COMMENDED ESSAY, 1897 . 
353 
When our present system of fire-command was first introduced, an 
expansion of the school of gunnery was perhaps necessary in order to 
instruct as many officers as possible in the new drill. But this drill is 
now old, and the benefit derived from schools of instruction is therefore 
much less than it was when they were started. The object of a school 
is either to teach old pupils something new, or to teach new pupils the 
old lessons ; but our schools of instruction now do little more than 
teach old pupils the old lessons. There are, of course, a few new 
pupils every year, but they can be taught very well regimentally 
without going to school, and certainly without dragging their companies 
to school with them too ; and they are not numerous enough to warrant 
the maintenance of the schools. No doubt companies benefit very 
much by undergoing a course at a school, but they would benefit 
equally by a course under their own lieutenant-colonels. There is no 
reason to suppose that the latter, if they had the opportunity, would not 
be as capable of keeping companies up to the mark, and even of 
recommending and trying new methods, as the schools of instruction. 
The very fact that these schools exist diminishes a lieutenant-colonel’s 
interest in the training of the companies under his command, and to 
that extent does harm. Moreover, a course under a school of instruction 
almost always involves a large amount of drill and practice in forts 
which will not be manned in war time by the company concerned, and, 
however good the instruction so obtained may be, it cannot be compared 
with the instruction that would be afforded by keeping companies in 
their own forts, assuming always that the object of such instruction is 
to prepare companies for the requirements of actual warfare. 
Our schools of instruction are not like that at Okehampton. There 
the batteries are armed and equipped alike, and practise with the guns 
which they would use in Avar. The chain of command, and the 
ammunition supply are the same as Avould be used in war ; moreo\ T er 
the course at Okehampton is only a small part of the annual training 
for war which a battery undergoes. 
Again, our schools are not like the Naval Gunnery schools. The 
latter train officers and men to be instructors, but a ship’s company 
does not go aboard a gunnery ship to carry out its annual practice. It 
remains on board its own ship ; and not only that, but each gun detach¬ 
ment remains with its own gun throughout a commission. No wonder 
that their speed in firing is greater than ours ! 
It is contended, then, that company courses under schools of 
instruction, though useful for general educational purposes, have a 
mischievous effect as regards training the companies for war, and 
should therefore be abolished. This does not, however, necessarily 
imply that the schools themselves should be abolished. It often 
happens that individuals, both officers and men, require special training, 
and the Militia and Volunteers present a wide field for the energies of 
the schools ; moreover the instructors would always be of use in 
criticizing practice reports, in assisting company majors and lieutenant- 
colonels in carrying out practice, and in advising the C.R.A. in all 
questions relating to changes of armament, arrangement of communica¬ 
tions, and other matters connected with the artillery defence of a fortress. 
Competitive practice has been of considerable value from a peace competitive 
point of view ; it has supplied an incentive to all ranks to do their best, P ractice - 
both in preliminary training and practice. For the purposes of war it 
has, as it is now carried out, one good point, and that is that it lays 
