Text of letter written to the Argus by Henri Menere May 11 1871:
THE MENERE GUN CARRIAGE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
Sir,-In your issue of to-day I notice a
letter by Mr. Lavater concerning my gun-car-
riage, and containing assertions which he
must know to be utterly untrue. On Sep-
tember 7, 1870, while Mr. Lavater was en-
gaged with Captain Sheppard in working out
the plans of the Moncrieff, I showed him, at
the request of Colonel Anderson, my hy-
draulic gun-carriage. A few days later, in
the course of conversation with him, I told
him I had a gun-carriage on a new principle
(being my present invention), explaining
its principles to him in a friendly way,
believing him to be a man of honour,
upon which he at once seized my idea
to a certain extent, and thereupon ordered
a model to be quickly constructed by Beau-
champ Brothers, cabinetmakers, of Collins
street west, as he explained to them, he had
just got wind of a new idea. As to my refus-
ing to allow Mr. Lavater to inspect my model,
he did, by his own conduct in trying to pirate
my invention, give me a just reason for such
refusal - as I explained to the Defence Board
at their first meeting. I here most distinctly
and flatly deny that Mr. Lavater has any
claim whatever to a prior invention on my
principle. Now, as Mr. Lavater admits that
he has never inspected my gun-carriage, I
wish to know upon what grounds he com-
pares my invention with his own, Mon-
crieff's, or Captain Grant's? Such a com-
parison, under the circumstances, is most
unjust. A slight exposition of the prin-
ciples upon which I have worked, would
only be fair to those gentlemen who have
encouraged me, and just to myself. I
will plainly show there is a wide difference
between my carriage and that of Moncrieff.
The Moncrieff is built of boiler-plate iron ;
in my invention stout timber, strapped with
iron, is used in the construction. The im-
mense advantage of wood over iron as regards
quick repair is so well known that I need
not further comment. The Moncrieff is com-
posed of complex machinery and cogwheel
action ; mine is entirely divested of any ma-
chinery whatever, simply regulated by
counterpoise, and thrown into position by
two levers of a pressure of 150 pounds each.
The Moncrieff has only one action to utilise
recoil, while I have two distinct actions. The
Moncrieff has no traversing platform, the
carriage itself traversing ; on my principle
the carriage is distinct from the platform,
thereby at a moment's notice facilitating its
movement to any other position on the line
of pits. The Moncrieff is immovable from
the bed of masonry to which it is fixed ; my
carriage is moved to any position with
the same ease as a heavy field piece.
In the Moncrieff, saluting and battering
charges work its machinery to its full extent.
In mine it is so regulated that a saluting
charge lowers the gun from firing position, and
in a battering charge tho recoil is spent on
traversing platform. The Moncrieff requires
heavy masonry to sustain the shock of recoil,
which is one of the causes of its failure. My
carriage requires no masonry whatever for
the traversing platform to work upon. I
maintain further, in reply to Mr. Lavater,
that by advocating a deep pit, and producing
a machine for the working of a gun in that
pit, I gain the object Moncrieff laboured in
vain to achieve, viz , the protection of 5ft. or
more of cover for the men. As to the experi-
ments Mr. Lavater suggests, all I desire is
that practical effcct shall be given to what I
have laboured long and earnestly to bring to
perfection, but which can only be brought
about by the assistance of our Government,
before whom my inventions are being dis-
cussed. In conclusion, Sir, the Defence
Board pronounce my invention as containing
merit, and recommend the Government to
call for tenders for the construction of a
sample gun-carriage according to my plans,
if such a one be required for the defences.
I am, Sir, yours truly,
May 11 1871. HENRI WM. MENERE.
