RIFLED ORDNANCE AND NAVAL AND MILITARY RESERVES—APPOINTED GOVERNOR, ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY—THE BRITISH ARMY IN 1875

One of the most important and interesting subjects connected with the Navy and Army of late years, and with the changes in which I was at one time much associated, is that of the gradual advance of modern armaments, not only in size, but in range, power, and accuracy. Until forty years ago the science of artillery had practically remained stagnant ever since the time of the Tudors. Indeed, it may be said that the guns used during the Crimean War, although less cumbersome, were in all essential particulars much of the same type as those of the days of Queen Elizabeth. The introduction, however, of rifled small-arms, and of armour-plating for vessels of war, indicated the necessity of improved ordnance; and what may almost be termed a revolution commenced, which has had many vicissitudes, and even now has hardly reached its final solution.

It was in 1854 that Lord Armstrong first took up the subject, of which he has ever since been acknowledged as one of the chief authorities. He has also rendered good service in the establishment of a manufacturing arsenal at Elswick, which, in the event of a great war, would become of national advantage. The first rifled breech-loading guns of his pattern were adopted in 1859, and gave results in range and accuracy far beyond anything that had hitherto been achieved. They were followed by the introduction of others of a larger calibre; and so enthusiastic were the navy and artillery, that many of our vessels of war and fortresses were speedily supplied with them. Between 1859 and 1862, two millions and a half sterling were expended on new armaments.

Notwithstanding their great success and superiority, however, they developed considerable defects in regard to breech mechanism; and numerous accidents occurred both by sea and land, due in a measure to want of skill in their handling. It became evident from experience in the war in China in 1860, and in Japan in 1862-3, that they were somewhat delicate weapons.[102]

In 1863 the Armstrong and Whitworth competition took place, in which both firms were represented on the committee; and after lengthened trials they reported[103] in 1865 that the breech-loading system was inferior for purposes of war to that of muzzle-loading, and was more expensive. Other experiments followed, leading to a similar conclusion, and as a consequence the latter was adopted, and continued in force for many years; the guns rising rapidly in size and in weight from five up to one hundred tons. In 1867 a committee of thirteen artillery officers, under the late Field-Marshal Sir Richard Dacres, inquired into the subject as regards field guns, and reported unanimously in favour of muzzle-loaders. In 1868 the Admiralty were asked whether they wished the subject re-opened as regards naval guns, but they declined.

Having served in India from 1857 to 1866, I had, of course, no practical knowledge of the earlier stages of this difficult and much-debated subject; but on becoming Director of Artillery in 1870, I found that the two services were in practical unanimity as to the advantages of the rifled muzzle-loading system—that it was simpler, better adapted for war, and cheaper than the other. In 1871 the Admiralty were again consulted on the question, but with the same result as before. In that year, a German 9-pounder breech-loading field gun was obtained for comparison with our own; and after a long series of trials the committee reported that the English gun was superior, not only in simplicity, but in range and power, and in rapidity of fire.[104] It was also known that during the great war of 1870 upwards of two hundred German guns had become unserviceable. All experience, therefore, appeared at the time to point in one direction; but a change gradually arose, the causes of which were partly scientific, partly mechanical.

Whilst the attention of experts was engaged in the effort to produce the best gun, it ultimately proved that the real solution rested not so much with the weapon as with the motive power which gives life and force to the projectile. The question of gunpowder had until about 1870 remained much in the same stagnant, neglected condition as that of ordnance. Long and careful researches were, however, carried out at that time, chiefly by Sir Andrew Noble and Sir Frederick Abel, which led to the introduction of a comparatively mild and slow-burning explosive, and finally determined the system of gun-construction. In the first place, owing to its gradual combustion, the excessive strain on the breech mechanism was much diminished; and further, as an improved system of closing had been adopted, the difficulties, and the accidents at critical moments, which had been so perplexing, were in a great measure at an end. That was one important result; but there was a second. As the explosion was no longer instantaneous, but comparatively gradual, it followed that larger charges could be employed, and in order to utilise them greater length of bore became necessary, as, within limits, the longer the gun the greater the initial velocity and consequent range and power.

These altered conditions were manifestly both in favour of breech-loading, not so much as a matter of principle, but of convenience. Sir Andrew Noble, in writing to me on the subject in 1875, said: 'As regards the effects to be produced from a gun, precisely the same results can be attained, whether it be made in the form of a muzzle or a breech-loader. There is no magic, as many seem to imagine, in one form or the other.... As regards convenience in using, there may be, and undoubtedly are, differences.' Between 1875 and 1880 experiments were somewhat slowly carried out, with a view to re-introducing breech-loading. Having been appointed Surveyor-General of the Ordnance in the latter year, I advised that the experiments should be pushed on vigorously, and on a larger scale. The adoption of steel, to the exclusion of wrought iron, in the construction of guns, was another important change about to take place; and, with a view to a full consideration of these great questions, Mr. Childers in 1881 re-established a permanent Ordnance Committee, which for some reason had been abolished in 1867. The main principles thus established, the naval and military armaments have since proceeded uninterruptedly. Many improvements, especially as regards quick firing, have recently been introduced; and we have every reason to believe that they are fully equal in all respects to those of any other nation.

That this subject has been a difficult and an anxious one is evident. Lord Armstrong, in his address to the Civil Engineers in 1882, said: 'All breech-loading mechanism is of a nature to require very accurate fittings, and require care both in use and for preservation.' Again, in a work published as late as 1893 by Commander Lloyd, R.N., and Mr. A. Hadcock, late R.A., of the Elswick establishment, they say 'that it has taken all the ingenuity, backed by all the mechanical resources of the present day, to obtain a satisfactory breech-loading arrangement.'[105] The whole question is extremely technical; but I have endeavoured to give an outline of its broad characteristics; and it is evident that the consideration of so vital a question requires a permanent committee of naval and artillery officers, and of scientific civil engineers; we may then feel confidence that the requirements of the two services will be adequately dealt with.

Even the placid and scientific temperament of an Ordnance Committee may, however, occasionally be subject to a severe strain. Many years ago, a proposal was submitted by some inventor that a small gun, strapped broadside across a horse's back, and fired from that position, would be useful, especially in mountain campaigns. The experiment was made in the Arsenal at Woolwich, the horse's head being tied to a post, with the muzzle of the gun pointed to an old earthen butt; the Committee standing on the other side of the horse to watch the result. The gun was loaded, and, in order to give time, a slow-burning fuse was used to fire it. The Committee, however, in tying the animal's head, had omitted to take the precaution of also making fast its tail. The first result was that, when the horse heard the fizzing of the fuse on its back, it became uneasy and walked round the post, so that the gun, instead of pointing at the butt, was thus directed straight at the heads of the Committee. Not a moment was to be lost; down went the chairman and members, lying flat and low on their stomachs. The gun went off; the shot passed over the town of Woolwich, and fell in the Dockyard; the horse being found lying on its back several yards away. The Committee were fortunately unhurt, and gradually recovered their equilibrium, but reported unanimously against any further trial.

Armaments and Reserves.—Amongst the many subjects which constantly occupy the attention of the War Department is the provision of adequate reserves of armaments, small arms, gunpowder, accoutrements, camp equipage, harness, clothing, and the numerous Engineer, medical, and commissariat stores which have to be maintained in readiness for war, not only in the United Kingdom, but at our stations in various parts of the world. The great majority of these reserves are required for both the fighting services; and until recently have been provided and cared for by the War Office, acting in co-operation with the Admiralty. The subject is not only complex, but very little is known by the public as to its administration and cost. Formerly, the provision of these costly armaments and stores rested with the Ordnance Department; and, as the successive Master Generals were men of the highest distinction and experience in war, the country had a guarantee that the national requirements would be duly considered and maintained. As the Duke of Wellington wrote in 1843, 'the Ordnance Department and the office of Master General is constituted for the service of the Navy as well as that of the Army.'

It is not necessary, nor indeed would it be proper, to give details of the amount of these various reserves, which, of course, have been modified and increased from time to time according to circumstances. It may be sufficient to say that in 1858[106] their value was reckoned as being upwards of eleven millions sterling; and since that date has undoubtedly risen, partly from the increased cost of modern armaments and appliances, and partly from the additional requirements of our enlarged empire.

It is sometimes asserted that, owing to financial pressure, or to false ideas of economy, the maintenance of these essential requisites for defence is apt to be starved and neglected. My experience does not confirm this view. Having served at the War Office for years, under three Ministers of War, statesmen of divergent political views, I have found them all of one mind as to the necessary provision year by year of sufficient funds for the purpose. Naturally and properly they looked into the details. The estimates are presented to Parliament annually, and no reluctance is shown to vote the requisite supplies. Indeed, there are many influences in the House of Commons which rather tend the other way—that is, to extravagance.

An unfortunate change, however, was made a few years ago—namely, in the separation of the naval and military reserves at home and abroad; and duplicate establishments, store-houses, and staff, now exist, which are leading to increased cost, some loss of efficiency, and eventually to diversity of patterns. As a great naval, military, and colonial Power, with fleets, fortresses, and depÔts all over the world, it seems apparent that, both in regard to efficiency and economy, unity of system is essential. Not only the great Duke of Wellington, but successive Master Generals of Ordnance, concurred in this view, and agreed that the Ordnance was an efficient department of the State,[107] and should hold the reserves of both services. According to my judgment, we should revert at once to the former arrangements, and indeed, should war unfortunately arise, we should in all probability be compelled to do so.

Having been appointed Governor of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in July 1875, I left the War Office, and did so with much regret. Although, as I have tried to explain, its system of administration is not altogether adapted to meet the requirements of parliamentary government, and although in some respects the Navy and Army are not in such close association as seems desirable, still these defects are capable of remedy, and, at all events, are in no way attributable to the chiefs of the various departments, military and civil, of the War Office, who are men of the highest character and experience, and who carry out very difficult duties with loyalty and success, even under a somewhat imperfect system.

During my five years of office as Director of Artillery, the following sovereigns and foreign princes visited the manufacturing departments of the Arsenal: the late Emperor Alexander II. of Russia—the late Emperor Napoleon III.—the late Emperor of Brazil—the late Grand Duke Constantine of Russia—the late Comte de Paris—and the Shah of Persia.

Some years after the inspection of the Arsenal by the Shah he paid a second visit to England, in 1889, and I had then an interesting interview with him at Lord Armstrong's in Northumberland. Having heard that I had served in India, the Shah came up during the evening and alluded to our position on the North-West Frontier. It must be understood that the conversation was entirely through a Persian interpreter, the Shah knowing only a few English words. He discussed the subject in a very sensible manner, and said we should avoid entering into war with the Afghans, and should endeavour to keep on terms of friendship with the Ameer at Cabul; to which I cordially assented.

Looking about the room, and seeing a general officer at some distance, he inquired: 'Who is that great man in a red coat?' I replied that it was Sir Edward Blackett, High Sheriff of the county. Perhaps that did not convey much to his mind, so I said to the interpreter: 'Tell the Shah that five and thirty years ago, Sir Edward was in the Crimean war, and one day a shot came and took off his leg.' The Shah threw up his hands and was much impressed, but presently the interpreter said that his Majesty couldn't understand it, as he had two legs now. 'That is quite correct,' I observed; 'but tell the Shah that one of them is made of wood.' His Majesty said at once: 'I must go and talk to that great man.' He went up to Sir Edward, and remarked: 'You lost your leg in the Crimea?' to which Blackett assented. 'Ah,' says the Shah, 'I remember. It was in the same battle that Lord Raglan lost his arm!'

The late Emperor of Brazil also paid a second visit to England, after he was dethroned, and on one occasion was shown a wheel by Lord Armstrong, which by some scientific arrangement made rapid revolutions, and he remarked: 'How very interesting. Its revolutions appear to me to be quicker even than those in South America.'

The record of the Royal Military Academy during my period of command was like that of a nation without a history. As the Governor has been invested of late years with adequate power, and is assisted by a competent staff, civil and military, he has only himself to blame if its administration is not successful. The two hundred gentlemen cadets, youths just rising to manhood, no doubt require tact and discretion in those having authority over them; but if they are treated with confidence and kindness, we may feel assured that no real difficulties will arise. Indeed, during my period of office, speaking generally, the conduct of the cadets was admirable throughout; and it is a gratification to me to know that many of those who were then at the institution are now becoming distinguished as officers of Artillery and Engineers. As regards education, the cadets, in my opinion, have too many subjects imposed upon them during their two years' residence at Woolwich. In addition to following up their previous studies in mathematics, French, and German, they have to learn artillery, fortification, military surveying, landscape drawing, chemistry, military history, riding, gymnastics, and drills of all kinds. There is, however, another point, not due to any defect in the regulations, which injuriously affects candidates for the military colleges—namely, the apathy of many of the great public schools, in not teaching the boys who may desire to follow a military career the subjects which are held to be essential to the profession. The result is that a large proportion of those who go up for the competitive examinations are compelled to leave the colleges at a critical period, and to be hastily educated by special teachers. Unjust criticisms are often made on what are commonly called the 'crammers,' whilst the real fault lies elsewhere; and if those in authority at the public schools would take more pains to have the boys educated for the profession in which they are ultimately to serve, the army and other branches of the public service would reap the benefit.

During the year 1875, the late Mr. John Holms, then member of Parliament for Hackney, constituted himself a vigorous critic of the army reforms which had been instituted by Lord Cardwell, and also put forward a distinct plan of his own of military organisation. His view was that we should maintain three separate armies—one for home, a second for the Colonies, and a third for India—all recruited and organised on different systems. It is not necessary now to discuss these proposals; but as his criticisms at the time attracted some attention, I was asked by Lord Cardwell in 1876 to publish a short reply; and as soon as it was ready he gave me a letter of introduction to the late Mr. John Murray, the well-known publisher of Albemarle Street, with a view to his bringing it out. When Mr. Murray had read Lord Cardwell's note, he turned to me and said: 'So you wish to publish a pamphlet—why, an archangel wouldn't read a pamphlet!' My reply was that we were not thinking so much at the present moment of archangels, as of members of Parliament and others, who were of quite a different class. The argument was so conclusive that he published the article in the course of a few days, and it may, perhaps, to some extent have accomplished the intended object.[108] At all events, I received many letters of approval of its contents, and amongst others, the following from my old friend the late Lord Airey, who had been Governor of Gibraltar:—

'Lowndes Square, March 1876.

'My dear Adye,—You were so kind as to send me and ask me to read your reply to Mr. Holms. When I was at Gibraltar, Drummond Hay, our Minister at the Court of Morocco, sent me over the Grand Vizier and the Commander-in-Chief of the Moorish Army.

'They were solemn, silent, but not unobservant parties. Amongst other things, I showed them some long-range seaward artillery practice. When they saw the little flag shot down two or three times, they turned to me, and simply said, "The Spaniards may go to bed!" I think Mr. Holms may go to bed.

'Yours truly, my dear Adye,
'Richard Airey.'

I also received the following letter from Mr. Gladstone:—

'September 1876.

'Dear Sir John Adye,—Amidst a great pressure and many interruptions, I have been able to gather very interesting information from your valuable pamphlet. For the last three years my attention to current public questions has been much relaxed, while the work of dilapidation incident to an unrefreshed memory has gone on. I do not now recollect as I ought, the precise terms of the present contract of the soldier with regard to the three years, which I have been accustomed to regard as the proper term of short service. To reaching that term for the British Army, I attach (ignorantly) a great value, with this idea among others, that it will very greatly popularise the service, besides its favourable bearing on the question of marriage.

'It will be a great pleasure as well as advantage to me, if I should have an opportunity of resuming the conversation which we began under Lord Sydney's hospitable roof.

'Believe me, faithfully yours,
'W.E. Gladstone.'

[102] Treatise on Construction of Ordnance, 1877.