The part Sir John Horsford had borne in some of the severest service the regiment had been engaged in, his thorough knowledge of the profession, his high talents and commanding character, gave him great influence in the regiment, and secured for his opinions great weight with the authorities; and, had he been spared to exercise the command for a few years more, the regiment would undoubtedly have been placed on a far more efficient footing than it hitherto had been. From the time of Pearse’s death to Horsford’s succession to the command, no man of talent or influence had been at its head; and the consequence was, that while the other branches of the army were increased on a scale more adequate to their wants, the artillery was added to by driblets, kept in the lowest state, and its organization made a subject of continual experiment. Just before his death, Sir John Horsford submitted to the Marquis of Hastings a memoir, pointing out the faults which had thus been committed, and detailing the principles upon which the corps of artillery ought to be formed; going on from these principles through all the details, he presented a complete scheme of a regiment of artillery adapted to the wants of Bengal. His character insured attention to the subject, and the result was, that in the following year the corps was reorganized, not indeed upon the scale Sir John Horsford proposed, but upon the most efficient it had yet been. Major-General Hardwicke was appointed commandant in succession to Major-General Sir John Horsford. We must pause at this point for a time to consider a circumstance which was of great importance to the regiment,—the question of general officers of the ordnance branch being eligible to the general staff of the army. In the arrangements for remodelling the army in 1796, no doubt existed on the point. In the Minutes of Council, 5th June, 1797, it was directed that the artillery regimental command was to be held by the senior officer present, “not being a general officer,” and several artillery general officers had been employed on the general staff; such was the state of the case up to 1814, when the Court of Directors thought proper to annul the existing orders, for reasons which may be briefly thus stated:— 1st. That the services of the artillery and engineer generals are required by the state in their own departments. 2nd. That the practice, though not the theory (so to speak), of His Majesty’s service excludes ordnance generals from any employment on the staff.[71]