The wisdom of the change which put Generals and the Ordnance Corps under one head might have been proved by _à priori_, as it has been by _à posteriori_ reasoning; and this trifling episode between Admiral Boscawen and the Board is interesting, as showing that, thirty years after the Regiment had been called into existence, the Dual Government of the Artillery was already producing natural consequences. But it is also interesting, as manifesting the affection which the Board already evinced for the child they had begotten—an interest sometimes too paternal, but never unlovely. An excellent letter from the principal officers of the Ordnance is extant, urging the claims to Army Rank of the officers of the Artillery, which had been again questioned by some belonging to the other arms of the service. The difficulty was, in a very few years, settled by the King, in place of the Master-General, signing the commissions of Artillery officers; but this letter from the Board is interesting, as pleading, on grounds of justice and in language far warmer than could have been expected, the claims of the corps which they had created. The letter bears date 24th February, 1744, and, after quoting the decision in favour of Artillery officers arrived at by the King in 1724, and confirmed in 1735, and mentioning two Courts-martial held in 1737 and 1742, at which officers of Artillery sat with those of the other arms, according to date of Commission, goes on to say that, notwithstanding these facts, there are not wanting those who deny any military status to Artillery officers in the field. The writers then state a case, to show the absurdity of the view objected to:—"If a Captain of Artillery, with a number of guns and Artillery people, should happen to be escorted by a Lieutenant of a Regiment on Foot, with a number of men belonging thereto, the Captain (according to the sentiments of those with whom we differ) must take his orders from the Lieutenant, which he would, with reason, think a great hardship; for the Lieutenant would not obey one whom he deems to be no more than a titular Captain, and who, he is taught to believe, has no rank in the Army. And if the said Lieutenant should be killed, and the command devolve to the eldest sergeant, according to the notion before mentioned, the Captain of Artillery must take his orders from the said Sergeant of Foot,—the consequence of which is so obvious, that we need not enlarge upon it." "But further, my Lord, should this opinion prevail, it would be a total discouragement to the officers of Artillery, as well as highly prejudicial to His Majesty's Service."