THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
499 
on. (Laughter.) In China., in New Zealand, and in the naval actions in 
Japan, it was found that the breech-loading gun was apt to go wrong when 
it was most wanted to go right. And besides its delicacy and liability 
to get out of order, the breech-loader was found inconvenient, because 
it required the employment of special artificers and special tools to keep 
it in repair. Its projectiles, again, have not fulfilled the expectations 
that we had been led to form of them, and its fuzes have proved the 
source of endless anxiety, trouble, expense, and change. Instead of 
one projectile, as originally proposed, we have got back to common shell, 
common case, and shrapnel. There are two serious defects in the fuzes ; 
the first is, that when rattled about in the ammunition-boxes, they are 
liable to go off by themselves, which, to say the least, is uncomfortable 
—(laughter)—and the second is, that when kept for any time they 
deteriorate, either from climate or from chemical action, and conse¬ 
quently do not go off at all. (Laughter.) The Armstrong and 
Whitworth Committee of 1864 went fully into this question, and they 
reported strongly in favour of muzzle-loading guns. The subject was 
then considered, by the Ordnance Select Committee, Colonel Maxwell 
in India, and the Royal Navy pressing for muzzle-loaders; and it was 
therefore again referred to a Committee, of which General Sir R. Dacres 
was president, and of which I was one of the junior members. This 
was in 1866, and our unanimous decision was that no more breech¬ 
loaders should be made. Then again, in 1868, it was resolved to adopt 
muzzle-loaders for India; and even last year, the Dartmoor Committee— 
of which General Dickson was president—made a report recommending 
the introduction of muzzle-loading howitzers, and the withdrawal of the 
present defective fuzes. For years past we have been thus drifting 
towards muzzle-loaders, and after giving the fullest attention to the 
subject, I unhesitatingly say that I have the greatest confidence in the 
gun which Colonel Maxwell has made the subject of his lecture. In 
range, accuracy, and power it is superior to the breech-loading field guns 
of the service, and it is cheaper. The gun and its ammunition are 
simple in character, and neither are likely to get out of order; and 
therefore I consider them as well adapted for the rough purposes of 
war. (Applause.) 
Major-General F. M. Eardley- W ilmot said:—As it does not appear— 
which I greatly regret—that there is any desire to prolong the discussion, 
the duty devolves upon me of proposing a vote of thanks to Colonel Maxwell 
for the admirable paper which he has prepared. (Applause.) Doubtless 
there are many present who have long waited to see something like a 
settlement of this question, having always advocated the use of muzzle¬ 
loading guns for field service, for the reasons set forth by Colonel 
Maxwell. To such it must be a great source of satisfaction to find that 
these reasons have at last had their due effect. (Applause.) Remarks 
have been made on the delay which has taken place in making our 
report; but when you consider that we had to prepare and agree upon, 
not only a gun and a carriage of new material, but on a complete field 
equipment, including all questions connected with dimensions, weight, 
and serviceable efficiency, a year, or even two, could not be considered 
as very long. It is easy enough hastily to adopt a system, but we 
