where war was made upon the grandest scale, and its maxims were sanctioned by the most enlarged experience."

Now, I should really like to know what were the discoveries made, or what new maxims were established by the most enlarged experience here spoken of? And then who is the modern continental writer who can be placed even by the side, much less above Napier; for Von Kairns, the only foreign name worth mentioning, has yet written too little, great as his talents are, to entitle him to such a station. We are proud of our historian, and naturally jealous of his fame, and not disposed to see him rated beneath any continental writer, merely because it may suit a reviewer to affect a knowledge of foreign military literature. Napier has his faults, no doubt; and it is no ordinary fault in my eyes, that he attempts to raise and uphold great military reputations, without showing any just tactical foundation for such brilliant structures; but he is, nevertheless, the first military writer of his day, and the ablest military historian that has appeared since the time of the Ancients. If not with just appreciation perhaps, I say this, at least, with a full knowledge of what Strada, Davila, Frederick, and Lloyd, have written, though I consider the last to have taken a juster view of tactics than Napier has anywhere given proofs of.

Medical Department.

MR. EDITOR,-Your last Number contains a series of COMMENTS from a correspondent, SENEX, of which I think it necessary to take some notice; containing, as they do, various charges against me on questions connected with the public service. I subjoin therefore some remarks in reply, to which, with this letter, I request you will be good enough to give insertion in your next Number. As my only object at present however is to vindicate the accuracy of my former statements with respect to the Medical Department of the army, I have not thought it necessary to take any notice in these remarks of the personal observations and innuendoes, so plentifully introduced by Senex among his comments. Nor have I ventured to touch upon any topics of public interest but those which immediately relate to myself, being necessarily limited on this occasion both with respect to time and space. To this cause also I must beg of Senex to attribute any other omissions he may discover in these Remarks; and not to any disinclination on my part to do justice to his merits, as I shall if necessary take another opportunity of evincing. M. M.

London, August 15, 1831.

REMARKS IN REPLY TO SENEX, &c.

1st, In his first paragraph, amidst a great deal of matter, the point or application of which I do not pretend to understand, Senex endeavours to show that I am in error in retaining in my "tabular form," as he is pleased to express it, assistant-inspectors and staff assistant-surgeons; such titles being, as he would have us believe, no longer in use.

Now with respect to the first of these titles it is only necessary for me to observe, that it was re-established by the warrant of 1830, and that it is made use of in every Army-List-and with respect to the employment of the word staff in conjunction with assistant-surgeon, as objected to by Senex, my authority for that, if any such authority be wanted, may be found in the Royal Gazette, where the phrase in question constantly appears. A little reflection, however, would have been sufficient to satisfy any man of moderate capacity that the employment of the word staff in my table was not only proper but necessary; for as there are now two classes

* Page 541, Part II. for 1831.

+ Page 227, Part II. for 1831.

of assistant-surgeons in the army, viz. staff assistants and regimental assisttants, it follows as a matter of course that the distinctive title must be added, whenever one of these classes is spoken of to the exclusion of the other, as upon the occasion in question.

2nd, Senex next intimates that I have been guilty of two errors with respect to the London Medical Board,-first, in enumerating an assistantinspector as a part of that board; and secondly, in omitting all notice of the secretary, the third in rank, according to Senex, of that body.

With respect to the secretary it cannot be necessary for me to say much; for having in the title prefixed to my paper expressly announced that the observations therein contained had reference solely to the medical officers of the army, it must be evident I could not with propriety introduce persons who certainly do not belong to that class, whatever Senex may think or may say to the contrary. Any little error, however, committed by him on this point, is more than compensated for by a piece of intelligence contained in the same paragraph with respect to the assistant-inspector; who is, we are told, an officer of the Board, and not a part of the Board as erroneously stated by me; a remark no doubt of great value, and particularly so as indicating on the part of Senex a degree of acuteness and research, for which we might not otherwise have felt inclined to give him credit.

3rd, The next charge is, that I have confounded together staff surgeons and the surgeons of recruiting districts; or that I suppressed or was ignorant of the fact, that many of the staff surgeons enumerated by me were "attached to recruiting districts" and employed merely for recruiting purposes.

Now of the candour which dictated this charge the reader may speedily satisfy himself by turning to my original paper; in which he will find, that of fourteen staff surgeons therein enumerated not less than ten are at the same time set down as attached to recruiting depôts, and that for the purpose specially of attendance on the recruits and parties. And wherever in these kingdoms a staff-surgeon is otherwise employed than for recruiting purposes, the same is particularly pointed out; it being one of my objects to show that no staff-surgeons are employed at home for general purposesthat is, attached to General Officers in the command of districts, for the purpose of accompanying them on their half-yearly tours of inspection, and maintaining by their personal superintendence one uniform system of action in regimental hospitals. There was no omission on my part therefore, for the above inference was manifest, and it would have been out of place in me then to have touched upon the system which has been introduced instead of that which ought to exist-a system in which reports and returns are substituted for personal superintendence, and clerks and secretaries take the places of staff-surgeons and deputy-inspectors; to the great prejudice of the service, and the disgust of all good men belonging to it.

4th, I am next instructed," that a strange anomaly has been acted upon in Ireland for many years past;" namely, "the service of two medical staffs, the Irish army medical staff, and the staff forced into the country as a recruiting district staff."

This very anomaly, however, which Senex thus takes credit to himself for pointing out, and thus by implication censures me for having overlooked, is distinctly referred to in my paper as a part of that system of misrule, which has produced so much discontent amongst the medical officers, and brought so much discredit upon the medical administration of our army. There is nothing new therefore in the statement of Senex on this point, nor any difference of opinion between us with respect to the existence of the evil; but we do differ widely as to its cause, and still more, I fear, with respect

As there are now two classes of Surgeons, viz. staff-surgeons and regimental surgeons, both with the same rank.

My words are, "of which he thus in a manner constitutes a part."

to the remedy to be adopted. For the existence, the long-continued existence of this unjust anomaly, is not to be attributed, as he intimates, to any acts of usurpation on the part of the English Medical Board, in forcing into the country some staff-surgeons; but to a culpable degree of neglect, to say no more, on the part of those whose duty it was to force out of the service all men, in Ireland as well as in England, who were not prepared when called upon to do their duty in any part of the world.* And this brings us to our remedy,-an equality of rights and of duties, an equal administration of the law,-a remedy which no man will object to in theory, although many may be found bold enough or stupid enough to neglect it in practice. But the spirit of inquiry is abroad, and the hand of reform already in motion amongst us; and Senex and his colleagues on both sides of the water, for we have our Senes here also, may rest assured that gross abuses, even in our department, will no longer be tolerated merely because they are old, nor submitted to in silence merely on account of their paternity.+

5th. The next paragraph presents us with a specimen of good faith and discretion on the part of Senex, as remarkable as any we have yet noticed— of good faith in imputing to me faults I did not commit, and of discretion in bringing forward charges so easily refuted, as this and others of the same kind may be, by a simple reference to the passages upon which they are founded. For I am here charged with having put down ten assistant-surgeons as doing DUTY at Chatham, a thing quite ridiculous, as Senex truly says; whilst my words on that very point are, that "one half at least of these gentlemen may be considered as supernumeraries," retained at the place as a reserve to meet contingencies, or for the purpose of receiving instruction, &c. Nor can any doubt exist with respect to the charge being founded on the passage here quoted, for the assistant-surgeons at Chatham are not spoken of or alluded to by me in any other place.

6th. In speaking of the London Medical Board, (p. 228,) I took advantage of the opportunity to recommend a certain change in the constitution of that body, which has long been called for; and which, among other advantages, would, I said, have the effect of introducing amongst the members "a more due degree of subordination" than exists at present. My object therefore could not be mistaken, for subordination cannot of course exist amongst persons equal in rank and independent of each other. Nevertheless, Senex, taking advantage of one expression in the very sentence where the above quoted passage occurs, advances next against me the charge of having recommended the formation of a Board consisting of coequal and independent members; for such was the "notable expedient" to which he alludes, as having been "tried and weighed and found deficient" in the time of Sir Lucas Pepys and his colleagues. That Senex knew what the constitution of the defunct Board had been there can be no doubt, nor can any exist as to his conviction with respect to that recommended by me. With what object then could he thus confound together things which he knew to be so dissimilar?-with what object but to impute to me a proposal he knew I did not make, and to raise thereon against me a charge he knew to be unfounded? But it is not, I feel, necessary to pursue this theme, for the reader must now be qualified to do justice himself to the motives, ability, and veracity of Senex as a commentator. With him then be the

I need not say to what an extent this system has been already carried with the British medical staff-the Gazettes furnish sufficient proof of that.

+ Senex returns in a subsequent part of his communication to the Irish medical establishment, for which he manifestly entertains a peculiar fondness; but as he advances nothing in any manner contradictory of any thing really stated by me, I do not think it necessary at present to notice more particularly what he says on that subject.

judgment; but let not Senex despair, for the advocate of abuses will always find friends; and in an hour of danger, like the present, even his aid may not be altogether rejected or despised.

London, Aug. 15th, 1831.

Purveyor's Department.

M. M.

MR. EDITOR, A correspondent (I. B.) in the last Number of the Service Journal (p. 105) has thought proper to arraign some observations lately made by me on the Purveyors Department of the army; and that for the purpose of showing, as he states, that "my opinion is fallacious," and that the present order, system or arrangement, with respect to that department, is not only "natural" and "judicious," but that it cannot even "be disturbed" without "introducing irregular deviation from the usual method of things," and "confounding opposite duties," and producing" consequent injury to the service," &c. &c.

A little investigation" however, as I. B. says, will I trust be sufficient to show, that any opinions delivered by me on this subject cannot be much affected by the observations of one, who seems to think a system should be tolerated and supported for the very same reasons which might lead others to imagine that it should not.

Thus if Purveyors be, as I. B. alleges they are "to all intents and purposes, medical attendants or stewards to the sick;" it would seem to follow that they ought not to be at the same time commissioned officers, (as they now are,) and that too with rank and pay superior perhaps to those of the very officers under whom they as "stewards or attendants" must serve.

Nor can a person of ordinary comprehension understand how a system can be esteemed "natural" and "judicious," under which the same individual who performs, as we are told, at one moment the part of "steward or attendant" in a hospital; is authorised at the next to assume the office of master, and regulate or direct "the administrative management and economy" of the very same establishment. Still less can we understand how this anomaly can be considered as furnishing grounds for maintaining the very system under which it exists, as our correspondent pretends.

Nor does it follow, as I. B. would have us believe, that the "Purveyors Department" must remain distinct and unconfused from those of the Commissariat," because "the functions of the Purveyor are more varied, and combine if possible more arduous and more important objects than those of the commissary"-for the latter assertion is not true, and if true it would furnish no support to the former.

Nor can I discover by what process of reasoning I. B. has arrived at the conclusion, that a Purveyor " is indispensable" in a general hospital, to" cooperate" and act "in conjunction with the apothecary;" seeing that the apothecary himself is no longer thought indispensable, and that even the rank and title are, or are about to be, abolished in the army.*

But enough of these absurdities; into which a man has been led by attempting to defend a bad cause, and a cause moreover the real merits of which he does not understand. For the question now at issue has no relation to the multifarious and inconsistent duties detailed by I. B. from the puerile" Instructions for the Management of General Hospitals;" but has for its object to determine whether two distinct and independent establishments are to be maintained in our service; namely, one to procure, retain in charge, and issue provisions and other necessaries for the army in general, the Sick even included; and another to perform the very same duties for a

* Can it be true also, as I. B. states, that there are now only three deputypurveyors employed out of the whole department, whilst the army lists for some months have given the names of just double that number?

small portion of the same sick, under circumstances which but rarely occur, and which when they do occur may be otherwise provided for without any difficulty.*

Upon this subject however it is not now necessary to enlarge; it is sufficient for us to have directed attention towards it, the attention of the public, the attention of those from whom the remedy must flow. But we will say, that in the application of that remedy, either to this or to any other of the many abuses under which the Medical Department of the army is supposed to labour, care should be taken not to inflict undeserved injury on any one, or to sacrifice guiltless individuals for the public good. Let systems perish if they be found injurious to the public service, if they be unjust, extravagant, unnecessary or inefficient; but let not those who hold office under them, and who have been guilty of no fault, perish at the same time; for their rights cannot be impaired or affected by any misconduct or incapacity on the part of those by whom such systems may have been introduced or supported. M. M.

London, Sept. 10.

Ship's Ordnance-Suggestion for increasing the weight of shot.

MR. EDITOR,-The advantage of heavy over light shot is so evident, and so fully illustrated, that numerous heads have been employed to invent effective ordnance of light weight, but large calibre; thus, in succession, have carronades, Congreve's, and a variety of other guns, been supplied to our ships-of-war, and still an efficient gun is wanting.

Without the vanity to conceive that I can supply that which so many able men have failed in, I wish to point out what may make our present ordnance more formidable, simply by reducing the windage now allowed our heavy shot, by which we shall gain the advantage of heavier shot, and greater precision in firing, (two material points,) without the slightest alteration in the weight, or formation of the gun from which they are propelled.

One-twenty-seventh of the diameter of a shot being allowed for windage, it occurs to me, that if that be sufficient for six pounds or twelve pounds shot, it is more than requisite for thirty-twos, forty-twos, and sixty-eights, and that by increasing them to about thirty-three pounds, forty-three and a half pounds, and seventy pounds, they will do much more execution; the line of fire will be more accurate; and a portion of the force of the powder which now escapes, be applied to the shot, and increase its velocity. This latter, I am aware, I may be told would be no advantage, as our present charges produce the initial velocity of 16,000 feet per second, which is calculated as the most effective; but where that velocity can be acquired with a reduced charge, the benefit is obvious.

The objections to be urged are, that the resistance or pressure on the breech would be increased, and the consequent recoil greater; also, that the shot might so increase from rust as not to enter the gun.

Experience having shown that our long guns are equal to double shotting;

Purveyors, that is Hospital-Commissaries, never can be necessary but with an army in the field; and even there they never are at liberty to purchase or contract for any thing which the general Commissariat of the army can furnish.

Can a distinct department then be required to meet such rare contingencies-or can such officers be wanted in times of peace, and in garrisons even where there are no sick to be provided for by them? The thing is too gross.

It is not however, pretended that the present writer was the first who directed public attention to this subject; for Jackson in 1803 and 1805, and the Commissioners of Military Inquiry in 1808, in their celebrated Fifth Report, particularly noticed and condemned the Purveyor's department. The patronage however of such a department, to which any man might be appointed who could read and write, was too good a thing to be given up at any time-such must be taken away.

U. S. JOURN. No. 35. Oct. 1831.

S