THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
27 
which would not be economy at all—but such as will make fortification so to 
speak, possible, and will afford to it a maximum of efficiency, at a minimum of 
expense. 
“ In endeavouring to find the solution of this problem, I shall purposely avoid 
laying down anything that can be called a system. As is well known, systems 
have already been too much the bane of the science. Now more than ever, systems 
of fortification must give way to principles of construction; and (if the word system 
be used at all) to systems of defence. No two fortresses ought to be alike; but 
each work, and each collection of works, should be adapted to the purposes, 
strategetical and tactical, which it is intended to answer; to the pecuniary means 
and material, at the disposal of the engineer; to the exigences of its site; and to 
the circumstances of its topographical position. 55 
If the system this paper discusses be thoroughly developed, it might be 
considered sufficient in many cases of coast defence to devote attention to 
perfecting the materiel of a powerful artillery, with every appliance that could 
make it efficient. This artillery would be stored safely at points where 
attack may be expected. 
If this course were taken, an enemy would no longer be able to avoid our 
defences by knowing exactly where they are, because we should have the 
power to extemporize them if required. But considering the suddenness 
with which wars are now decided, it would be expedient to study the 
conditions in each case very carefully, and prepare the ground for the 
reception of its armament, by leveling down, or filling up, and forming the 
batteries as far as considerations of economy and expediency required ; 
securing near plantations of copse for gabions and fascines, &c., &c. leaving 
only such work to be done, as could be completed with short notice. 
I go so far as to say that government might have in its possession private 
reports from a variety of officers for each position. The data given to these 
officers on which to found their reports being the amount of artillery and 
stores set aside for a certain position, they might be required to give detailed 
estimates and plans for putting that position in such a state that, say two 
batteries of siege artillery, a company of engineers, and 3000 labourers could 
complete the work and mount the guns in a week, satisfactorily estimating 
time and expense. I venture to make these suggestions because they are 
particularly applicable to the kind of earthworks now advocated, which 
would have in many respects the strength of permanent works, with the 
inexpensive character of temporary ones. 
Fifth. Economy of life. 
I rejoice to think that there is reasonable cause to expect a smaller waste 
of life in gun detachments. The power of any arm in relation to another 
will be determined to a certain extent by this condition. The late improve¬ 
ments in small arms I do not think have been in favour either of cavalry or 
artillery. The exposure of gun detachments in defensive batteries under 
the fire of new rifled artillery has not been much tested since the latest 
improvements—immense precision and penetration coupled with the perfection 
of percussion and time fuzes and the construction of shells—would lead one 
to expect heavier casualties. Where iron is used of course the proportion is 
altered, but even in that case the nuts and bolt heads have shewn a disagree- 
[vol. vi.] 4 
