The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-27 00:00:00

_____ _ -
___...„.....„
_____
_,,,.....,
, -
/7._ •
• ...
„,, _ _...
.....,
, ....... 'a, ,',..
•,.•
... . ....-• - ..... -
. . ,
- -4- ,- ) ")/4,/.11
. . , . . ......_ ...
• . ,
-'.. J. 41-4111
.1. ..11',4%., ' Aci.. .. ,•••••--- . ,-...,
,\‘''l'\l ~, '-' . ...',,s "et,.:n '1[1:36%.):;:3tt ' '.. ' • ....." \k‘t," , 2.,,,.251,,..4... 7 „
-.;; AB*
IC*;,-... -1.4.;, Cr . , --, C. () =,, ~ , . .
41
1 1.
• ,,
.I'.
~. kt, ' ' ,„11,-,--,---„, -, -i-,W,,,,,i,,- 4, *.:.
.j3\.
~..
~
.1r) i ii----. ',..' killelb4-.."''..""
411111 r l'4*‘''''""nin'."." ;;*
. ;. sr ' ;
* ) . ,t- q.,-_ cf,„-.,,,c--H.,... '; /,, ii,.../...........,..................Hip-----i.,,,,,_,T,. I'"
~-: .7.
4•
\ •.., ....,
N-:-.; .411. ' V '-' '-‘,.. 111 I: I j,V&) ~.. - ". ......
-s - „ , --.'' i‘
~/-., 1,4 '
-'-'--;';;;" 0-1

PRICE .4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

part of this letter. The breaking down of the naval
40-pounders, to which he alludes, was nothing more
than the necessity which arose for twice replacing
the copper ring at the breech, injured by the break-
ing of the vent-pieces.
Shot, shell, and fuses for the guns Captain Hal-
sted condemns en masse as " delicate and compli-
cated chemical and; mechanical compounds," and
then proceeds as follows :—" At the second shot
fired at tho Trusty on the 28th of Sept., 1859," (he
being present), " the right rear man at the gun was
blown down by explosion from the plug aperture of
the breech, which, in that first gun, was at the side.
He was picked up scorched, the hair of his face burnt
off, and his sight temporarily injured." Now why
cannot the simple truth be told, which is, that a man
standing near the side aperture of the breech had
his whiskers and serge frock singed ? The blowing
down and picking up are dramatic ornaments which
I shall charitably ascribe to the same decorative
style of writing that " nearly killed" Capt. Hodson
at Shoeburyness. I was a close observer of what
took place, and Capt. Sir Wm. Wiseman and Capt.
Hewlett, who were also present, and to whom I
have applied, confirm the accuracy of my statement.
For my part, I was as much alive as Capt. Halsted
could be to the objection of this lateral escape of gas
at the breech ; and I may inform Capt. Halsted
that this very experimental gun, which he takes up
again after two years to swell his condemnation of
service guns, was the precursor of one in which all
the defects of the original were removed, and whose
extraordinary rapidity of firing was chronicled in
your columns about a fortnight ago.
Capt. Halsted, indeed, goes on to say that " to
this day the 100-pounder delivers its rear explosion
with the same force as then." This would, doubtless,
have been so had I treated the case with his impa-
tience ; but, notwithstanding his assertion, I am en-
abled to say that by the use of cups or saucers, as he
facetiously terms them, the escape of gas is com-
pletely arrested in these large guns. Recent experi-
ments at Shoeburyness have shown that pieces of
white paper may be laid close up to the joint with-
out exhibiting any stain of powder smoke. It was
while waiting the result of experiments on this
subject that I was lately induced to apply to Sir G.
Lewis to suspend, for a short time, the issue of the
100-pounder guns.
Captain Halsted next states that, "in order to
lift in the vent-piece of the naval 100-pounder, two
men must stand upon the gun-carriage in so elevated
a position as to be wholly exposed to rifle aim."
This is not the case; by passing a staff through the
rings of the vent-piece it is easily lifted by the men
while standing on the level of the deck.
I now arrive at his summary of " inherent de-
fects," which I shall very quickly dispose of.
1. He says, " the gun cannot be loaded at the
muzzle." I might as reasonably object to a muzzle-
loading gun, that it cannot be loaded at the broach ;
if, however, it be an object, which I do not concede,
to have the alternative of loading at the muzzle, I
need only rifle my breech-loader on my shunt system,
and it becomes a muzzle-loader also. The gun which
fired the other day 51 rounds at the rate of one in
26 seconds was a gun of that kind.
2. He says "the gun cannot be double shotted."
There is not the least difficulty in using two flat-
ended shots; but why should this be done when a
single percussion shell would be ten times more
effective ?
3. He says the gun cannot throw an incendiary
(Martin's) shell. Here he is utterly wrong, for even
the lead-covered shell, to say nothing of the ribbed
one, has been successfully fired with molten iron in
both 40-pounders and 100-pounders; in fact, targets
are at present being built for a continuance of the
practice.
4. He alleges that the gun " cannot be used with
reduced charges for fear cZ the effects of air space."
If Capt. Halsted had attended the ricochet firing at
Woolwich, he would have seen all sizes of my guns,
from 40-pounders downwards, used with every
variety of charge, from a few ounces up to the full
service quantity.
5. He declares that " within certain limits of dis-
tance the gun cannot be used to cover either troops
or boats with shot or shell, for fear of the lead which
strips from all the projectiles, as proved on service
in China, and as openly admitted by the author
himself in May last." Really I thought that on
the occasion to which Capt. Halsted so strangely re-
fers, I had succeeded in showing the hollowness and
absurdity of this objection. I stated that the lead
could be, and had been so absolutely fixed to the
projectile as to render separation impossible. I pro-
duced specimens of shells, both exploded and entire,
in proof of this. I showed that the military autho-
rities had had their choice whether the lead should
be thus absolutely fixed, or be in some degree separ-
able, so as to produce more fragments on the burst-
ing of the shell. They have made their choice, and
must be considered the best judges of what are the
requirements of the service. If Captain Halsted
can persuade them that they have chosen wrong, it
is open to thom to modify their decision in any way
they please ; but as they have been offered any de-
gree of adhesion, I do not see how I can be respon-
sible for their decision, though I believe they have
decided rightly.
I think I have now answered every point ad-
vanced in Captain Halsted's letter, and have only to
direct the attention of your readers to the spirit in
which that and other attacks on the gun have been
written. It is singular to be placed in a position
where not only facts are invented by ray assailants
against me, but my own inventions are turned against
me too. I find myself suddenly reproached with
improvements. Finality is a word which ought to
be unknown to practical science, and yet I am con-
demned to the prospect of seeing every future in-
vention I may make in the service of the country
treated as a condemnation by myself of its pre-
cursors. It actually seems to be the object of some
antagonists to prevent me from working at all.
Captain Halsted himself does not write as a critic,
but as a downright uncompromising opponent. He
acknowledges no one advantage in my system. The
lightness of the guns, their precision of fire, their
length of range, the extraordinary power of the
shell in its different forms, as shown against every
variety of object, are all passed over in silence,
while every appearance of failure (experimental or
otherwise) is exaggerated and dressed up in highly
coloured language, calculated to mislead the un-
informed. He oracularly pronounces " radical" or
" inherent" the defects which he attributes to
the gun ; yet he suggests no substitute for what he
condemns, and offers no new idea to aid the solu-
tion of a problem in which all are interested. But
there are some objections—by far the most loudly
and persistently repeated—which come from more
disingenuous assailants. Statements absolutely
false, contradicted officially by Ministers In Parlia-
ment, and by myself,
.as author of the gun, are
adduced again and again, whenever the refutation
is likely either not to have been seen or
_to have
been forgotten. For instance, despite the most
authoritative denials, it is asserted and re-asserted
that the guns failed in China, and that casualties
occurred from the stripping of the lead. One paper,
the Mechanics' Magazine—into whose motives for
continual misrepresentation I do not trouble myself
to inquire—on the let of March last actually pre-
sented its readers with an imaginary summary
(pointed with marks of quotation) of a " confiden-
tial despatch" sent home by Major Hay, in which
the gun was said to have been spoken of in con-
demnatory terms, to have been withdrawn from
action at a critical moment, and to have occasioned
casualties to our men. It further informed its
readers—not for the first time—that the average
cost of the guns was £2,000. Mr. Baring, Under-
Secretary for War, gave a flat denial to all these
statements from his place in Parliament on the 14th
March last. "No casualties occurred" in China, and
Major Hay's report was of a directly opposite na.
ture. "The gun," says Major Hay, " was the adnn-
I ratio of all." Mr. During further told the 13.01130

_s‘ll,l%'SPAPEit

,ze„
4,.
..,
-.
, ~.,, ,ge
,-. tr,
_,...„ -- k
......, ~,;...
01,4 P, -- -14
~,, ~
(
~.,_,,A,,,i____, A -,1
'i '''-'1614t -

that tho prie6 of tha it
Annstronp; guns was._ Y-
in spite of al! these rebuffs—in*iteg Lc Her-
bcrt'u declaration, founded on the China deepatches,
that "we had the best gun iu the world"—in spite
of the testimony to its efficiency and value given on
every public occasion by the Commander-in Chief of
the expedition—in spite of Major Hay's published
letter to myself, which I subjoin,* the Nechanics'
Magazine insinuated, and still insinuates, that
the Government " suppressed" the truth ; that
Major Hay's despatch had been written in the
sense they had affirmed, and that Government in-
fluence was used to prevent China officers from
speaking. In their number or the 18th ult. I find
this strange statement, the disingenuousness of
which is quite monstrous :—" Mr. Baring, the
Under-Secretary for War, in his elaborate speech
on the War Estimates,showed that each Armstrong
gun had cost on an average £2,160, thus proving
that we were sufficiently guarded in our state-
ments." I feel slow to impute animus to anybody
far less to a journal which represents mechanicians,
but I am compelled to speak strongly about mis-
statements so deliberate and so repeated.
Fern such attacks as these I appeal to common
sense. Vague and groundless insinuations, thrown
out by random writers, who may, for anything I
know, be unscrupulous as well as misinformed,
should not be allowed to excite public alarm. It is
said that there ought to be a Committee of Inquiry.
I can have no objection,though no prinza facie case
against the gun exists at all. But let it be remem-
bered that a Committee of Inquiry is, and always
has been, sitting on my gun. The Committee ap-
pointed by Government to superintend and control
all matters relating to ordnance have their atten-

Lion continually devoted to it in every detail. All
the facts I have mentioned above are known to
them. Supposing then, that I were dishonest
enough to wish to conceal anything from the pub.
lie—supposing that two successive Governments,
and their Ministers at War, were weak enough to
have been throughout misled—surely no one in his
senses will believe that this Ordnance Select Com-
mittee, and those many scientific officers who are
engaged in daily practice and experiment with the
gun, and who are bound to report to Government
their experience of it, are so deluded and so infa-
tuated as to concur in foisting an inefficient weapon
on the country.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, Nov. 25. W. G. ARMSTRONG.

" 2, Coates-crescent, Edinburgh, 25th March, 1861.
" Dear Sir William,—It was not my intention to have
taken any notice of the article which appeared in the
Mechanics' Magazine of the Ist of March, headed The
Armstrong Gun,' it being so utterly at variance with the
substance of my actual reports.
" But my attention halving been called to an article in the
Morning Post (22d March), copied from the Mechanics'
Magazine of the previous week, commenting on the speech
made by Mr. Baring when laying the Army Estimates be-
fore the house, in which the writer in the boldest way
challenges the production of my report to substantiate, 1
imagine, his former statement, I am induced to write to
you, in order that you may, should you deem it necessary,
contradict in any way the statements contained in those
articles.

" The Armstrong guns in China rendered the most valu-
able service, being always in the most efficient and service-
able condition, although put to very severe tests. They
were never withdrawn from action and their places sup-
plied by others ; on the contrary, the Armstrong guns were
invariably the first to be ordered up when artillery was re-
quired. At Tongchow, on the 14th of August, and again on
the 21st, at the capture of the Upper North Taku Fort, the
Armstrong batteries were firing over the heads of our in-
fantry in advance, and the guns never ceased firing in con-
sequence of any casualty to our men—quite the reverse ;
those guns continued firing while the infantry advanced to
' storm the enemy's works. It would have been most sur-
prising if slight alterations had not suggested themselves
in both guns and ammunition, considering that they were
being tried for the first time, and that they were most
jealously watched by all.
"In fact, from tho instructions I received before leaving
England, it was my duty to point out the slightest defect.
This I did, and I was glad to observe, in a recent visit to
the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, that these defects had all
been remedied in a manner which experiments had proved
to be most successful; and I now feel confident that the
British Artillery have the first gun, with the most perfect
ammunition, in the world.—l am, yours very faithfully,
" R. J. HAY, Brevet-Major Royal Artillery,
Late Assistant-Adjutant-General, Royal Artill,,z,
Forre. Mina.
"Sir W. G. Armstrong, &c."

FINANCIAL _REFORMS IN FRANCE.

(From the Money Alarket Bccictc.)
Scoff as we may at the play (if we choose to re-
gard it so) which has been enacted at Paris, the
French Emperor has given his people a privilege
which they have never yet possessed under the pre-

sent regime, and which they never enjoyed in its
entirety under the rule of the majority of its pre-
decessors—We mean the right of having the expen-
diture of the Government controlled by the Legis-
lature. We do not doubt that this part of the new
Imperial programme will be carried out, and that
the era of " supplemental credits" is at end. Now
this is very important. As long as there were
" supplemental credits," the whole proceeding of
submitting the Budget to the Legislature was a
mere farce. The Chambers, let us say, voted the
Budget, perhaps with a few amendments of suffi-
cient importance to satisfy their amour propre.
But the farcical part of the affair was that when the
Budget was voted, it did not accomplish what a
British Budget does, since it did not limit the
expenditure of the Government in the least. At
the point where the Budget ended, the Government
expenditure was really only beginning. Each
Minister applied not to the Legislature, but to the
Emperor for a few millions more, and his Majesty
gave a draft for the amount under his own Imperial
decree. If the money was not in the Treasury, he
could always issue more floating debt, or, where
this plan failed, it was easy to raise a loan in the
Rentes, and the precise manner in which the money
was expended was never suffered to appear. This
is the secret of the £40,000,000 deficit. The Legis-
lature was thus completely jockeyed out of all con-
trol over the finances, and the State machine rattled
away at its own pace on the road to insolvency.
Having made now a solemn promise to the
French nation that the system of supplemental cre-
dits shall be abolished, and that the Government
expenditure shall really pass in review before the
Chambers, the Emperor cannot afford to go back
from his word, or retrace his steps. He is too shrewd
a politician to attempt to do so. We have a strong
suspicion he has given a greater boon than he in-
tended. He means, perhaps, to strengthen his
financial position by having his expenditure re-
gularised" by the vote of the Chambers, and he
trusts that the influence of his Government will
always be sufficient to secure an immense majority
of his nominees in those halls. We doubt this.
Hitherto, the Lower House has bad no power. Men
of character and ability had, therefore, little temp-
tation to enter it. Constituencies, as a rule, were
apathetic for the same reason. But this may now
be altered. Have our readers reflected upon the
importance of the functions discharged by an as-
sembly to which is delegated the task of controlling
the finances of a nation? Is not money the sinews
of war ? Is not the command enjoyed by our
House of Commons over the national purse-strings
the real source of all the control which it has over
the policy of Government ? The Crown nominally
makes peace and declares war, but its prerogative
is merely nominal, for what can the Crown do
unless the representatives of the people vote the
needful supplies ? The French people have not yet
arrived at this constitutional regime, but when,
through their representatives, they possess them-
selves of even a partial control over the finances,
they will acquire an influence over the general
policy of the Empire such as they never possessed
before. We can look forward and imagine fiercer
contests at future elections, an increasing phalanx
of deputies pledged to reform the financial policy of
the Government, to encour age peace and progress,
and to oppose war and aggression on neighbouring
in fact, public opinion
States. We can imagine,
entering into the Gouncils and moulding the policy
of the French Government in a degree never known
yet since Napoleon 111. seized the sceptre. We
entertain a far from faint hope that, under the force
of financial distress, the Emperor has, without
meaning to do so, virtually given his people a con-
stitutional Bill of Rights, such as it will hereafter
require another coup d'etat to wrest from them.
And be it remembered that, as Sovereigns advance
in years, it is generally found that they beeerag
indisposed to rail and Tentureaome mum