Chapter D: FORENSIC, IN PRIVATE CAUSES.--I. Action for Libel (Greek: dike (10)

It would seem that from the date of Machiavelli's discourse to Leo on the government of Florence the Medici had taken him into consideration. Writing to Vettori in 1513, he had expressed his eager wish to "roll stones" in their service; and this desire was now gratified. In 1521 he was sent to Carpi to transact a petty matter with the chapter of the Franciscans, the chief known result of the embassy being a burlesque correspondence with Francesco Guicciardini. Four years later, in 1525, he received a rather more important mission to Venice. But Machiavelli's public career was virtually closed; and the interest of his biography still centres in his literary work. We have seen that already, in 1504, he had been engaged upon a comedy in the manner of Aristophanes, which is now unfortunately lost. A translation of the _Andria_ and three original comedies from his pen are extant, the precise dates of which are uncertain, though the greatest of them was first printed at Rome in 1524. This is the _Mandragola_, which may be justly called the ripest and most powerful play in the Italian language.

The plot is both improbable and unpleasing. But literary criticism is
merged in admiration of the wit, the humour, the vivacity, the satire
of a piece which brings before us the old life of Florence in a
succession of brilliant scenes. If Machiavelli had any moral object
when he composed the _Mandragola_, it was to paint in glaring colours
the corruption of Italian society. It shows how a bold and plausible
adventurer, aided by the profligacy of a parasite, the avarice and
hypocrisy of a confessor, and a mother's complaisant familiarity with
vice, achieves the triumph of making a gulled husband bring his own
unwilling but too yielding wife to shame. The whole comedy is a study
of stupidity and baseness acted on by roguery. About the power with
which this picture of domestic immorality is presented there can be no
question. But the perusal of the piece obliges us to ask ourselves
whether the author's radical conception of human nature was not false.
The same suspicion is forced upon us by the _Principe_. Did not
Machiavelli leave good habit, as an essential ingredient of character,
out of account? Men are not such absolute fools as Nicia, nor such
compliant catspaws as Ligurio and Timoteo; women are not such weak
instruments as Sostrata and Lucrezia. Somewhere, in actual life, the
stress of craft and courage acting on the springs of human vice and
weakness fails, unless the hero of the comedy or tragedy, Callimaco or
Cesare, allows for the revolt of healthier instincts. Machiavelli does
not seem to have calculated the force of this recoil. He speculates a
world in which _virtu_, unscrupulous strength of character, shall deal
successfully with frailty. This, we submit, was a deep-seated error in
his theory of life, an error to which may be ascribed the numerous
stumbling-blocks and rocks of offence in his more serious writings.

Some time after the _Mandragola_, he composed a second comedy,
entitled _Clizia_, which is even homelier and closer to the life of
Florence than its predecessor. It contains incomparable studies of the
Florentine housewife and her husband, a grave business-like citizen,
who falls into the senile folly of a base intrigue. There remains a
short piece without title, the _Commedia in prosa_, which, if it be
Machiavelli's, as internal evidence of style sufficiently argues,
might be accepted as a study for both the _Clizia_ and the
_Mandragola_. It seems written to expose the corruption of domestic
life in Florence, and especially to satirize the friars in their
familiar part of go-betweens, tame cats, confessors and adulterers.

Of Machiavelli's minor poems, sonnets, _capitoli_ and carnival songs
there is not much to say. Powerful as a comic playwright, he was not a
poet in the proper sense of the term. The little novel of _Belfagor_
claims a passing word, if only because of its celebrity. It is a
good-humoured satire upon marriage, the devil being forced to admit
that hell itself is preferable to his wife's company. That Machiavelli
invented it to express the irritation of his own domestic life is a
myth without foundation. The story has a medieval origin, and it was
almost simultaneously treated in Italian by Machiavelli, Straparola
and Giovanni Brevio.

In the spring of 1526 Machiavelli was employed by Clement VII. to inspect the fortifications of Florence. He presented a report upon the subject, and in the summer of the same year received orders to attend Francesco Guicciardini, the pope's commissary of war in Lombardy. Guicciardini sent him in August to Cremona, to transact business with the Venetian _provveditori_. Later on in the autumn we find him once more with Guicciardini at Bologna. Thus the two great Italian historians of the 16th century, who had been friends for several years, were brought into relations of close intimacy.

After another visit to Guicciardini in the spring of 1527, Machiavelli was sent by him to Civita Vecchia. It seemed that he was destined to be associated in the papal service with Clement's viceroy, and that a new period of diplomatic employment was opening for him. But soon after his return to Florence he fell ill. His son Piero said that he took medicine on the 20th of June which disagreed with him; and on the 22nd he died, having received the last offices of the Church.

There is no foundation for the legend that he expired with profane sarcasms upon his lips. Yet we need not run into the opposite extreme, and try to fancy that Machiavelli, who had professed Paganism in his life, proved himself a believing Christian on his death-bed. That he left an unfavourable opinion among his fellow citizens is very decidedly recorded by the historian Varchi. The _Principe_, it seems, had already begun to prejudice the world against him; and we can readily believe that Varchi sententiously observes, that "it would have been better for him if nature had given him either a less powerful intellect or a mind of a more genial temper." There is in truth a something crude, unsympathetic, cynical in his mental attitude toward human nature, for which, even after the lapse of more than three centuries, we find it difficult to make allowance. The force of his intellect renders this want of geniality repulsive. We cannot help objecting that one who was so powerful could have been kindlier and sounder if he willed. We therefore do him the injustice of mistaking his infirmity for perversity. He was colour-blind to commonplace morality; and we are angry with him because he merged the hues of ethics in one grey monotone of politics.

In person Machiavelli was of middle height, black-haired, with rather a small head, very bright eyes and slightly aquiline nose. His thin, close lips often broke into a smile of sarcasm. His activity was almost feverish. When unemployed in work or study he was not averse to the society of boon companions, gave himself readily to transient amours, and corresponded in a tone of cynical bad taste. At the same time he lived on terms of intimacy with worthy men. Varchi says that "in his conversation he was pleasant, obliging to his intimates, the friend of virtuous persons." Those who care to understand the contradictions of which such a character was capable should study his correspondence with Vettori. It would be unfair to charge what is repulsive in their letters wholly on the habits of the times, for wide familiarity with the published correspondence of similar men at the same epoch brings one acquainted with little that is so disagreeable. (J. A. S.)

Among the many editions of Machiavelli's works the one in 8 vols.,
dated Italia, 1813, may be mentioned, and the more comprehensive ones
published by A. Parenti (Florence, 1843) and by A. Usigli (Florence,
1857). P. Fanfani and L. Passerini began another, which promised to be
the most complete of all; but only 6 vols. were published (Florence,
1873-1877); the work contains many new and important documents on
Machiavelli's life. The best biography is the standard work of
Pasquale Villari, _La Storia di Niccolò Machiavelli e de' suoi tempi_
(Florence, 1877-1882; latest ed., 1895; Eng. trans. by Linda Villari,
London, 1892); in vol. ii. there is an exhaustive criticism of the
various authors who have written on Machiavelli. See also T. Mundt,
_Niccolò Machiavelli und das System der modernen Politik_ (3rd ed.,
Berlin, 1867); E. Feuerlein, "_Zur Machiavelli-Frage_" in H. von
Sybel's _Histor. Zeitschrift_ (Munich, 1868); P. S. Mancini,
_Prelezioni con un saggio sul Machiavelli_; F. Nitti, _Machiavelli
nella vita e nelle opere_ (Naples, 1876); O. Tomasini, _La Vita e gli
scritti di Niccolò Machiavelli_ (Turin, 1883); L. A. Burd, _Il
Principe, by Niccolò Machiavelli_ (Oxford, 1891); Lord Morley,
_Machiavelli_ (Romanes lecture, Oxford, 1897). _The Cambridge Modern
History_, vol. i. (Cambridge, 1903), contains an essay on Machiavelli
by L. A. Burd, with a very full biography.

MACHICOLATION (from Fr. _machicoulis_), an opening between a wall and a parapet, formed by corbelling out the latter, so that the defenders might throw down stones, melted lead, &c., upon assailants below.

MACHINE (through Fr. from Lat. form _machina_ of Gr. [Greek: mechane]), any device or apparatus for the application or modification of force to a specific purpose. The term "simple machine" is applied to the six so-called mechanical powers--the lever, wedge, wheel and axle, pulley, screw, and inclined plane. For machine-tools see TOOLS. The word machine was formerly applied to vehicles, such as stage-coaches, &c., and is still applied to carriages in Scotland; a survival of this use is in the term "bathing machine." Figuratively, the word is used of persons whose actions seem to be regulated according to a rigid and unchanging system. In politics, especially in America, machine is synonymous with party organization. A stage device of the ancient Greek drama gave rise to the proverbial expression, "the god from the machine," Lat. _deus ex machina_, for the disentangling and conclusion of a plot by supernatural interference or by some accident extraneous to the natural development of the story. When a god had to be brought on the stage he was floated down from above by a [Greek: geranos] (crane) or other machine ([Greek: mechane]). Euripides has been reproached with an excessive use of the device, but it has been pointed out (A. E. Haigh, _Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, p. 245 seq.) that only in two plays (_Orestes_ and _Hippolytus_) is the god brought on for the solution of the plot. In the others the god comes to deliver a kind of epilogue, describing the future story of the characters, or to introduce some account of a legend, institution, &c.

MACHINE-GUN, a weapon designed to deliver a large number of bullets or small shells, either by volleys[1] or in very quick succession, at a high rate of fire. Formerly the mechanism of machine-guns was hand operated, but all modern weapons are automatic in action, the gas of the explosion or the force of recoil being utilized to lock and unlock the breech mechanism, to load the weapon and to eject the fired cartridge cases. The smaller types approximate to the "automatic rifle," which is expected to replace the magazine rifle as the arm of the infantryman. The large types, generically called "pompoms," fire a light artillery projectile, and are considered by many artillery experts as "the gun of the future." The medium type, which takes the ordinary rifle ammunition but is fired from various forms of carriage, is the ordinary machine-gun of to-day, and the present article deals mainly with this.

HISTORICAL SKETCH

Machine-guns of a primitive kind are found in the early history of gunpowder artillery, in the form of a grouping or binding of several small-calibre guns for purposes of a volley or a rapid succession of shots. The earliest field artillery (q.v.) was indeed chiefly designed to serve the purpose of a modern machine-gun, i.e. for a mechanical concentration of musketry. Infantry fire (till the development of the Spanish arquebus, about 1520) was almost ineffective, and the disintegration of the masses of pikes, preparatory to the decisive cavalry charge, had to be effected by guns of one sort or another (see also INFANTRY). Hence the "cart with gonnes," although the prototype of the field gun of to-day was actually a primitive _mitrailleuse_.

Ribaudequins.

"Organs."

Weapons of this sort were freely employed by the Hussites, who fought in laager formation (_Wagenburg_), but the fitting of two or more hand-guns or small culverins to a two-wheeled carriage garnished with spikes and scythe blades (like the ancient war-chariots) was somewhat older, for in 1382 the men of Ghent put into the field 200 "chars de canon" and in 1411 the Burgundian army is said to have had 2000 "ribaudequins" (meaning probably the weapons, not the carts, in this case). These were of course hardly more than carts with hand-gun men; in fact most armies in those days moved about in a hollow square or lozenge of wagons, and it was natural to fill the carts with the available gunners or archers. The method of breaking the enemy's "battles" with these carts was at first, in the ancient manner, to drive into and disorder the hostile ranks with the scythes. But they contained at least the germ of the modern machine-gun, for the tubes (_cannes, canons_) were connected by a train of powder and fired in volleys. As however field artillery improved (latter half of 15th century), and a cannon-ball could be fired from a mobile carriage, the ribaudequin ceased to exist, its name being transferred to heavy hand-guns used as rampart pieces. The idea of the machine-gun reappeared however in the 16th century. The weapons were now called "organs" (_orgues_), from the number of pipes or tubes that they contained. At first used (defensively) in the same way as the ribaudequins, i.e. as an effective addition to the military equipment of a war-cart, they were developed, in the early part of the 16th century, into a really formidable weapon for breaking the masses of the enemy, not by scythes and spikes but by fire. Fleurange's memoirs assign the credit of this to the famous gunner and engineer Pedro Navarro, who made two hundred weapons of a design of his own for Louis XII. These "were not more than two feet long, and fired fifty shots at a round," but nevertheless "organs" were relatively rare in the armies of the 16th century, for the field artillery, though it grew in size and lost in mobility, had discovered the efficacy of case shot (then called "perdreaux") against uncovered animate targets, and for work that was not sufficiently serious for the guns heavy arquebuses were employed. Infantry fire, too, was growing in power and importance. In 1551 a French army contained 21 guns and 150 arquebuses _à croc_ and one _pièce façon d'orgue_. By about 1570 it had been found that when an "organ" was needed all that was necessary was to mount some heavy arquebuses on a cart, and the organ, as a separate weapon, disappeared from the field, although under the name of "mantelet" (from the shield which protected the gunners), it was still used for the defence of breaches in siege warfare. Diego Ufano, who wrote in the early years of the 17th century, describes it as a weapon consisting of five or six barrels fired simultaneously by a common lock, and mentions as a celebrated example the "Triquetraque of Rome" which had five barrels. Another writer, Hanzelet, describes amongst other devices a mitrailleuse of four barrels which was fired from the back of an ass or pony. But such weapons as these were more curious than useful. For work in the open field the musket came more and more to the front, its bullet became at least as formidable as that of an "organ," and when it was necessary to obtain a concentrated fire on a narrow front arquebuses _à croc_ were mounted for the nonce in groups of four to six. The "organ" maintained a precarious existence, and is described by Montecucculi a century later, and one of twelve barrels figures in the list of military Stores at Hesdin in 1689. But its fatal defect was that it was neither powerful enough to engage nor mobile enough to evade the hostile artillery.

Enthusiastic inventors, of course, produced many models of machine-gun in the strict sense of the word--i.e. a gun firing many charges, in volleys or in rapid succession, by a mechanical arrangement of the lock. Wilhelm Calthoff, a German employed by Louis XIII., produced arquebuses and muskets that fired six to eight shots per round, but his invention was a secret, and it seems to have been more of a magazine small arm than a machine-gun (1640). In 1701 a Lorrainer, Beaufort de Mirecourt, proposed a machine-gun which had as its purpose the augmentation of infantry-fire power, so as to place an inferior army on an equality with a superior. At this time inventors were so numerous and so embarrassing that the French grand master of artillery, St Hilaire, in 1703 wrote that he would be glad to have done with "ces sortes de gens à secrets," some of whom demanded a grant of compensation even when their experiments had failed. The machine-gun of the 17th and 18th centuries in fact possessed no advantage over contemporary field artillery, and the battalion gun in particular, which possessed the long ranging and battering power that its rival lacked, and was moreover more efficacious against living targets with its case-shot or grape. As compared with infantry fire, too, it was less effective and slower than the muskets of a well-drilled company. Rapid fire was easily arranged, but the rapid _loading_ which would have compensated for other defects was unobtainable in the then existing state of gun-making.

Thus a satisfactory machine-gun was not forthcoming until breech-loading had been, so to speak, rediscovered, that is until about 1860. At that time the tactical conditions of armament were peculiar. As regards artillery, the new (muzzle-loading) long-range rifle sufficed, in the hand of determined infantry, to keep guns out of case-shot range. This made the Napoleonic artillery attack an impossibility. At the same time the infantry rifle was a slow loader, and the augmentation of the volume of infantry fire attracted the attention of several inventors. The French, with their artillery traditions, regarded the machine-gun therefore as a method of restoring the lost superiority of the gunner, while the Americans, equally in accordance with traditions and local circumstances, regarded it as a musketry machine. The representative weapons evolved by each were the _canon à balles_, more commonly called _mitrailleuse_, and the Gatling gun.

The Canon a Balles, 1866-1870.

The declared purpose of the _canon à balles_ was to replace the old artillery case-shot attack. Shrapnel, owing to the defects of the time-fuzes then available, had proved disappointing in the Italian War of 1859, and the gun itself, of the existing model, was not considered satisfactory. Napoleon III., a keen student of artillery, maintained a private arsenal and workshop at the château of Meudon[2] and in 1866, in the alarm following upon Königgrätz, he ordered Commandant Reffye (1821-1880), the artillery officer he had placed in charge of it, to produce a machine-gun. Reffye held that the work of a mitrailleuse should only begin where that of the infantry rifle ceased. The handbook to his gun issued to the French army in 1870 stated that it was "to carry balls to distances that the infantry, and the artillery firing case, could not reach." The most suitable range was given as 1500-2000 yards against infantry in close order, 2000-2700 against artillery. As the French shrapnel (_obus à balles_) of these days was only used to give its peculiar case-shot effect between 550 and 1350 yards, and even so sparingly and without much confidence in its efficacy, it is clear that the _canon à balles_ was intended to do the field-gun's work, except at (what were then) extreme field artillery ranges (2800 and above), in which case the ordinary gun with common shell (time or percussion) alone was used.

Constructed to meet these conditions, the Reffye machine-gun in its
final form resembled outwardly an ordinary field gun, with wheeled
carriage, limber and four-horse team. The gun barrel was in reality a
casing for 25 rifle barrels disposed around a common axis (the idea of
obtaining sweeping effect by disposing the barrels slightly fan-wise
had been tried and abandoned). The barrels were held together at
intervals by wrought-iron plates. They were entirely open at the
breech, a removable false breech containing the firing mechanism (the
cartridge cases were of brass, solid-drawn, like those of the American
and unlike those of the British Gatlings). This false breech, held in
the firing position by a strong screw--resembling roughly those of
contemporary B.L. ordnance such as the Armstrong R. B. L.--consisted
of a plate with 25 holes, which allowed the points of the strikers to
pass through and reach the cartridges. The plate was turned by hand so
that one striker was admitted at a time, the metal of the plate
holding back the rest. To avoid any deflection of the bullet by the
gases at an adjoining muzzle the barrels were fired in an irregular
order. Each gun was provided with four chambers, which were loaded
with their 25 cartridges apiece by a charger, and fixed to the breech
one after the other as quickly as the manipulation of the powerful
retaining screw permitted. The rates of fire were "slow," 3 rounds or
75 shots a minute, and "rapid," 5 rounds or 125 shots per minute. One
advantage as against artillery that was claimed for the new weapon was
rapidity of ranging. Any ordinary target, such as a hostile gun,
would, it was expected, be accurately ranged by the mitrailleuse
before it was ready to open fire for effect. The ordinary rifle bullet
was employed, but to enhance the case-shot effect a heavy bullet made
up in three parts, which broke asunder on discharge, was introduced in
1870 in the proportion of one round in nine. The weapon was sighted to
3000 metres (3300 yds.). The initial velocity was 1558 f.s.; and the
weight of the gun 350 kg. (6.45 cwt.), of the carriage 371 kg. (6.86
cwt.); total behind the team, 1,485 kg. (27.1 cwt.).

For an artillery effect, dispersion had to be combined with accuracy.
The rifle-barrels when carefully set gave a very close grouping of
shots on the target, and dispersion was obtained by traversing the gun
during the firing of a round. When this was skilfully performed a
front of 18 metres (about 20 yds.) at l,000 metres range was
thoroughly swept by the cone of bullets.

The design and manufacture of these mitrailleuses under the personal orders and at the expense of the emperor enabled the French authorities to keep their new weapon most secret. Even though, after a time, mitrailleuses were constructed by scores, and could therefore no longer be charged to a "sundry" or "petty cash" account in the budget, secrecy was still maintained. The pieces were taken about, muffled in tarpaulins, by by-ways and footpaths. In 1869, two years after the definitive adoption of the weapon, only a few artillery captains were instructed in its mechanism; the non-commissioned officers who had to handle the gun in war were called up for practice in July 1870, when Major Reffye's energies were too much absorbed in turning out the material so urgently demanded to allow him to devote himself to their instruction. The natural consequence was that the mitrailleuses were taken into battle by officers and men of whom nine-tenths had never seen them fire one round of live cartridges. The purpose of this fatal secrecy was the maintenance of prestige. No details were given, but it was confidently announced that war would be revolutionized. One foreign officer only, Major Fosbery, R.A. (see _R.U.S.I. Journal_, v. xiii.), penetrated the secret, and he felt himself bound in honour to keep it to himself, not even communicating it to the War Office. But public attention was only too fully aroused by these mysterious prophecies. "The mitrailleuse paid dearly for its fame." The Prussians, who had examined mitrailleuses of the Gatling or infantry type, were well aware that the artillery machine-gun was at the least a most formidable opponent. They therefore ostentatiously rejected the Gatling gun, taught their troops that the new weapons were in the nature of scientific toys, and secretly made up their minds to turn the whole weight of their guns on to the mitrailleuse whenever and wherever it appeared on the field, and so to overwhelm it at once. This policy they carried into effect in the War of 1870; and although on occasions the new weapon rendered excellent service, in general it cruelly disappointed the over-high hopes of its admirers. And thus, although the Gatling and similar types of gun were employed to a slight extent by both sides in the later stage of the war, machine-guns, as a class of armament for civilized warfare, practically disappeared.

As a good deal of criticism--after the event--has been levelled at the
French for their "improper use of the machine-gun as a substitute for
artillery," it is necessary to give some summary of the ideas and
rules which were inspired by the inventor or dictated by the
authorities as to its tactical employment. The first principle laid
down was that the gun should not be employed within the zone of the
infantry fight. Officers commanding batteries were explicitly warned
against infantry divisional generals who would certainly attempt to
put the batteries, by sections, amongst the infantry. The second
principle was that the mitrailleuses were to share the work of the
guns, the latter battering obstacles with common shell, and the former
being employed against troops in the open, and especially to cover and
support the infantry advance. This tendency to classify the roles of
the artillery and to tell off the batteries each in its special task
has reappeared in the French, and to a more limited extent in the
British, field artillery of to-day (the Germans alone resolutely
opposing the idea of subdivision). The mitrailleuse of 1870 was, in
fact, intended to do what the perfected Shrapnel of 1910 does, to
transfer the case-shot attack to longer ranges. But, as we have seen,
secrecy had prevented any general spread of knowledge as to the uses
to which the _canon à balles_ was to be put, and consequently, after a
few weeks of the war, we find Reffye complaining that the machine-guns
were being used by their battery commanders "in a perfectly idiotic
fashion. They are only good at a great distance and when used in
masses, and they are being employed at close quarters like a rifle."
The officers in the field, however, held that it was foolish to pit
the mitrailleuse against the gun, which had a longer range, and
exerted themselves to use it as an infantry weapon, a concentrated
company, for which, unlike the Gatlings of 1870 and the machine-guns
of to-day, it was never designed. As to which was right in the
controversy it is impossible to dogmatize and needless to argue.

Gatling Gun.

Very different was the Gatling gun, the invention of Richard Jordan Gatling (1818-1903), which came into existence and was to a slight extent used in the field in the latter years of the American Civil War,[3] and also to a still slighter extent by the Bavarians and the French in the latter part of the war of 1870. This was distinctively an infantry type weapon, a sort of revolving rifle, the ten barrels of which were set around an axis, and fired in turn when brought into position by the revolving mechanism. This weapon had a long reign, and was used side by side with the latest automatic machine gun in the Spanish-American War of 1898. The following account of the old British service Gatling (fig. 1), as used in the Egyptian and Sudanese campaigns, is condensed from that in the article "Gun-making," _Ency. Brit._ 9th ed.

A block of ten barrels is secured round an axis, which is fixed in a
frame _a a_. On turning the handle _h_ (fig. 2) the spindle _g g_
causes the worm _f_ to act on the pinion _w_, making the axis and
barrels revolve. A drum T (figs. 1 and 4) is placed on the top at the
breech end of the barrels over a hopper, through a slot in which the
cartridges drop into the carrier (fig. 3). The construction of the
lock is shown in fig. 4. A A A A is a cam, sloping as in the drawing,
which, it must be understood, represents the circular construction
opened out and laid flat. As the barrels, carrier and locks revolve
the slope of the cam forces the locks forward and backward
alternately. At position I. the cartridge has just fallen into the
carrier, the lock and bolt are completely withdrawn. At positions II.,
III., IV., the cam is forcing them forward, so that the bolt pushes
the cartridge into the barrel. At IV. the cocking cam R begins to
compress the spiral spring, releasing it at V. Position VI. shows the
cartridge just after firing; the extractor is clutching the base of
the cartridge case, which is withdrawn as the locks retreat down the
slope of the cam, till at X it falls through an aperture to the
ground. The drum consists of a number of vertical channels radiating
from the centre. The cartridges are arranged horizontally, one above
the other, in these channels, bullet ends inwards. The drum revolves
on the pivot b (fig. 3). and the cartridges fall through the aperture
B. When all the channels are emptied, a full drum is brought from the
limber, and substituted for the empty one. Each barrel fires in turn
as it comes to a certain position, so that by turning the handle
quickly an almost continuous stream of bullets can be ejected.
Experimental Gatlings were constructed which could be made to fire
nearly 1000 shots a minute, and an automatic traversing arrangement
was also fitted.

As has been said, this weapon had a long reign. It was used with great effect in the Zulu War at Ulundi and in the Sudan. But a grave disadvantage of the English pattern was that it had to be used with the Boxer coiled cartridge supplied for the Martini-Henry rifle, and until this was replaced by a solid-drawn cartridge case it was impossible to avoid frequent "jams." The modern, fully automatic, machine gun suffers from this to a considerable extent, and it was an even more serious defect with a hand-operated weapon, as the British troops found in their campaigns against the Mahdists. But the Gatling had many advantages over its newer rivals as regards simplicity and strength. Theodore Roosevelt, who commanded sections of both types in the Spanish-American War, speaks with enthusiasm of the old-fashioned weapon[4] while somewhat disparaging the Colt automatic.

1-10, Parts of frame;
11, Breech plug;
12, Striker;
13, Extractor;
14, Cartridge receiver;
15-18, 23-31, Lock and trigger parts;
19-22, Locking action;
32-35, Loading action;
36-39, Cartridge receiver;
40, Cover;
41-44, Parts of hand-lever,
45-49, Traversing action,
50-55, Elevating and trailing action;
56, 57, Hopper and slide.]

The Gardner was another type which had a certain vogue[5] and was used by the British in savage warfare. But, next to the Gatling, the most important of the hand-operated machine guns was the Nordenfeldt, which was principally designed for naval use about the time when torpedo-boats were beginning to be regarded as dangerous antagonists.

Nordenfeldt Gun.

In this weapon the barrels are placed horizontally, and have no
movement. A box containing the locks, bolts, strikers and spiral
springs, one of each corresponding to each barrel, moves straight
backwards and forwards when worked by the handle of the lever on the
right. When the box is drawn back the cartridges fall from the holder
on the top into the carriers simultaneously. When the box is pushed
forward the bolts push the cartridges into the barrel, cocking-catches
compress the spiral springs, the lever releases the catches one after
the other at very minute intervals of time, and the cartridges are
fired in rapid succession. In this piece, careful aim can be taken
from a moving platform, and at the right moment the barrels can be
fired at the object almost simultaneously.

PRESENT DAY MACHINE-GUNS.

Hitherto we have been dealing with weapons worked by hand-power applied to a lever or winch-handle, the motion of this lever being translated by suitable mechanism into those by which the cartridges are loaded, fired, extracted and ejected--the cycle continuing as long as the lever is worked and there are cartridges in the "hoppers" which feed the gun. In the modern "automatic" machine-gun, moreover, the loading, firing, extracting and ejecting are all performed automatically by the gun itself, either by the recoil of its barrel, or by a small portion of the gases of explosion being allowed to escape through a minute hole in the barrel near the muzzle. The following details of the British Maxim, Hotchkiss and Colt types are reproduced from the article "Machine-guns," _Ency. Brit._ 10th ed.

The idea of using the recoil, or a portion of the gases of explosion, for the working of the breech mechanism is by no means new, the latter system having been proposed and patented (certainly in a very crude and probably unworkable form) by (Sir) Henry Bessemer in 1854; but whatever might be discovered by a search in old patent and other records or in museums, there can be no doubt that (Sir) Hiram S. Maxim was the first to produce a finished automatic gun of practical value. His patents in connexion with this particular class of weapon date back to 1884, and his gun on the recoil system was, after extensive trials, adopted into the British army in 1889 and into the navy in 1892. It is very possible that Bessemer's idea did not bear fruit earlier because the fouling left by the old forms of "black" or smoky powders was apt to clog the moving parts and to choke any small port. With modern smokeless powders this difficulty does not arise.

Maxim Gun.

The Maxim gun,[6] as will be seen from figs. 7 and 8, consists of two
parts, the barrel casing (a) and breech casing (d), secured firmly
together. The former (a), which is cylindrical in form, contains the
barrel (b), and the water surrounding it to keep down the very high
temperature attained by rapid fire, and the steam tube (c), which by
the action of a sliding valve allows of the escape of steam but not of
water. The barrel has asbestos packings at its front and rear bearings
in the casing, which allow of its sliding in recoil without the escape
of water. The breech casing (d) is a rectangular oblong box, and
contains the lock and firing mechanism. At its rear end it has handles
(e) by which the gun is directed, and the thumb-piece (m) by which the
trigger is actuated. Its top is closed by a lid, hinged at (i). At its
front is a recess holding the feed-block (f) through which the belt of
cartridges (g) is fed to the gun.

Attached to the rear of the barrel (b) on either side are two side
plates (h), between which in guides O works the aggregation of parts
D, F, J, K, L, P, T and V, which constitute the lock, and (in
bearings) the crank axle E, crank E', and connecting rod I (see figs.
7 to 11).

The connecting rod I joins the lock and crank, being attached to the
side levers J of the former by means of the interrupted screw U; the
latter enables the lock to be detached and removed.

The crank axle E extends through both sides of the breech casing (d),
slots (k, fig. 7), allowing it a longitudinal movement of about an
inch. To its left-hand end, outside the breech casing, is attached the
fusee chain Y of the recoil spring X (see dotted lines in fig. 7), and
to its right-hand end a bell trunk lever, B B'; the arm B, which
terminates in a knob, being turned by the crank handle, the arm B'
working against the buffer stop C.

In figs. 8, 9 and 11 the breech is shown closed, and it will be
noticed that the crank pin I' is _above_ the straight line joining the
axis of the barrel, the striker T, and the crank axle E. As the crank
is prevented from further movement _upwards_ by the crank handle B
taking against the check-lever G (fig. 7), it is clear that the
pressure on discharge of the cartridge cannot cause the crank axle to
rotate, and so open the breech as shown in figs. 10 and 12.

The withdrawal of the lock and opening of the breech are effected as
follows: The _total_ travel in recoil of the barrel is about one inch,
but on discharge the barrel, the side plates and lock all recoil
_together_ for about a quarter of an inch without any disturbance of
the locking as explained above, and by the time this short travel is
completed the _bullet has left the muzzle_. The arm B' of the crank
handle then engages the buffer stop C and causes the crank axle E to
rotate and the crank E' to fall and so draw back the lock from, and
open, the breech. At the same time the fusee chain Y is wound up round
the left-hand end of the crank axle E and the spring X extended. In
the meantime the knob of the buffer handle B swings over, and just as
the lock reaches its rearmost position (as in figs. 10 and 12) strikes
the flat buffer spring H, and, rebounding, assists the crank in
revolving in the reverse direction; the spring X also contracts, and,
unwinding the fusee chain, draws back the lock again and closes the
breech, a fresh cartridge having been placed in the barrel as
explained below.

The gun is fired by means of the trigger F, which is actuated by the
projection (l) on the trigger bar (S), the latter being drawn back
when the button (m) on the push lever (n) is pressed forwards. If,
therefore, the button he kept permanently pressed, the projection (l)
will always lie in the path of the trigger F just as the lock reaches
its forward position and the breech is closed, and the gun will fire
automatically, and continue to do so as long as there are cartridges
in the belt.

The loading, extraction and ejection of the cartridges are effected as
follows: The left-hand side-plate is extended forwards a little beyond
the breech, and communicates the reciprocating motion of the barrel to
a lever on the feed-block, which causes the cartridges in the belt to
be fed forward one by one by a "step-by-step" pawl action, the
cartridge which is next to be taken from the belt being arrested
exactly above the breech, the ejector-tube Q being below in the same
vertical plane.

The extractor D (see figs. 9 to 12) which performs the operations of
inserting, extracting and ejecting the cartridges, travels vertically
in guides on the face of the lock. Projecting outwards from each side
of its top are horns N (figs. 9 and 10). These travel round the edges
of the cams M (fig. 8) situated on each side of the breech casing, and
in conjunction with the spring W (fig. 8), compel the top of the
extractor to take the path shown by the dotted lines and arrows in
figs. 9 to 12.

The extractor (figs. 11 and 12) is recessed to take a movable plate
(u) termed a "gib," behind which is a spring (v). In the face of the
gib is a recess (w) into which the base of a cartridge can just enter.
On either side of the gib the face of the extractor has undercut
flanges, open at the top and bottom, between which the base of a
cartridge can fit the rim, being held in the undercuts (figs. 9 and
10).

It is clear from this arrangement that the base of the cartridge
having been introduced between the flanges at the top of the
extractor, can be pushed down, the spring (v) yielding, till arrested
at the recess (w); and, as the lower edges of this recess are slightly
sloped, further pressure will make it leave the recess (w) and slide
over the face of the gib, leave it, and take up a position in front of
the hole for the point of the striker (x), being now only prevented
from slipping out of the extractor by the extractor spring (y). If
this last be clear of the extractor stop (z) it will yield to pressure
and the cartridge will be free. This is the action in the gun except
that the cartridge is held firm and the extractor pushed against it.

In fig. 10 the extractor holds a cartridge (r) and a fired case (q)
ready to be pushed into the empty breech and ejector-tube Q
respectively. In the latter there is already a fired case (p), which
will be driven by the fired case (q) beyond the ejector spring R. As
soon as the lock reaches the face of the breech, the cartridge (r) and
case (q) are deposited in the breech and ejector-tube respectively,
and the extractor D _rises_ under the action of the levers L and J,
slides, as already explained, by the bases of the cartridges (r) and
case (q), and then over the base of the cartridge (s) in the belt (g).
Assuming the push-lever (n) to be pressed, the gun fires immediately
this has occurred, and the bullet of the cartridge (r) is expelled.
The position is now that shown in fig. 9. The barrel now recoils and
the lock is withdrawn, taking with it the fresh cartridge (s) from the
belt and the now fired case (r). The extractor travels horizontally
for a time and then drops (as shown by the dotted line and arrows),
assuming the position shown in fig. 12, which is exactly similar to
that in fig. 10 but with different cartridges; continuing the action,
the position shown in fig. 11 is arrived at. It will thus be seen that
each cartridge makes two complete journeys with the extractor; the
first as a live cartridge from the belt to the breech, the second from
the breech to the ejector-tube, the forward journey being always on a
lower level than that of the backward one. The sections in figs. 11
and 12 clearly show the cocking and firing mechanism and the safety
arrangement. The lock is cocked, after firing, by the arm of the
"tumbler" K, being pressed down by the side lever J as it swings down
when following the crank E'. Safety against firing before the breech
is closed is provided by the projection on the safety lever V, which
does not clear the striker T until lifted by the side lever J at the
top of its travel, that is, when the crank E' has passed the axial
line as already explained.

The lock in its rearmost position is kept in place by the block Z on
the under side of the cover of the breech casing. When in this
position it is clear of the guides O on the side-plates, and if the
cover be opened it can be turned up, unscrewed by a turn through an
eighth of a circle (the screw-thread U being interrupted in four
places) and removed. To prepare the gun for firing, the crank handle
is pushed over by hand to the buffer-spring, thus withdrawing the
extractor, and held in this position; the tongue on the end of a
filled belt is then pushed through the feed-block from the left and
pulled as far as it will go from the opposite side. This places a
cartridge above the breech ready to be seized by the extractor. The
crank handle is now released and the lock flies forwards. The crank
handle is now again pushed over and let go, and the first cartridge
thus taken from the belt and placed in the breech. The gun is ready to
fire.

To remove a partially filled belt, the crank handle must be pushed
over, thus freeing the extractor from the belt, and the latter
withdrawn after pressing a spring catch under the feed block which
releases the pawls. The gun now has _two_ live cartridges in it--both
in the extractor. Letting go the crank handle, one of them is
deposited in the ejector-tube, and again pushing over and letting go
the crank handle does the same with the second.

Fig. 13 shows the feed-block and the cartridge belts. The greatest
number usually carried in a belt is 250.

The gun is sighted to 2,500 yds. and has a folding tangent sight as
shown. Its weight varies from 50 to 60 lb., and it can fire about 450
rounds per minute.

[The diagrams have been made from drawings, by permission of Messrs.
Vickers, Sons & Maxim.]

Hotchkiss Gun.

The Hotchkiss gun, figs. 14 to 16, which has been adopted by the
French army and navy and elsewhere, depends for its action on the use
of a small portion of the gases of the cartridge itself. The barrel A
is firmly attached to the receiver or frame B, the latter containing
the breech and firing mechanism. Under the barrel A, and communicating
with it by a port (c) near the muzzle is a cylinder or tube C. When
the gun is fired, and the bullet has passed the port (c), a portion of
the gases of explosion passes into the cylinder C and drives back the
piston F contained in it, a lug on the under part of the piston
compressing the spring M, the latter, when the trigger N is pulled,
driving back the piston again. The reciprocating motion of the piston
performs all the processes of loading and firing the gun, and the
action is continuous as long as the trigger is kept pressed back.

The piston F, enlarged and suitably shaped at the rear, actuates the
breech-block H and firing pin or striker J; and, by suitable cam
grooves (f) at about the centre of its length, works the larger
feed-wheel U of the feed-box S; the smaller wheel U on the same axis
in turn imparting a step-by-step motion to the metal feed-strips, each
containing 30 cartridges, so that fresh cartridges are placed one by
one before the face of the breech block ready to be pushed into the
breech when the fired cartridge has been extracted and ejected.

On the under surface of the piston F, in rear, is a recess or sear (f)
in which the nose of the trigger N engages, holding back the piston
when it has been driven back by the gases. As already stated, a lug on
the under surface just in rear of the cam (f) engages with the front
of the mainspring.

Taking first the position shown in fig. 15 with the breech closed and
locked and the cartridge fired, it will be seen that the breech is
locked by the _upper_ cam (_f_'), on the end of the piston, F, having
caused the movable locking-dog (h) to fall and bear against the recoil
blocks Z (see fig. 14 also) on the walls of the _receiver_ or frame B.
Consequently the breech is not unlocked until the piston has moved
sufficiently to the rear for the _lower_ cam (_f_') to lift the
locking-dog (h) clear of the recoil blocks Z. As the piston F is not
actuated by the gases until the bullet has passed the port (c), and
then has to move a short distance before the locking-dog is raised,
the bullet is clear of the muzzle _before_ the breech is unlocked.

As the piston continues to recoil it draws back the striker J and then
the breech-block H, and is then caught and retained by the engagement
of the sear (f) with the trigger N, and the position assumed is that
shown in fig. 14.

From the head or nose-piece I of the breech-block projects the claw K
of a spring extractor which, as the cartridge is pushed home by the
breech-block, seizes it, extracting the fired case when the
breech-block is withdrawn. Ejection of the fired case is effected by
means of the ejector L (fig. 16) which catches against the base of the
case, on the opposite side to the extractor claw, and so throws it
sideways through the oblong-pointed opening in the receiver just in
rear of the breech (see fig. 14).

The platform on the top of the feed-box through which the teeth of the
smaller feed-wheel U project, and on which the feed-strips rest, lies
_below_ the axial line of the breech-block H, so that the face or
nose-piece I of the latter only engages a _portion_ of the base of the
cartridge in the feed-strip as it pushes the cartridge into the
breech, the bullet of the cartridge being guided into the breech by
the incline at the opening of the latter. This point should be
specially noted, the object of the arrangement being to enable the
under surface of the breech-block to clear the clips which hold the
cartridges in the feed-strips. The cartridge therefore, being
extracted in the line of the axis of the block, is ejected through an
opening _above_ its plane of entry in the feed-strip.

Returning to the position shown in fig. 16, if the trigger be pulled,
the compressed spring M reacts and drives the piston forwards,
carrying the breech-block with it, the latter in turn driving a
cartridge in front of it out of the feed-strip. When the block and
cartridge are home, _and not till then_, the piston completes its
travel, the upper cam (_f_') locking the dog (h), and the firing-pin
protrudes and fires the cartridge. Anything, therefore, which prevents
the breech-block from being home against the breech, or the
locking-dog from falling in front of the recoil blocks Z, renders
firing of the cartridge impossible. Clearly if the trigger be kept
depressed the action becomes automatic.

A special feature of this gun is the absence of a separate spring to
actuate the firing-pin; the recoil spring M performing this function,
in addition to that of driving the piston forwards.

The feed-strips have holes in them in which the teeth of the smaller
feed-wheel U engage. The engagement of this feed with the piston F can
be released by pulling out the feed arbor W, so that the strips can be
removed at any time.

When the last shot in a feed-strip has been fired a stop (V) holds the
piston and block ready for a fresh feed-strip to be inserted. As the
stop V acts quite independently of the trigger, this action takes
place even if the trigger be still depressed after the last cartridge
in a strip has been fired.

To cock the gun, when in the locked position, a cocking handle G is
provided. This has a long arm projecting to the front with a catch
which takes against the front of the lug on the under side of the
piston. To prepare the gun for action the gun is cocked, and a
feed-strip is pushed into the feed-block.

The pressure of the gas on the piston is regulated by the regulator
screw D, by means of which the space in the cylinder C in front of the
piston F can be reduced or increased.

A safety lock R is furnished, which is a "half round" pin which can be
turned so as to enter the semicircular slot just in front of the sear
(f), and so hold back the piston when in the cocked position.

Radiation of the heat, generated in the barrel by rapid fire, is
facilitated by the radiator (a), which consists of rings on the barrel
close to the breech, which offer an increased surface to the air.

The gun is sighted to 2000 yds., with the ordinary flap back-sight,
weighs about 53 lb., and can fire from 500 to 600 rounds per minute.

[The diagrams have been made from drawings, by permission of the
Hotchkiss Ordnance Company.]

Colt Gun.