288 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
At the close of the lecture— 
Major-General Leeroy, C.B., R.A., said the meeting would be very happy 
to hear any gentleman who wished to make observations on the subject of 
the paper, and he hoped that the gallant officer on his right (Major-General 
Sir Edward Warde, K.C.B.), who had been, as they had been already 
informed, a member of the “Committee of Superior Officers” by whom this 
subject was considered in 1866, and was so highly qualified to advise on all 
subjects connected with the movement of field artillery, would favour them 
with some remarks. 
Major-General Sir Edward Warde said the subject which they had met 
to consider was one of great importance, although to his mind it was a very 
simple one, and he thought the lecturer had shewn an accurate appreciation 
of the requirements of the service in submitting three different natures of 
field gun for their consideration, which in his opinion would always in 
future be required to form an efficient artillery with an army in the field. 
He would say nothing with regard to the able manner in which his young 
friend Lieut. Sladen had placed this subject before them, because he felt 
satisfied that the Chairman would, when he addressed the meeting, fully 
express the feelings of all those who were present, with his usual ability; but 
he must express the pleasure that he had himself personally derived in seeing 
an officer who had joined the service under the shadow of his own wing 
when he commanded the 6th Brigade, entering on a course which was so 
eminently calculated to reflect credit on himself and on the corps to which 
he belonged. Mobility, as regarded field artillery, was in his opinion the 
paramount consideration. It was of course most important that our field 
guns should be as hard hitting, as far ranging, and should carry as large 
and damaging a shell as was consistent with facility of transport, and the 
certainty of being enabled to place them in the positions indicated at the 
exact moment when they would be there required. We required a gun for 
the horse artillery sufficiently light to ensure great rapidity of movement, 
and the certainty of being enabled to overcome all difficulties and inequalities 
of ground, however great; a rather heavier and more damaging gun for our 
field batteries, but still not so heavy as to cause doubt or uneasiness as to 
being enabled to ensure its being in its proper place at the proper time; and 
we also required as heavy a gun as could with safety be taken into the field, 
and accompany the movements of the force, of which it would form a com¬ 
ponent part, for special purposes—such, for instance, as destroying any 
temporary cover with which the enemy might have provided himself, or for 
silencing the fire of his artillery. The 16-pr. gun now submitted for con¬ 
sideration appears well calculated to meet these requirements. There must 
be many present who remembered the effect that was produced by the two 
18-pr. guns at Inkermann, which were brought into action at a critical moment, 
and by subduing the heavy fire of the Russian artillery, contributed very 
largely to the glorious success of the day. He would only detain them 
further to say that, in his opinion, mobility with regard to field artillery was 
the first consideration, as it would be far better to have a light gun that 
could always be put into the right place at the right time with certainty, 
than a heavier and more damaging one about which there would be doubt 
and uneasiness as to its being at all times available when required. 
Lieut.-Colonel E. Miller, FC, B.A., who was next called upon by the 
Chairman to address the meeting, said he would make a few remarks upon 
