impossible to draw reliable parallels. Leaving these technical intricacies out of question, it goes without saying that to make a rifle shoot accurately it must be properly sighted, and this with the same ammunition with which the soldier is expected to fire in war. Now, aside of the alleged irregular qualities of our Cordite powder, which, were they as injurious as many experts testify, would make good shooting an impossible feat, there is no doubt whatsoever about the fact that a great number of our Service rifles now in Africa are badly sighted. So much so that 250,000 new sights, it is said, have been sent out, the replacing of which means more than appears on the face.

In this country very much less attention than elsewhere is paid to everything appertaining to shooting, and amongst these sins of omission must be placed the negligent way in which military rifles are sighted. This is done en bloc from machine rests, which test, it is well known, gives quite different results to those obtained when the rifle is fired by an individual from the shoulder or lying down. In the principal Continental armies, with the internal management of which I happen to be acquainted, each rifle after it has been sighted and tested in the factory is again tested by two different officials. The last test is a particularly rigorous one, for the Compagnie Commandant, or Captain, has resting upon his shoulders the full responsibility for the marksmanship of his company. Thus, if for any reason whatsoever his men fail to reach a prescribed fairly high standard, his promotion suffers. In the face of such severe penalties it can be imagined that badly-sighted rifles are never put into the hands of the private, and such disclosures as we recently heard of are impossible occurrences in any other large army.1

Rapidity of fire comes next. It is safe to say, however, that the present war has illustrated, on many occasions, that on the part of defending forces rapidity of fire is to-day of greater importance than ever. The bravest assaults have been repulsed and great loss inflicted by a well-sustained magazine-rifle fire by a numerically inferior force. In this now so important detail our Service rifle is lamentably behind those in the hands of the Boers, for it is practically not a magazine rifle at all, but a single loader, hardly superior in this respect to the long-discarded Martini-Henry. To realise the seriousness of this defect it must be remembered that when once Tommy has emptied his magazine, which he usually does long before the critical moment, it can be re-charged only by placing the cartridges singly into the slot, while the Boer can re-load his by a single movement of his hand, the five cartridges being held together by a metal clip, varying slightly in shape in the different rifles. Being a

(1) As a matter of fact, other military rifles have better sights than our rifle has, and I have heard many of our marksmen declare that the Martini-Henry sights were better than the present ones.

larger object to handle than a single cartridge, it is obvious that there is less fumbling about of unsteady hands when replacing at one move five cartridges than there is in placing a single one in the gun.

It follows, therefore, that to keep up a continuous fire at critical moments our soldier's rifle (when once his magazine is emptied) takes about four times as long to fire, say 80 or 100 shots. This does not take into consideration the effect of excitement on men when under fire, when single cartridges are easily dropped, much in the same way that in the old days of muzzle-loaders many a rifle picked up on battlefields was found to have several charges rammed down one over the other. The simplification in the loading mechanism is, therefore, a vital detail which is tested only by actual warfare. Experience to what extent a battle affects the nerve of the soldier should therefore speak the last word in peace-time tests of military arms. In this respect I think our authorities have failed to a lamentable extent, and the British officers and other experts I have consulted on this point state that it is a fact that there have been at least three important occasions when the repulses we sustained would have been almost certainly victories, had the Boers been armed with our Service rifle, for with it they could not have kept up the sustained deadly fire which made our ranks waver and then retreat. How and why this "severely criticised hybrid magazine," as Greener calls it, was ever adopted, is one of the things upon which it is desirable that light should be thrown by a thorough investigation.1

Of penetration it is not necessary to say much, all military rifles have sufficient penetration for practical purposes, so that the relative degree is of little importance, and the muzzle velocity is, broadly speaking, a sufficiently accurate indication.

For tactical purposes, the weight of a rifle and its ammunition has to-day enhanced importance, for the present war is demonstrating the value of mobility. Upon this military factor, every additional ounce in the equipment of a soldier has obviously direct influence. From my table the reader can see that the marching capacity of our troops is more or less handicapped by the greater weight of our rifle. It is more than 13 ounces heavier than the German Mauser, and nearly as much in excess of the Mannlicher and the United States Navy rifle.

(1) Of the five great Continental Powers the French army is trained to shoot fastest, for the Frenchman, by dint of incessant practice (with the barrack rifle at first) has to fire and score a certain percentage of hits at the rate of nine shots in thirty seconds. The next is the Italian army, where the soldier is trained to fire twenty-five shots in two minutes. The other armies lay less stress on uniform rapidity of fire, for they create three classes of marksmanship, and thus adhere to the sharpshooter principle, viz., that some men can never be taught to shoot as well as others can with even less training. As in Continental armies every Captain knows which of his men are the best shots, for the prescribed daily rifle drill makes him fully acquainted with each man's shooting capacities, it is easy for him to pick out, should occasion arise, the best marksmen in his company, even without consulting the badges these men wear.

And not only is our rifle heavier than any other, but the ammunition shares the same defect. The Service cartridge weighs 125 grains more than the 236 United States Navy cartridge, and about 90 grains heavier than the Mannlicher. This, in itself, very insignificant excess, sums up when the full complement is considered. As a matter of fact, most of the foreign infantry carry considerably more ammunition on their person than does Tommy, who is burdened with 100 rounds. Thus the German, Russian, and French carry 120, the Swiss, Dutch, and Turkish 150, the Italian 162, the United States Navy 180, while the soldier armed with the Roumanian Mannlicher carries just double the number our men do when going on active service.

Some other minor defects of the Service rifle cannot be passed over. Among these the absurdly heavy straight-pull trigger is the one which affects shoulder shooting more than any other. As I have reverted to this defect and to its remedy (long adopted by other armies) in these pages last month, I need not take up space by what would be a mere repetition. Another defect which is emphasized by rapid changes in temperature such as our troops are exposed to in South Africa, is the inferior rigidity of the woodwork of the rifle. This is caused by being in two instead of in one piece, as in all other military rifles except the French. Joints become loose, putting the sights out of alignment, even in such moderate heat as a July day at Bisley inflicts, and I have heard numerous complaints on this point.

A structural defect is the much weaker bolt of the 303 action. This fault can become a dangerous fault when defective Cordite ammunition is used, for, in that case, as was proved at Bisley and elsewhere last July, the bolt gives way behind the too great pressure, and the "blow-back" which ensues endangers the life of the man firing the rifle. As Cordite, according to some experts, is unduly affected by heat, which is said to increase to an abnormal degree the explosive forces of this powder, serious risks are run.

This brings us to the Service ammunition, concerning which subject even harsher strictures have, I fear, to be passed than upon the rifle. The most "thick-and-thin" partisan of the War Office cannot deny that at least one large issue, amounting to some hundred million of cartridges, did develop dangerous qualities. This was the notorious Mark IV. ammunition, which came to such a deplorable fiasco at Bisley last July, when the Council of the National Rifle Association had to peremptorily withdraw it from use after the first day's trial, an officer's life, endangered by a bad "blow-back,” being saved by a miracle.

It is hardly credible that, in spite of its proved and admitted defectiveness, this very Mark IV. ammunition is now being served out for practice, the official notice stating that the Government pro

poses to use up the stock of 100,000,000 in this way. Such false economy is almost criminal.

The general reader, to whom many of the facts I have related will probably be news and unwelcome at that, will perhaps shake his head and demand better proof of their truth than is the word of an unknown civilian, though he may have fired many thousand rounds out of the rifles dealt with. Let me, therefore, add the following facts in substantiation of opinions voiced in these pages, and for this purpose I would refer him to the Report of the National Rifle Association for 1899. British marksmen, I need hardly say, do not, as a rule, patronise foreign-made arms or ammunition without very good reason for so doing. Hence the fact that of the twenty-four rifles that were used last year by the three teams that shot for the great event of the year, i.e., the Elcho Shield, twenty were 256 Mannlichers of Austrian manufacture. At the "Martin Smith" contest, which is generally considered the best test of all, twelve of the fifteen prize-winners shot with it, while in some of the other competitions open to other than the British Service rifle, seven out of eight, nine out of twelve, four out of five, thirteen out of fifteen of the prize-winners, who, of course, represented the picked shots of Britain, used that or other foreign-made rifles, the Mannlicher alone making fourteen top scores against four obtained by British rifles. No better proof of what practical experts think of these "made in Germany" rifles could possibly be adduced.

As an epitome of the foregoing criticisms I challenge contradiction of the following facts concerning our Service rifle and its ammunition, when compared with the four types I have enumerated. It has the lowest muzzle velocity, worst trajectory, least penetration, by a long way the slowest fire when once the magazine is emptied, weakest breech bolt, least rigid woodwork, worst trigger-pull, and worst sights even when they are properly aligned. It is the heaviest rifle, and its ammunition shares the same defect. The latter is not always reliable, and certain issues are dangerous, as experience has shown. And least, but not last, our Service rifle is by far the most expensive of any Service arm in the world.1

If a war with a peasant people in the interior of Africa-the back woodsmen of that Continent-has disclosed to us very radical defects in our army administration, to what abyss shall not we be brought by a really serious war with one or more first-class Powers, such as we may have to face any day?

W. A. BAILLIE-GROHMAN.

(1) I am informed that our Service rifle costs fifty per cent. more than the Mause 1888 model, and have no reason to doubt the truth of this statement.

THE ETHICS OF PERFORMING ANIMALS.

THE question of the morality, or immorality, of shows of trick animals comes from time to time before the British public, and is duly relegated to the oblivion deemed comfortable in such cases, where conflicting interests suggest an adjournment sine die. This arrangement suits all parties except the animals themselves. It suits the public, because it has further chances of witnessing those sensational exhibitions of performing lions that it dearly loves. It suits the trainers and the proprietors of circuses for reasons that are still more obvious. And so, at intervals, we hear a protest raised against the whole system, usually based on specific charges of gross cruelty that it is impossible to substantiate. These therefore collapse, as might be expected of accusations which, if not groundless, rest at any rate, so far as individual cases are concerned, on very flimsy evidence. But it seems no difficult matter to review the subject on general lines, and without undue heat, and such an attempt will be made in this paper.

The whole question rests on our duties towards the lower animals. Mr. Lecky, in one of his works, recoils from the prospect of an age in which these shall be placed on the same basis as our duties towards our fellow-men; but if any reliance may be placed on the remarkable change that has already come over popular thought (which may be a very different matter from public opinion, as voiced in the Press) during the last ten years, it would seem as if an unpleasant experience may await the member for Dublin University.

It would be too much to affirm that our appreciation of such duties gets a stronger hold on the public mind as the influence of what is commonly known as "religion" wanes. Such an assertion would possibly not bear a very close examination, and would in any case rouse opposition in quarters where it is the desire of the animal lover to conciliate. At the same time, it is difficult to ignore the fact that all the old Churchmen preached not merely the inferiority of the brute, but also the absence of all rights on its part to our protection; and few would care to deny that animals are worse off in the most Churchridden countries of southern Europe. It will, perhaps, be urged that this is coincidence, and that the cruelty to horses and asses in Spain and Italy is rather attributable to inherent cruelty in those races; but this argument loses force when we refer to the doctrines of the older Jesuits. Man was not an animal, but the miniature of a higher being, with dominion over the "dumb creatures," and every right to assert such dominion without mercy or moderation. This anthro