whether I can also state the whole annual cost of a battery of regular field artillery on the higher and lower establishments, respectively, I have to say that the annual cost of a Regular field battery on the higher establishment of 163, all ranks, is £15,000, and on the lower establishment of 132, all ranks, £12,000.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
Is any allowance made in the £350,000 for the cost of arming the batteries originally, or is that what they are going to cost when they are a going concern?

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
That will be the annual cost when they are a going concern.