I was just in time to catch the "horrid gun" by the barrel, as it was sinking.

I have spent five nights during one week in my punt, without going to bed at all; sometimes punting against the wind, and sometimes floating with wind and tide down on a flock of ducks, which could be heard but not seen; sometimes making a good bag, sometimes none at all, but never wearied nor discouraged; for I loved the stillness and solitude-the dark shadows-the cries of the wildfowl, and the whistle of the otter-all sounding doubly wild on the clear night air. These sounds were occasionally varied by the report of the poachers' guns in the neighbouring woods, followed not unfrequently by an old cock pheasant flying away chuckling at the clumsiness of the night marauders.

And now a word on retrievers, of which I can write from long experience, having always broken my own, and been exceedingly fortunate with most of them. The first thing to teach a puppy is to lie down, the next to lie in the exact spot pointed out, and never to leave it till told to do so by voice or signal. When this is accomplished your dog is more than half broken. After that never let him pick up anything he sees fall, but teach him to use his nose, and work by scent, not sight; and when he has learnt he is only to recover winged or wounded game that he cannot see, he will soon give up attempting to run in, or chase. Many a good dog has been spoilt by a keeper sending his pupil to pick up a dead bird that every one could see. He will naturally watch everything his master fires at, and if when sent to retrieve he cannot see it, will by my method hunt for the bird instead of looking for it. If all dogs were taught in that way, there would be more good retrievers than useless ones, and I think most of my brother sportsmen will agree with me, that a really good and reliable dog is the exception, not the rule. I have always taught my retrievers to work by signal, and in one instance killed a rocketing pheasant, whose impetus and the height at which he was flying caused him to fall on the other side of the estuary, amongst some bushes at the top of the cliff. A farmer who stood by me turned to another and said, "I bet you half-a-crown the old dog don't get that one." But he lost his money, for I signed to the dog to cross the river-the tide was full in. On landing he looked for directions, went up the cliff according to orders-looked back again-hunted about, and in a few minutes appeared with the pheasant in his mouth, which he brought back to me across the river. Curly-coated dogs are a mistake. Their coats hold the water for hours, and hence ensue rheumatism, premature old age, &c. Canker in the ear is a common complaint amongst retrievers, and is certainly hereditary, though low

feeding will retard, but not prevent, the progress of the disease. The shape of the feet and legs should be studied in selecting a puppy-as a retriever ought to stand up on his toes, like a foxhound, or he will weary in a long day, and cannot keep up with a horse or carriage without fatigue, or getting footsore.

A good retriever is an essential for wildfowl shooting--the best I ever had was a Labrador; but all delight in ducks, and hunt for a wounded bird entirely by scent, not sight. Ducks leave a very strong scent on the water (nearly if not quite as strong as an otter), which is proved by dogs retrieving them, after a search of twenty minutes or half-an-hour, amongst thick reeds and rushes. I have seen a dog go into the water for a duck, swim up and down, and, suddenly catching the wind, make for a projecting bank or root (under which a winged bird will often lie perfectly motionless), and fetch it out triumphantly.

Spaniels, colley-dogs, and even greyhounds, will go into water and take a floating bird in their mouths, but can never be depended on to bring it to you—as they will probably land it on the nearest bank, and should that be the opposite side of the river, nothing will induce them to fetch it. I never knew a well-bred retriever do this; if he did I should class him as a mongrel, and treat him accordingly.

The sole delight of a retriever, pur sang, from earliest puppyhood, is to carry; and later to bring everything to his master, for whom alone he works, and whose ways and even thoughts he knows with infallible instinct. Often, when wearied with waiting, have I dozed off, to be awakened by the dog, curled up at my side, making some slight movement, to warn me of the approach of ducks, which, but for his sagacity, would have passed me with impunity. Those who have visited the celebrated Slapton Lees may have wandered on as far as Torre Cross, a fishing village a mile or two farther down the coast, and been amused by the dogs kept by the fishermen to assist in beaching the boats, which are built sharp at both ends. The dogs, a species of Labrador-fed almost entirely on fish-lie about in the sun, apparently asleep, but on a boat nearing the shore swim quietly off, when the painter is thrown to them, with which they return to the men waiting for it, who run the boat up on the beach, and the prettiest sight I ever witnessed was an old mother performing her accustomed duty, accompanied by two or three little bear-like puppies, who followed her into the sea. I could multiply stories of the sagacity of dogs, but of all the species commend me to the retriever-for his boldness, perseverance, and affection.

THOUGHTS FOR TO-DAY AND

TO-MORROW.

BY R. H. HORNE, AUTHOR OF "ORION," &c.

EARL DUNDONALD'S WAR SECRET.

S an example of excessive vain-glory and over-confidence, founded upon utter absence of real preparation and capacity for action, what we have just witnessed with

regard to the military downfall and prostration of unfortunate France is obviously without parallel in history. Our own war chronicles, however, should cause us not to be too unsparing in our censures of our late sister and ally, when we revert to the dreadful cost in blood and treasure which has resulted from our own unreadiness, miscalculations, blunders, and confusions, especially in the commencement, and not unfrequently during the prosecution, of some of our own military expeditions. As to the worse than equivocal condition of our army and navy in this highly-charged and precarious state of the European atmosphere, it is not the business of the present paper. But let us turn back a few of our blood-red pages-not so far back as our Affghanistan wars-and bring our mental field-glass to bear upon the Crimea during the time we were wildly sacrificing so much gold and so many lives in our abortive attempts to reduce the terrible fortress of Sebastopol.

At the most disastrous period of our reiterated efforts (for, somehow, we always eventually succeed, men and money being of no account) Lord Dundonald, the hero of many a sea-fight, not only in the service of his country, but in the South American patriot services, --this unsurpassed naval commander, or surpassed only by Nelson, is credibly reported to have presented himself before the "ruling powers" of the war, proposing to put an end to the defence of Sebastopol within four and twenty hours after the commencement of a certain operation. This would be the effect of a secret he possessed, the result of many years' private consideration and experi ment. Its practical aim and end was to put the whole host of the

garrison of Sebastopol proper, as well as the outlying posts, out of existence without striking a blow or firing a shot. Reduced to its simple elements, such was his lordship's proposition.

Now, as government commissions, or military boards and warcouncils, who "sit upon secrets" are invariably most exacting in their requirements, and equally reticent of all promises, there can be no wonder that Lord Dundonald would have been compelled to divulge his dreadful secret, and thus furnish the "board" with comprehensive data upon the subject. Briefly, it was to send into the fortress projectiles which should burst on falling, by their own weight only, and therefore could not wastefully burst in the air; and their explosion would liberate and disperse certain gases and effluvia that would at once both suffocate and poison every living being within their influence. The hair of the "board" (to use a bold figure of speech) stood on end! They said the proposal could not be entertained. It was not in accordance with the laws of civilized warfare. They could not exactly point out the law that forbade this, but it was not in accordance with the recognised laws. "But would you not," his lordship is said to have argued, "would you not destroy the whole garrison of Sebastopol by shot and shell, with bullets and bayonets to follow, if you could?" This was substantially admitted. Then where was the difference? The reply was that the thing seemed too shocking-barbarous-in fact, not in accordance-new. No such "arm" as this dreadful secret had ever been used before, and Lord Dundonald was, with many thanks, bowed out of the council room. So the fortress of Sebastopol was eventually reduced by the usual methods of yet more torturing destruction of lives on both sides. Each argument was right in its way; but surely we may hope that the progress, not merely of intellect, not only of humanity, but of the homeliest process of understanding among the people, the poor "food for powder," will compel the world to perceive that both arguments were wrong, and that the whole of the processes and diabolical "arts of war" are essentially wrong, and an insult to our boasted and semi-sincere Christianity, as of the commonest sense of the common family of mankind. This is, of course, supposing that a nation is not actually forced into war.

And now a word as to the novelty of this new and secret engine of human destruction. In the time of Nelson, and previous great naval commanders, a missile was commonly employed when ships held each other by grappling irons at close quarters, and just before the rush of the first boarding party, which was known by an equally offensive and ridiculous name, and which effected, or was intended to effect, a

At any rate, it was thrown

poisonous and suffocating destruction. with the direct purpose so to stupefy, choke, and blind the enemy that he should fall a more easy prey to the cutlasses, tomahawks, pistols, and musket-clubs of the boarders. As for the old saying that there is "nothing new under the sun," it is no doubt true of most things in principle, and to a certain degree in practice; but it is not true in the full sense of the expression. Surely the discovery, or invention, of gun-cotton is new; the whole system of telegraphy, by land and sea, is new; the sewing machine is new; Daguerre, Fox Talbot, Niepce, and Claudet* may have been unwittingly defrauded of their due honour by the scientific substitute of the general term "photography," instead of combining men's names with their wonderful discoveries,— nevertheless, the sun-pictures and portraits really are new things "under the sun." So, among other beneficent novelties of our age, we must assuredly rank the humane discovery, by the great Scottish physician, Sir James Simpson, of the use of chloroform in surgical operations, and obviating the apparently predestined pangs of parturition, and other cases of human suffering. Would it not also be a new thing under the sun of our vaunted civilization to suggest that, so long as capital punishments are allowed to exist on the legal codes of nations, some means of painless extinction should be adopted? Wherefore not? Is a dog's cord the only sure means of producing asphyxia? Cannot a criminal's death be as certainly and suddenly effected with his head upon his shoulders as if it were thrown into a basket? It is of course admitted that the object of a penal code is not that of revenge, but to prevent an individual from again committing a special act of violence, or other wrong, towards society; and also that the "example" of his judicial murder should deter others from similar offences. The former might surely be regarded as sufficiently carried out by a penal servitude for life, useful to the community; while the latter is obviously, as well as statistically, of no effect whatever.

ANTIQUITY OF RIFLES AND BREECH-LOADERS.

That the first inventors of the mitrailleuse among the French, like the first inventor of its amicable sister the steam-gun (by Mr. Perkins) in England, now thirty years ago, should have met with a cold and paralyzing reception from the "old cockt hats" in authority, and incredulity or indifference from the public, is only the usual course of things; but that the breech-loading muskets and artillery of the

* See "Memoir of A. Claudet, F.R.S." By Joseph Ellis. Pickering. 188.