The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-02 00:00:00

GUNS AND GUNNERY.

ONE kindred and eleven years ago Mr. ROBINS
read a paper to the itoyal Society which
he concluded in the following remarkable
words :

I shall therefore close this paper with predicting that
whatever States shall thoroughly comprehend the nature
and advantages of riled-barrel pieces, and having facili-
wed and completed their construction, shall introduce
into their armies their general use, with a dexterity in the
management of them, they will almost equal anything that
has been (lone at any time by the particular excellence of
any one kind of arms ; and will, perhaps, fall but little
short of the wonderful etTeots which historians relate to
have keen formerly produced by the first inventors of
firearms.

These words were spoken in 1746, yet in 1854
Russia lost the battle of Inkermann, because
her army had not the rifle, a weapon which
England had only a few mouths before taken
into general use. In 182 General PAIXHANS
published a treatise on the general use of
shell-guns for naval purposes, yet America is
only now gradually feeling her way towards
the adoption of the system, while we content
ourselves with following in her footst-ps.
We could cite many other instances of in-
ventions neglected for years by Governments,
despotic, constitutional, and republican alike,
but the almost insuperable difficulty of in-
ducing a Government to take up any now in-
vention is too well known to require any
proof. We have mentioned one case in which
a great Power suffered most severely in con-
sequence of this, for us, happy reluctance to
avail itself of modern improvements On the
other hand, Russia's losses iu the Crimea were
balanced in some measure by our compelled
inaction in the Baltic. The safety of Cron-
stadt and Sweaborg may be fairly attributed
to the Government insisting upon devoting
tO.whole power of our dockyards to the
building of huge liners, postpunieg the con-
struction of gunboats till the war was nearly
over. Again, on the other hand, the basry adop-
tion of the Lancaster gun, and the exaggerated
expectations from it, and from our generally
improved gunnery, certainly contributed to
make us undertake the siege of Sebastopol
with ridiculously inadequate means. Thus
from two different opposite points, that of rash
adoption and reluctant appreciation, we arrive
at similar results.

The question involved is one of great national
importance, and the point, we think, is whether
we cannot hit upon some middle course be-
tween ill-considered experiment, and the total
neglect for a century of a principle an earlier
appreciation of which might have produced
results during our former wars curious to con-
template. How would the day have gone at
Bunker's Hill had our men been armed with
the Enfield or Whitworth ride ?

The principal objection to a change of arms
is that it necessitates vast expense, while, in

very short tune, by the general adoption of
the principle a temporary superiority is
destroyed. But there is a medium in
things ; and if the value of our accumulation
of warlike stores be so great as to render it
more economical not to change for any slight
though certain advantage, yet we should cer-
tainly make quite sure that no nation takes
any great stride before us. This is a step the
commonest prudence would dictate, but it is
one we have never adopted, and at this
moment are engaged, both at Enfield and
Woolwich, in directly reversing.
If by common consent, or from iden-
tity of motive, all great Powers were to
keep to the means of warfare now in
use, we could not do better than get well
into the routine of manufacturing all we
require in the cheapest and best way, which
would doubtless be by means of solid and
most expensive machinery. But who will
venture to say that no givat change will be
made in arms? The States of Europe seem
awakening to a knowledge that military science
has lagged behind the rest ; and under these
circumstances we should certainly guard
against the adoption of any system which, by
an enormous expenditure upon permanent
machinery, should add to that disinclination
to improvement already sufficiently developed
in our authorities. On this subject we should
do well to consider the opinions Captain
DuALoREN has expressed in his report on
gunnery to the United States' Government.
He visited Woolwich, and saw the beginning of
the new gun factory now being built to enable
Government to cast for itself all the guns
required. His remarks are as follows :
In countries like the United States and England, where
inlividual enterprise has such immense development, it is
hardly to be advised that the Government should volun-
tarily separate itself therefrom. It may by so doing be
better able to guard ageinst the injurious influences of the
contract system ; but the certain consequence of routine
in men and measures will more surely, though less openly,
produce greater evils. Let the private op,rstions be super•
vised with as much care as those of the Government, and
there will be no reason to be dissatisfied with the results.
A small experimental department would be highly benefi-
cial, where obscure and difficult investig iti )ns should be
scientifically conducted ; but to go further would be to
incur the danger of routine—that bane of improvement—
which of itself would be ruinous to the best conducted pri-
vate enterprises in the world.
Such an experimental department as Cap-
tain DAHLGREN recommends would be indeed
beneficial, and might, in fact, guide us in the
safe middle course between the too rash
adoption of novelties, and their total neglect,
at the risk of finding ourselves some day
attacked by an enemy whose arms shall bear
the same relation to ours as Enfield rifles to
Chinese bows and arrows. A scientific board
could thoroughly investigate every change
proposed, and the War Minister could then
determine whether the alvanta,ges to be
gained justified the loss consequent on the
waste of our accumulated stores ; or, if he de •
tertnined on not being the first to move, could
watch for the slightest sign of any rival Power
adopting a much improved weapon. It will
be asked, have we not already such a board ?
We answer, unhesitatingly, No! Neither in
the Army nor in the Naval Departments does
such a board exist. The Lords of the Admi-
ralty ordered a particular kind of screw-pro-
peller for the purpose of being tested in
Her Majesty's ship Dwarf. It was manufac-
tured by Mr. WHITWORTH, of Manchester,
under the superintendence of the patentee,
Mr. BENNETT Wooncaorr, and sent to Wool-
wich on the 26th of September, 1846, whero it
remained for years. It is now to be seen in
the South Kensington Museum, never having
been tried, although the blades of the screw
were made so that the pitch could be altered.
anti thus all those results arrived at which
were afterwards only approached by the use
of several screws in the Minx. This instance
is only a type of what constantly occurs
under both boards. The above, then, is not
such a board b.e we desire, nor is the
Select Artillery Committee exactly the
thing. Both may do for final deci-
sions, but their members have other par-
ticular duties to attend to ; indeed the Ar-
tillery Committee consists almost entirely of
heads of the departments in the Arsenal. How
can they spare time to investigate the thousands
ofproposals brought before them? They sit once