244 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
trouble of investigating the subject carefully will agree with me—that 
General ShrapneFs object in introducing this class of shell, viz. to provide 
the service with an effective long range case shot, is attained in a most 
remarkable manner by Colonel Boxer’s Diaphragm arrangement, and that 
while by this construction the defects of the original Shrapnel have been 
removed, no fresh ones have been originated; and while the principle has been 
preserved in more than its original integrity, 1 the advantages have been 
multiplied and developed. 2 
P.S. Since the foregoing paper was written I have had an opportunity 
of examining the Reports furnished in 1863 by 30 commanding officers of 
Royal Artillery at different stations, at home and abroad; 3 and through 
the kindness of General Lefroy I have obtained permission to make use of 
the Ordnance Select Committee^ Abstract of these Reports. From this 
Abstract, which is given (p. 245), it will be seen that out of the 30 Reports, 
one only is condemnatory, 4 three are unsatisfactory, 5 three are only 
moderately favourable, 6 and twenty-three are highly satisfactory . 
In none of the above Reports are the shells stated to be inaccurate in 
flight; and in three only is it affirmed that the flight of the bullets is 
affected by the bursting charge, or that the shells have failed to open 
properly, 7 and in these three cases this effect is spoken of as exceptional. 
1 I refer to the principle of preserving the bursting charge from the direct action of the bullets, 
and allowing their effect to depend entirely upon their communicated velocity. I say that in the 
Diaphragm this principle has been preserved “ in more than its original integrity,” because I believe 
the bullets to be less affected by the action of the bursting charge in the Diaphragm, than they were 
in the original Shrapnel shell. 
2 Owing to the fact that full service charges may be used with the Diaphragm shell, they are 
available at longer ranges, than the original Shrapnel, while their velocity will be greater at short 
ranges. Therefore whoever admits the advantages of Shrapnel fire, must admit that these advan¬ 
tages have been “multiplied and developed” by the Diaphragm construction. 
Moreover, the Diaphragm shell may be more safely carried filled. 
3 In all 35 reports were furnished, but at 5 stations there had been no practice with the Diaphragm 
shell, and the reports from these stations accordingly embodied no opinion. 
4 Devonport. 
6 Colombo, Bermuda, and Leith Fort; in the last of these cases (Leith Fort), the opinion 
expressed in the Report is formed from “ a few rounds fired by militia artillery regiments, when 
undergoing their annual course of training.” 
6 St Helena, Jamaica, and Shoeburyness (Col. Taylor’s). Perhaps it may be thought that the 
Report from the Mauritius should be included among the “moderately favourable,” but as it 
pronounces the Diaphragm pattern to be “ a great improvement upon either the old or improved 
Shrapnel,” I have thought that it might fairly be included among the “ satisfactory ” Reports. 
1 Colombo, (“ Several shells fell in a lump, like a round shot”); Jamaica, (“Lateral spread very 
uncertain ”); and Shoeburyness, Colonel Taylor’s Report, (“ Generally effective, although some¬ 
times not altogether satisfactory as regards breaking up of the shell”). 
In one other case, Mauritius, it is stated that beyond 1200yds. “the bullets appear to strike the 
water in one solid mass.” 
