fur-seals were killed to secure that number, or three times as many as the Alaska Company are allowed by law to kill. You will readily see that this great slaughter of [breeding] seals will, in a few years, make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken on the islands by the lessees." More evidence is added in support of this view.

During the past season of 1890, it is estimated that no less than 20,000 skins were taken by "poachers" from the Bering's Sea, and it is said that fifty sealing-vessels are being fitted out for the approaching season's fishing.

I have said that, practically, all the skins find their way to this country. London is the great centre of the fur trade, and from thence, after being dressed, they are dispersed by auction to the various capitals of Europe and America; the loss, therefore, of the Alaska furs would be a considerable one to our merchants and tanners. In proof of this I may mention that, at the sales in 1890 I am informed 50,000 of these skins were offered, which produced in the raw state from 45s. to 65s. each for small ones, and that the cost of dressing and dyeing would be from 15s. to 18s. each additional, representing no inconsiderable industry. The valuable sea otter skins, now so scarce, at the last sales realised from £30 to £100 each, one very fine skin being purchased by the International Fur Company, Regent Street, for the large sum of £195! These also are all dressed in London at a cost of about 20s. each.

The lease of the Alaska Commercial Company having just expired, this company has been outbid in the market by the North American Commercial Company, who have secured the right of the fishery for the ensuing twenty years at considerably advanced terms compared with the previous lessees; they contract to pay a rental of $60,000 per annum, and a duty of $9.62 per skin, which, assuming 100,000 skins were taken annually, a number until recently by no means excessive, the gross annual income to the United States from these islands would be $1,022,500, or $20,450,000 for the full period of twenty years, a sum largely in excess of the previous rental. The Alaska Commercial Fur Company, however, will still maintain possession of the Russian fishery at the Commander Islands, and an element of competition will by this means be introduced which it is possible may prove adverse to both companies.

Under these circumstances, therefore, it cannot be a matter of surprise that the United States Government should be desirous to put an end to this wasteful destruction of their valuable fishery; but, unfortunately, they have not approached the matter in a conciliatory manner; their claim at first to treat Bering's Sea as a mare clausum is, beyond what could be reasonably expected to meet with the approval of the British and Canadian authorities, and although their pretensions have become somewhat modified in character, affairs have drifted from bad to worse, till the dispute has assumed a very serious character, and the slightest indiscretion may lead to results which would probably place the dispute beyond the province of diplomacy. It is most sincerely to be hoped better counsels will prevail, and that both nations may be actuated by the wise course advocated by the New York Times, July 25, 1890. The following passage (quoted from the Standard) indicates the policy which should actuate two great and friendly nations in a dispute which should never have arisen. "The only honourable course," says the New York Times,

now is to resort to honesty and good faith, and take a fresh start. For that purpose it would be well to discard ancient controversies about the extent of Russia's traditional rights, which were transmitted to us, and candidly abandon all pretension to exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea. The practical question is whether the seal fisheries are to be protected from the consequences of the promiscuous slaughter of seals in open waters beyond the line of national jurisdiction. It is plain that this cannot be done by the assertion of an exclusive right on our part, or any attempt by forcible means to exercise such right. It can only be done by an international arrangement; and if our Government will devote itself to a straightforward effort to secure such an arrangement on honourable and reasonable terms, there is little doubt it can succeed.

In conclusion, I am sure it only requires that the nature of the present dispute should be thoroughly understood1 by the people of this country, and that the United States Government should approach us in a conciliatory spirit, for the difference to be at once satisfactorily settled to our mutual advantage; for in all respects it would be a matter of extreme regret should these interesting animals become exterminated for want of due protection during their breeding season. The new aspect which the question has recently assumed by its transference to the Supreme Court may open a way of honourable retreat for both disputants, and lead to a speedy and satisfactory settlement.

To show how little is known by the British public on this question, it is evident from the principal cartoon in a recent number of Punch, that even the Editor of that usually well-informed journal is under a misapprehension as to the species of animal in question, for he represents England and the United States disputing over a hair-seal a totally different creature from that which formu subject of the present misunderstanding !

"INCENDIARIES"

WHEN was first

& "PLOTTERS."

WHEN it was first agreed that negotiations should be opened at Ripon with a view to restore normal relations between Charles I. and his Scottish subjects, the King was minded to appoint the Marquis of Hamilton and Lord Traquair as two of his commissioners. These two noblemen, however, were rejected by the Scots, on the ground that they intended to "pursue" them as "incendiaries"—that is, as belonging to those who had been "the authors and causes of the late and present combustions and troubles." Charles naturally protested that he knew no persons of that character, and demanded for his adherents an indemnity similar to that he was willing to accord to his enemies. The Covenanters, however, stood firm, though they ultimately consented to remit to His Majesty the responsibility of punishing or pardoning the convicted. The Scottish Parliament in the preceding year, 1640, had passed an Act with meshes strong enough to hold their mightiest opponents, and close enough to catch the small fry. To use the quaint phraseology of Sir James Balfour, that Act was levelled against "leasing-makers of whatsomever quality, office, place, or dignity: this Act was made purposely to catch Traquair, the Treasurer; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; Sir Robert Spottiswood, President of the Session; Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, and others, who, by rantring and iying had done much mischief to the kingdom "-or, more correctly speaking, to "the Cause." It was under this Act that such an insignificant individual as Mr. John Stewart, the younger, of Ladywell, lost his head on the scaffold to gratify the vindictiveness of the Earl of Argyll. The story is worth retelling. On his own confession the unfortunate man had been found guilty of "leasing-making," that is, of bringing false charges against the King, or the King's subjects, with a view to create mischief and discord. It so happened that when Argyll was in command of the Covenanting forces in the North, in 1640, he surprised and took prisoners the Earl of Athole and eight other gentlemen at the Ford of Lion, among whom was this ill-fated individual, evidently a person of a plastic character and

addicted to gossiping. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that Argyll may have uttered sentiments liable to misinterpretation in the hearing of, if not actually addressed to, the prisoners in his tent. Dr. Hill Burton was of opinion that he said nothing worse in effect than that the Acts recently passed by the Estates in Session needed not the royal assent to confer upon them validity, though a very different version found its way into general circulation. Accord ing to Bishop Guthry, a contemporary, and closely mixed up with this affair, at a meeting of the Committee of Estates held on May 26, Mr. John Graham, Minister of Auchterarder, was accused of having spoken in disparagement of the Earl of Argyll. The charge was admitted to be true, but the committee were referred to Mr. Robert Murray, Minister at Methven, as Graham's authority. Murray likewise confessed and denied not, mentioning as his informant the Earl of Montrose, who, "being challeng'd, acknowledg'd it, and condescended upon the speech, viz., that when the Earl of Athole and those eight gentlemen with him (whom my Lord Argyll made prisoners) were in Argyll's tent at the Ford of Lion, Argyll spoke publicly to this sense that they had consulted both lawyers and divines anent the deposing of the King, and gotten resolution that it might be done in three cases-1, desertion; 2, invasion; 3, vendition; and that once they thought to have done it at the last sitting of Parliament, and would do it at the next sitting thereof." Montrose further explained that such was the statement made to him by Mr. John Stewart, who was present on the occasion when those treasonable words were uttered. Fearing that Argyll, or some of his followers, might get hold of Stewart and induce him to deny what he had said, or at least weaken its significance, Montrose hastened with some of his friends to secure the person of his witness, and brought him safely to Edinburgh. On the morrow Stewart appeared before the committee and subscribed a paper confirming Montrose's account of what had occurred. "Whereupon Argyll broke out into a passion and with great oaths denied the whole and every part thereof, whereat many wondered." Montrose had certainly taken the surest means of throwing suspicion upon Stewart's evidence by his eagerness to prevent him from holding intercourse with any one but himself, and it was well known that a bitter feud existed between Montrose and Argyll. Until further investigation, however, could be made, the committee had no choice but to order the talebearer to be taken into custody, and confined in the Castle. There he was visited a few days later by Lords Balmerino and Dury, and—according to his own positive assurances to Guthry, only a few hours before he ascended

The

the scaffold-was persuaded to sign a paper retracting the charge he had made against Argyll, whom he "cleared of those speeches, and acknowledged that himself had forged them out of malice against his lordship." He further confessed that at the instigation of Montrose, Lord Napier, Sir John Sterling of Keir, and Sir Andrew Stewart of Blackhall, he had sent a copy of the alleged speech transcribed by his own hand, to the King, by Captain Walter Stewart, a dependent of Traquair. This messenger was intercepted on his return from court, and in the flap of his saddle was found a letter from Charles to Montrose, though it could not have contained anything to the prejudice of either the writer or the addressee, for in that case it would assuredly have been published and subjected to all manner of unfavourable comments. Be that as it might, Captain Stewart was straightway arrested and carried off to the Castle, as likewise were the four noblemen and gentlemen named by John Stewart, who came thence to be described as "the Plotters." result to Stewart himself was very different from what he had fondly anticipated. The Earl of Argyll and the committee consulted Sir Thomas Hope, officially the King's Lord Advocate, but in reality a rank Covenanter and Argyll's most humble servant, and by him were advised to let the law take its course, for otherwise it would be rumoured that the prisoner's recantation had been purchased by the promise of his life. He was accordingly beheaded at the Cross a few days before the receipt of an intimation from the King that he proposed to visit his northern capital on the 15th of August. Nor is it unlikely that the execution was hurried on lest Charles should extend to Stewart the same mercy that had-unfortunately, as it proved-saved Lord Balmerino from a similar fate on a similar charge of "leasing-making." Bishop Guthry, at that time Minister at Stirling, attended the doomed man during the last two days of his life, and describes the querulous self-condemnation he never wearied of passing upon the miserable cowardice and fatuity which had led him to be a false witness against himself. In the end he adhered to his original statement, and repeated the charge he had brought against Argyll.

Between Montrose and Argyll, as already remarked, there had long existed a feeling of mutual repulsion. Argyll was a Covenanter by temperament; Montrose through a misunderstanding, or rather through Hamilton's misrepresentations. Both were ambitious to hold the foremost place in the government of Scotland, while Argyli was even suspected of aiming at a separation in the hope of placing a crown on his own brow. The people had likened them to Cæsar