By preference the Peruvian government sought rifled guns to the French system of General Treuille de Beaulieu, also they desired breech-loading pieces. On August 8, 1860 the government wrote that it wanted to acquire a mountain battery of twelve rifled 4 pounders, a 32 pounder naval gun and a large coastal gun using the French system. These were to be financed with the revenues generated in Europe by the guano trade through their financial agents, Antony Gibbs & Sons, merchants, of 15 Bishopsgate Street, London.

Progress was so slow that the Lima government despatched Colonel Francisco Bolognesi Cervantes, an artillery officer, to Europe late in 1860 to replace Major Pareja in negotiating for artillery and ammunition. When Bolognesi arrived in London he found that Antony Gibbs & Sons had already obtained new proposals from Joseph Whitworth and from an additional source, Fawcett, Preston & Company of Liverpool.

In December 1860 Whitworth was quoting Gibbs £2,400 for twelve 1 pounder guns if breech-loading or £2,300 if muzzle-loading, including 100 shot and shell per piece. If the guns were 3 pounders the cost would increase to £2,700 for breech-loaders and to £2,500 for muzzle-loaders.

On January 11, 1861 Fawcett Preston quoted Gibbs for making twelve 3 pounder brass smooth-bore mountain guns for £1,032; and one 12 pounder mountain howitzer at £89, along with shot, shell and canister. The pieces were on carriages with shafts, without limbers the ammunition was carried by pack animals.

In the same document they also quoted for making, and strongly recommended, twelve 3½ pounder, 2.1 inch bore, rifled mountain guns to Captain Blakely’s system, for £996. Fawcetts justified their recommendation by stating that the customary addition of a shell-firing howitzer to each mountain battery would no longer be necessary as the Blakely rifles fired both shot and shell; and that “the rifled muzzle-loading gun is in point of range and accuracy of fire... beyond all comparison superior to the old fashioned smooth-bore gun”.

Fawcetts detailed the requirements for pack saddles required to transport the barrels, carriages and ammunition boxes on horse or mule back in mountain terrain. They would also provide a special mould for the rifled guns so that cylindrical lead shot could be cast in the field should the specially-made iron bolts run out. The lead shot would be cheaper than iron.

The detail of their two quotes follows:

● Twelve mountain guns in brass, 3 pounders, 3 inch calibre, weighing 250 pounds

● Twelve carriages with shafts, elevating screws, rammers, sponges, shell extractors and powder scoops, and copper powder measures

● Twenty-four ammunitions boxes

● Forty-eight pack saddles for the guns, carriages and ammunition boxes

Cost for brass guns and accessories at £86 - £1,032

● One mountain howitzer, 12 pounder, 4.2 inch calibre, weighing 280 pounds

● One mountain carriage, ammunition boxes, pack saddles, as before

Cost for the howitzer £89

It was customary to provide one 12 pounder howitzer in each mountain battery of four pieces.

Alternatively:

● Twelve rifled mountain guns, wrought-iron, 3 ½ pounders, 2.1 inch calibre, to Captain Blakely’s system, with brass tangent sights, weighing 245 pounds

● Twelve mountain carriages, twenty-four ammunition boxes, forty-eight pack saddles, with accessories, as before,

Cost for each set of Blakely guns £83, total £996

● One mould for making lead shot, costing £7

Ammunition would be supplied at the following cost:

● 3 pound iron round shot for brass guns, 12s 0d per hundredweight

● 3 pound canister shot, 8d each

● 12 pound shell for the howitzer, 1s 2d each

● Cylindrical lead projectiles for the rifled pieces, 4d per pound or 1s 2d each

Fawcetts followed this up on January 29, 1861 with a long analysis of the ordnance market in Europe, indicating they would only proceed with a manufacturing contract and not for samples:

“Liverpool 29th January 1861”

To “Messrs A. Gibbs & Sons”

“London”

“We herewith beg to hand you an estimate for rifled ordnance in accordance with an inquiry received from you early in this month. The drawing accompanying our estimate represents guns of the description offered, mounted upon the traversing carriage and upon the ordinary carriage, and will serve to shew their general appearances.”

“The accompanying report upon rifled ordnance gives the views upon which our estimates have been based and will we trust be found sufficiently explicit for your purpose. We are at all times ready to give any further information at our command should such be required.”

“We think there can be no doubt that the mortar referred to are the small 12 pr brass mortars described. We have no 12 inch mortars, the larger ones used in the British service are of cast iron, 13 inch, 10 inch, 8 inch, &c.”

“The prices quoted are for guns in quantity we cannot undertake to supply single guns for experiments at these prices, as the cost of patterns, tools for rifling, boring &c  which when divided over a number of guns is comparatively trifling, if incurred for a single gun materially enhances its expense. The prices include a patent right which would have to be paid to Captain Blakely. Expenses of proof would have to be paid by the purchaser, we undertaking all risk.”

“The shell we give according to quotations from the inventor, we do not ourselves make them, the prices are for shell complete exclusive of loading fuses and packing.”

“We are now making a small gun for mountain service and also a 12 pr field piece, when these are ready, we shall have much pleasure in letting you know should the Peruvian minister desire any one to attend the trials upon behalf of his government.”

“We remain gentlemen your obedient servants”

“Fawcett Preston & Co”

Enclosure 1 [Edited]

“Rifled Ordnance”

“The following remarks upon rifled ordnance are based partly upon our own observation and partly upon information collected from various sources which we have every reason to consider authentic and we believe that they may be accepted as correctly representing the position of the subject at this time.”

“It is only of late years that practical artillerists and engineers have been induced by the success attending the substitution of the rifled arm for the old fashioned smooth bore musket to devote their attention to the application of similar principles to ordnance.”

“Our own and foreign governments as well as many private individuals have been engaged for some years in making experiments with rifled guns of various forms upon a great variety of systems; it appears however that up to the present time no gun has been brought before the public which is entitled to claim a marked superiority over all others, the opinions of professional men, as to the best system for proportioning and making rifled ordnance, vary so much that no conclusion can be come to upon this point.”

“The rifled guns hitherto experimented upon may be divided into two classes breech loaders and muzzle loaders. The breech loading guns of Armstrong and of Whitworth may be taken as representing the former class, of the many others which have been designed and tried, none have been sufficiently experimented upon or brought to a degree of excellence to entitle them to special mention.”

“The Armstrong gun has been adopted by the British Government and extensive arrangements for its production have been established at Woolwich and at the Elswick works in the North of England. Frequent reports appear in the public prints giving account of the extraordinary powers of these guns - in point of fact however their performance appears exceptional only because few authenticated results are available, upon which to make comparisons between them and other rifled guns, the merits of which are less prominently put forward –”

“The Armstrong gun does not surpass many other rifled guns of simpler and less expensive construction in regard to extent and accuracy of range, whilst from its peculiar arrangement for loading at the breech it is open to many well founded objections. The breech is composed of several distinct moveable parts which require to be fitted with a very great amount of accuracy to ensure the efficiency of the gun. So essential is this great exactness of fit that special tools are carried with each gun upon actual service with which certain parts of the breech are readjusted at intervals; the instruction issued by the War Office for the care and use of the Armstrong gun directing that these parts are to be regulated after every hundred rounds or more frequently when practicable. A comparatively very trifling damage to any part of the breech apparatus may render the gun useless, it is absolutely necessary that these parts are kept perfectly clean, free from fouling or grit or the vent piece lets gas pass, on the other hand if not carefully adjusted in loading the vent piece blows away, in either case the gun is disabled because its peculiar construction does not admit of its being applied as a muzzle loader. It is reported that two of the guns recently used in China were rendered for the time useless by the vent piece, which in the heat of action was not sufficiently secured in loading, blowing away. Two similar instances have occurred within our own experience with guns of similar construction, we have also witnessed the difficulty in loading when the breech gets foul or is not adjusted with the greatest nicety. The particular shell used with these guns frequently after leaving the piece loses the lead coating with which they are enveloped; rendering them scarcely less dangerous to friends, under certain circumstances, than to enemies. Having seen frequent instances of this we are disposed to believe the report that upon one occasion out in China a number of men of the 44^th Regt. were killed by lead flying off from shell from the Armstrong guns which were being fired over them. The recoil of these guns is very heavy on account of the great spirality which is given to the grooving and from the peculiar manner in which the shot is made to take the rifling. It is only recently that heavy guns upon this principle have been made to stand proof, none of these have hitherto been used excepting for experimental purposes. The difficulty in loading must be greatly increased with these guns, the moveable parts of the breech being much more [word unclear] and difficult to manipulate than the corresponding parts of similar guns upon the smaller seats. It is intended to arm several ships of war now fitting with these guns. We understand however that they are not approved of at the Admiralty partly upon the ground that they cannot be used between decks as they fill these confined spaces with smoke from the breech. For marine purposes they appear also to be specialty unsuited on account of the damage to which they are exposed from the action of salt, air and water upon the nicely adjusted breech apparatus. The annexed list of frigates [not included here] now fitting gives some particulars of the armaments proposed, these may however be considerably modified before the vessels named are put in commission.”

“The Whitworth breech loader, we consider superior to the Armstrong in mechanical arrangements, it being simpler in construction and having the moveable parts comparatively less exposed.  It answers very well for small guns, the practice made in this vicinity early in 1860 with 3 and 12 pr guns being conclusive upon this points we believe that Mr. Whitworth has however not yet succeeded in making heavy guns upon his system to stand. The shot require planing and the powder is introduced into the breech in  specially constructed tin canister[s] which are withdrawn after each discharge.”

“The French used some breech loading rifled field pieces in the Italian War, the accounts of their wonderful precision at long distances will be remembered as will also the report that it required half an hour to load them after each discharge.”

“We understand that they have since returned to the muzzle loading system as being preferable. Their iron cased frigate Gloire of which so many conflicting reports are in circulation is armed with muzzle loading rifled guns upon a system to which we shall especially refer later on. We have a drawing of this gun which in calibre is about equal to the smooth bore 32 pr and will carry an elongated projectile of about 68 lbs.”

“Our information as to what the French are doing in rifled guns is to some extent corroborated by the circumstance that last year we made a breech loading 6 in gun for the Russian Government after a design which was supplied to us and which had been procured in France. Several experiments were made by us with this gun under direction of Russian officers with a view of testing the breech apparatus.”

“The gun was ultimately sent to Cronstad for further experiments. In our opinion it will not answer, and in this view we were confirmed by an observation from a French naval officer who passing through our works recognized the design and stated that the arrangement had been tried in France and abandoned as impracticable.”

“Muzzle loading rifled guns, in great variety, have been recommended and experimented upon. Of the systems which have come under our observation those of the Bashley Britten and of Captain Blakely appear to us as deserving of particular [attention]. Mr. Britten advocates the application of ordinary service guns of which large stores are on hand for rifled ordnance. He has recently completed a series of experiments with guns of this description committed to him for trial by Governments and the results of these experiments is now, before the select Ordnance Committee for reports. Mr. Britten has succeeded in producing a projectile a combination of lead and iron applicable for muzzle loading guns, which can hardly be surpassed. The loading is performed with as much facility as with ordinary round shot and in a considerable number of trials which we have superintended of shell and shot of this description, with guns of various calibre, we have uniformly found that they expand and take the rifling perfectly and in no instance has there been any sign of the lead stripping as is the case with Armstrong´s projectile. He proposes that guns at present in store shall be rifled with a moderate amount of spirality and that the charge of powder shall be reduced to an extent which these guns will bear with safety.”

“We have particulars of his experiments, the results of which are verified by trials of his projectiles made by ourselves, they have undoubtedly been eminently successful and will bear comparison with the best practice made with the much vaunted Armstrong and Whitworth guns.”

“Captain Blakely recommends the use of rifled guns [reinforced] by application of hoops or bands at the breech end so as to enable them to resist the increased strain to which they are subjected, he has a patent for guns so constructed. Our own and foreign governments have extensively experimented upon these guns and we understand that the system has been adopted in France. The guns of the frigate Gloire, previously referred to, are upon this plan. We have within this last year made guns strengthened upon this principle for the Russian Government for experiments and we understand also, that rifled cast iron guns are being introduced into the American navy. All rifled guns which we have ourselves hitherto tried are upon this construction and they have without exception with stood the severest tests put upon them.”

“Several pieces of ordnance made of single solid forgings or in which very large forgings form an important part having been constructed and much discussed we may state that we do not consider these to have been sufficiently successful to under their adoption advisable. The monster mortars known as ‘Lord Palmerston’s Mortars’ carrying a 36 inch shell, which were made about the close of the Crimean war and which have since been tried at Shoeburyness were partly fitted in our works. We at that time had an opportunity of forming an opinion which has been confirmed by subsequent experience and which is corroborated by the fact that the trials referred to have led to these mortars being abandoned. It appears to us that large solid forgings are not applicable for guns because there is at present no means of producing these masses of wrought material of that uniformity of strength and soundness, essential for the purpose required.”

“The considerations of which we have endeavoured to give an outline, lead us to the conclusion, that Captain Blakely’s gun with Mr Britten’s projectile, combined, may safely be recommended as the most perfect system at present known.”

“The drawings herewith [not included here] represent a 7 inch gun upon the Blakely principle mounted upon a traversing platform and a 6 inch gun of similar construction upon an ordinary ships carriage. Guns of larger and smaller calibre presents the same general outline as these whether constructed of a combination of cast and wrought iron or entirely of wrought iron as is the case with guns used as field pieces. These guns may be used, should occasion require, with ordinary round shot although of course this practice could not be continued for any length of time without injury to the grooving and materially impairing their efficiency as rifled guns.”

“Rifled mortars have not hitherto been employed, some few experiments have been made with them which have however led to no definite results.”

“Up to the present time no British ships of war have been armed with rifled guns, single guns have however been put on board in some instances for experimental purpose only. It is contemplated to arm the iron cased frigate Warrior partly with Armstrong guns as also some of the larger class of frigates.”

[There followed a list of smooth-bore armed British vessels]

Enclosure 2 [Edited]

Memorandum of the Cost of Guns, Carriages, enclosed in our letter of 29^th January 1861, to Messrs Antony Gibbs & Sons, London

No          Nature  Calibre  Length  Weight Cost

                pounds inches   feet        cwt        

1              84           7.0          11.00     105        £455

2              56           6.0          9.50       68           £275

2*            56           6.0          9.50       68           £220

3              32           5.0          9.00       48           £205

3*            32           5.0          9.00       48           £165

4              20           4.5          9.00       38           £160

4*            20           4.5          9.00       38           £135

5              20           4.5          7.50       30           £105

6              9              3.0          6.00       5.5          £150

7              3.5          2.1          4.00       240 lbs  £83

8             12            4.4          Mortar  1                £17

NB No 1 to 5 inclusive, are constructed of a combination of cast and wrought iron.

1. Suitable for ships pivot gun or for marine fortresses, with traversing carriage, rammers, tangent sight, hammer lock, &c

2. Ships broadside gun, pivot gun for small vessel or for ports, with traversing carriage, as above, or * with ordinary ship carriage

3. Ships broadside gun, or for forts, with traversing carriage, as above, or * with ordinary ship carriage

4. Inland forts, or small batteries, with traversing carriage, as above, or * with ordinary ship carriage

5. Idem, Idem, or for boat gun, with ordinary ship carriage

6. Field piece, mounted on suitable carriage for field piece, trail, limber, ammunition boxes, spare wheel, rammer, sights, elevating screw and appurtenances complete

7. Field piece for Mountain service, as per our estimate of 7th January 1861, on carriage for mountain service

8. Brass “Coehorn” mortar, adapted for service in the field, brass with bed and quoin

7 inch shell for 84 pounders for not less than 15 tons, £26 10s per ton

6 inch shell for 56 pounders, in same quantity, £29 per ton

5 inch shell for 32 pounders for not less than 15 tons, £35 per ton

4 ½ inch shell for 20 pounders, not less than 1,000, £37 10s per hundred

3 inch shell for 9 pounder for not less than a thousand, £20 per hundred

2.1 inch shell for 3½ pounder, not less than a thousand, £14 per hundred

12 pounder cast shell for brass mortar, £5 15s per hundred

Liverpool, 29th January, 1861

(signed) Fawcett, Preston & Co

It is likely that the widely reported trials of Blakely guns on Hightown Sands, north of Liverpool, in June 1861 were conducted for Colonel Bolognesi. He wrote to the Foreign Ministry on August 29, 1861 that trials of 4, 9 and 12 pounder pieces had, as instructed, by then successfully taken place.

3 inch or 9 pounder Blakely rifled mountain gun for Peru, 1861

Made by Samuel Bastow at West Hartlepool,

under sub-contract to Fawcett, Preston & Company, Liverpool

Picture courtesy Gilles Galté

There were several contracts, not just for ordnance. The Legation wrote on September 16, 1861 to the Foreign Ministry in Lima summarising the approximate cost of the artillery materials to be acquired by the Government in London:

Contract with Fawcett, Preston & Company

● 14 pieces of artillery for sea service, 12 pounder calibre, with carriages and accessories

● 12 pieces of artillery for field service, 12 pounder calibre, “sistema Blakely”, with carriages and accessories

Total £2,842

Contract with Bashley Britten [Maudslay, Sons & Field]

● 2,800 solid and segmental projectiles for the sea-service pieces

● 4,800 projectiles, 1/3 solid shot, 1/3 segmental, 1/3 shell, for the field pieces

Total £3,761

Contract with Captain Blakely

● 28 pieces of mountain artillery with accessories, £4,840

● 11,200 projectiles for these pieces, 2/3 segmental, 1/3 solid shot, £4,367

● 32 cases for the mountain guns, £290

● Tools for making lead projectiles, £50

Total £9,547

● Payment for having carriages reinforced with iron
Total £400

Contract with Robert Gibson & Co, [saddlers and harness makers, London]

● 12 sets of harness for two horses for the mountain artillery

● 12 sets of harness for four horses for the field artillery

Total £778 10s

Contract in Paris through M Auregan

● 100 pack saddles for the mountain guns, their carriages and ammunition boxes

● 70 tents

Total £2,080

● Contract for 250 sabres for bombardiers and 250 sets of belts, helmets and epaulettes

Total £307

GRAND TOTAL £19,715 and 10s

The gun costs included a payment for the patent right to Captain Blakely.

On October 19, 1861 the Legation advised Lima that the bulk of the ordnance materials had left Liverpool a few days previously. This shipment was reported in the English press without giving any accurate indication of its destination, but many journals guessed, wrongly, that the fifty-four guns mentioned were bound for the southern states in America.

Curiously no records have survived of the correspondence, and there must have been many letters, between Captain Blakely and Colonel Bolognesi.

3½ inch or 12 pounder Blakely rifled naval gun 1861

One of fourteen made for Peru by Fawcett, Preston & Company

Picture courtesy Gilles Galté

The mountain guns are better recorded. Several exist in museums. There were two calibres, fourteen 9 pounder, 3 inch bore short guns or howitzers and fourteen 4 pounder, 2.1 inch bore long guns, previously called 3½ pounders.

● 12 pounder field gun – by Fawcett Preston, 605 pounds weight, length not known

● 12 pounder navy gun – by Fawcett Preston, 67 inches length, weight not known

● 9 pounder – by Fawcett Preston, 36 inches length, 208 pounds weight

● 9 pounder – by Bastow, 36 inches length, 212 pounds weight

● 4 pounder – by Fawcett Preston, 41 inches length, 226 pounds weight

Most of the 9 pounders, marked with a serial starting A1 on the trunnions, were made by Fawcett Preston in Liverpool; the remainder, probably a battery of four pieces, marked B1 and so on, were sub-contracted to Samuel Bastow of the Cliff House Ironworks, West Hartlepool, Durham. All of the 4 pounders were manufactured by Fawcetts.

None of these guns appear to have Blakely serial numbers cast upon them, although all the survivors are clearly dated 1861 on the trunnions.

It was originally intended to have wooden mountain carriages with shafts for horse or mule traction, but the specification was altered and all the 9 pounders and some of the 4 pounders had iron carriages, made by Fawcett Preston.

Despite this the Army were careful to put all of their new artillery through a rigorous proving process. All fifty-four guns were fired for proof on August 17, 1862. On this occasion one of the short 9 pounder pieces burst on the fourth round, and one of the long 4 pounders burst on only its first firing. Both guns burst firing the supplied iron bolts and the usual charge, splitting longitudinally between the breech and the trunnion ring.

The damaged guns were examined at the iron works of Navy’s Factoría de Bellavista in Callao. Their report was critical of the manufacture of the two cannon: in particular it was thought that the metal bar that was formed into a spiral to make the breech reinforce or sleeve was not properly welded or forged into an homogenous whole; the navy also expressed doubts as to whether the metal used was actually steel as contracted for. The Army’s Director of Artillery disputed the latter point, believing that the pieces were made within the contract terms, of forged iron and steel. The real problem that caused both the failures was more obvious, it was the extraordinarily poor standard of the boring of the guns: measurements showed that the cutters were not centred and the barrel thickness on one side equalled ¼ and the other side ¾.

The proof trials at Conchan were recommenced with the surviving guns. The charges were increased to try the guns for complete strength and safety. Another 9 pounder failed, cracking the bore inside the chamber, but not bursting.

All three damaged pieces were returned to Fawcett, Preston & Company in Liverpool under the contract terms. On January 18, 1863, three new 9 pounder rifles were received at Callao in replacement of the defective guns. These were not to the original short pattern but were long, heavier field guns unsuitable for mountain warfare; they were rejected, too.

Three 12 pounder Bashley Britten shells recovered at Conchan from the 1860s

After firing they have rifling grooves on the lead skirts

A note is necessary here on proving ordnance. The government proof at Woolwich Arsenal, which was applied to guns supplied on private account as well as for the British Army and Navy, had three elements; 1] inspection by eye and instrument of the exterior and interior of the barrel, confirming true dimensions, as well as looking for flaws and blemishes, 2] “water proof” in which the bore was filled with liquid under pressure then emptied and dried, hairline cracks would then become visible as liquid seeped out, and 3] “powder proof” firing two rounds with iron bolts or shot and over-charges of powder.

Fawcett Preston did not prove their guns at Woolwich, but undertook their own trials at the customer’s charge, warranting their work as good.

11 inch, 450 pounder Blakely steel guns 1866

Bateria Santa Rosa,  defending the Port of Callao, Peru

With special thanks to

Carlos Carrera

for all of his generous contributions