THE ROY AX ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 235 
seeming to me conspicuous from their omission; and I would apply to 
it the same criticism that the writer does in his introduction to every 
rival scheme—for there seem to have been many—“ The writing, like 
almost all the essays on the same question, suffers from a fault which 
detracts considerably from its value. The first part, which may be called 
negative, and which lays bare the disadvantages of an organisation, is 
clear and convincing ; not so the second part, which contains proposals 
for its improvement ” I have the greatest respect and reverence for 
German philosophic thought, and readily acknowledge our obligation to 
German thinkers; but this pamphlet presents to my mind no mark 
of any such philosophy, but rather that the officers of the Prussian 
artillery, having been for a long time past lightly regarded by their 
brethren of the other arms (and notably so after the campaign of 1866), 
are now fired with the same desire that animates us—to advance their 
branch of the service. In the last war it was brought vividly home to them 
what striking results could be achieved in the field by an intelligent use of 
artillery, and the more influential and enthusiastic portion of the officers 
have succeeded in cutting the field artillery adrift from what they felt to 
be a clog to their advancement—namely, the garrison artillery. You may 
smile, Gentlemen, at the audacity of your lecturer's differing from German 
military authority, but I humbly submit such a measure to have been 
unphilosophical, and calculated to hinder the advance of artillery science 
amongst them. I apprehend that to confine one portion of your men 
of artillery science solely to the service of field artillery and its tactics, 
and the other to that of siege or garrison artillery, even after a hard 
and fast line has been drawn where the service of guns of position ends 
and that of the lighter siege guns begins, is about as unphilosophical as 
to attempt to divide the science of astronomy or of geology into depart¬ 
ments. What should we say of an astronomer who proposed to confine 
his observations to the moon ?—he might be a lunatic, but I deny that he 
would deserve to be called an astronomer; or of the geologist who would 
investigate fossils without any reference to the strata and conditions 
amidst which they were found ? If we aspire to be scientific artillerists, 
we must be prepared to grapple with our subject in all its phases. I 
feel sure that the experience of many here to-day will bear testimony to 
the benefit they have personally derived from a varied service in field 
and garrison artillery. I have myself seen notable instances in which 
officers whose names are more especially connected with the horse 
and field artillery, have shewn themselves second to none when serving 
with siege artillery, and vice versa. I deprecate any such separation—for 
the sake of the field artillery, to whom such a change means less scien¬ 
tific knowledge, excluded as they would be from the chief part of the 
courses at the School of Gunnery and the Royal Arsenal; for the sake of 
the garrison artillery, as they would tend to become rather pedants than 
smart and enterprising soldiers; and for the sake of the artillery as a 
whole, inasmuch as pure science being restricted to one section only, 
the general scientific average would be reduced. Instead of, as we have 
now, more than 1000 officers of every grade and phase of intellect acting 
and re-acting upon each other for the attainment of one grand object, we 
should be divided into two bodies separated by jealous rivalry. It is a 
grand object to place England in advance of the other nations of Europe, 
