The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-08 00:00:00

TILE WJJITWORTII ORDIVANC'E.

foin Cte .11ornivg Tot.)
It is an expressive commentary upon the diffu-
sive tendency of knowledge in this age that three
English civilians—Lancaster, Armstrong, and
-Whitworth—we mention them in the order of their

inventive precedence—should have sought distinc-
tion in a field seemingly remote in the highest pos-
sible degree from the domains of civilian life, the
manufacture of ordnance and ordnance projectiles.
This is not mentioned in any sense of disparage-
ment or triumph ; not by way of imputing blame
to the !unitary- department ; but to direct attention
to a circumstance of some significance, whether
contemplated by ourselves at home or nations
abroad. The fact we would wish to bring into
prominence is this—that whilst there is hardly a
nation on the Continent where a civilian found
with so much as a small tin canister full of gun-
powder in his possession would not incur the dis-
pleasure of his Government ; if not worse—here so
great is the confidence reposed, so firm the cohe-
rence of the different strata of society ; so harmo-
nious the relations between military and civilian
life ; so little the jealousy between class and class ;
that civilians, far from being impeded and thwarted
when the bent of their genius' leads them to perfect
the appliances of war, are festered and encouraged,
and, when their schemes are really good, rewarded.
We would lay it down as a proposition not easily
to be controverted, and which can be enunciated
without imputing inordinate egotism or vanity to
the national character, that the happy social cir-
cumstance of this country beget for it a power to
which few nations may at present hope to aspire.
Co-operation means power ; but co-operation pre-
supposes confidence; and that confidence which
dares to allow civilians a knowledge of war secrets
can only subsist under the conditions of a harmo-
nious Government.
When the war department of a nation has once
decided in the most liberal spirit of science, not
merely to listen patiently to suggestions from
beyond its own special pale, but to solicit these
suggestions, to weigh them patiently, and to deal
honourably by them, it follows as a matter of
course that the committee before which new pro-
positions come will have devolved on its members
no small allotment of hard work. It follows, more-
over, that, inasmuch as the committee, owing mili-
tary allegiance, must not speak out, whereas dis-
appointed civilians may speak out, the committee
will often seem by the public to have been actuated
by envy, hatred, malice, and all the unchristian
vices, when, were it possible, a word of explanation
on their part would have set them right. What a
vicious world the sheep world would be if the
wolves had the painting of it ! What monsters of
iniquity the Ordnance Select Committee seem to be
when depicted by inventors turned rabid, because
that committee has refused to buy them at their
own price !

Of the three systems of rifled ordnance which
are now most prominently before the public some
explanations will now be given, with the especial
end in view of clearing away misapprehensions in
respect of each. With regard to Lancaster's, the
popular opinion is entertained that it has been tried
and found unsuccessful, than which nothing can less
accord with the circumstances of the case. During
the Crimean war his system was pressed into ope-
ration before either guns or ammunition was suita-
bly prepared for giving effect to it. Certain of the
Lancaster guns blew up in the Crimea, a circum-
stance which has been laid hold of to justify the
statement that they burst. Now they did not burst
in any proper acceptation of the term. At that period
the shells employed were made of two pieces welded
together ; the weld joint was occasionally imper-
fect, on which account the flash of the gun reached
the shell charge of powder (121 b.), and the shells
exploding within the guns blew off their muzzles.
There was no jamming of the shell as is commonly
supposed ; and, moreover, had the Lancaster guns
been strengthened, as they are now strengthened,
by a hoop round the muzzle they would
have remained sound even in spite of the
bursting of the shell. However, Lancaster
shells being now made of one piece, there can
be no premature ignition ; so Mr. Lancaster's
proposition is eliminated from an adverse col-
lateral element, which has tended to obscure the
merits of it. Here, in justice to Mr. Lancaster,
we must state that, with much proper feeling, he
did not give publicity to the fact to which we have
adverted, until the Government had formally given
him permission to do so. Accordingly the state-
ment was made before the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers on Tuesday last for the first time. So far
from the Lancaster system being abandoned, expe-
riments arc about to be recommenced with his rifled
ordnance, and according to the results of which the
adoption of his guns for special purposes will be
regulated. Here we would note the tendency of
the public mind to exclusive favouritism, a ten-
dency made evident during the recent discussions
in respect of rifled ordnance. It seems too com-
placently assumed that no two varieties of rifled
ordnance can, out of mere deference to their merits,
gain adoption in the same service at the same time.
Now, this is a mistake. If three or even more
inventors should succeed in devising and bringing
to bear each a variety of rifled cannon having a de-
sirable speciality, then there is no presumptive
reason why all three should not be adopted. For
exemple, there can be no doubt that, other circum-
stances being equal, breech-loading cannon present
advantages over muzzle-loading cannon. They
are more quickly charged, and can be worked from
casemated batteries and in ships' broadsides with
less exposure to the gunners than can muzzle-
loaders. These are clear and indisputable advan-
tages; but it is possible to conceive the expense of
manufacturing breech-loading guns so great, the
'difficulties attendant on that manufacture so con-
siderable, the possibility of keeping them without
de e,ioration so doubtful, that a muzzle-loader would
be practically better in the end. Moreover, con-
ditions of temporisation have to be held in view.
Granted that breechloaders are intrinsically best,
nevertheless it would be a great point to be enabled
to convert ordinary cast-iron smooth bore ordnance
into rifled ordnance, for the time being ; this,
amongst other things, is what Lancaster proposes
to accomplish.
There are two classes of inventors ; one compris-
ing those who discover new principles, another in-
cluding those who seize upon and collate the prin-
ciples known to others, and by force of wealth,
influence, and physical resources, combine those
principles so as to form a compound result. Both
classes are necessary in their way ; both may be
equally honest ; but the position as to rank and
honour of the two is very wide indeed. He who
comes forward with new principles is always en-
titled to respect; but the inventor of combinations
and adaptations is only to be encouraged and com-
mended so long as he candidly attributes-to others
the principles he has borrowed from them. So
soon as he arrogates to himself credit for principles,
under covert of popularity gained by combination,
he ceases to belong to the ranks of scientific men ;
and, if lured on by inspirations which either can-
not or will not bear the stern arbitraments of dis-
cussion and of time, such an inventor had better
pause before seeking rank amongst men of science,
lest they repudiate his claims and set him down for
a charlatan.
We have had occasion to speak of Sir William
Armstrong before—or rather his gun—so freely,
that no person will accuse the Morning Post of being
too favourable biased in that direction. It would
be, however, no less beyond our ability than it is
fa, from our desire, to impute, much less affirm,
that he takes an equivocal place amongst inventors:
Emphatically, he belongs to the ranks of men of
science. He started with the propositions of ac-
complishing breech-loading and of making an effec-
tive shell. He has done both ; and when, as in the
construction of his fuse, he had occasion to borrow
two principles—one from Bormann, the other from
Moorsom—that appropriation was never concealed.
Neither has Sir William Armstrong condescended
to win a spurious popularity by conciliating the
public taste in the only way that an artillerist
can do so, by merely accomplishing long ranges.
He commenced operations by adopting a mode
of ensuring accuracy between shot and gun (a lead
coating), against the adoption of which there was
much prejudice; and which we, amongst others,
thought ill of. Sir William had faith in in his
principles. Through bad repute and good repute
he stuck to them ; and results have justified him.
The past history of the Armstrong gun does much
credit to the inventor of it ; nor must a due award
of recognition be withheld from Mr. Aederson, of
Wool wieh Arsenal ; a gentleman who has brought
his inschenical skill so efficiently to bear upon Arm-
strong's problem, and has so ably seconded the
Ncweastic engineer in his labours,
It c fit clivJmstanc:s,bringit;g Mr. Whitworth's
ordnaneo filly into notice, drew from Sir '\Vmn.
Aini trong the statement that; great though the
ranges accomplidml by his cytvn ordnance un-
doubtedly .were, he had never formally gone in for
exclusive lung-range practice. Undoubtedly this
statement is correct ; but we wonder that Sir W.
Armstrong should have thought it worth while
to tickle the public fancy by mal:ing it. His ord-
nance can afford to stand on their own proven
cctiloluerelis-sittta:son.
nt
)AOl,l
tir.ei range guns,
within tile
(quality
c largea or
gssuontp. small, the mere
ernvudtesrheblli.nrgrhae
, smaller the bare, and the longer the shot, so pro-
, portienately the longer the ranee. Every mecha-
, nical problem involves limiting. conditions; and the
lieniting conditions to the diminution of bore, whe-
ther in small arms or artillery, are easily perceived.
In respect to artillery—suppose it'were possible to
shoot a twelve pound projectile from a tube no
bigger than a coil—how e. would the twelve-
-I°ll9

pound projectile need to be ? How rapidly must it
spin on its axis in order to keep point foremost
during its flight ? How soon would a quill-like
tube foul from the combustive results of exploded
gunpowder ? And lastly (granting, for the sake of
argument, any conceivable range), what harm would
any number of quill-like bolts do the walls of a for-
tress by penetrating or even transfixing them?
These are a few of the considerations which must,
necessarily influence any practical artillerist. Had
Sir W. Armstrong gone in for mere range, he would
have worked with guns of less calibre, for any par-
ticular weight, than he has done. He rightly ap-
preciated the fact that artillery power in these days
means shell-power; and, to be thoroughly efficient
for shell-power, a gun is required the calibre of
I which is not less than a certain measurement,
incapable of being stated exactly, but appreciable
within small limits nevertheless. So fully is this
fact understood, that Shrapnell shells are never
projected by Continental artillerists from smaller
smooth -bore tubes than twelve-pounders ; —so
thoroughly recognised, that, prior to the adoption
of rifled field-pieces in the French service, the
Napoleon gun, as it was called, was proposed to be
used in French field batteries exclusively. Now,
what was the Napoleon gun ? Why, a gun short
almost as a howitzer, so that large bore might be
combined with light weight. Range was thus offered
up as a sacrifice to competent shell capacity.
At this point we cannot do better than present
authentic measurements of the Armstrong guns,
preparatory to a comparison of them with the par-
ticulars of Mr. Whitworth's ordnance.
MEASUREMENTS OF ARMSTRONG ORDNANCE

Diameter of bore :-100 pounder, 7 inches ; 25 pounder,
3.75-inehes; 12 pounder, 3 inches ; 6 pounder, 2.5 inches.

MEASUREMENTS AND WEIGHT OF WHITWORTH'S
ORDNANCE AND PROJECTILES :-

The 3 pounder, minor axis, 1.48 inches; major do., 1.6 do.;
length, 6 feet ; weight, 1 cwt. 3 qrs. ; pitch of rifling, one
turn in 44 inches ; weight of shot, 2.751 b. ; length of shot,
615 inches ; charge of gun, 7 ounces. The 12 pounder,
minor axis, 2.8 inches; major do., 3.1 inches; length, 7.5
feet ; weight, 8 cwt. ; pitch of 'rifling, one turn in 5 feet ;
weight of shot, 121 b. ; length of shot, 9.5 inches • charge
of gun, I.7filb. The 80 pounder, minor axis,. clinches ;
major do., 5.3 do.; length, 10.5 feet; weight, 4 tons; pitch
of rifling, one turn in 8.5 feet; length of shot, 16 inches ;
charge of gun, 121 b.

Before arguing on the premises furnished by these
data, it will be necessary to draw attention to the
form of Mr. Whitworth's rifling and projectile.
That gentleman commenced by manufacturing rifled
arms, large and small, with hexagonal bores. In-
deed _the hexagonal bore came to be associated at
length with the name of Whitworth, as though he
were the- first manufacturer who had adopted it.
Nevertheless he has of late abandoned the hexagonal
bore. Hii recently constructed small arms and
ordnance have really a 12-sided rifling—the ordi-
nary diamond-grooved system of gunmakers in
point of fact. Mr. Whitworth's small-arm projec-
tiles actually fit the barrel throughout their whole
length ; but how little this remark applies to that
gentleman's ordnance bolts will be seen from an
inspection of the annexed woodcut—