the best number that can be utilized for the purpose.

Up to 1885 the largest calibre field gun in the Rus sian service efficiently was the 4.2-inch, but as it is considerably surpassed in mobility and precision by the 3.42-inch gun, which, moreover, is but little in ferior to it as regards power of shell fire, it is questionable whether any sufficient advantage is to be gained in employing two different calibres. In 1885, however, General Engelhardt, of the Russian artillery, showed that it was possible to design a 6-inch field mortar firing a shell of 70 1-2 pounds, with a bursting charge of 12 1-2 pounds, and, further, that this mortar could be mounted on a two-wheeled carriage and be manoeuvred with almost the same facility as an ordinary field gun. Since then the idea has been thoroughly tested during the manœuvres of the Russian army, and the great superiority of shell fire possessed by the new weapon has been so clearly demonstrated that at the present moment there are already eighteen field mortar batteries in the service. We now find, therefore, three classes of field guns actually in use in the Russian army, viz. : The 6-inch mortar, which gives great vertical effect of shell fire and fairly good direct fire; the 3.42-inch gun, with intense direct fire; and the 4.2-inch gun, which combines to some extent the explosive action of the first named with the accuracy of the second.

The most important factor in determining the best calibre for field guns is general suitableness. It is not enough to say a gun of such and such a calibre will be admirably suited for such and such a purpose, for no general can fully calculate in advance all the contingencies under which he will have to operate in a campaign. The most suitable gun is, therefore, that gun which, while it fulfils certain ballistic essentials, is capable of being used under all possible circumstances. If this is conceded, then, to adopt guns of varying calibres and systems must necessarily be a retrograde proceeding in army organization; and those who plead for the introduction of any special type of gun for field purposes on the ground that under certain circumstances it will be of the greatest utility, simply forget that in reality they are arguing against its adoption, seeing that a field gun is not wanted to meet exceptional condi tions, but for use under all contingencies.

In fixing the calibre, General Dragomirov considers that the best limits for field guns are the 6-inch mor tar and the 3 42-inch field gun, both of which are now in use in the Russian service, and that the medium, or 4.2-inch, gun is clearly destined, sooner or later, to disappear. For the rifle, he considers 8 mm (.315 inch) as the most suitable bore, partly because it is useless to kill a man with a large bullet if a small one will do, and partly because any further diminu tion in the bore would raise the cost of manufacture, increase the difficulty of manipulating the weapon, especially in cleaning it, and inordinately lengthen the cartridge. As regards machine guns, General Dragomirov admits that they would be wonderful weapons if it were necessary to kill a man several

times before disposing of him. As, however, once is sufficient, he fails to see how any arrangement for scattering the bullets at the rate of 600 a minute can be made to work satisfactorily. Moreover, he asks, who would be such a fool as to expose masses to the fire of machine guns? At the same time, he allows that they have their uses in positions where there is no room to place sufficient men to give the amount of rifle fire required. For the flanks of defensive works and with small bodies of men who have to contend against badly-armed hordes machine guns may prove useful, but they are not required in European battle-fields, where there is seldom likely to be either want of room or want of men.

THE CAPE FROM A FRENCH POINT OF VIEW.

THE

HE English theory of colonial self-government is so repugnant to French traditions of administration that it is not surprising to find a French historian of the Cape prophesying all manner of evil things concerning it. The anonymous author of an article which appears in the Revue des Deux Mondes under the title of " An Autonomous Colony " regards it evidently in the light of a bogie with which to scare Algeria. After drawing a parallel between the two communities, he prefaces his study of the institutions of the Cape by the following paragraph, which may fairly be accepted as indicating the bias of his mind:

SELF-GOVERNMENT AS A FRENCHMAN SEES IT.

"If to abandon, under the pretext of emancipation, and not to carry this abandonment to its logical completion; if to withdraw, in one fell swoop, both military protection and financial support, to leave only a flag flying half-mast high, to compromise prestige by economy and the independence of others by the permission to perish if they please; if to inspire a third party with the very natural idea of gathering from the ruins of this prestige and the materials of this independence what some do not care to defend and others are not able to achieve if this is the English colonial policy, and we believe it to be so, then it is a policy which would suit no Algerian." Nor, the reader may well add, would it suit any other sane inhabitant of any community in the world. But let the last fifty years of the colonial policy of England, which turns on the point of self-government, be compared with the colonial policy of France for a corresponding period, and between the two not an Algerian could waver in his choice. It may be that the art of selfgovernment is an essentially Anglo-Saxon faculty, and that the same liberties would be less successfully exercised by men of another race. There can be little doubt in the mind of any Englishman acquainted with the facts that the prosperity of our greatest colonies dates from their acquisition of the rights of responsible government.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHESS BOARD.

Apart, however, from the prejudice-if South African history can be considered apart from the

essential condition of its existence-the account of the actual position in South Africa which is given by the writer of the article is graphic and interesting. He compares the whole of South Africa to a chess board, on which the opposing kings, represented by England and Germany, stand stately and almost motionless while the action of the game is carried on by their respective queens. These queens, it need hardly be said, are on their own squares, in Pretoria and Capetown. They move and move rapidly across the whole breadth and length of the board. But the play is somewhat complicated by the fact that the queens do not act wholly and simply in the interests of their kings. The open game is doubled by a secret one, and the name of the second game is Afrikanderism. If the Transvaal and the Cape could come to terms Germany and England would both be left in the lurch, and an Afrikander nation would be formed.

THE OBJECTS OF AFRIKANDERISM.

A description follows of the rise of the Afrikander party and the formation of the Bond. The principal object of the policy of the Bond is described as being the unity of South Africa. In order to attain it the antagonism between the Dutch and English races must be, as far as possible, removed. Community of interests must be encouraged in politics, commerce, industry, agriculture, and all the other pursuits which influence the life of nations. Mutual respect and tolerance in matters of religion, law, and education must be developed. And the amalgamation of the European races would be ineffectual unless it were accompanied by full responsibility for the affairs of the native races, which so largely outnumber the European popu lation. Hence the further cry of Afrikanderism, "South Africa for the South Africans." There must be no interference from without in native affairs.

THE QUESTION OF THE FLAG.

Under what flag, then, is United South Africa to take its place among the nations? The work of union as yet is far from accomplished. It is only the second game of the queens upon the chess-board. Afrikanderism accepted as a policy in Capetown is disdainfully rejected still in Pretoria. Are the republics to unite with British colonies, of which at present only one enjoys the even partial independence of self-government? Are they to find a place for their free institutions in the heterogeneous medley of chartered company's territories, protectorates, crown colonies, and responsible government? It is impossible. Somehow the various governments must be assimilated. Either the republics must renounce their independence and federate with the rest of South Africa on some such model as the Dominion of Canada, or the English colonies must become independent states like the republics. But the old kings stand still upon the board. The nation that is to be must look on one or other of them for the protection of its coasts. To which of them? is

THE

THE ENGLISH IN BURMAH.

HE interest in England and the sympathy with what is best in English institutions and in English points of view which has characterized the Revue des Deux Mondes of late, and is understood to be the reflection of a new and serious current of French politics, is well marked in the number for December. An article upon "SelfGovernment at the Cape," which is fully noticed elsewhere, condemns the English method of dealing with her large colonies, but is, nevertheless, indicative of the care and attention which it is thought worth while to bestow upon the study of colonial history. Another study of English colonial methods, by M. Joseph Chailly Bert, is conceived in a strain of warmer approval and admiration.

M. Bert openly prefaces his narrative of English dealings with further India with the statement that he thinks France has much to learn from the example of her great neighbor. While he is far from praising indiscriminately, he devotes himself to a careful study of what the conduct of the English has been in their new possession, and how, in the middle of difficulties and in the face of needs which are almost the same (as those of French IndoChina), they have known how, not exactly to complete for too short a time has yet gone by-but to prepare the pacification, the administrative organization, and the economic development of the country. To follow him through the whole article, which is only the first of a series, would be to narrate the already well-known history of the conquest of Burmah. Among the points which he selects specially for commendation, it is enough to notice one or two of the most important.

First, perhaps, of them all, it is worthy of notice that he praises warmly the very principle of trust in the governing capacity of the great colonies and dependencies which his companion writer upon the Cape takes occasion to ridicule and condemn. M. Bert understands better the principle of mutual respect which underlies this trust, and he attributes a large part of English success in Burmah to the fact that it has been administered throughout as a province not of England, but of India. "And India was close at hand, rich in resources, in troops, and in officials. At its head was a council possessed of extensive powers-powers which, thanks to the liberal spirit of the Secretary of State for India, in London are always increasing; and finally, as president of this council, holding the position of Governor-General and Viceroy, there was a man of great breadth of mind, sound judgment, and rare promptitude in action."

It was to all these circumstances combined, but

most especially to the fact that decisions were made, not in London, but in Rangoon, Calcutta, or Simla, by men who knew the situation, that success is due. The rapidity and completeness of military operations, when military operations were required; the change from a military to a civil occupation, or, more correctly, from an occupation in force by soldiers to an occupation in force by police as soon as the change became possible; the establishment of the English judicial system; the conciliatory attitude of English officials toward such potentates as they saw any hope of trusting; English respect for the religious institutions of the country; finally, the tact with which negotiations with China have been carried out, and the question of the Chinese boundary postponed to a day when it can be settled with more assured knowledge of essential conditions, all receive in turn their share of appreciative recognition.

But from first to last the entire credit is ascribed to the Government of India. The India Office is only praised for the wise tolerance with which it has allowed the right people to manage everything on the spot.

MARLBOROUGH ON SOCIETY IN AMERICA.

UN

NDER the somewhat absurd and misleading title of "Merry England," the Duke of Marl borough writes in the New Review for January upon the development of the English-speaking race in the United States of America. He points out that the English and Americans are practically one peo ple, “dissimilar, no doubt, as Professor Bryce shows us, in many of the fundamental ideas that govern our political constitutions, and yet singularly one in our social conceptions, in our literary tastes and popular ideals. So much is this true that the states man of the future in both countries will lay these facts to heart as he considers the interests of his own particular country, seeing the enormous potential influence that can be derived from a proper amalgamation of all English-speaking interests all over the world, in the interest of peace, of com merce, and of free trade in thought and language as well as in goods."

His account of America is interesting and fresh. The aristocrat of the "England across the sea" is the millionaire. The American has one leading idea that stands above religion, politics, sport, and everything except family-it is the road to wealth. American aristocracy represents the wealth of the country. Everything that produces riches is in its hands, and there is a law which gives more rigid and constant protection to the rights of property than anything that exists in England. The moneyed aristocracy of America is far more powerful than the titular aristocracy of England. The squirearchy of America is the legal profession. Life in Amer ica is hard for the mass; they have no time for politics, little for religion, and of sport, of relaxa tion, there is none in America outside New York

race meetings and those of other large towns; yet the people are much happier, take them as a whole, although they work twice as hard. A kindly and unselfish hospitality is a ruling habit of almost all, while woman's influence is everywhere admitted. Discussing the influence which American ideas will have upon England, the duke says:

"In another generation or so the political functions of the House of Lords will probably disappear, even by the peers' wish, while the aristocracy must be recruited now entirely from trade. There are no great wars to make great generals, there are no powerful sovereigns to make great favorites. The essence of Mrs. Partington's hare soup is, in fact, not there! Besides this, you have an entirely new class growing up, which has great similarity of circumstance though on a less wealthy scale-to America. South Kensington is going to overshadow Belgravia and Mayfair, while the numberless suburban families, with wealth derived from foreign trade and colonial enterprise, form a class that only the income tax collector and a few far-seeing Belgravian mammas have the remotest idea of."

On the other hand, the influence of England will be felt in America in an increasing of those forms of leisure and ease which an older civilization pos

sesses:

"But it is clear that in the not distant future America will be possessed of a representative class of landed merchant nobles who will vie in luxury and in wealth with anything that the Old World ever produced, and that the artistic riches in pictures, in furniture, and in works of art which have been so enhanced in value in nineteenth-century Europe will be raised by American millionaire buyers of another generation to the most fabulous. proportions. Not only this, but English ways of life among a wealthy class will become more and more popular."

After alluding to some drawbacks in the American social system, he says:

"With all this there is, however, a higher standard of general refinement in the home among almost all classes in America. Even in the humblest walks of life the home is better kept, more attention is given to small things, dinners and festivities mean more as entertainments than in England. There is less happy-go-lucky sort of Bohemian coffee-housing all round. The tendency to nagging and gossipmongering of an ill-natured character is, I fancy, rarer in that country.

"The American woman is, perhaps, the most different thing in America to anything in England. She has a natural quickness for appreciating the characters of the men around her, and she takes infinitely more trouble, and in some respects greater interest, all round than the English woman displays. Child bearing does not seem to crush everything else out of them, as it does with all classes in England. Taking the two people together, there is really far less difference than one might expect to find."

THE HOME LIFE OF MR. GLADSTONE.

THE

A Glimpse of Hawarden.

HE Young Man for January gives a pleasant account of Mr. Gladstone's home life, illustrated by a new photograph of his study, showing his desk for literary work, his desk for political work, and the basket into which addresses are consigned. The following are the more interesting parts of this article:

66 NEVER BE DOING NOTHING."

His daily life at home is a model of simplicity and regularity, and the great secret of the vast amount of work he accomplishes lies in the fact that every odd five minutes is occupied. No man ever had a deeper sense of the preciousness of time and the responsibility which every one incurs by the use or misuse he makes of it. To such a length does he carry this that at a picnic to a favorite Welsh mountain he has been seen to fling himself on the heather and bury himself in some pamphlet upon a question of the day, until called to lighter things by those who were responsible for the provision basket. His grand maxim is never to be doing nothing. He and Lord Lyttelton filled up every spare moment. Out of their pockets came the inevitable little classic, Homer or what-not, whether at a railway station or on any other of the thousand occasions when the ordinary mortal is content to lose his temper as well as his time. Some may still remember the familiar sight of Lord Lyttelton, lying on the grass in the Eton Playing Fields, watching his sons' batting, bowling, or fielding, and reading between the overs.

BREAKFAST AND CORRESPONDENCE.

Although Mr. Gladstone's daily routine is familiar to some, yet many inaccurate accounts have been circulated from time to time. In bed about twelve, he sleeps like a child until called in the morning. Not a moment's hesitation does he allow himself, although, as we have heard him say, no school-boy could long more desperately for an extra five min utes. He is down by eight o'clock, and at church (three-quarters of a mile off) every morning for the 8:30 service. No snow or rain, no tempest, however severe, has ever been known to stop him. Directly after breakfast a selection of his letters is brought to him. The enormous mass of papers of all kinds that arrives each morning takes so much time in merely opening, and contains so large a proportion of rubbish, that the sorting and selecting is done for him by the son or daughter living most at home. Applications for signatures go remorselessly into the waste-paper basket. Autograph and birthday books, manuscripts, novels, poetry, essays on every conceivable subject, schemes for the government of the universe, inventions, medicines, testimonials, are all placed in a box for future return when demanded. There is an erroneous idea that Mr. Gladstone answers any and every letter addressed to him. This is only because the answers he does send are generally published and read by thousands, and con

Excepting before breakfast, he does not go out in the morning. At 2 P. M. he comes to luncheon, and at the present time he usually spends the afternoon arranging the books at his new library. To this spot he has already transported nearly 20,000 books, and every volume he puts into its place with his own hand. To him books are almost as sacred as human beings, and the increase of their numbers is perhaps as interesting a problem as the increase of population. It is real pain to him to see a book badly treated-dropped on the floor, unduly squeezed into the book-case, dog's-eared, or, worse crime of all, laid open upon its face.

A short drive or walk before the social cup of tea enables him to devote the remaining hour or so before post-time to completing his correspondence. After dinner he returns to his sanctum-a very temple of peace in the evening, with its bright fire, arm-chair, warm curtains, and shaded reflecting candle. Here, with an occasional doze, he reads until bedtime, and thus ends a busy, fruitful day.

HIS SABBATH REST.

Mr. Gladstone has often been heard to remark that had it not been for his Sunday rest he would not now be the man he is. Physically, intellectually, and spiritually, his Sunday has been to him a priceless blessing. Any one who entered his room in Downing Street on a Sunday during the height of the session could not fail to be struck by the atmosphere of repose, the signs and symbols of the day, the books lying open near the arm-chair, the deserted writing-table, the absence of papers and newspapers. From Saturday to Monday morning Mr. Gladstone puts away all business of a secular nature, keeps to his special Sunday books and occupations, and never dines out that day unless to cheer a sick or sorrowful friend; he never travels on Sunday, and it is well known that when Her Majesty invites him to Windsor Castle on Sunday for one night he makes arrangements to stay in Windsor the Saturday night to avoid Sunday travelling. Two services at least see him at worship on Sunday in Hawarden church. He has a poor opinion of those whom he humorously terms “once-ers." In his dressing-room can be seen the large open Bible in which he daily reads.

HOW HE READS BOOKS.

Mr. Gladstone's method of reading is more that of the tortoise than the hare. He cannot read rapidly, nor has he ever acquired the fine art of skipping; he cannot boast, like Carlyle, of reading a page of Gibbon "with one flash of his eye." But he is not slow to discover whether the book is worth reading, and if not, after a few pages it is cast aside, though as a general rule his judgment is lenient. Scott is still to him king of novelists; and among the mod