240 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
The answer to this objection is fourfold 
1st. That a special arrangement was made by Col. Boxer to preserve the 
balls from the direct action of the bursting charge,—this arrangement 
consisting on the four grooves in the inside of the shell, and in the 
thickening of the metal round the line of junction of the diaphragm 
described in my last paper j and unless it can be proved that this arrange¬ 
ment has failed, it is fair to conclude that it has answered the end required 
of it. 
2nd. In examining unfavourable reports respecting the failure of the 
shell in respect to this arrangement, particular attention must be paid to the 
date of such reports; and whether they were made before or after 1858, for, 
as has been explained, the details of the arrangement by which the balls are 
preserved from the direct action of the bursting charge, and upon which the 
proper opening and action of the shell depends, were not perfected until 
1858. 1 2 Consequently, no unfavourable reports upon this subject which bear 
date previous to 1858, or which are urged against shells manufactured 
before that date, can be received in evidence against shells of the 1858 
pattern; and the only unfavourable reports upon this subject which I have 
been able to discover bear date 1857, 3 4 and are therefore of no account in 
dealing with shells of the present pattern. 
3rd. There is positive evidence that even with shells which were 
manufactured before the adoption of the 1858 pattern, this defect was by 
no means universal; indeed, it seems certain from the following extracts 
that with shells which were correctly manufactured 4 the defects complained 
of were not generally apparent: Letter from Col. Lobe, 5th October, 1852s 
"The results as to direction, range, and velocity have been most satisfactory. 
The shells break into very large fragments , which range to great distances; 
they appear to break in the direction marked by the construction .” 5 On the 
22nd August, 1853, Col. Lake writes, "I beg to observe that the direction 
was very good, also the force of the balls , and spread .” 6 In a report from 
Col. Boxer to the Director-General of Artillery, 27th Sept., 1853, he says: 
“ The spread of the balls has been symmetrical with regard to the trajectory.” 7 
Surely, therefore, it may fairly be conceded that the principle of construction 
was not at fault, but that the defects arose in part from the details of 
construction being at that date slightly imperfect, and in part from bad 
workmanship. 
1 On the subject of this arrangement I would refer the reader to p. 157, and to the drawing there 
given, taken from the photograph of a hurst shell. 
2 See pp. 155, 158. 
3 The Reports given in Ordnance Select Committee Report on Shrapnel Shell, p. 223 to 207. 
These reports, with one exception, almost entirely have reference to these two defects—want of 
velocity on the part of the balls, and the splitting of the shell into two hemispheres round the 
junction of the diaphragm with the shell. See P.S. respecting Reports made in 1863. 
4 See p. 155, note 17. 
5 Synopsis of Ordnance Select Committee Reports on Shrapnel Shell, p. 276. 
6 Ibid, p. 283. 7 Ibid, p. 216. 
