'How unlucky?' asked the Englishman. 'Well, it's this way, your honour. Each morning I toss with that horse whether he shall have his feed of oats or I have my glass of whisky, and would your honour credit it, the horse has lost these ten days past.' I am reminded of the reply given by Lord Derby to a gentleman who sent him a dozen of very light claret, which he said would suit his gout. Lord Derby subsequently thanked him, but said he preferred the gout, and I have no doubt that that horse, had he been able to give tongue, would have been an ardent upholder of teetotalism when it ensured him a feed of oats. One more story of Lord Derby, as I have just mentioned his name:-- A worthy trader had bothered him to let him stand for a certain borough on the Tory ticket, but the Whig was returned unopposed on the day of the nomination, and the candidate was subsequently attacked by Lord Derby for not coming forward as he had promised. The man was almost as shaky in his aspirates as in his political propensities, and his reply was:-- 'I would have stood, my lord, but there was a 'itch in the way.' 'It was the more necessary for you to come to the scratch,' was the immediate retort. I always find that story popular at the Carlton, where I spend my afternoons when in London. I was proposed by Mr. James Lowther and seconded by the Duke of Marlborough, and very much obliged have I been to them both, for I have many acquaintances there, and it has all the conveniences of a comfortable hotel, without having to pay extravagantly for the privilege of looking at a waiter. In the intervals of reading the papers and listening to other people, I have there, as elsewhere, endeavoured to impart what I know to others who know nothing about Ireland. They know much more about China or the aboriginal tribes of Australia, in London, than they do on the topics dearest to me. An English Radical member, after a long chat with my son Maurice, observed:-- 'You actually mean to say that if Home Rule were given to Ireland you would not be allowed to reside there?' 'Certainly not,' replied Maurice, who knew what he was talking about. The member replied that he could not believe him, but that if he had known that that was the real nature of the Bill he would never have voted for it. I could not desire a better example of English wisdom on this subject--one which Lord Rosebery has consigned to a distant date in futurity, foreseeing that if the Opposition are to be handicapped with Home Rule they will not stand a forty to one chance at the next election. That election will, of course, turn on Protection, and I am therefore tempted to quote from an article I contributed to _Murray's Magazine_ in July 1887, entitled 'After the Crimes Bill, What Next?' for I feel my forecast of over fourteen years ago may serve a useful purpose to-day. It ran thus:--