1880.] Sequel to the ' Thunderer ' Gun Explosion. 323 



certainly this conld not have taken place until the bursting of the gun 

 had suftcrcd the gases of the forward cliarge of powder to escape; and 

 further, the remains of the common shell, with its crusher gauge and 

 its gas-check, make it clear that no such contact took [)lacc. If the 

 Palliser shell had struck the common shell fairly, it would have broken 

 the rear end of the common shell crusher gauge to pieces. There is 

 not a mark upon it, while if it had struck eccentrically, as under the 

 circumstances it well might, then the blow must have rent the gas- 

 check of the common shell, and that again is without a mark ; it is 

 clear, therefore, that the base of the common shell was driven in by 

 the excessive pressure of the explosion of the first charge, a pressure 

 due to causes to which I will shortly allude. 



It is now of course beyond dispute that double-loading of the 

 * Thunderer ' 38-ton gun will burst it, and it is equally beyond dispute 

 that the air space and canted wad trials did not burst this gun. This 

 being so, it seems to me to be idle to now suggest, that although 

 double-loading has burst the gun, and spaces and canted wads have 

 failed to do so, and although there was conclusive evidence afforded by 

 the condition of the socket of the wad used on board the ' Thunderer * 

 that the wad could neither have been withdrawn to make an air space, 

 nor could it have been canted, nevertheless the explosion on board 

 the ' Thunderer ' did take place from a canted wad and did not take 

 place from double-loading. I will not pay you the bad compliment 

 of supposing that you want this point further enlarged upon by mo, 

 but with your permission I will briefly allude to a criticism w^hicli 

 has been made. It has been said, " Well, the gun has burst from being 

 doubly loaded. This is a proof that the gun is not what it should be, 

 because if double-loading could happen in practice, how much more 

 likely is it to happen in the heat of action ? and if a gun will not 

 stand such a contingency as this, it is not a proper gun to be 

 employed." 



This is a taking sort of statement, but is to my mind one that 

 could not be made by any person who had considered the subject. 

 No one suggests that the hinder part of the 38-ton gun, the part 

 which has to sustain the effect of the single charge, is unnecessarily 

 strong. In fact there are some who would like to say it is too weak ; 

 but let us take it that the gun should be as strong as it is at that part 

 to properly withstand the charge. If this is to be so, then evidently, 

 if the effect of the explosion of the front of the two charges were no 

 greater than that which arises from firing it as a single charge (and 

 I shall have presently to show you that it is very much greater), even 

 then the gun ought to be made as large for 11' 2" of its length as 

 it is now made for 7' 5" of its length. This addition of 3' 9" in length 

 of the extra thickness required would add 7 tons to the weight of the 

 gun, but the extra thickness must not stop here, because the portion 

 in advance of the front charge of the two must be as strong as that in 

 advance of the charge when in its proper place. Therefore the gun 

 must bo increased in dimension for the whole of its length forward. 



z 2 



