THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
313 
human foresight extends, of any further radical change in field artillery; 
rifled guns of about the present size and calibre promise to continue in use 
for centuries, fresh pieces will have to be manufactured as the existing ones 
wear out, and if the breech-loading system is disadvantageous it cannot 
judiciously be adhered to. The actual terms of the Committee's decision 
are “ that the balance of advantages is in favour of muzzle-loading field guns, 
and that they should be manufactured hereafter." 
It is doubtless a serious inconvenience and a heavy expense to alter so 
much of the materiel as is already in use. On the other hand it is unwise 
to continue to arm the field artillery with costly guns which require special 
skill and care to keep them efficient, whilst in shooting qualities they are no 
whit better than guns of a simpler description. The skill, trouble, and 
appliances are uselessly incurred when no special advantage is gained, and 
the fact of their being necessary implies some risk if they are not regularly 
bestowed. The chances of a gun being unfit for use at a special moment 
may be but slight, but if such a thing should occur at an important crisis 
the consequences might be disastrous. 
As the decision only affects field guns, any of the merits or demerits 
possessed by breech-loading ordnance for other services may be dismissed 
from present consideration. The question is also practically restricted to 
the breech screw construction, because it is the only one introduced into 
our field service, and no other mode of closing the breech would be likely to 
prove so superior as to justify a change in that direction. 
The principal source of information for the arguments and facts bearing 
on the point is the voluminous Blue Book, of about 650 pages, containing 
the report and proceedings of the Special Committee on the different guns 
and ammunition proposed by Sir William Armstrong and Mr Whitworth.^" 
The committee was appointed on 1st January 1863, and their proceedings 
lasted till 3rd August 1865, They examined twenty-seven witnesses of 
experience in the manufacture or use of artillery, whose evidence, contained 
in 4132 questions and answers, is appended to the report. They also 
carried out a long and exhaustive series of trials with guns stibinitted by 
the two competitors, and the value of the stores alone, besides the other 
expenses of the enquiry, amounted to £33,500. 
The guns consisted of 12-prs., taken as a type of field artillery* and 
7 0-prs. selected partly because they sufficiently represented the heavier guns 
then in general use for siege, garrison, and naval purposes, and partly for 
other reasons. Three of each kind were supplied ; Sir William Armstrong 
furnished two natures of guns, a breech-loader and a muzzle-loader, in each 
calibre: he did so for the express purpose of enabling a comparison to be 
made between the merits of the two systems ; considering as he stated to 
the Committee that it was for artillerists to decide which was the proper 
system for the service.t Had it not been for this duplicate provision it 
would have been difficult or impossible to eliminate from the results, given 
* It is to this book that the references in the foot notes apply when not otherwise specified; 
t Evidence, Quests. 147,156. When however the lead coated projectile, which entails a breech* 
loading system, was first tried there was no other which could give results comparable with it» 
(Sir W. Armstrong’s evidence Ques. 146). 
