It has been declared—and by many well able to judge, including the Duke of Wellington himself—that in many respects the Board of Ordnance was an excellent national institution and a source of economy to the country. It may be admitted that in its civil capacity this was the case, and the recent tendency to revive in the army something like the Civil Branch of the Ordnance proves that this opinion is general. But, if we take a more liberal view than that of mere Artillerymen, we must see that the military division of its duties was only saved from exposure and disgrace by the fact that the bodies of troops over which it had control were generally small and scattered. The command of the Royal Artillery, now that it has attained its present numbers, could not have remained vested in the hands of a Board constituted as the Board of Ordnance was. What General Officer could have hoped to weld the three arms of his division into any homogeneous shape, while one of them could quote special privileges, special orders, and sometimes positive prohibition, from a body to which they owed a very special obedience? The Royal Artillery may indeed have lost in little comforts and perquisites by the abolition of the Board of Ordnance, but in a military point of view, in proficiency, and in popularity, the Regiment has decidedly been a gainer. While admitting, however, the advantages, nay, the necessity of the change which has taken place, the long roll of distinguished soldiers and statesmen who have successively held the office of Master-General of the Ordnance is too precious an heirloom in the eyes of an Artilleryman to let pass without special notice and congratulation. From 1483, the earliest date when we can trace one by name, down to the days of the Crimean war, when the last Master-General died in harness, the brave, gentle Lord Raglan, the list sparkles with the names of men who have been first in Court and field, and who have deserved well of England.