regard to the misfire, there is, as we have seen, a conflict of direct evidence; and the above conclusions rest wholly on indications afforded by the fragments, together with the now proved inability of the gun to withstand the explosion of a double charge. Fracture took place only in the two forward coils of the gun, of which thirteen pieces were recovered, the muzzle and many other pieces going overboard. On piecing these together, it was found that their rear and forward edges are scored exactly as they would have been by the passage of the hinder shot over them, after the disruption of the tube had been effected by the explosion of the forward charge. This explosion would occur about midway in the barrel, at a point where, as we have seen, the pressure is usually only five tons per square inch, and where no provision of metal has been made to withstand such pressures as occur in the powder chamber. The scoring of these fragments in a particular manner is the sole foundation on which the conclusions of the committee rest; but three prime difficulties had to be disposed of before the explanation was admissible. In the first place, the sound of firing might have told those within the turret whether a misfire had or had not taken place. Secondly, the position of the rammer should have indicated that a charge remained in the gun when the second was put in. Thirdly, a misfire should have been indicated by the absence of any recoil.

In reply it is said: Firstly, that electric firing, from its instantaneousness, makes it impossible to say whether any particular gun in a broadside has missed fire. Secondly, that all visible movement of the telescopic rammer had ceased before the second charge was rammed home, while the indicator, being out of order, afforded no information. Thirdly, the movement of recoil is so masked by that produced by hydraulic power, which is applied the moment explosion is heard, that it is most unlikely its absence would be noticed.

In this way the committee have removed, to their own satisfaction, objections, the admission of any one of which is fatal to their theory; and we must now notice a small but important piece of positive evidence which they claim in its favour. After the accident, a stud was picked up in the turret ; it was much battered, and it is almost certain that it could have come from nowhere else than from a shell which was within the gun when it burst. We have before remarked that the studs of "Common" and "Palliser" shell differ in their weight and method of fixing, and the stud in question appears to have belonged to a Palliser projectile. Sir W. Palliser disputes this on the ground that his studs are marked by the rifling in a different manner from that upon which the committee rely; but, if the latter are

right, there is some slight positive ground for believing in the double charge. Among the many causes which have been suggested, the commonest is that which attributes the bursting to air-spaces between the cartridge and projectile. Some time ago it might have been necessary to discuss this question at length; but it has been completely exploded by the later experiments of the committee, and was never really worth consideration. Finally, Sir W. Palliser thinks that the gun was burst by the jamming of the shot upon the papier-mâché wad. He believes that the hydraulic rammer, acting with a force of many tons, may have cupped the wad in such a way around the pointed end of the shell that this, on issuing, jammed in the barrel, rupturing the steel tube only in the first instance, but giving vent through this fracture to the powder-gases, which then broke up the jointed external structure of coils. Selecting an old cast-iron Crimean gun, and lining it with a tube of soft iron instead of steel, Sir William has recently shown that it is impossible to burst a piece of this kind by double loading. Indeed, he has nearly filled the barrel with charges without damage to the gun.

As is well known, the War Office, in order to test the various explanations offered in so many quarters, ordered a second series of experiments on the sister gun. These, unfortunately, were not directed to test each of the suggestions thought worthy of consideration in an exhaustive manner. Many rounds were fired unnecessarily with air-spaces between the cartridge and projectile, and two with a wad canted in the bore about five feet from the shell. In both these rounds the wad was blown out of the gun before the shot reached it, but the experiment tells us nothing about what would happen if by any chance a shot could be effectively jammed. Experiments should have been made with steel tubes already cracked, since this material is so notoriously uncertain; and the results of fracture in this part are supposed to be momentous by artillerists of Sir William Palliser's experience. Again: no attempt was made to cause the studded projectile to override the rifling, but the committee appear to have hurried forward to prove the correctness of their first report. With this view, the gun was doubly charged and furnished with crusher gauges, whose business it was to report the pressures under which the gun gave way. Unfortunately, the committee had previously pressed these gauges with 36 tons to the square inch, and they recorded nothing when the second 38-ton gun was finally burst. Although it was immediately proclaimed that the verdict of the committee was correct and the Woolwich system triumphantly vindicated, it must not be forgotten that the sister guns have burst in very

different ways.

In the case of the Thunderer, only the two forward coils were fractured, the breech-piece remaining intact; but the second gun was split from end to end, and the character of the fragments differs widely in the two cases. On the whole, the second series of experiments must be pronounced unsatisfactory and inconclusive, leaving us in uncertainty as to the real causes of the Thunderer explosion an uncertainty which rises to anxiety in view of the Italian disaster. It cannot be too often repeated that the Elswick and Woolwich systems are practically identical, or that Sir W. Armstrong's gun has given way under an ordinary charge of exceptionally mild powder. Had British pebble powder been in use on board the Duilio, it is probable that not a man would have remained alive or unwounded within the turret of the Italian ironclad after the explosion.

LITERARY SUCCESS A HUNDRED

TH

YEARS AGO.

HOSE who in these days "tamper with the Muses" must find fruitful source of vexation in the perusal of the letters and memoirs of certain literary persons who flourished a century ago. If there were then no instances of a prize poem leading to an ambassadorship, as in the case of Prior, or of good places being given away in return for a fairly creditable copy of verses, there were abundant examples of a splendid social position and ample pecuniary rewards being gained by writers whose abilities we should now consider of the most common-place order. But let any disappointed genius who feels himself or herself inadequately rewarded by the admiration of perhaps a small clique in this much-divided literary world of London, be thankful to avoid stumbling on the "Life and Letters of Mrs. Hannah More." Almost exactly a hundred years ago she, "impelled by the consciousness of superior powers," came to London. She did not enter it as a perfect stranger, for, to quote Mr. Roberts, her biographer, "Society, in its most engaging form, was extending its arms to receive her."

At this time Mrs. Hannah More was a comely woman of eightand-twenty, and she had written the "Search after Happiness," a Pastoral Drama of the feeblest description, and some translations from Metastasio and Horace, and, on the strength of these achievements and some good introductions, she carried the town. Her favourite amusement as a child had been to turn a chair into a coach, seat herself in it, and invite her sisters to drive with her to London, to see publishers and bishops; and now her childish sport became a reality, and she not only was able to hold her own with publishers when the time for bargaining came, but took sweet counsel with every bishop on the bench, and during the whole course of her life gave them large help in holding up the pillars of Church and State. Another ambition of her childhood had been to have a whole quire of writingpaper given to her at once. This wish had been granted, and on half the quire she had written letters to depraved characters (imaginary

ones), pointing out the evil of their ways; and on the other half, answers from the same, owning the convincing force of her arguments, and proclaiming their sincere repentance and intention of amendment. This juvenile amusement was also the foreshadowing of her chief employment in after years.

At first, it must be owned, Miss More was just a little dazzled by the great world and the great people she met, and no wonder, for both were at her feet. Night after night she went to parties "composed entirely" (to use her own words, though it is unkind of her to make such a marked distinction) " of wits and bishops, with scarcely an expletive person amongst them." Garrick was one of her first friends, and, in spite of his calling, the friendship between them lasted as long as he lived. She met Dr. Johnson at a party given by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Her host had forewarned her that it was just possible the Doctor might be in one of his moods of sadness and silence. She was therefore-and now we use the words of her biographer"surprised at his coming to meet her as she entered the room, with good humour in his countenance, and a macaw of Sir Joshua's on his hand; and still more at his accosting her with a verse from a Morning Hymn, which she had written at the desire of Sir J. Stonehouse. In the same pleasant humour he continued the whole of the evening."

This is rather a different account of the meeting from that given by Mrs. Thrale: "When she (H. More) was introduced to Dr. Johnson not long ago, she began singing his praises in the warmest manner, and talking of the pleasure and the instruction she had received from his writings, with the highest encomiums. For some time he heard her with that quietness which a long use of praise had given him. Then she redoubled her strokes, and, as Mr. Seward calls it, peppered still more highly, till at length the Doctor turned suddenly to her, with a stern and angry countenance, and said, 'Madam, before you flatter a man so grossly to his face, you should consider whether or not your flattery is worth having."" If during this first interview Dr. Johnson did administer such a sledge-hammer rebuke, he certainly took a liking to Miss More afterwards, for we hear of his calling her child, and little fool, and love, and dearest, and with him these epithets were synonyms.

This conquest of Dr. Johnson was by no means the end of Hannah More's social successes. She soon became acquainted with "all the great and greatly endowed." She was introduced to "her sex's glory, Mrs. Montagu," and describes her in a letter to her sister as "not only the finest genius, but the finest lady I ever saw. She lives in the highest style of magnificence. Her apartments and table