dockyards and arsenals, partly by the insolence of
the "French Colonels," clamouring—after Dr.
Bernard's trial—to be sent to the sack of
London. It was a moment of serious anxiety, and
the question of ordnance was one of the earliest
taken up by the Derby cabinet, then newly come
into power—a report being required by General
Peel, the Secretary of State for War, of the
trials that had been made of the several cannon
tendered for adoption into the service. Colonel
Lefroy, at that time scientific adviser of the War
Department on matters connected with artillery,
drew up a summary, in which, after commenting
on the qualities of the different guns under
review, and observing that "every element was
wanting on which to base a decision as to the
adoption of any one system," he recommended
the immediate appointment of a Committee on
Rifled Guns, with instructions to examine, with
the least possible delay, all the heavy rifled guns
extant, and to render a detailed account of their
respective performances and capabilities for
garrison and naval service. The committee was
accordingly appointed, and, having concentrated
their attention on the rival claims of the
Armstrong and Whitworth guns, made their report
within less than three months. As if their choice
had been predetermined, only a very few trials
were made with the Whitworth gun, without any
opportunity being given to Mr. Whitworth to be
present at them. And their report stated that
they found his projectiles had a large and rapidly
increasing deflection to the right, which
obstructed accuracy of aim; that the shot and
shell used with the gun gave different ranges
and different degrees of accuracy; that the shot
were so liable to "jam" in loading that very careful
washing and drying of the gun was
indispensable after every round; and that although
Mr. Whitworth had overcome this last objection
by the use of lubricating wads, which
"appeared to answer well," further trials, they said,
were necessary to determine their sufficiency to
enable washing to be dispensed with.

These conclusions were, in fact, a decision
against Mr. Whitworth's gun, while on all
points the report was favourable to that of Mr.
Armstrong, who being on the spot was able
to modify objections. Basing their report on
the facility of loading the Armstrong guns,
on their accuracy, and apparent durability—
qualities which, in all probability, would not
have been deemed exclusive, had a more
lengthened and equal trial been made—they
recommended "the immediate introduction of
guns rifled on Mr. Armstrong's principle, for
special service in the field." This report,
says Sir Emerson Tennent, "bears unmistakable
traces of the urgency and speed with which the
members conducted their inquiry, and probably
to this cause is to be ascribed an omission, much
to be regretted, since it has afforded ground for
complaint by Mr. Whitworth, on the score of
precipitancy, and of inadequate examination
into the merits of his gun, as compared with the
attention bestowed on the competing one."
Precipitancy, if not bias, was also shown by the
committee on their refraining from visiting Mr.
Whitworth's factory, according to promise; while
they fulfilled their declared intention of inspecting
the Armstrong works at Elswick. Their
decision, however, was final, and the Armstrong
gun was adopted, while yet incomplete, in direct
opposition to the wise objection left on record
by the Duke of Wellington, against the adoption
of unfinished experiments, and imperfect
inventions. It must, however, be stated, that
it was only the light Armstrong gun which was
adopted for field service—those of heavier
calibre for fortifications and the navy, being
left for future consideration, at the instance
both of Lord Derby and General Peel.

Sir Emerson Tennent next relates the history
of Mr. Armstrong's appointment of Director of
Rifled Ordnance, of Engineer to the War
Department (when he was knighted), and finally
of Superintendent of the Royal Gun-factory at
Woolwich, with all the particulars of the
government contract with the Elswick company.
We do not dwell upon these points, the matter
being more special than general, and The
Story of the Guns requiring us rather to follow
Mr. Whitworth's further experiments. Though
no longer in intimate relation with the War
Office, Mr. Whitworth continued to place at
the disposal of the authorities the use of his
patents for further discoveries, the expenses of
which were defrayed from his private resources;
and though not the successful competitor for
the honour (and profit) of supplying the
national gun, was employed by Lord Panmure,
when Secretary of State for War (at the close
of 1857), in rifling a cast-iron block for a
32-pounder, the intention being to determine
the capacity of that metal for the manufacture
of rifled ordnance. This gun burst under trial,
as afterwards did another of the same metal
and calibre; but notwithstanding these
evidences of the insufficiency of cast-iron, Mr.
Whitworth rifled a third gun, a 68-pounder, in
June, 1858, mainly to test the power of a new
projectile, an experiment which, so far as the
projectile went, was a complete triumph, but
the gun was rent into fragments by the explosion.
The causes of this accident were
explained by Mr. Whitworth in a letter
deprecating the further use of cast metal for rifled
cannon; but the explanation was not received,
the Secretary for War (General Peel) directing
Mr. Whitworth to be informed that he had
(logically!} determined "to discontinue further
experiments with ordnance rifled on his
principle!"

Mr. Whitworth met this attack on his
scientific reputation by resolving at once, from
an amateur artillerist, to become a professional
gunmaker, never having had, as he stated
before the House of Commons Committee of
1863, the most distant idea of becoming a
manufacturer of rifled arms. "I took it up,"
he said, "originally, solely because I was
requested by the government, but when I received
this letter from General Peel to inform me that
no more experiments were to be made with guns