598 
WHO INVENTED THE LEATHER HUNS? 
King's purpose being to place therein Col. Robert Scott for His 
Majesty s' Service," 1 2 i.e., for the proof of ordnance. We have equally 
conclusive proof that Scott held the rank of ‘ Generalqvartermastare,' 3 
and at one time or another commanded a Company of Scots 3 m the 
Swedish army. But did he invent the leather guns ? 
It is obvious that if the words “ the leather ordnance" in the 
epitaph are used in their common and familiar sense, as equivalent 
to “ the Swedish leather ordnance," either the evidence for Wurm- 
brandt is a tissue of falsehood, or the epitaph states a gross untruth. 
We are happily saved from this dilemma by a document deposited in 
the Swedish Secret Archives, quoted by a Swedish historian, 4 which 
shows very clearly that the words in question are not used in their 
usual sense, and that they are an abbreviation of the longer phrase,— 
“the leather ordnance used in the English service when this epitaph 
was written." In April or May, 1628, as appears from this document, 
Scott produced a leather gun at Stockholm, the exact construction 
of which he kept secret. This gun was only half the weight of 
Wurmbrandt’s, and took a charge of one-half the weight of the shot 
while Wnrmbraudt's could only take one-eighth 5 Other advantages 
were claimed for it by Scott, and in a letter to the King, 15th 
November, 1627, Count Jacob de la Gardie said he had seen Scott's 
gun make better practice than Wurmbrandt's; 6 but it was not adopted 
in the Swedish service, because Gustavus refused to pay the £1,500 
asked by Scott for the secret. 7 On this, Scott took his leave with “ His 
Ma tie favour, and went into Denmarke." 8 It is perfectly clear, then, 
that the phrase “leather ordnance" in the epitaph does not refer to 
Wurbrandt's guns, on which doubtless Scott, as a rival inventor, 
looked with scorn ; but to a gun of his own invention, offered to the 
King for a certain sum, and declined by his Majesty. 
Of Scott's visit to Denmark only a few faint traces remain and 
these few we owe to the sagacity of an officer of Danish Artillery, 
Captain 0. E. Blom. When examining the fragmentary, official, 
Danish records of the seventeenth century, he fell upon a mention of a 
‘ lerstoecker' on the 2nd October, 1628, which, speaking “under all 
reserve," he suggests to be a corruption of ‘ lcederstykker,' or leather 
gun. 9 The epitaph (of which, of course, he knew nothing) com¬ 
pletely confirms this brilliant conjecture. Scott was at work. His 
1 State Papers, 3rd September, 1629. 
2 Cronholm’s Sveriges TJistoria under Ghistaf II. Adolf, Stockholm, 1857; II. 342, note. 
3 “ Capit. Rob. Scotts Compagni ” is mentioned in Wieselgren’s De la GardisTca Archivet, 
Stockholm, 1831; XI., 36. 
4 Cronbolm, as before quoted. 
5 There is some error here. The charge of Wurmbrandt’s gun appears to have been ^ to 5 the 
weight of the shot. 
6 Cronholm, as before, “ Tillag och Rattelser.” 
7 i.e., 20,000 dal. 
8 He went to Denmark probably at the invitation of Krabbe, the Danish Ambassador at the 
Swedish Court, who had witnessed a trial of the leather guns. 
9 Kristian den Pjerdes Artiller' , Copenhagen, 1877; p. 223, note. 
