So that even with the present disadvantages of manufacture, there is an actual saving in the 32-pounder Rocket carcass itself, which contains more composition than the 10-inch spherical carcass, _without allowing any thing for the difference of expense of the Rocket apparatus, and that of the mortar, mortar beds, platforms, &c._ which, together with the difficulty of transport, constitute the greatest expense of throwing the common carcass; whereas, the cost of apparatus for the use of the Rocket carcass does not originally exceed £5; and indeed, on most occasions, the Rocket may, as has been shewn, be thrown even without any apparatus at all: besides which, it may be stated, that a transport of 250 tons will convey 5,000 Rocket carcasses, with every thing required for using them, on a very extensive scale; while on shore, a common ammunition waggon will carry 60 rounds, with the requisites for action. The difference in all these respects, as to the 10-inch spherical carcass, its mortars, &c. is too striking to need specifying. But the comparison as to expense is still more in favour of the Rocket, when compared with the larger natures of carcasses. The 13-inch spherical carcass costs £1. 17_s._ 11½_d._ to throw it 2,500 yards; the 32-pounder Rocket carcass, conveying the same quantity of combustible matter, does not cost more than £1. 5_s._ 0_d._--so that in this case there is a saving on the first cost of 12_s._ 11½_d._ Now the large Rocket carcass requires no more apparatus than the small one, and the difference of weight, as to carriage, is little more than that of the different quantities of combustible matter contained in each, while the difference of weight of the 13-inch and 10-inch carcasses is at least double, as is also that of the mortars; and, consequently, all the other comparative charges are enhanced in the same proportion.