that it was but little use they ever got, the author was probably right in saying that they all bent in the handle more or less when drawn, and were too much reflexed. There is but little doubt that-as the joint in the handle, necessitating extra bulk and strength, could be dispensed with in these bows— the makers considered it an excellent opportunity to give their goods what (however erroneously) was then considered the best shape (when drawn), namely, the perfect arc; and this harmonious shape they obtained most successfully by making the bows comparatively weak in the handle and unnecessarily strong towards the horns; with the result that these 'teacaddy bows' met the contemptuous fate they well deserved. Modern archers have to be thankful to Mr. Ford for the vast improvement in backed bows (even more than in the case of self-bows), which are now perfectly steady in hand, and taper gradually, and as much as is compatible with the safety of the limbs, and this in spite of their being still made somewhat more reflex when new than appears necessary in the manufacture of self-yew bows. Yet Mr. Ford was perfectly right to condemn all reflexity that does not result in a bow becoming either straight or somewhat to follow the string after it has been in use sufficiently long for its necessary training to its owner's style. The first quality of a bow is steadiness. Now this quality is put in peril either by a want of exact balance between the two limbs-when the recoil of one limb is quicker than that of the other-or by undue reflexity. These causes of unsteadiness occur in self-bows as well as in backed bows, and are felt in the shape of a jar or kick in the hand when loosed. This unsteadiness from want of balance in the limbs may be cured by a visit of the bow to the maker for such fresh tillering (as it is called) as will correct the fault of one or other limb. If the unsteadiness arise from excessive reflexity, which cannot be reduced by use, a further tapering of the limbs must be adopted. No bow of any sort that cannot be completely cured of kicking should be kept, as no steady shooting can be expected from such a bow. A bow that is much reflexed will be more liable to chrysals and splinters, as the belly has to be more compressed and the back more strained than in a bow of proper shape; also, such a bow is much more destructive to strings, as a greater strain is put upon the strings by the recoil of the limbs than is the case with a bow that follows the string or bends inwards naturally. It is the uneven or excessive strain upon the string after the discharge of the arrow that causes the kicking of the bow. When the question arises,' Which is the best sort of bow?' it is found that the solution has only been rendered more complicated since 1859 by the great improvement in the manufacture of various sorts of backed bows: as the following remarks, then applied to the comparison between the self-yew and the yew-backed yew only, must now be extended to all the best specimens of backed bows of different sorts. The advocates of the self-yew affirm that good specimens of their pet weapon are the sweetest in use, the steadiest in hand, the most certain in cast, and the most beautiful to the eye; and in all these points, with the exception of certainty of cast, they are borne out by the fact. This being the state of the case, how is it, then, that a doubt can still remain as to which it is most profitable for an archer to use? Here are three out of four points (two of which are most important) in which it is admitted that the self-yew is superior; and yet, after much practical and experimental testing of all sorts, it must be left to the taste and judgment of each man to decide for himself. The fact undoubtedly is, that the self-yew is the most perfect weapon. But it is equally an undoubted fact that it requires more delicate handling; since, its cast lying very much in the last three or four inches of its pull, any variation in this respect, or difference in quickness or otherwise of loose, varies the elevation of the arrow to a much greater extent than the same variation of pull or loose in the others, whose cast is more uniform throughout. Now, were a man perfect in his physical powers, or always in first-rate shooting condition, there would be no doubt as to which bow he should use, as he would in this case be able to attain to the difficult nicety required in the management of the self-yew; but as this constant perfection never can be maintained, the superior merits of this bow are partially counteracted by the extreme difficulty of doing justice to them; and the degree of harshness of pull and unsteadiness in hand of the others being but trifling, the greater certainty with which they accomplish the elevation counterbalances, upon average results, their inferiority in other respects. Another advantage the self-yew possesses is, that it is not so liable to injury from damp as are the backed bows; but then the latter are much less costly, and, with common care, need cause no fear of harm from damp, as an inch of lapping at either end covering the junction with the horns will preserve them from this danger. As regards chrysals, and breakage from other causes than damp, bows of all sorts of wood are about equally liable to failure. The main results of the comparison, then, resolve themselves into these two prominent features: namely, that the self-yew bow, from its steadiness, sweetness, and absence of vibration, ensures the straightness of the shot better than backed bows; whilst the latter, owing to the regularity of their cast not being confined quite to a hair's breadth of pull, carry off the palm for greater certainty in the elevation of the shot. It is almost unnecessary to say that there are bad bows of all sorts, many being made of materials that are fit for nothing but firewood; and yet the bowmakers seem to be almost justified in making up such materials by the fact that occasionally the most ungainly bow will prove itself almost invaluable in use, while a perfect beauty in appearance may turn out a useless slug. Though it may be no easy matter to decide which particular sort of bow an individual archer should adopt, yet, when that individual has once ascertained the description of bow that appears to suit him best, he will be wise to confine his attention to that same sort in his future acquisition of bows. An archer who shoots much will find his bowmaker's account a serious annual matter if he keep none but the best self-yew bows; and therefore any who find it necessary to count the cost of this sport should do their best to adapt themselves to the cheaper though not much inferior backed bows. This also may be further said of the difference between self-yews and backed bows-namely, that there appears to be a sort of individuality attached to each self-yew bow, apart from the peculiarities of its class, which makes it difficult (not regarding the cost) to remedy the loss of a favourite selfyew bow. It is very much easier to replace any specimen of the other sorts of bows, as there is much less variation of character in each class. The carriage bow' is made to divide into two pieces by means of a metal socket in the handle, after the fashion of the joint of a fishing-rod. The object of this make of bow is to render it more convenient as a travelling-companion; but, as the result is a bow heavy in hand and unpleasant in use, the remedy appears to be worse than the disease. It is often asserted that the best bows should be made of steel, as superior in elasticity to wood; but this is not borne out by the results of experiment. The late Hon. R. HelyHutchinson, a member of the R. Tox. Soc., took a great deal of pains to have long-bows manufactured of steel both in England and in Belgium. The best of these, weighing about 50 lbs. for the 28-inch draw, with the aim and elevation which with a good wooden bow would carry an arrow 100 yards, scarcely carried its shaft as far as 60 yards, so deadly slow appeared the recoil; and besides this, the actual weight in the hand of the implement was so considerable that it would be a most serious addition to the toil of the day, on account of its being so frequently held out at arm's length, to say nothing of its having to be carried about all day. 17 CHAPTER II. HOW TO CHOOSE A BOW, AND HOW TO USE AND THE next point to be considered is the strength of the bow to be chosen; and respecting this, in the first place, the bow must be completely under the shooter's command-within it, but not much below it. One of the greatest mistakes young archers (and many old ones too) commit is that they will use bows that are too strong for them. In fact, there are but few to whom, at one or other period of their archery career, this remark has not applied. The desire to be considered strong appears to be the moving agent to this curious hallucination; as if a man did not rather expose his weakness by straining at a bow evidently beyond his strength, thereby calling attention to that weakness, than by using a lighter one with grace and ease, which always give the idea of force, vigour, and power. Another incentive to the use of strong bows is the passion for sending down the arrows sharp and low, and the consequent employment of powerful bows to accomplish this; the which is perhaps a greater mistake than the other, for it is not so much the strength of the bow as the perfect command of it that enables the archer to obtain this desideratum. The question is not so much what a man can pull as what he can loose; and he will without doubt obtain a lower flight of arrow by a lighter power of bow under his command, than he will by a stronger one beyond his proper management. This mania for strong bows has destroyed many a promising archer, in an archery sense of the term. Not only did one of с |