244 Mr. F. J. Bramwell [June 13, 



for all that happened, and if time permitted I would endeavour to 

 show you that nothing else would account for it. I know, however, 

 that the common impression is, although the double-loading would 

 account for all, double-loading is simply impossible, and must be 

 discarded. I have had this said to me by many, but I have had it 

 persevered in by none after the facts of the case were brought to their 

 knowledge. 



Before stating what the objections are that I find generally 

 advanced against the possibility of double-loading, I will allude to 

 portions of the evidence which bear on this subject, more especially 

 as most of the objectors have not been at the pains even of reading 

 the report, still less of studying the evidence. The captain of the 

 vessel, one of the ofiicers, and a sailor were watching the electric 

 broadside, and they give evidence that three shots came from it. Now, 

 as we know one of the guns in the after turret did not go off, if 

 these three witnesses were not deceived as to what they saw, the 

 suggestion of double-loading is a mistake ; but in opposition to this 

 evidence is to be set that of five sailors, including a signalman, who 

 were all of them clear that two shots only came from that broad- 

 side, and that one of them came from each turret. Having said this 

 much, I will now comment upon the reasons commonly given for 

 holding the double-loading hypothesis to be impossible. 



The first observation generally is : The noise and concussion of 

 the explosion could have left those in the turret in no doubt as to 

 whether the gun had gone off. The answer, concurred in by all who 

 have been present in a turret at firing, is that the noise and concussion 

 produced by one 38-ton gun when fired off are as great as the human 

 ear can take in, and that two guns going off simultaneously (for I 

 must ask you to remember that these guns were to be fired together 

 electrically) would not add to the effect that would be produced by the 

 explosion of one gun. 



The next observation is : Those who loaded the gun must have known 

 by the position of the rammer whether there was a charge remaining 

 in the gun ; but when it is explained to them that the rammer is tele- 

 scopic, and that all motion of the visible part has ceased long before 

 the second charge would be rammed home against the first, and that 

 the index was out of action, that ground fails the objector. 



The third and final reason for its being impossible to have double- 

 loaded the gun that has ever been offered to me is : That the misfire 

 must have been known, because the gun would not have recoiled and 

 would have required running in by hand. 



The answer to that is already in your possession, but I will repeat 

 it. The gun is run in without manual labour, and by hydraulic 

 power. Even when the gun is fired the recoil is not sufficient to send 

 it in to the required extent and has to be supplemented by the hy- 

 draulic pressure which is applied immediately the explosion is heard. 



Direct experiment shows that in from 4 to 6 seconds the 

 hydraulic pressure alone will bring the gun in as far as the recoil 



