unt given by the ingenious author of the Exercise for the
Norfolk Militia.

"The first muskets were very heavy, and could not be fired without a
rest; they had matchlocks, and barrels of a wide bore, that carried a
large ball and charge of powder, and did execution at a greater
distance.

"The musketeers on a march carried only their rests and ammunition,
and had boys to bear their muskets after them, for which they were
allowed great additional pay.

"They were very slow in loading, not only by reason of the
unwieldiness of the pieces, and because they carried the powder and
balls separate, but from the time it took to prepare and adjust the
match; so that their fire was not near so brisk as ours is now.
Afterwards a lighter kind of matchlock musket came into use, and they
carried their ammunition in bandeliers, which were broad belts that
came over the shoulder, to which were hung several little cases of
wood covered with leather, each containing a charge of powder; the
balls they carried loose in a pouch; and they had also a priming-horn
hanging by their side.

"The old English writers call those large muskets calivers; the
harquebuss was a lighter piece, that could be fired without a rest.
The matchlock was fired by a match fixed by a kind of tongs in the
serpentine or cock, which, by pulling the trigger, was brought down
with great quickness upon the priming in the pan, over which there was
a sliding cover, which was drawn back by the hand just at the time of
firing. There was a great deal of nicety and care required to fit the
match properly to the cock, so as to come down exactly true on the
priming, to blow the ashes from the coal, and to guard the pan from
the sparks that fell from it. A great deal of time was also lost in
taking it out of the cock, and returning it between the fingers of the
left hand every time that the piece was fired; and wet weather often
rendered the matches useless."

While this was the state of firearms, and this state continued among
us to the civil war, with very little improvement, it is no wonder
that the long-bow was preferred by sir Thomas Smith, who wrote of the
choice of weapons in the reign of queen Elizabeth, when the use of the
bow still continued, though the musket was gradually prevailing. Sir
John Haward, a writer yet later, has, in his History of the Norman
Kings, endeavoured to evince the superiority of the archer to the
musketeer: however, in the long peace of ki