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

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, 1 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 aIV
the defects of the original were removed, and whose-.
extraordinary rapidity of firinr*as 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 breach ;
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 allotted."
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 of the effects of air space."
If Capt. Halsted had attended the ricochet firing at
ifbraliroqiultntrers'ddwnwaras, libeu wlui
variety of charge, from a few ounces up to the full
service quantity.
5. Ho 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 Halsteu
can persuade them that they have chosen wrong, it
is open to them 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 my 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
false, contradicted
Ministers Parlia-
ment, and by myself,
.as author of the gun, are
adduced again and again, whenever the refutation
officialy Sbytateents absolutely..
is likely either not to have been seen or to have
been forgotten.
.For
.instance, despite the most
s
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 Ist 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 tei ms, 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 avt
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 opp
ture. " The gun," says Major Hay, " was the admiosite na-
ration of all." Mr. Baring further told the house
.