236 
MINUTES OF PKOCEEDINGS OF 
as the representative of artillery science. Is it worth so mnch to attain 
the same position for the field artillery alone, or for the garrison artillery 
alone ? 
The separation of the German artillery seems to have been necessitated 
by a partial and narrow-minded regimental administration, which the 
officers were powerless to reform; not from any inherent defect in the 
organisation, if honestly administered. The garrison artillery seems to 
have been habitually starved, under-officered, and neglected for the sake 
of the field artillery. The principal, and I think only argument of any 
weight in favor of a partition of the regiment, seems to lie in such differ¬ 
ence as exists in the nature of the duties of field and garrison artillery. 
These have been so fully discussed in the German pamphlet before alluded 
to, that I will assume them to be fresh in the minds of those present. 
It will easily be understood, then, how, under such regimental administra¬ 
tion as the writer describes, these differences could be made productive 
of evils past endurance. Whilst conceding that the theory of our 
system might admit of such abuses, I think we must in common 
justice own that with us every facility has been afforded to officers 
to make their own way into that branch of the artillery for which 
they have felt most inclination; and besides this, great opportunities 
have remained in the hands of successive D.-A.-Generals, which have 
on the whole been wisely used, for still further carrying out the idea of 
transferring officers to that branch of the regiment for which they have 
evinced greater fitness. It is a delicate question whether such principle 
of selection might not be still further carried out with advantage. Still, 
it would be uncandid not to admit that there lies in all this a warning 
for those amongst ourselves who are desirous of maintaining the unity 
of the Royal Artillery. It is impossible that the regiment can bear the 
strain of war, unless there exists the same determination to maintain the 
efficiency of the garrison artillery as of the field. Garrison artillery cannot 
usefully exist under-officered, disregarded—I may say, uncherished. I 
do not care to discuss whether in the past one branch of our artillery 
service has been cherished at the expense of another. It is impossible 
for superficial observers to appreciate the difficulties which military 
administrators have to encounter to keep the machine in motion at all. 
In seasons when the House of Commons is suffering from a paroxysm of 
economy, some part of it must suffer, and of course it will be that which 
is for the moment in least request. We have, however, now good reason 
to hope that the hour has struck when it will be possible to maintain 
the efficiency of every branch alike. I would venture to offer, then, as 
a postulate, that artillery cannot efficiently exist as one corps unless the 
requirements of each branch of it are equally regarded ; and in doing 
so, I am sanguine enough to believe that I am not asking you to accept 
what is impracticable. There is another consideration which I find un¬ 
touched in this German pamphlet. An officer is liable to that common 
weakness of humanity—growing older, involving very often change of 
ideas, change of predilections and favourite pursuits. I apprehend that 
many officers would not care to have their horizon limited even to service 
in the horse artillery; though I dare say a good many young men think 
they would be contented. However that may be, can we do otherwise 
than feel assured that the more a man's horizon is limited, the less likely 
