The Phoenician war-vessels, it is said, came out of Cadiz—or Gades, as it was then called—with what their opponents took to be brazen lions at their bows. These turned out to be some kind of machine from which enormous flames of fire were projected by explosives, to consume and destroy the ships of the Iberians. But the most generally accepted theory now is that gunpowder was invented in China some centuries before the Christian era and gradually found its way to Europe by way of India, Arabia, and Africa. As for the stories that it was invented either by Roger Bacon (1214-92) or by the German monk, Barthold Schwartz, in 1320, they must be certainly rejected, since there is evidence that cannon of some kind were in use long previous to Roger Bacon's birth. Doubtless he wrote something about the composition of gunpowder, but so might anyone to-day. That would not make him its inventor.

Much less, then, can this invention be attributed to the German monk. It is probably correct that, in pounding certain ingredients in a mortar, he nearly blew himself "into the middle of next week"—as very many would-be chemical investigators have done at a much more recent date—and it may be that the sight of his pestle flying through the ceiling suggested to him that a mortar might be made of military use.[35] He may possibly, on this account, be credited with the invention of the muzzle-loading cannon, for it seems probable that the guns in use previous to 1320 were merely cannae, or tubes open at each end. The famous battery of three guns, which is said by some historians to have been used by the English at CrÉcy, was probably of this kind. Whether the guns were used there or not, it would not have been the first time such weapons made their appearance in European warfare, as seems to be assumed by some writers.

More than 100 years previously cannon were employed by the Moors at the siege of Saragossa, in 1118. The Spaniards were not slow to adopt the invention, and in 1132 they built what is stated to have been a "culverin" throwing a 4-pound shot. "Culverin", which is a term, belonging to Tudor times, for a special type of gun, is evidently used as a general term for "cannon". Like the "Joe Chamberlain" and "Bloody Mary",[36] manned by the Naval Brigade in the Boer War, and other prominent specimens of the gun-maker's art, this first European cannon received a special name. It was christened "Salamonica". I have said that the Spaniards "built" this weapon. I wrote this advisedly, for all the earlier cannon were "built up" of staves of iron, or even wood, strongly hooped together with wrought-iron rings.

It was a long time before cannon were "founded" or "cast", and now, strange to say, we have gone back to the original method of manufacture, which, thanks to modern science and workmanship, has absolutely ousted what was at its inception considered a wonderful advance in the art of cannon-making. The early guns, open at both ends, were probably loaded at the breech, which was then closed by a block of stone or big stake driven into the ground, close to which the gun itself was fixed in some kind of a framework. Such guns are to be seen in a picture in Froissart's Chronicles representing the siege of Tunis by the Crusaders in 1390, and it is from this that the often-reproduced drawing of the guns said to have been used at CrÉcy in 1346 would appear to have been taken.

What is said to be the earliest representation of a cannon in England is to be found in a manuscript of 1326 in the Christ Church Library at Oxford. It is of quite a different appearance from those just described. It is in the shape of a fat vase or bottle, and could not well have been a breech-loader. It is loaded with a big "garot" or dart fitted with a wooden haft which seems to fit tightly into the neck of the weird "cannon", which lies on a very rickety looking table. The gunner, clad in what looks like a suit of Crusader's chain-mail, is an unwary person who is holding a lighted match to the touch-hole while standing directly behind the gun. As there is not the slightest indication of anything whatever to stop the recoil, it seems about three to one that the discharge would be more disastrous to him than to the enemy. It is noteworthy that "metal cannons" and "iron balls" were ordered to be made in this same year at Florence, and in 1331 vase appears to have been the usual term for the cannon made in Italy, while in France they were termed pots de fer.

This brings us to the earliest indication that I can find of the use of guns afloat. It is a document dated 1338, in which Guillaume du Moulin, of Boulogne, acknowledges to have received from Thomas Fouques, the custodian of the enclosure for the King's galleys at Rouen, a pot-de-fer to throw "fire garots", together with forty-eight garots in two cases, 1 pound of saltpetre, and ½ pound of sulphur "to make powder to fire the said garots". Now it seems more than probable that this pot-de-fer or vase was very similar to that in the Oxford manuscript and that it was intended for use afloat, or it would not have been among the stores belonging to the galleys. The recipient being at Boulogne, we may fairly assume that it was required by him for use on shipboard. "Garots", we know, were very commonly used in naval actions at this date, either thrown by hand from the tops or propelled from espringalds. Moreover, it is evident that the gun open at both ends would be a great source of danger on board ship. The system of breech-closing on shore was singularly rough and ineffective; there must have been nearly as much "back-fire" at the breech as flames from the muzzle. This would be a constant danger afloat, and, unless a few vases like those described were sometimes used, it is probable that cannon were not adopted for sea service until some more regular and effective breech-closing apparatus had been evolved. But for this seamen had not very long to wait.

The progress of gun-making was now proceeding apace, especially in Germany and Flanders. At first, and for some time, there do not seem to have been any what we may call "moderate-sized" cannon, or, at any rate, they are not so much in evidence as the very large ones and the very small ones. The latter were not bigger than very heavy muskets, and it was with weapons of this kind that the many-gunned ships of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century were principally equipped, though, as time went on, heavier pieces were added. To show how very small these little cannon were, it is only necessary to quote from Monstrelet's Chronicles, in which he tells us that, in 1418: "The Lord of Cornwall ... crossed the Seine ... having with him in a skiff a horse loaded with small cannons". When one reads of the extraordinary numbers of guns which are said to have been used in some mediÆval battles and sieges, one should always bear this passage in mind.

As for the big guns, they were giants when compared with their smaller brothers. Old Froissart, whom I have already quoted more than once, tells of a very notable specimen employed by the "men of Ghent" to attack Oudenarde: "A marvellous great bombarde, which was fifty feet long, and threw great heavy stones of a wonderful bigness; when this bombarde was discharged, it might be heard five leagues by day, and ten at night, making so great a noise in going off, that it seemed as if all the devils in hell were abroad". All traces of this monster have disappeared, but an 18-feet gun of probably an exactly similar type is still to be seen at Ghent—unless the Germans have stolen it. This gun dates from about 1384, and has a bore something like 25 inches in diameter. As perhaps none of us are likely to be in Ghent for some time, we can see a rather smaller but almost duplicate weapon in Edinburgh—the celebrated "Mons Meg". Though she is supposed to have been built 100 years later, it is quite possible that both were turned out at the same manufactory. The Scots gun evidently came from Mons in Flanders, and the Flemish gun is also called "Meg", i.e. the Dulle Griete or "Mad Margery" or "Meg". Another bigger and more handsomely finished gun of the same type, dating from 1464, is to be seen at the Royal Artillery Museum at Woolwich. This is a Turkish piece, and is said to have been "cast", while "Mons Meg" and her sisters are all built-up guns, as can be at once seen on inspection by the most amateur eyes. There are several others on the Continent, notably the two "Michelets" which were left at Mont St. Michael when the siege of that place was abandoned by the English in 1427. The siege began in 1423, so they may date from a good many years earlier. As the English batteries were erected on the Isle of Tombelaine, which is 3000 yards distant from the mount, some idea may be obtained of the distance to which these early cannon could hurl their granite projectiles.

Such cannon were all built up of long rectangular bars of iron upon which heavy rings of the same material were shrunk, the whole weapon, on completion, forming a heavy and extremely tough cylinder of wrought iron. The chambers, or breech-pieces, for the reception of the powder-charge, were built separately, with much thicker sides and smaller bores than the rest of the gun, into which they were screwed. The guns must not, I think, be therefore considered breech-loaders; for though it may be possible that they were screwed in and out at each discharge, I think it more probable that, as they were such heavy masses of metal, the breech-pieces were left screwed up and the charges inserted at the muzzle. But when cannon came to be made of more moderate dimensions—big enough to be effective against walls and the sides of ships, and small enough to be transported with reasonable facility—some system of breech-loading was almost universal. I say "almost", because guns began to be cast in brass in Germany at a comparatively early date, and such guns were probably often muzzle-loaders, since cast brass would not have been strong enough for the breech-closing methods in vogue. These were comparatively simple. The breech of the gun, which was built up much in the same way as Mons Meg and others of the same kidney, terminated in a species of trough. Into this trough fitted an iron cylinder which contained the charge of powder and was called a "chamber". The muzzle of the chamber was bevelled off or turned down so as to fit into the breech end of the bore of the gun itself, and was held in position by iron wedges, generally at the rear end, but sometimes across the top. In some of the larger types the trough was made in the huge block of tough oak[131]
[132] to which the gun was fastened. In the Tower of London you can see a gun of this kind that was fished up from the wreck of the Mary Rose. As most guns were provided with at least two "chambers", one would imagine that a fairly rapid fire could have been kept up, at any rate with the smaller guns. This, however, would not seem to have been the case, for the French account of the battle off St. Helens (when the Mary Rose capsized), which lasted for two hours, and in which a considerable number of ships were engaged, mentions that 300 rounds were fired as a fact indicating the uncommon fierceness of the fighting. And yet the Henri Grace À Dieu alone carried over 100 guns of various sizes!

But at first, even at a time when artillery of one kind or another was in common use on land, very few guns were carried afloat. Very likely the reason was that few were suitable; they were either too big, too small, or, as before suggested, could not be safely closed at the breech. Thus in the reign of Henry IV, 1399-1413, the Christopher, a rather important man-of-war, only carried "three iron guns with five chambers, one hand-gun, and one small barrel of powder". The barge Mary (Marie de la Tour) carried one iron gun with two chambers and one brass gun with one chamber. Another Mary (of Weymouth) had also one brass and one iron gun, the Bernard had two iron guns, and a ship referred to as the Carrake one. The Christopher's guns are said to have been "stoked". This may possibly mean fitted with "stocks" or oaken beds, like those previously referred to, in which case her guns were probably larger and heavier than those in the other ships. The invention of port-holes was probably coincident with the adoption of really heavy artillery afloat. Before then it would not have been safe to have carried such heavy weights on the upper decks of the kind of ship then existing. The Great Michael may possibly be taken as an exception, for she could hardly have had port-holes cut in her 10-foot thick sides. At the same time, since her heavy guns were probably breech-loaders, they may have been practically built into her sides, since at that time there was no such thing as training a heavy gun right or left on board ship.

With the numerous batteries of small guns also carried on board ships of this period, it was quite a different matter. They were mounted on swivels on the gunwale, or in openings or ports in the fore- and after-castles as well as in the tops. Others, and among them certain wide-mouthed pieces known as "murderers", were distributed in what were known as the "cubbridge heads", or those sides of the fore- and after-castles which faced inboard and commanded the waist of the ship. Here it was to be expected an enemy's boarders would make their assault, and here—the crew having retired fore and aft—they would be mowed down by charges of all sorts of iron fragments from the "murderers". The same system of dealing with boarders lasted some time after the disappearance of the lofty "castles" at bow and stern; strong athwart-ships bulkheads being provided at bow and stern both on the upper and main decks.

It was in Henry VIII's time that the manufacture of cast-iron guns, for which England soon became famous, began in this country. One Ralph Hogge,[37] at Buxted, in Sussex, cast the first iron cannon. This is said to have been in 1543, and it is stated that the house in which this was done is still standing near the church of that village, and that it has the figure of a hog with the date 1581 carved over the door. There is another story to the effect that this early gunfounder's name was John Howe, and that there is the following distich, cut in stone, still extant in Buxted:—

But to return to our early naval cannon. As I have already pointed out, the casting of bronze guns in Germany and Flanders had reached a great pitch of perfection long before anything of the sort was made in England. Germany, in fact, may be said to have led in gunnery for a considerable period. The master gunners in most armies seem to have been Germans, and at the accession of Queen Elizabeth we were buying our powder from the German Hansa Company established in the Steel Yard in London, instead of making sufficient for ourselves. There were many brass guns afloat in Henry VIII's navy besides the wrought-iron breech-loaders. Some of fine workmanship were found in the wreck of the Mary Rose, as well as those of the latter class which have been already mentioned. As an indication of the cost and labour expended on such weapons, it may be instanced that a bronze gun cast in Germany in 1406 took from Whitsuntide to Michaelmas to finish, and required 52½ hundredweight of copper and 3½ hundredweight of tin. The metal cost 422 florins, while the master gun-founder received 86 florins for his pains.

The heaviest weapon afloat in Tudor times was the curtall or curtow, generally of brass, and firing a 60-pound shot. The culverin was rather lighter and longer. There were a whole host of fancy names—and doubtless fancy types—for ordnance at this time, several of which have already been referred to as forming the armament of the Great Michael. Space forbids further enumeration or description, which, in any case, would be impossible on account of the very different guns which are called indiscriminately by the same name. But by the Armada days the following were the principal guns used afloat:—

Although the English cast-iron cannon almost at once achieved such a reputation that they sold in Amsterdam for £40 a ton, for £60 in France, and for no less than £80 in Spain, though costing only £12 a ton in this country; and though they were bought so freely at these high prices by foreigners that in 1574 their export was totally forbidden, yet it would appear that the Royal Navy was then using nothing but brass guns, except perhaps in the case of the smaller pieces. But the merchantmen used iron guns. Thus when James I sent an expedition of six men-of-war and a dozen armed merchant-ships against the Algerines in 1620, all the former carried brass and all the latter iron guns. The men-of-war were heavily gunned, so much so, indeed, that it was not unusual for their captains to dismount a few of their heaviest pieces and stow them as ballast for the safety of the ship. The Prince Royal, for instance, carried a battery of two "cannon perriers" (i.e. throwing stone shot), six demi-cannon, twelve culverins, thirteen sakers, and four light pieces. The famous Sovereign of the Seas in the next reign mounted twenty cannon, eight demi-cannon, thirty-two culverins, and forty-two demi-culverins—all brass guns—and probably some small iron falconets as well. On each gun was engraved the rose and crown, the sceptre and trident, anchor and cable. The engraving cost £3 per gun, but we must remember that the Sovereign was a "show ship".

According to an artilleryman who wrote in the first half of the seventeenth century, three shots an hour was about as much as an ordinary gun would stand, "always provided that after 40 shots you refresh and cool the piece[40] and let her rest an houre, for fear lest 80 shots should break the piece". But I think we may credit our seamen with being able to fire their guns a bit faster than that. Constant running out of powder seems to have been the great trouble in the English fleet engaged in the discomfiture of the "Invincible" Armada. And not only did the English ships carry heavier ordnance and fire heavier broadsides than the Spaniards, so that the British cannon "lacked them through and through", but our gunners are said to have fired their pieces three times to the Spaniards' one. This is a Spanish estimate, and it is abundantly evident that our gunnery proved at least as superior as it did over that of the Germans in Sir David Beatty's victory off the Friesland coast in January, 1915. Later on, at the battle of La Hogue (1692) the British ships were able to fire three broadsides to every two of the French.

Coming to the navy of the Commonwealth, we find the same curiously named guns in use. Here is the battery of the Naseby: Nineteen cannon, nine demi-cannon, twenty-eight culverins, thirty demi-culverins, and five sakers. The same classification lasted till the time of George I, when it became the custom to designate guns by the weights of their projectiles. Thenceforward we find ship-armaments reckoned in 42-pounders, 32-pounders, 24-pounders, 12-pounders, and 6-pounders. The old 60-pounder had disappeared, and before long the 42-pounder followed it into temporary oblivion, so that at Trafalgar our heaviest gun was a 32-pounder.[41] It was not until nearly 1840 that it reappeared, and was followed by a 68-pounder.

During the period between Elizabeth and Trafalgar there were innumerable attempts to invent and introduce improved forms of ordnance, including shell-guns and machine-guns. The idea of the latter was extremely ancient. There are several manuscript illuminations and old wood-cuts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries showing attempts at a "Maxim" gun. The "orgue", consisting of a large number of very small guns or musket-barrels fixed in rows, or revolving rings, or bundles, was a common weapon in those centuries—at least on shore. Then there was something of the kind for which William Drummond was given a patent in 1625, and which he termed a "thunder carriage". Again, there was one Puckle, who in 1781 invented a regular revolving gun mounted on a tripod. It was made in two patterns—one to fire ordinary round bullets, the other to fire square ones—against the "unspeakable Turk". Puckle thought these infidels ought to get as nasty a wound as possible. With his specification he issued a doggerel which ran as follows:—

In the days of wooden ships the "carronade" became a most useful weapon. The smaller kind were light, took up little space, and were just the things for merchant-men and small craft; while the bigger class—generally 68-pounders—were valuable auxiliaries to the batteries of our line-of-battle ships. The carronade was essentially a British gun, and its efficiency was never more conspicuous than in the fight between H.M.S. Glatton, a converted East Indiaman, and a French squadron of four frigates and two corvettes, which took place off the coast of Flanders on 15th July, 1796.

The British ship, whose armament consisted of a main battery of 68-pounder carronades, with 32-pounders on her upper deck—fifty guns in all—completely defeated and drove off her six assailants, who retreated to Flushing with their decks ripped up, besides other terrible damages, one of them being so badly mauled that she sank on arrival in port. Had not the Glatton been a very slow sailer she could have destroyed the lot. As it was, she effected her victory with only two casualties—Captain Strangeways of the Marines mortally, and a private marine slightly wounded.

It may be interesting to note the armament carried by Nelson's Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, in order that it may be compared with that of some earlier ships of which particulars have been given and with those of our modern battleships, which will be found in a later chapter.

On that memorable day the famous old three-decker which still swings at her buoy in Portsmouth harbour mounted—

The upper-deck 12-pounders were 2 feet shorter than those on the main deck, and only weighed 21 cwt., as against their 34, but the 32-pounder carronades only weighed 17 cwt. This will give an idea of the comparative lightness of these weapons. The guns at this period, and indeed since Elizabethan times, were mounted on carriages formed of two wooden sides or cheeks strongly connected together by timber cross-pieces or "transoms", and placed on four solid wooden wheels or "trucks". They were secured to the ship's side by thick ropes or "breechings" passing round the breech of the gun, and long enough to allow of a certain recoil on being fired. The gun was run out again by blocks and tackles, which could also be used to haul it inboard without its being fired, in order to secure it for sea and close the port. It was trained from side to side by means of hand-spikes or levers placed under the rear of the carriage, and elevated in a similar manner, the hand-spikes being used to raise or lower the breech of the gun, while the "quoin", or wedge, supporting it was being adjusted. Similar carriages remained in use in our navy far into the 'eighties of last century, being used for the "converted 64-pounder", which was the old smooth-bore 68-pounder lined with a rifled steel tube. I have drilled at such guns myself. It was fine exercise, and it was necessary to be pretty smart and have all one's wits about one to get outside the breeching, if a loading number, before the gun was run out. The 13·5-inch gun of to-day is, thanks to hydraulics, manipulated with a tithe of the exertion required to serve a truck gun. Here are the orders for "Exercise at the Great Guns" which obtained in 1781, and are considerably simpler than those previously in vogue:

"Tompions" are a species of plug used to close the muzzle of a gun when not in action. In the "days of wood and hemp" they were usually painted red, but in modern guns they are generally faced with gun-metal, decorated in some cases with the badge of the ship. "Prime" means to place loose powder in the pan after having pierced the cartridge with a "priming wire" thrust through the touch-hole or vent. To "house" was to haul the gun inboard ready for securing.

The smooth-bore gun remained the naval weapon right up[141]
[142] to the Crimean War, though explosive shells gradually began to be used as well as the old solid round shot. The rifling of muskets and cannon had often been suggested by inventors as far back as Tudor times, and occasionally a few experimental rifled muskets were made. But in the war with Russia, in which most of the combatants were armed with muzzle-loading rifles, rifled cannon began to make their appearance. The Lancaster gun, with a twisted oval bore, was the first rifled naval gun, and was thought a great deal of in its day. Then came the breech-loading Armstrong guns. These were very finely turned out weapons with poly-groove rifling, and closed at the breech by a species of block which lifted in and out and had somewhat the appearance of a carriage clock. It was held in position by a hollow screw through which the charge and projectile were loaded into the gun, and which was screwed up tight against the breech-block before firing. This was not a very satisfactory system, since, if not properly screwed taut, the block had a habit of blowing out, sometimes with unfortunate results. It was probably for this reason that none of these guns was made bigger than a 100-pounder. The projectiles for the Armstrong gun were covered with leaden jackets in order to take the rifling. This jacket every now and again flew off, which rendered these guns very unsafe to use over the heads of our own troops.

The consequence was that while the Germans went in for the Krupp breech-loading system, in which the breech is closed by a sliding block across it, and the French for the interrupted-screw breech-closing plug, the prototype of our present system, we gave up breech-loaders and went in for built-up, muzzle-loading guns. Their advocates claimed for them simplicity, comparative cheapness, and other virtues, but, as a matter of fact, we were entirely on "the wrong tack" and were gradually being left behind in gun-construction by other nations. These big muzzle-loaders were formed by shrinking successive jackets over a steel tube which formed the bore. They were rifled with a few wide, shallow grooves, their projectiles being fitted with gun-metal studs intended to travel along the rifling and so give them the spinning movement requisite for accuracy. The biggest guns of this class constructed in this country were the 80-ton guns carried by the Inflexible at the bombardment of Alexandria, though the Italians, who followed us in sticking to muzzle-loaders for a time, had guns of 100 tons. Of course the biggest guns had special hydraulic mountings, but the broadside guns of 7-, 8-, 9-, or 10-inch bore were mounted on carriages invented by a Captain Scott. These consisted of a pair of iron brackets, or sides, supporting the gun, which ran in and out on slides made of iron girders that could be trained to the right or left by means of tackles, or in most cases by cog wheels working on curved and cogged racers. The carriage on which the gun was mounted had rollers beneath it with eccentric axles, so that, unless these were raised by levers supplied for the purpose, the carriage itself rested on the slide. This helped to check the recoil, further restrained by a system of interlocking plates on the carriage and slide which could be compressed together by a hand-wheel and screw.

After the gun had recoiled inboard and had been reloaded, the compressors were slackened and the gun-carriage put on its rollers, so that it ran down the slightly-sloping slide to its firing-position. But for all its simplicity there were very many disadvantages attendant on the muzzle-loader. One very important one was the impossibility of preventing the gases caused by the explosion of the powder from escaping past the projectile, so that part of the force of the explosion was wasted. In breech-loading guns the projectile fits the rifling closely—it could not be forced through the gun by the rammer from the rear—being provided with a copper driving-band of slightly bigger circumference than the bore.[143]
[144] When the gun is fired, this is driven into the grooves of the rifling, rotates the shot, and at the same time stops any escape of gas and consequently of energy. Thus, size for size, a breech-loading gun must have greater range and penetration than a muzzle-loader. A breech-loader can be made much longer than a muzzle-loader into the bargain, as it is not necessary to get to the muzzle to load it. This also makes for accuracy and penetration.

It was a considerable time before those in this country who had stuck to the muzzle-loading system through thick and thin could be brought to see the error of their ways, but after 1880 breech-loaders much of the French type were introduced into the navy, till we reached the monster 110-ton guns carried in the Benbow, Sanspareil, and the ill-fated Victoria. As I have already mentioned, the French guns were closed at the breech by an "interrupted screw". What this is may be shortly explained. Imagine a screw plug about one and a half times as long as its diameter, with a close thread to it. Now, to screw this in and out of the breech of the gun would be a matter taking an appreciable time. Suppose, now, that we take this screw plug and divide the outside of it—the screw part—perpendicularly into six equal parts. Then, if we cut away the thread of the screw on every other sixth, we shall have three-sixths smooth and the other three-sixths with the screw-thread still standing out upon them. If now we treat the corresponding screw-thread in the breech of the gun itself in a similar manner, and then insert the plug with the three threaded portions in line with the three smooth portions cut in the gun, we can push it directly in to its full length, after which a sixth of a turn will lock the threaded parts together and securely close the breech. This has proved amply strong enough to resist the immense strain imposed by the explosion of the charge; but while the principle has been retained in all our cannon—except the small 3- and 6-pounder Hotchkiss guns, which have a sliding block—it has been so improved that the locking of the breech is still stronger, and in all but our very big guns it can be opened and closed with just about as much ease as a cupboard door. Of course, in monsters like the 12-, 13·5-, and 15-inch guns, hydraulic machinery is brought into play, by means of which their immense breech-blocks are manipulated with the greatest ease by the movement of various levers.

Machine-guns at one period were introduced into the naval service for the special purpose of defence against torpedo-boats, but smaller rifle-calibre weapons were also supplied for use in the tops, boats, and in landing operations. The first-mentioned were "Nordenfeldt" guns, firing steel projectiles of 1 inch diameter in volleys of two or five. These proved too small to deal with the torpedo-boat, which grew bigger and bigger and was superseded by the destroyer; and were replaced successively by 3-, 6-, and 12-pounder rapid-fire guns. But at the present time a 4- or 6-inch shell is required to be really effective against the big destroyers which are now in commission. The rifle-calibre guns were at first Gatlings with revolving barrels, then Gardner and Nordenfeldt volley-firing guns, and lastly the well-known Maxim. Some of these are still carried on board ship but are not now of use in a naval action, though they are most valuable when bluejackets and marines are landed for shore service, and, upon occasion, in the boats.

[145]
[146]