2 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
And first we will speak of France, where we are provided, by the research 
of the Emperor Napoleon III, with a considerable series of those most 
valuable of all contemporary documents, bills and accounts; which enter, far 
more minutely than any chronicle or history, into the materials used for and 
the method of manufacture of the cannon of this early period, with their 
stores and ammunition. 
The accounts of Thomas Dautresche, receiver for the town of Laon, 
during the years 1356-7-8, furnish interesting information, by which we can 
estimate the size of some cannon manufactured at Laon during these years; 
they give also in detail the ammunition used with them. A long extract 
from these accounts is published by the Emperor Napoleon, 1 from which we 
select the following items :— 
“ Jehan de Bouzis made for the city 42 cannon, 1350 iron heads for ‘garros, 5 
for which he received (12 May) 115 ecus. 2 
A ‘ grant canon a queue ’ was bought from Colart le Chandellier for 3 ecus. 
600 * garros’ for cannon were winged with brass (empenes d’ airain) for 32s. 
per 100. 
Live sulphur and saltpetre to prove 43 cannon were bought from an ‘espicier* 
for 2 ecus. 
12 lb. saltpetre cost 3 ecus, 41b. for 1 ecu. 
Blocks of oak to make c garrot a canons’ cost 2 \ ecus. 
56 lb. saltpetre bought at a price of 4 lb. for 1 ecu. 
Wages to an‘ artilleur,’ 1 ecu for three days, 12 days, 4 ecus. 
Technologie des armes a, feu has been largely received in Europe as a standard work of reference, 
even by so distinguished an author as General Piobert, contains a series of assertions and assump¬ 
tions unsupported by any evidence, or even by references, and in some cases carrying on their faces 
the stamp of improbability. It is therefore, as regards that portion which relates to the archaeology 
of cannon, utterly worthless to the student or antiquary. 
The author avails himself of this opportunity to protest against the pernicious habit of making 
statements, purporting to contain historical facts, without giving in every instance the source from 
which the statements are derived. The conscientious historian or antiquary will at once discard 
such books as worthless ; but there will always be found a large number of bookmakers, who will 
accept these statements, and perpetuate them, though they may teem with error. 
An instance of the necessity of tracing to it3 source every historical assertion, and of the conse¬ 
quent necessity of indicating where that source is, may here be given. Mr Sharon Turner, in his 
admirable History of England during the Middle Ages, states in a note (Vol. III. p. 490) that an 
account of the expenditure of the Ordnance Office in the Tower during the reign of Edw. III. shews a 
maker of gun stones, and two gun founders. He gives as his authority a work called Bree’s 
Cursory Sketch, which refers the statement to Harleian MS. 5166. On consulting this MS. 
the author at once discovered that the writing was not of the 14th century; and, on referring to the 
authorities of the MS. Department, the MS. was pronounced to be of the 17th century, and the 
details to be, not of the household of Edward III, but of that of Queen Elizabeth. 
Mr Turner had omitted to test the MS. for himself, or he would doubtless have at once discovered 
Mr Bree’s mistake. But he gave his authority. Had he neglected this, or merely said these facts 
appeared from a MS. in the British Museum, it is possible that the author, trusting to the accuracy 
of so learned a man, might have reproduced his statement, and perpetuated a grave error in the 
history of cannon. This is but one instance out of scores of statements which the author has traced 
to their fountain head, and found to be erroneous. 
1 Etudes sur le pass6 et l’avenir de l’artillerie, Tom. III. pp. 88-90. 
2 The ecu was equal to 13s. 4d., not 14s. 4d., as erroneously copied in the Etudes. This is evident 
from the fourth item of the account as it there stands. 
