desultory discussions and experiments, when a
lop-sided report was made, which recorded no
consistent recommendation sufficient for the
guidance of the Secretary at War; and although
no one with eyes to see, or ability to form a
judgment, could doubt the superior merits of
the Whitworth rifle, the making of the Enfield
musket went on with unabated assiduity. Not,
however, with perfect fairness towards the
inventor of the best weapon, for, in continuing to
manufacture the Enfield, some of the leading
features of the Whitworth were introduced,
such as the reduced diameter of the bore and
the increased rapidity of the rifling. Yet with
all its borrowed improvements, the Enfield
musket still remained inferior to the Whitworth
rifle: the testimony of General Hay, the most
impartial witness that could be found, being
conclusive on that point. In the statement made
by him, in 1860, to the Institute of Civil
Engineers, he said: "There is a peculiarity about
the Whitworth small-bore rifles which no other
similar arms have yet exhibited; they not only
give greater accuracy of firing but triple power
of penetration; and this last property, one of
the highest importance in a military weapon,
was shown in the fact that the Whitworth
projectile would penetrate a sandbag and a half,
while the Enfield only penetrated one bag;
and the same proportion existed elsewhere,
the Whitworth projectile going through a three-
foot gabion, while the Enfield only reached its
middle." It appears that in every trial which
has been made with the Whitworth rifle, its
superiority over every other fire-arm has been
conceded; and a picturesque incident, recorded
by Sir Emerson Tennent, exhibits its most
valuable property—precision. "At Wimbledon,
in 1860, the first meeting (of the National Rifle
Association) was inaugurated by the Queen in
person, who fired the first shot from a Whitworth
rifle, striking the bull's-eye at only one inch and
a half from the centre, at a distance of 400
yards—a shot which, considering that it was
fired in the open air, is probably the most
marvellous ever fired from a rifle."

It will naturally be asked, after all these
proofs—sufficient even for a Dogberry's
satisfaction why has not the Whitworth rifle been
made to supersede the Enfield? The reasons
adduced by the "Ordnance Select Committee,"
which presented its report to parliament last
year, are several, but none of them conclusive.
Besides the objection arising from the expense
already incurred in manufacturing an incomplete
weapon—an objection wearing the hue of the
reddest of red tape—the cost is urged of altering
the machinery at Enfield so as to adapt it
for the production of the Whitworth: though it
appears that this can be done for a comparatively
small sum, and that, once effected, as
Mr. Whitworth declares, the musket rifled on
his principle can be manufactured at the same
cost as the Enfield, "the present quality of
material and workmanship being the same."
It is also stated that certain wear and tear
(which can be remedied) and the slenderness of
the Whitworth cartridge, rendering it liable to
break (which has been overcome), are impediments
which retard the adoption of the small-
bore rifle; but, fortunately, it appears that, to
use the words of Sir Emerson Tennent, "ere
long the British soldier will be animated by the
consciousness of possessing an arm the most
perfect that the science of his country,
combined with high mechanical ability, can
produce,"—the "Committee on Small-bore Rifles"
having, in their report, presented to parliament
in 1863, expressed their conviction as follows:
"That as the tendency of the present system
of musketry instruction is calculated ere long
to attain a very high standard of shooting
throughout the army, the introduction of a
weapon of long range and great precision will
naturally increase the general efficiency of
infantry, and place it in a position to keep down
the fire of the new rifled artillery, which is one
of the creations of our own day." This passage
brings us to the close of the first part of
Sir Emerson Tennent's valuable book, and
conducts us naturally to the subject of "Rifled
Cannon," which occupies its next division.

It begins with a narrative of the earliest
attempts to effect in artillery—particularly in
field guns—a revolution correspondent with
that which had been wrought in musketry. The
idea of rifling artillery, Sir Emerson Tennent
tells us, was not a new one; it had been tried
in Germany a century before our time; and, as
far back as 1745, in England, by Robins, the
inventor of the ballistic pendulum; while
Ponchara, at Paris, in 1819; Montigny, at
Brussels and St. Petersburg, in 1836; and,
more recently, Colonel Cavalli, in Sardinia, and
Baron Wahrendorf, in Sweden; made renewed
attempts; but the measure of their success was
not attested by the adoption of any of their
plans. Colonel Treuille de Beaulieu also made
experiments in France between 1840 and 1852,
but it was reserved for the gentleman who, at
the later date, took possession of everything in
that country—including, perhaps, a few ideas the
property of other men, though he is considered
"an authority in artillery"—to make the theory
of rifled cannon a reality. And in the Italian
campaign of 1856 it occupied that place
amongst "the logic of facts" which thenceforward
could never more be contested. The
result of the experiments at Magenta and
Solferino was "the signal for the reconstruction
of all the artillery of Europe." And Sir Emerson
Tennent follows up this remark by
enumerating the inventions of Lancaster, Bashley
Britten, Professor Treadwell (of Massachusetts),
Captain Blakeley, Horsfall, and others making
observations on the respective merits of each,
but reserving a full description for those of the
great rivals—Armstrong and Whitworth—who
have been most prominently before the British
public.

A brief but very interesting memoir introduces
Sir William Armstrong to the reader, and
then Sir Emerson Tennent proceeds to describe
the progress he made in the manufacture of