284 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
not be wanting to proclaim that the army is an unnecessary evil. That the 
existence of an army is an evil, cannot be denied; but the majority of sober- 
minded men appear to agree that it is a necessary evil, and that it would be 
imprudent to disband our army at present, even though Christianity is the 
professed religion of Europe. 
A mere glance at the military history of England is sufficient to show 
that the mischievous pressure of the navy on the army is no fanciful idea, 
but a well-founded fact. Erom the invention of gunpowder to the con¬ 
clusion of our continental wars in 1559, the English army was almost 
constantly engaged in the field abroad, and it was in consequence equal, 
if not superior, in all its branches, to any army in Europe. The navy 
had been also greatly improved and strengthened during these wars. On 
their close, the country was safe from invasion, and the army was neglected 
in all its branches until the time of William III. Indeed, the English' 
artillery employed in the civil wars of Charles I. was probably the worst in 
Europe. During the reigns of William III. and Anne, active service again 
increased the efficiency of the army; but on the conclusion of MarlborouglTs 
campaigns our army returned home, to languish in the cold shade cast upon 
it by our splendid navy until the outbreak of the Erench Revolution. It is 
true that in the interim our army had been engaged in the Seven Years' War and 
the American War of Liberation; but the number of troops engaged was too 
small, and the time they were on service was too short, to counteract to any 
appreciable extent the influence of the navy. On the breaking out of the 
Erench Revolution, however, it was absolutely necessary to bring, not only 
the navy, but the army to the highest degree of efficiency, because it was 
necessary for the army to take the field in force; and it was thus completely 
freed from the prejudicial influence of the navy from 1792 until 1815. I need 
hardly explain that the influence of the navy affected the army in all its branches, 
and that the artillery suffered no less from it than the infantry and cavalry. 1 2 
It is not difficult to trace the influence of the rapid progress of the arts and 
sciences, and of the appearance of Napoleon and his artillery generals, on the 
mobility of field artillery; and it is only natural to find that these two general 
causes first produced tangible effects in Erance, for from political causes she 
afforded the best field for their operation. At war with monarchy, the 
Republic could not brook Dulness. She had almost stifled Gribeauval ; 3 but 
she could no longer stifle enquiry, discussion, and invention; for the mother 
of invention was at hand, Necessity. 3 In Erance, then, naturally, the first 
feeble attempt to improve the field batteries was made; and as early as 1791, 
wurst, or car batteries were equipped and sent into the field. 4 The wurst 
1 The only writer who has dwelt on the influence of the navy upon the English army is, 
strange to say, a Frenchman—M. Brunet, in his “Hist. Generate de l’Artillerie,” Paris, 1842. 
Tom. II. p. 118. The subject is just mentioned by an anonymous writer in an old number of 
Colburn’s “United Service Magazine,” the date of which I forget; but from his language, I suspect 
he borrowed the idea from M. Brunet, and forgot to acknowledge his obligation. 
2 “ Les ameliorations les plus incontestables furent combattues, avec un deplorable aeharnemeut, 
par les nombreux partisans de l’ancienne routine,” says M. Maze, in his introduction to his trans*- 
lation of Jacobi’s “Etat actuel de l’Artillerie de campagne Anglaise,” p. viii. 
3 “ Ce n’est peut-etre qu’ a l’urgence des circonstances,” says Gen. Fave, quoting Scharnhorst, 
“qu’on doit attribuer l’accroissement qu’elle (the French artillery) re 9 ut.”—“Le Passe et TAvenir 
de l’Artillerie,” par S. M. Napoleon III., continued by Gen. Fave, Tom. Y. p. 12. 
4 “ Geschichte des Geschiitzwesens, &c.,” C. von Decker, p. 151. 
