436 
MINUTES OE PROCEEDINGS OE 
direction in which it acts. So close, indeed, is their connexion, that the 
history of field artillery is little more than a record of a series of laborious 
and painful efforts, extending over centuries, to increase precision of fire and 
capacity of manoeuvre; and since the origin and rise of the arm, 1 2 the attention 
and energies of those connected with it have been entirely absorbed, directly 
or indirectly, knowingly or unwittingly, in their development. Each succes¬ 
sive step in the manufacture of gunpowder, each discovery in chemistry which 
contributed towards it, has not only directly improved the fire of field guns, 
but has indirectly increased their mobility; for the enormous charges of the 
weak, slow-burning powder of bygone times, necessitated a corresponding 
length of bore, and length of bore involved weight of metal. The progress 
of metallurgy, too, and every advance in the manufacture of ordnance, tended 
to produce the same results; for not only was accuracy of fire seriously 
affected by badly cast guns and round shot of irregular shape and unequal 
density, but within certain limits the weight of the gun diminished, and its 
mobility consequently increased, as the quality and strength of the metal 
improved. Every reform in the construction of carriages, in the organization 
of drivers, in the quality of the horses, and in the state of the harness, 
exerted a direct influence upon the mobility of the guns; and the accuracy 
and deadliness of their fire increased with the steadiness and intelligence of 
the gunners who worked them, and the goodness and durability of the 
ammunition. Thus every improvement that has been made, either in the 
personnel or materiel of field artillery, may be resolved into an improvement 
in its efficacy of fire, or in its mobility, or in both. 
To indicate the principal of these successive improvements; to show that 
the state of field artillery was invariably most depressed when its mobility 
was most neglected, while its greatest successes were achieved under those 
leaders who knew best how to move it; to prove, in a word, that its progress 
chiefly consisted in the development of its mobility; 3 I shall now take a 
brief retrospect of the history of the arm. 
Had the guns which Edward III. brought into the field at Cre<ry 3 pro¬ 
duced an effect at all commensurate with the expense of constructing and 
working them, 4 and the labour of moving them, it is more than probable 
1 The following passage may he found in a respectable book on Tactics, finished as late as the 
year 1810:—“ Quoi qu’en disent certains auteurs, on ne saurait regarder l’artillerie, a proprement 
parler, comme une arme, car elle ne peut seule fixer la victoire.”—Traite de Tactique, par le 
Marquis de Ternay, Tom. I. p. 251. According to this theory the English cavalry, the cavalry 
that charged at Salamanca, was not an arm during the Peninsular War, if we may rely upon a 
statement made by the Duke of Wellington to his Judge Advocate General:—“Our cavalry never 
gained a battle yet. When the infantry have beaten the French, then the cavalry, if they can act, 
make the whole complete, and do wonders; but they never yet beat the French themselves.”— 
Larpont’s Journal, Vol. II. p. 73. 
2 Fave, “Hist, et Tact, des Trois Armes,” p. 293. 
3 “ Les trois canons employes par les Anglais a Cre^y ne peuvent etre compares qu’ a trois de nos 
fusils actuels faisant une seule decharge.”—Etudes sur le passe et l’avenir de l’Artillerie, par le 
Prince Napoleon-Louis Bonaparte, Tom. I. p. 42. 
4 Gunpowder “ long remained a costly article ; and even in the reign of Charles I. may be found 
complaints of its dearness, £ whereby the train-bands are much discouraged in their exercising.’ 
. Parliament. History , Vol. II. p. 665. In 1686, it appears from the Clarendon Correspondence, 
Vol. I. p. 413, that the wholesale price ranged from £2 10s. to £3 a barrel. On the price of making 
it in the present century, see Liebig and Kopp’s Reports on Chemistry , Vol. III. p. 325. Lond, 
