1879.J on the * TJiunderer' Gun Explosion. 241 



tube remaining in the breech, and to do so by making the corner B of 

 the breech piece into a fulcrinn. On this hai)pening, the left-hand 

 corner of splinter 1 would be raised above the general line of the 

 bottom of the bore, and thus if any part of a projectile were at that 

 moment in the rear of the splinter, that projectile could not pass 

 forward without abrading away the protruding corner of the splinter, 

 and this is precisely what has happened. 



And I will tell you what is the proof that the marks on these 

 splinters 1, 2, and 3 must have been made by a iDrojcctilc in motion, 

 and not by accidental collision with any hard substance after the 

 explosion occurred. Pieces 1, 2, and 3 form among them about one- 

 half of the circumference of the 12-inch tube, and therefore, being 

 hollow, they could not be uniformly marked, as we now see they are, 

 by anything except a convex body of the same diameter of 12 inches. 

 Is it credible that these three pieces each of them happened to 

 strike in its flight some cylindrical body of 12 inches diameter, the 

 axis of which was in an exact alignment with that of the concave 

 curve of the fragment at the time of impact ? I venture to say it is 

 impossible, and that no other explanation can be given of these marks 

 than that the pieces were tilted so as to form parts of a cone, the base 

 being at A, and that while thus tilted a projectile passed by them. 

 An examination of the marks shows that the abrasion was in the 

 direction of the motion of the projectile. 



Further, I will now show you why it is impossible that these marks 

 could have been made by something protruding from the projectile. 

 They commence at the left-hand end of the splinters 1, 2, and 3 ; the 

 remains of the tube from which these splinters have been parted are 

 absolutely free from mark : had the marks on 1, 2, and 3 been made 

 while they were in one with the rest of the tube forming part of 

 a cylinder, it is clear that fellow marks must have been found on 

 the tube itself. There are no such marks, and only one conclusion 

 can be drawn, and that is, that the marks are not due to any protrusion 

 from the projectile, but owe their origin to the canting of the splinters 

 1, 2, and 3, and to this canting having brought their left-hand top 

 corners above the line of the bore, so as to necessitate the abrading of 

 these corners (at the angle at which they have been abraded) to allow 

 of the passage of the projectile. 



There may be some of you who will say, if the point B were used 

 as the fulcrum for the enormous strain required to tear the splinter 

 away from the part of the tube remaining in the breech piece, that 

 fulcrum being of a soft material, wrought ii*on, must exhibit signs of 

 the pressure to which it has been subjected ; and I may tell you that 

 it does exhibit these signs, and in the most unmistakable manner. It 

 is literally bell-mouthed by the pressure that has been exerted upon 

 it, and there are distinct prominences left in this bell-mouth between 

 the parts where the splinters of the tube pressed. 



I will now ask you to turn your attention to splinter 13. If this 

 were abraded, it should be at the right-hand end, and the direction of 



