Member of the Council of this Institution, and he also represented what none of the other persons whom I have hitherto named did represent, namely, its naval interestsI mean the late Sir Thomas Herbert, a distinguished member of the naval profession (applause).

Well, Sir, it is sad to enumerate so many losses of distinguished Members of the Institution, but we have one consideration which may afford us comfort,-which is, that though names of great weight have been withdrawn from our rolls, nevertheless, in actual numbers, the Institution has increased. On the first of January, 1861, the number of members was 3,518; on the first of January last it was 3,689; showing an increase of 171 members upon the year, which must, I think, be considered as a large increase, and as testifying to the advantages of this institution, and also-what I am afraid does not always accompany utility-the recognition of them (applause).

Gentlemen, it has been customary for the Chairman on these occasions to offer to the Members some general remarks upon the nature and effect of the Institution, and I should be unwilling to depart from that useful and advantageous custom. The object of the Society, as has been well stated by my friend who seconded the motion of thanks to me, and as is also apparent from your Report-the main object of this Institution is the promotion of naval and military science. This is not in the nature of a club, nor merely to promote meetings of Members, nor is it merely a museum, or simply a library, or merely a place for delivering lectures on scientific subjects; but it is a combination of these different branches for the purpose of promoting naval and military science (applause). Now it might perhaps seem to a superficial observer that there is scarcely anything which less admits of being reduced into the form of a science than war. It might be thought that war was a coarse, and brutal, and sanguinary pursuit, and that science would shrink away from all contact with anything so contaminating; now, gentlemen, if anybody should maintain such a proposition, he would maintain a proposition the very reverse of truth. For all experience has shown, from the earliest times, that no subject admits of more scientific treatment, and there is no subject in which success is more intimately connected with science and skill, than the conduct of war. If we go back into antiquity, perhaps the first important military nation that existed were the Spartans. We know how much of their ascendancy in Greece was owing to their well-organised, well-trained infantry-the heavy-armed soldier of the Spartans. We know how the small body of heroes at Thermopyle, the recital of whose heroism it is now scarcely possible to read without emotion, were able to resist the myriads of Persians who opposed them, and all died upon the field in defence of their country.

The next great military nation of antiquity were the Romans. The Romans owed their great power, and were enabled to conquer the entire civilized world, not by their numbers, but by their military science. It was by the constant training of their skilled soldiers-it was by their system of castrametation-it was by having a regular army and general commanders competent to the work of war-that they were enabled to overcome the whole civilized world.

Now, in order to illustrate what I have just been saying, and to show the very business-like way in which the Romans went to work in the affairs of war-how much they trusted to fieldworks, and to the fortifications of their camps, and the various things that would naturally escape the attention of a mere rude Oriental soldier-I will read, with your permission, a passage from the history of the Jews by Josephus, in which he expresses his admiration of the military system of the Romans, and describes it at some length. He thus illustrates, in a few lines, their military system. He says: "Each legionary soldier is armed with a helmet, a breastplate, and two swords, one considerably longer than the other; besides which he carries a spear and an oblong shield, together with the following articles: A saw, a basket, a spade, an axe, a leathern thong, a sickle, a chain, and provisions for three days. So that his load is scarcely less than that of a beast of burden." Such was the load of a Roman soldier, whom you may remember Virgil describes as surprising the enemy, notwithstanding the large weight which he carried:

"Injusto sub fasce viam cum carpit, et hosti

Ante expectatum patriis stat in agmine castris."

Although he laboured under these disadvantages, nevertheless he was active in the march and efficient in the field. But it must be admitted, I think, that the Roman kit was of considerable weight, and that the modern soldier has nothing to envy him in the weight which he carried in the field.

Well, gentlemen, I think no one will dispute that in antiquity it was the science of war that gave the predominance to the great military nation, and not the numbers of their population.

But when we come to modern times, what do we see with regard to the progress of military science? What do we see with respect to that great invention, the invention of gunpowder? The invention of gunpowder was followed by the invention of the gun; and any person who is acquainted with history must at once see that these two inventions have changed the whole face not only of military science, but also of the political world. It has been remarked by a great writer that the history of military science is a constant history of the encroachment of the means of attack upon the means of defence-that, as military science is more perfected, attack becomes more formidable, and defence less easy. That remark applies particularly to the great inventions of gunpowder and artillery. Places which were defensible in antiquitywhich might have set almost the whole world at defiance-are now, by means of an efficient battery-train, breached in a short time, and easily taken. Formerly, any person who was able to build a castle with strong walls, and to surround himself with an armed force covered with breastplates and helmets and greaves, was enabled to crush the liberties of a small community, and to set all attack at defiance. It was the great facility of defence and the feebleness of attack which rendered the tyranny of a few so much easier in antiquity and in the middle ages, before the invention of gun. powder, than it is at present. The invention of gunpowder and the perfection of artillery has had the constant effect not only of perfecting the science of war, but also has exercised a perpetually increasing effect upon the liberties and the government of mankind. (Applause.)

Now, with respect to the remark, which seems to me to be a just one, that the progress of military and naval science tends constantly to make attack more efficient and defence more difficult, I will call your attention to the great improvements in artillery during the last few years, the substitution of the rifle in our infantry for the smooth-bore musket, and the improvements introduced by Sir W. Armstrong in our heavy ordnance. We have, fortunately, perhaps I may say, not had any opportunity of trying these important inventions and improvements on a large scale. But I think it would be universally admitted that the tendency of these improvements has been to render attack more formidable and defence more difficult. There was one invention last year which perhaps may be considered as about equally balanced between attack and defence; I mean the plated ships-iron-clad ships. Now it seems to be established by the recent experiments at Shoeburyness, that the iron-plated ships can resist the most formidable artillery, even at a short distance; but a ship cannot be considered merely like a fort-simply for the purposes of defence, it may be used for purposes of offence; and an iron-clad ship may perhaps run under a battery, and be the means of making a formidable attack upon a wall from the sea to an extent which has never hitherto been attempted. Therefore I do not think that it can be said that this very important invention is any instance against the truth of the dictum, that military science tends to make defence on the whole less easy as compared with attack. Well, gentlemen, perhaps any person who looks at this tendency of military science may say, "Yes, we admit that war is the subject of scientific treatment, and that the army which is the best organised, and the best drilled, and the best armed, and the best commanded, although it may be inferior in numbers to the opposing force, will, nevertheless, prevail;" and may admit that a similar remark applies to a navy; but then," he may say, "you are the enemies of civilization and of humanity in increasing the destructiveness of all those warlike implements." I entirely differ from that view; I dispute the truth of any such remark; and, although it may seem paradoxical, I venture to assert that it is for the interest of humanity that war should be made as murderous as possible. (Hear, hear.) The great object of a nation when it goes to war is to bring that war to as speedy a termination as possible; and in order to make war short, in order to make it decisive, the weapons of war ought to be effective and capable of producing that effect at which war aims, namely, the destruction of the enemy. Well, in illustration of that, which I conceive to be an undeniable truth, I would ask any gentleman to contrast such a war as the Thirty Years' War, which lasted nearly the third of a century, which was marked at every period of its progress by the devastation of provinces, by the burning of towns, by the destruction of human life, by famine, by disease, by injuries to the civil population, and by every misfortune and every evil that can afflict an unhappy country;-I ask any gentleman to contrast a

war of that character, during the rude period of warfare, when it was carried on feebly and with ineffective organisation and unimproved arms-I ask him to contrast such a war as that with the war which took place two years ago in the north of Italy: it was sharp, it was short, it was in the nature almost of a duel between the two opposing armies, it lasted but a short time, the loss of life was confined to the combatants, and it did little injury to the theatre of war. (Cheers.) I think if any gentleman compares those two events he must bear tribute to what I conceive to be the truth, that it is for the interest of mankind that all the appliances of war should be made perfect, in order that when that great calamity comes (for all persons, whether they be soldiers or sailors, or whether they be civilians, must regard war as a great calamity) it may be brought to as speedy a decision as possible. (Applause). The means by which, in our modern communities, we bring about that result, is by having a trained body of men in the permanent employment of the State, commanded by officers who give their entire time to their profession, who make a profession of the science of war, and who, in their studies and in their pursuits, are assisted by such knowledge as it is the object of this Institution to promote (Hear, hear). Gentlemen, without a standing army, and, if I may use the expression, a standing navy, it is impossible that these results should be produced. We know, however, that at former periods of our history great objection was made to the institution of a standing army. It was thought that it was impossible to reconcile public liberty with a standing and organised body of armed men constantly in the pay of the head of the State. Well, gentlemen, I will not affirm that our ancestors, who were sturdy maintainers of liberty, and who created a system of which we enjoy the inheritance-I will not maintain that they were at that time wrong in their jealousy, or that their fears were exaggerated. There is no doubt that on the Continent the liberties of many nations were put down by a standing army; but in modern times in this country we are enabled to reconcile the maintenance of a standing army with the perfectly assured maintenance of public liberty. We are therefore enabled to enjoy what appears to me the inestimable advantage of a standing army conducted and commanded on scientific principles of warfare without any danger or harm to our Constitution. Nobody in these days-no rational man-entertains any fear that, for example, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge would march at the head of a battalion of the Guards into the House of Commons and order the mace to be removed from the table (laughter). The soldiers and officers of our Army and our Navy, in following their profession, never for a moment forget that they are citizens and subjects. Whatever fears, therefore, well grounded as they may have been at one time, may have been entertained with regard to the unconstitutional effects of a standing army, all those fears have now entirely vanished. We are able to enjoy, at the same time and concurrently, those two great advantages, the maintenance of our civil and public liberties and the continuance of an army trained, disciplined, and commanded by officers thoroughly conversant with all the branches of their profession, and a large number of whom have profited by the most advanced lessons of military science. Gentlemen, I am afraid I have encroached on your time at more length than I intended to do when I rose, but before I sit down I will only repeat my conviction of the benefits conferred upon the Army and Navy more especially, but generally also upon the public, by this Institution; and whatever opportunities I may have of contributing to its welfare I shall always make use of them.

*Including Annual Subscriptions, Entrance Fees, Donations, Legacies, and Interest
on Funded Property; and also the grant from Government, commencing in 1857.

B

WHO JOINED THE INSTITUTION BETWEEN THE 18TH FEBRUARY AND 4TH MARCH, 1861

(Accidentally omitted at Page 121, Vol. V.)