THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
331 
The main point is the possibility of the breech-loader being unable to fire 
on any occasion from its machinery being injured, from proper care not 
being bestowed upon it, or from such chance causes as may fairly be 
expected to arise in the course of a campaign. That such an untoward 
event is more probable than with a muzzle-loader cannot be denied, but it 
is maintained by some that with fair care and intelligence on the part of the 
officers and men it need not excite any apprehension. It is asserted by 
others that the risk is too great to be prudently incurred. Experience con¬ 
tributes but little to the data, for neither in China nor in New Zealand did 
the artillery have to make the long forced marches in continued wet weather, 
after the men had become weakened by sickness and casualties, which would 
be the real trial of the question. Two cases which rest on good authority 
may be mentioned to show that the danger is not imaginary. 
In a report by Colonel Barry, commanding a field battery in the China 
campaign of 1860 , he states that one morning "the breech screws were 
nearly completely jammed with rust, and the gunners, who were already 
overworked, would have been severely taxed in getting the guns in working 
order if we had had to renew hostilities at daylight.”* This seems to imply 
that if “ we 99 had had no choice in the matter, but the enemy had made an 
unexpected attack at daylight, the guns actually would have been unfit for 
use. The other case occurred at Aldershot, where a gun was once disabled 
during a whole field day by getting some grit into the screw.t 
Considering the circumstances of the time when the breech-screw system 
was submitted by its inventor, the dangers of a European war, the recent 
acquisition of a rifled field gun by the Erench, and the superiority which 
this seemed to possess over any muzzle-loading system,J we must confess 
that no course was open to the government but to receive it and to actively 
introduce it. That simpler constructions would eventually prove practically 
equal to it, could not at the moment be foreseen, and it was not a time for 
rejecting any advantage that could be immediately realized. Like the 
settlement which iEneas began on the Thracian shores, the measure pro¬ 
mised well but the fates were against it. 
One of the great recommendations to the gun was a mode of construction, 
the “ building up 99 system, then peculiar to it though quite independent of 
the breech closing arrangement. In justice to Sir William Armstrong we 
should always bear in mind that to him we owe the introduction of this 
most valuable improvement. Its importance for manufacturing purposes is 
sufficiently shown by its being employed, with some modifications of detail, 
for the enormous pieces now, for the first time in history, successfully pro¬ 
duced and capable of being efficiently employed. Its value in providing 
a perfect safeguard against the frightful accidents liable to happen with all 
the old siege and garrison ordnance is inestimable to artillerists, and as the 
guns are fully able to stand filing a couple of thousand rounds, any objec¬ 
tions about the building up system being theoretically weak may be wholly 
disregarded. 
* Evidence, Question 2645. 
f Proceedings of Field Artillery Committee* 
l See Note, p* 313, 
