12. Parrott, Brooke & Blakely
A Letter from Captain Blakely
The Engineer,
December 11, 1863
Sir
I yesterday saw, for the first time, a pamphlet published in New York last year by Mr Parrott, in which my system of building cannon is vigorously attacked by the author, who however, naïvely acknowledges that he knows nothing about my guns, except by hearsay. He ends by claiming great originality for his own particular form of gun, which he thus describes: “It is a hooped gun of the simplest kind, composed of one piece of cast and one piece of wrought iron. It has no taper, no screw, no successive layers of hoops.”
The latter sentence is, doubtless, meant to point out the distinction between the good and simple Parrott and the bad and complicated Blakely guns.
The Times correspondent from Richmond [Virginia] is also rather hard upon my system of guns, greatly preferring the “Brooke” gun.
I confess I have been a good deal astonished by these claims to superiority, and you will share my surprise on comparing the accompanying drawings where you will see that the vaunted Parrott and Brooke guns are simple reproductions, in 1861 and 1862, of the guns I had made in Liverpool in 1859, and which were publically fired several days, and were afterwards exhibited to the British Association at Oxford, and described in all the English papers. I had, indeed, made similar guns is 1855 and 1857, but not so publically.
Captain Blakely’s Diagrams in the Engineer magazine, December 1863
No 5 is missing from this scan
To prevent any possibility of cavil, I send you the original working drawings of my cannon (which please return). No 1 is a section of my 6.4 inch gun of 1859. You will perceive it is dated 10th November, 1859, and signed by Messrs Fawcett, Preston & Co.
No 2 is a section of the Parrott gun of the same calibre first made in 1862. This is drawn from official descriptions, which I enclose.
The wrought iron jacket of mine was like Mr Parrott’s, in one single piece. The only difference that I can discover, is that Mr Parrott cooled the casing from within by water, and I did not.
No 3 is a section of the Blakely 3.5 inch gun, which was used at the first siege of Fort Sumter, and which was afterwards adopted as the model for the Confederate guns, in consequence of its being serviceable after firing upwards of two thousand rounds. This is also an original drawing, and you will perceive Messrs Fawcett, Preston & Co’s signature and the date 15th May, 1860.
No 4 is a section of the 3.67 inch Parrott gun of 1861, the nearest in size to the above. The proportions you see are precisely the same.
No 5 is the Brooke gun, also 1861. This drawing is an original, and signed by Captain Brooke himself, as you see. It is a simple copy of the Sumter gun with all its faults, sharp angled rifling, &c. [This diagram missing from the website illustration]
Mr Parrott, in his pamphlet, says “Successive layers of hoops are deemed, both by Captain Blakely and Professor Treadwell, essential in obtaining the full advantage of this plan.”
I do think several layers are necessary for large guns, and Mr Parrott will think so, too; and he will wonder himself how he could, after the published experience of Sir William Armstrong and Mr Whitworth, have fallen into the same error they did, namely, making his large guns on the same model as the small ones, instead of greatly increasing the proportionate strength. When, therefore, Mr Parrott makes a 10 inch cannon which bears long-continued firing, I anticipate that it will resemble my 10 inch gun nearly as much as his 6.4 inch gun resembles my 6.4 inch guns.
At all events the principle of construction will be the same, and the successful 10 inch guns will not be a simple cast-iron tube cased in one tube of wrought-iron, like Mr Parrott’s Mr Brooke’s, and my 6 inch guns. I have myself quite given up that construction, and would rather make the outer casing of cast-iron than of wrought-iron, which stretches too much. In England cast-steel is the most suitable material. For America, I think I should prefer cast-iron. I am really sorry Mr Parrott should have been so ill-informed of my proceedings as to write his pamphlet. We should be allies, not rivals, having independently hit on identically the same method of constructing cannon.
As for Captain Brooke, I cannot believe he in any way approves of the claim made on his behalf by the Times correspondent, for, in the Confederate States, he was not even the first to make these guns. Captain Fairfax, of the Navy, made several 6.5 inch guns, at Norfolk Navy Yard, a year before he made any, and Mr Cameron, of Charleston, made some field guns. Neither of these gentlemen can object to acknowledge that they exactly copied my model. Indeed, in all the Confederate agent’s official letters, the “Brooke” guns are called “the guns on the Blakely pattern made in the Confederacy”.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T A Blakely
December 4th, 1863
Correspondence
The Times,
January 18, 1862
Sir
Observing on one of Dr Russell’s letters from Washington to the Times a lucid description of the “Parrott” rifled cannon, the new service arm of the United States of America, I at once perceived that this gun was identical with that invented by me seven years ago, and of which I have been making many ever since. Desiring to know which of us had first made the discovery, I wrote to a friend in America to ask Mr Parrott the question, showing him what I had published on the subject in 1855. I have just received a reply to the effect that Mr Parrott frankly acknowledges that his gun is, to all intents, the same as mine, and that he invented it later than I did.
Any one who knows the jealousy of inventors will appreciate the great generosity Mr Parrott has shown by this avowal, and I trust you will spare a corner of your paper to the recital of what does this American gentleman so much honour.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T A Blakely
Army & Navy Club
January 14, 1862
Aftermath
The treacherous Parrott ignored Blakely’s advice and manufactured ever larger versions of the single-banded cannon. As Blakely predicted they regularly burst. From the Federal army’s 8 inch Parrott rifle, called “Swamp Angel”, shelling the women and children of Charleston, South Carolina, in 1863 to every single large-bore Parrott rifle in the abolitionist fleet bombarding Fort Fisher, Wilmington, North Carolina late in 1864, their inherently flawed design caused catastrophic failure. Six burst in 1863, and thirty-three in 1864.
Commander Brooke, of the Bureau of Ordnance of the Confederate States Navy, did listen and added two and three breech bands to his great guns to spread the tension of the initial propulsive explosion. His guns did not burst.