girl who has never been outside the boundaries of her father's farm is on the same social plane at the Executive Mansion as the city girl who has just returned from a Parisian ladies' seminary; nor does the city girl pretend to be socially superior. Vanity is not a characteristic of the Boer girl; on the contrary, it is her love of others that gives her a high place in the opinions of those who have seen her."

THE BOER AS A CAMPAIGNER.

A MILITARY writer in Blackwood's for De

cember gives some personal observations, made in the former British campaign against the Boers, which throw light on the methods of Boer warfare followed in the present war.

BOER CAVALRY SCOUTS.

This writer, while not an admirer of the Boer, concedes to him the quality of pluck.

"He is fighting for all he holds most dear, and he is fighting on his own dunghill. He is as hard as nuts, has lived in the open air in the most healthy of climates, and can subsist on very little. Strips of meat dried in the sun are very portable and do him very well: if a cup of coffee is thrown in he has luxuries. He can ride well, and his pony is his own, who knows him and the

He has a knowl

country as well as his master. edge of the country and the ability to ride over it as our hunting men have at home.

"Marksmanship, mobility, little or no baggage or commissariat train, an excellent country for an out-of-door life-all good military conditions out of which he has evolved his tactics. These are never to move in masses, to spread over the country like a fan, always to make for a bowlder, which is easy, as there are so many of them, to jump off his pony when he gets to it and take shelter behind it: he has a rest for his rifle and can pick off men or horses or cattle at his leisure. His pony has stuffed his nose into the grass behind the bowlder and is taking his dinner, and is in no hurry about it: when his master is ready to find another bowlder he will be ready to take him to it, where he knows that he can finish his meal."

GUNNERY TERMS EXPLAINED.

MAJOR.GENERAL MAURICE contributes

to the Nineteenth Century for December an article on Terms Used in Modern Gunnery," in which he gives a very lucid explanation of the technical expressions of the artillerist. At any other time General Maurice's article would belong to the specialist class and would call for no special note, but in view of the bewildering technicalities with which our war dispatches are sometimes filled, it will be useful to quote his explanations for the benefit of the amateur strategist.

66

THE USE OF FUSES.

The distinction between the time fuse" and the percussion fuse" is one not always understood. The percussion fuse is mechanically contrived so that when the shell strikes any object sufficiently hard to stop it the shell is exploded by the impact. Its use therefore presents no difficulty to half-trained gunners. The time

fuse" is a much more delicate instrument:

"It contains a composition which burns at a fixed rate, and the amount of composition placed. ready to burn being indicated by figures outside the case of the fuse, it is possible for the gunner, who sets the fuse before it is put into the gun, so to regulate it that it will explode the shell after it has traveled for a certain number of seconds or parts of seconds through the air. Tables have by careful experiment been made out which enable us to know how many parts of seconds a fuse should be adjusted to burn in order that when the shell is fired at a given range the fuse should cause it to explode at a given height over the enemy and a given distance in front of him."

SHELLS AND SHRAPNEL.

Plugged shell" is the modern substitute for the solid shot" of the past. When it is desirable in preference to bursting a shell to make it strike as a solid whole, then the bursting composition is extracted, and in order that the shell may be even and heavy as before, it is plugged

with some material that would not burst it.

Shrapnel in its original form was invented by a General Shrapnel, who during the Peninsular War invented a form in which it was applicable to the spherical shells then used:

"Before Shrapnel invented his shell, which was loaded with a number of large bullets, intended to scatter among the troops at which it was aimed, the common form of shell was charged with a mass of powder, and it had two effects. It broke up into such large fragments that these, retaining most of the velocity remaining in the shell at the moment it opened, and having a certain fresh force imparted to them by the charge within the shell, struck with great effect against any solid bodies with which they came in contact and materially damaged them. These shells were thus very destructive to the carriages on which guns are carried in the field, and even, if they hit it fairly, damaging, though not so often, to the gun itself. They were particularly effective against buildings, earthworks, and against walls in which it was desirable to make a hole or breach. They also, from the large quantity of powder within them, produced a body of flame which tended to create violent conflagrations wherever they struck any bodies easily ignited."

Shrapnel as adapted to the modern rifled gun has been used to fill ammunition wagons since the Franco-German War, which proved that artillery fire is three times more effective when directed against considerable bodies of cavalry and infantry than it is against artillery.

"Again, the experience of 1870 led to the conclusion that, when properly used, artillery silenced other artillery more easily by directing its fire upon the gunners than when it was aimed against the guns or wagons."

"CANISTER."

For defensive purposes every battery has a limited quantity of case, formerly known as canister. Of case General Maurice says:

"This was and is a great defensive weapon of artillery. The case or canister very soon breaks to pieces after leaving the muzzle of the gun, scattering the bullets it contains in a great cone of dispersion. It is thus only effective for short ranges against bodies of either cavalry or infantry actually closing on to the guns to attack

of the century was used to fire shells of large diameter, for at that time guns were chiefly used for firing solid shot. In order to reduce the weight of the howitzer it was made very short, and as this would have caused a great recoil, it was only fired at high angles, and the shells dropped on the enemy from above. When shells were adopted for ordinary field guns howitzers gradually dropped out of use. But their use revived with the invention of high explosives, such as lyddite and melenite, the main constituent of which is picric acid.

THE BOER AND THE BRITISH RIFLE.

General Maurice concludes his article with a description of the Lee-Enfield rifle used by the British troops. The Lee-Enfield differs from the Boer Mauser in the following respect:

"While the Lee-Enfield has a magazine which is inserted underneath the body through the trigger guard and secured by a catch, and is pro

vided with what is called a 'cut-off' to prevent the cartridges from rising, so that it can be used as a simple breech-loader for single firing till the magazine, which contains ten cartridges, is ordered to be used, the Mauser, on the other hand, has a magazine which, though not absolutely fixed, is only intended to be taken off for cleaning. It does not need a cut-off' to use as a single loader. The magazine contains five cartridges, but whereas the cartridges for the Lee-Enfield have, when the magazine is charged, to be each put in separately, the magazine of the Mauser is filled at once by placing against the face of the magazine a set of five cartridges held in a clip which falls off when the cartridges have been inserted in the magazine. Thus if each weapon were at the beginning of a fight empty, the Mauser would permit of more rapid fire because it could be loaded five cartridges at a time, while the Lee-Enfield would take, cartridge by cartridge, as long to load as a single breech-loader. On the other hand, the times when a very rapid discharge of fire is desirable are not numerous, and for these the Lee-Enfield has ten cartridges ready against the Mauser's five."

ENGLISH AND DUTCH IN THE PAST.

AN extremely interesting, but possibly for

Englishmen somewhat painful, article is contributed by Mrs. John Richard Green, the widow of the historian, to the Nineteenth Century under this heading. She brings out very clearly the fact that for nearly two hundred years England treated Holland very much as she is treating the Dutch of to-day. The analogy, indeed, between the disputes of the seventeenth century and those of the nineteenth century in another continent is very close. Even under James I. the Dutch complained of piratical raids made by Englishmen upon the Dutch possessions. To end the Dutch difficulty James conceived the scheme of annexing Holland and proposing to divide her territory between France and England. "Let them leave off," he said, "this vainglorious thirsting for the title of a free state, which no people are worthy of that cannot stand by them. selves."

CROMWELL'S DESIGNS ON HOLLAND.

After James had passed and Charles had had his head cut off, the same idea of annexing Holland fascinated Oliver Cromwell:

"The English had neither considered nor appreciated the stubborn love of country and of liberty that marked the new Holland. They held to the good old idea of a petty people of shopkeepers. Covetous plans of spoliation re

vived. Cromwell, with his head full of schemes of incorporation for Scotland, Ireland, and Holland, proposed to the Dutch in 1651 to form a more intimate and strict alliance. Faciamus eos in unam gentem, explained Thurloe, deep in the confidence of Cromwell. The spirit of the burghers rose at the hint of danger to their national freedom. The alliance proposed,' anbetween a small state like ours like England would mean our political extinction.' With insolent and threat. ening words the ambassador returned to England and the navigation act was passed."

swered De Witt, and a great state

THE QUESTION OF PARAMOUNTCY THEN.

Then, having failed to persuade the Dutch to unite with them, the English began war with the avowed object of incorporating Holland into their monarchy. Dunkirk was the Delagoa Bay of the situation, and from this Cromwell hoped to shut Holland in, destroy her outlet to the sea, and break her commerce and her means of life. It

is extremely curious to find false prophecies made in the seventeenth century very like those which have now driven the English people into war with the Boers. For it was commonly believed that the Dutch, eager to fill their pockets, would not fight. Cromwell thought that the war would be short and the Hollanders easy to settle down with in peace afterward. All the grievances of fifty years were then gathered by the English in one black list. The Dutch sent embassies to treat in the very spirit of Krüger : 6. All, all, all except the freedom of my country." The Parliament of England answered that "the extraordinary preparation of men-of-war and the instructions given to your commanders at sea give much cause to believe that the Lord StatesGeneral have an intention by force to usurp the known rights of England in the seas. Wherefore Parliament must endeavor to secure reparation for the wrong already suffered and security that the like be not attempted for the future.”

EVEN CROMWELL BAFFLED.

So for the paramountcy of the seas the Eng lish commonwealth went to war with Holland. Mrs. Green says:

6

After a year's war the English proposed to extinguish the provinces as an independent state and absorb Holland into England as one people and commonwealth.' No alliance, they explained, but the making of two sovereign states one, under one supreme power.' High in spirit and courage, they believed themselves strong enough to enforce any demands they chose to make. they had not reckoned with the temper of Holland. The Dutch answer was given in the battle

But

of the Texel. O Lord, prayed the elder Tromp, struck down by a bullet, be merciful to me and

thy poor people. The fleet had lost over 6,000 men, but not a man in the States would hear of the extinction of his country. They refused Cromwell's next proposal for an alliance to divide the world with them, the whole of Asia for the Dutch, all America to the English, with Protestant missionaries following their conquering fleets to spread the faith of Jesus. They refused to desert their Danish allies at his bidding, and prepared to fight to the last man. This two years' war had exhausted their treasure and injured their commerce more than the eighty years of maritime war with Spain; loaded the people with an unexampled debt, closed their fisheries, and interrupted trade till 3,000 houses lay vacant in Amsterdam alone. They were unshaken by calamity. The fury of their patriotism bore down the English; and in view of Dutch doggedness Cromwell had to be content with a secret engagement, for the weakening of the Dutch state, that the house of Orange should forever be excluded from power. The English, De Witt said, as Dutch ministers might have said a hundred years later, were always interfering in their domestic concerns, a policy it was extremely difficult to parry."

A TALE OF HEROISM AGAINST PERFIDY.

The rest of the story must be read in Mrs. Green's own pages. It is very unpleasant, but of fascinating and tragic interest. Mrs. Green says that England's throwing over the Dutch and adopting the cause of the Belgians was regarded by the Dutch with horror and by Europe with astonishment.

England was under special pledges to Holland, and a change in mood entitles a state, no more than a man, to cast aside deliberate undertakings and solemn pledges. In any case, the Dutch have never forgotten or forgiven this amazing interposition. It rankles in their hearts as a perfidious betrayal. Without accepting Alison's lurid condemnation of Britain's conduct at the time, every impartial observer must feel how difficult it is to make the British policies of 1795, 1815, and 1830 consistent on any principle save that of British interests alone. For these interests the Dutch people were thrown aside at one time and the Dutch sovereign at another."

The whole history of Holland as told by Mrs. Green is one terrible tale of indomitable heroism against overwhelming forces-not against Eng. land alone, but against England united to France. It shows of what stuff the men are whom England is now fighting in South Africa. They are true sons of William III., the Orangeman.

RUSSIAN RAILROAD POLICY IN ASIA.

MR. R. E. C. LONG, who spent the first half of 1899 in Russia, contributes to the Fortnightly Review an interesting and well-informed article upon Russian railroad policy in Asia. His paper is an attempt to enable us for the time being to look at the problem through Russian eyes. The ideal of an Indo-European railroad running for the greater part through Russian territory, which would bring the Afghan border within a week's journey of Moscow, has been postponed for a time, but it has not been abandoned.

RUSSIAN ANGLOPHOBIA.

The question whether or not the realization of the scheme can be held over depends upon what Russia thinks England will do. Mr. Long says:

The fundamental fact of the situation is that of late years Russia has been much more frightened of English schemes than England has ever been of Russian."

Of all the dreads afflicting Russian alarmists, there is none more ineradicable than the belief that England is about to extend her Indian railroad through Beluchistan to the Persian Gulf, with the ultimate aim of joining Germany in Asia Minor, connecting the Indo European system, and thus cutting Russia off forever from Indian Asia. This would irretrievably ruin the commercial prospects of the central Asian route. "As the ultimate preservation for Russia of a port on the Persian Gulf has become an informal Monroe doctrine in St. Petersburg, the northwestward extension of the Indian railroad system by England, which is believed to be imminent, would be regarded in Russian circles as an irretrievable injury to their influence in Asia." To avert this disaster, Russia can either acquire a Persian port at once and connect it by rail with the Caspian or she can construct a central Asian railroad, connecting the Trans-Caspian system with central railroads of Russia. The difficulties in the way of the Persian scheme seem to Mr. Long to be almost insuperable.

SCHEME OF A CENTRAL ASIAN RAILROAD.

Therefore it is probable that the Russians will carry out the alternative scheme of connecting the central Asian railroads with the central European system. Prince Hilkoff, when visit. ing Tashkend, declared that this would be accomplished in the near future. To carry it out would, would, however, involve an expenditure of 90,000,000 rubles. Many broad rivers would have to be bridged, and there would be considerable difficulty in supplying some parts of the line with water. From the easternmost point of the

Ryazan-Ural Railway to Tcherdjui, on the frontier of Bokhara, is a distance of 1,710 versts. Of this only 275 have been surveyed. If the line were constructed, a short branch line of 16 versts would connect the main trunk railroad with Khiva. If the railroad were made it could not be worked on less than an annual loss of $2,000,000 a year, although there might be some saving in the cost of the transport of troops. Hence from a financial point of view the line would not pay, but the scheme, if carried out, would exert a tremendous influence on the balance of power of Asia, and bring the Russian armies within striking distance of the Persian, Afghan, and Chinese frontiers a few days after leaving Moscow. There is also to be borne in mind that the construction of a railroad through at present waste land could lead to great developments, for the natural resources of the territory are great. Mr. Long thinks it is not unreasonable to expect that the direct connection of European Russia with her central Asian connections would result in such an increase of trade as would wipe out any initial deficit and yield a considerable result."

The Russians, however, imagine that if the central railroad were constructed it would enable them to gain a market for their manufactures in India, but they are haunted by a dread that it might have the opposite effect of enabling Eng. lish goods to capture the central Asian markets through India. Mr. Long himself rather favors the construction of the line on the ground that it would facilitate inter-communication between Russians and English, and so remove gross preju dices and misrepresentations employed by panic. mongers on both sides to damage the interests they profess to defend.

IT

A WORTHLESS KING.

T is greatly to the honor of the royal caste that among the reigning 'sovereigns of Europe. only one can be regarded as utterly unworthy of the high position bestowed on him by destiny. M. Malet contributes to the Revue de Paris a terrible indictment of King Milan of Servia.

Unfortunately Milan succeeded, at the early age of fourteen, a really admirable ruler, Prince Michael Obrenowitz, who was massacred on June 10, 1868. "That day," says the writer significantly, stands out in Servian history as a day doubly cursed, for on it an admirable sovereign disappeared and Servia fell into the hands of Milan." During the first four years of his reign Servia was very fairly ruled by a regency, and three years after he was prince regnant in fact as well as in name. Milan married, at the age of

twenty, the beautiful young Russian girl, Natalie Kechko, to whom his horrible conduct has been one of the reasons why King Milan is execrated by all those familiar with his life.

Seven years after his marriage Milan changed his title from prince to that of king; six years later he himself pronounced the dissolution of his marriage, and in the March of 1889 he abdicated in favor of his only child, who was proclaimed king under the title of Alexander I. Within two years, however, he was back again in Servia, penniless and determined to make himself as disagreeable as possible. The regency gave him $200,000 and he went away, promising never to return again. A year later he extracted from the unfortunate Servian Government $400,000, renouncing in exchange all his rights, not only as a member of the royal house, but also those of a Servian subject. In 1893 he patched up some kind of reconciliation with his long-suffering wife; a year later he broke his word and came back to Belgrade. He then managed to per

suade his son to allow him to assume the title of king-father. During the last two years he has become commander-in-chief of the Servian army.

M. Malet in one paragraph shows to what straits a continental ruler can reduce a kingdom. During the comparatively short space of time King Milan actually governed Servia that is, seventeen years-four hundred miles of railroad and the annexation of the Nisch district is all that he can point to in the way of achievement. He was defeated in each of the three wars he undertook, and he created a public debt of $51,000,000, and this although before his accession Servia was without this modern incubus.

No

Curiously enough, King Milan is a very intelligent man; he possesses wonderful powers of assimilation; he is interested in all that concerns the progress of modern science; and his man. ners are considered to be quite charming. one knows Servia better than he does himself, but he is one of those men who are completely lacking in moral sense; his conscience has never been educated. Although his conduct to his wife has been outrageous, he has again and again made attempts to pave the way to a reconcilia. tion, but while actually writing her the most touching letters imploring her forgiveness, he was inditing others in which he gave a fearful account of her supposed unkindness and cruelty.

At one time the present King Alexander seemed to have a splendid and happy future opening before him. He had been very carefully brought up by his mother, he was popular with his people, and all would have gone well had not his father immediately considered how he could exploit this situation to his own benefit.