eyed oxen outside the rail. You can well imagine that my thoughts went back to another scene, in another stable, in another age."

In forgetting herself she found much consolation both for herself and others; in losing her life she found it. The friends of Mrs Bishop could never raise her to enthusiasm about her work as a pioneer amongst women travellers, as a writer of many great books, nor, though it gave her genuine pleasure at the time, did her great honour as the first lady-member of the Royal Geographical Society linger much in her mind. What she could be enticed to praise in herself were such things as her sketching, her photography, her housekeeping, her dressmaking, and last, but not least, the fact that she had baked a cake for the King of the Sandwich Islands.

When she was living in London, she gave to her house in Kensington such a feeling of home, of having had her things long about her, that it seemed

impossible to imagine that never before had they shared the same room. Beautiful brass - bound Korean chests seemed to have stood for ever in the window-corner, and in what well-chosen spots did the writing-tables find themselves! These were the outward things, but the real charm was in the hostess herself, whose conversation was an unceasing delight. Over her weakness and weariness one saw the daily triumph of interest in life. "Please, young ladies," said her maid one morning to some girls who were staying with her, as they sat at breakfast, "Mrs Bishop would like to know what you were laughing at;" and to the emissary, who carried what I have no doubt was a very sorry joke as answer, she said, "It sounded so delicious, and I felt so far away, that I had to ring the bell and find out." The people who ring bells in order to share in other people's merriment may not be many, but they enjoy more jokes than the rest of the world.

AGNES GRAINGER STEWART.

THE schism of the FreeFooders, unimportant as its results have been, will merit the passing consideration of the historian. It originated in superstition, adopted a title obviously founded on ignorance, and endeavoured to attract disciples by misrepresentation. The founders of the evanescent sect had been taught that the island of Britain some sixty years before their time had been saved from an economic crisis by the importation of duty-free grain, and apparently held that an Act useful and salutary in the days of their grandfathers had by its temporary success quired the authority of the laws of the Medes and Persians. It is doubtless a comfortable doctrine-it saved thought and rendered investigation unnecessary. Grain, however, is not the only food of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and to the superstitious reverence for the policy of Sir Robert Peel was added the ignorance (apparently) of the fact that various articles of universal diet continue to be taxed, and must continue to be taxed so long as the present fiscal system of the country lasts.

ac

A doctrine so founded could only hope to attract followers by concealment or misrepresentation, and and the state of mind of the apostles of the fiscal schism naturally and inevitably compelled them, doubtless unintentionally, to ignore

the changed conditions of interimperial relations, and to impute motives to and misread the statements of those whom they held to be less orthodox than themselves. They threw the opprobrious epithet "protectionist at any one who proposed to tax cereals instead. of tea and sugar. Many learned

men, several distinguished administrators, have adhered to the schism; but it is not easy for the looker-on who is neither a follower of Cobden nor of Bismarck to apply the term intelligent to any Free-Fooder who has spoken or written on the present controversy. It is so easy to confute arguments which your opponents have never entertained: it is SO pleasant to knock down strawstuffed effigies.

The Free-Fooders, and for that matter the Great United Liberal party, have declined to attempt to understand the present position of the Empire. Not one of them shows any knowledge of colonial affairs. It may be doubted if the casual Free-Fooder could mention the name of the Prime Minister of any self-governing colonysave of course New Zealand. Mr Seddon is recognised by all parties as an Imperial fact. But it may be permitted to doubt if most Free- Fooders could say, even in the case of. Canada, whether Sir Wilfred Laurier leads the Opposition or directs the Government of that vast Dominion.

In any

case they have so far failed to grasp the fact that Canada is nearer London to-day than Caithness was in the days of Cobden, and, more, that it costs less to bring food from Canada to the heart of the Empire than it does from Caithness. Possibly they are even ignorant that Caithness is a great agricultural county.

They have heard enoughprobably more than they like -of the particularists to whom they have allied themselves,

the "old-fashioned FreeTraders." Mr Balfour in his Edinburgh speech exploded their special dogma and scarified its professors. They, however, on the other hand, set up an image at which they please to shoot their darts, and call it the "old-fashioned protectionist." There are oldfashioned protectionists- not a body to be despised-more numerous, no doubt, but less noisy, than the Free-Fooders: a party which still holds that the greatest industry of the country should be saved from extinction, should be guarded against disaster by the fiscal regulations of the State-and this not on economic so much as on patriotic and political grounds. To them the present situation gives little more than a glimmer of hope.

Neither Mr Balfour nor Mr Chamberlain has recognised that agriculture-the one industry in the country in need of real protection as defined by Mr Balfour in Edinburgh-can or should have that protection. They have both declined to do anything that will artificially

raise the price of agricultural produce. Agriculture will gain from the Government policy of retaliation, it will gain if Mr Chamberlain's scheme is adopted, but the gain will in neither case be direct, and no agriculturist can support either policy from motives of personal greed. Those who think that the depopulation of the rural districts is a clamant danger must regret that neither the official nor the unofficial programme of the Unionist party holds out any expectation of protection for agriculture. Those, however, who wish only fair - play for our farmers and their labourers must welcome the prospect of lighter burdens, fair competition, and freer markets which will follow the adoption of Mr Balfour's policy.

The Free-Fooders care for none of these things, so long as the working man pays more for his tea and sugar and tobacco. The taxes on these articles of practically universal consumption benefit no home, while they harm every colonial, producer. Therefore they are wise and just. The policy of the FreeFooders is to drive the labourers from the land to the towns; the farmers to suburban villas, when they have rescued enough from the wreck to afford so inglorious but satisfying a haven; and the land into the hands of sporting millionaires whose ancestors were confined in various foreign ghettos. Land is to be a luxury, and neither a worthy inheritance nor an honest investment. If this is to be the accepted theory, let it be recognised as