MINUTES OE PROCEEDINGS OF 
128 
“21 huge pieces of brass cannon, which were with difficulty tugged along 
by sixteen cart-horses to each. Much curiosity was excited by a structure 
mounted on wheels. It proved to be a moveable smithy, furnished with all 
tools and materials necessary for repairing arms and carriages.” 1 2 That the 
disorganised state of the personnel of the artillery attracted the new king’s 
attention is sufficiently proved by the formation of companies in 1693, and 
the regimental organisation of 1698. I am unable to detect any evidence 
that the materiel of the arm underwent change, for better or worse, in fire 
or in mobility, during his reign. It is said, indeed, that he was the first to 
introduce travelling carriages into this country; but such cannot be the case, 
for Chamberlayne, in his “ State of England, 5 ’ 1687, a year before the 
invasion, states that the train of artillery in the Tower consisted of “ 50 brass 
pieces on trauling carriages, besides several mortar pieces, some whereof are 
of an extraordinary bigness.” 
The state of the artillery was so bad during the latter half of the 17th 
century, that it is strange that it did not entirely disappear from the battle¬ 
field. As yet it was by no means universally allowed that fire-arms, great 
and small, were superior to the weapons of the knights and archers, and the 
ancient arms had not yet fallen entirely into disuse. Field guns were all but 
useless, from the difficulty of moving them; and not only was the fire of 
muskets slow and uncertain, 3 but they were unequal to withstand a charge 
of cavalry until the introduction of the bayonet in 1693. The pike was 
consequently still largely employed, 3 and bows were not unknown. Shortly 
before the period I speak of, Charles I. had granted two special commissions 
for enforcing the use of the long bow—the first in the fourth, the second in 
the ninth year of his reign; and Essex issued a mandate in 1643 for the 
formation of companies of Roundhead archers. 4 A full century afterwards, 
Benjamin Franklin wrote to General Lee, advocating the suppression of fire¬ 
arms and the re-introduction of archery, 5 and the Chevalier de Folard was 
employed, about the same time, in proving the superiority of the machines 
of the ancients over modern artillery. 6 
The degradation of the artillery, at the time I speak of, was chiefij owing 
to two causes—a reaction that set in on the death of Gustavus Adolphus, 
and the rise and progress of standing armies. 
It was only in the nature of things that the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus 
should be forgotten on his death. Dulness abhors change; mediocrity 
detests reform; and men of average understanding seized with avidity the 
opportunity, which the unexpected death of the king placed within their 
1 Lord Macaulay’s “ Hist, of England,” Vol. III. p. 230. I am compelled to rest content 
with. Lord Macaulay’s account of the artillery of the day, as I have sought in vain for his original 
authorities, in the British Museum and elsewhere. 
2 “ The muskets were such miserable machines, that in the middle of the 15th century it took 
a quarter of an hour to load and fire one.”—'Buckle’s “Hist, of Civilisation,” Vol. I. p. 190. 
Hallam’s “ Middle Ages,” Vol. I. p. 342. In an action fought during the Thirty Years’ War, 
which lasted from noon till evening, it is recorded that “ each man fired, at the least, seven times;” 
—Gen. M. Smith’s “Modern Tactics,” p. 36. 
8 Sir E. Cust’s “Lives erf the Warriors of the Thirty Years’ War,” Yol. I. p. 218; 
4 “ Encyclodedia Britannica.” Art. Archery. 
5 Franklin’s Works, edited by Jared Sparks, p. 169. 
0 In his edition of Polybius. 
