but it was always her fate to be misunderstood, so she supposed she must take it as her cross and not complain. She had endeavored not to let her left hand know what her right hand was doing, and this was the consequence. Oh! she was terribly hurt, was Eliza Ann - and no wonder! when the young minister told her that, according to his ideas, trousers- -like opinions — should not be onesided. It was so painful, she said, when men reviled her and condemned her, after she had acted as she thought for the best."

"What was the end of it all?" Joanna asked.

"The end was, miss, that Brother Phipson heard what had happened, and gave another roll of cloth to make the other legs; so that all things worked together for good, and there was double the number of pairs that there would have been if the cutting-out had not been done by Eliza Ann."

"She really must have been a gifted person."

"Oh! Eliza Ann was a godly woman, and no mistake," confessed Martha, with pardonable pride; " and still is, I doubt not, a sea voyage having no power to change the human heart. But she was none too easy to get on with, when things were going smooth. Though I say it as shouldn't being her sister there were times when Eliza Ann's religion was trying to the flesh of them she had to do with."

"Did her husband think it so?" queried Joanna.

Oh, my dear, what a question to ask! As if it mattered what he thought! Eliza Ann was far too sensible to allow him to give his opinion about anything. 'If you let a husband begin to pass remarks,' she used to say, 'it is the thin end of the wedge which in time will turn again and rend you.' So Eliza Ann avoided the first appearance of evil."

"But she was really good, you say?"

Good, my dear? Of course she was good! Whoever thought anything different? "exclaimed Martha, who had never read Milton's line, "He for God only; she for God in him," and would have called it "rubbish' if she had. "I assure you, miss, Eliza Ann was not one to keep the outside of the cup and platter clean while the inside was

filled with ravening wolves and dead men's bones. Though she might be aggravating, as it were, in times of prosperity, in the day of adversity she never failed nor fell short."-Concerning Isabel Carnaby.

OX, CHARLES JAMES, an English statesman and orator; born at London, January 24, 1749; died at Chiswick, September 13, 1806. He was a son of Henry Fox, the first Lord Holland, who amassed a large fortune as Paymaster of the Forces, and showed himself the most indulgent of fathers. When the son was barely fourteen, his father took him to Bath, and was in the habit of giving him five guineas every night to play with. At this early age Fox contracted the habit of gambling, at which he made and lost several fortunes. After studying at Eton, he went to Oxford, but left College without taking a degree. He went to the Continent, in 1766. He returned to England in 1768, having been returned to Parliament for the "pocket borough" of Midhurst, and took his seat before he had attained his majority. Almost from the outset he assumed a prominent place in political affairs; and soon became acknowledged to be the most effective debater in Parliament, of which he was a member for one constituency or another during the remainder of his life. To write the life of Fox would be to write the political history of Great Britain for almost forty years. We touch only upon some of its salient points. He opposed the action of the Government toward the revolted American colonies; he supported proposals for Parliamentary reform; he

strove against the misgovernment of India, and was prominently associated with Burke in conducting the impeachment of Warren Hastings; he opposed the hostile attitude of Great Britain toward the French Revolution; he was for a score of years among the most earnest and persistent advocates of the abolition of the slave-trade.

Fox's fame rests mainly upon his unrivalled power as a Parliamentary orator and debater. A collection of his speeches in the House of Commons, in six volumes, was made in 1815. These, however, give no idea of his power as an orator. He never wrote his speeches, and rarely, if ever, even revised the reports made of them. The speeches, as published, are the abstracts made by the Parliamentary reporters without the aid of stenography. A great part of them profess to be only minutes of the leading points. Some of them — especially the later ones seem to be tolerably full. The earliest of these parliamentary speeches was delivered January 9, 1770; the last June 10, 1806; the whole number is not less than five hundred. The last of these speeches, which is apparently reported nearly verbatim, is upon the Abolition of the Slave trade, which concludes thus:

ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.

I do not suppose that there can be above one, or perhaps two, members of this House who can object to a condemnation of the nature of the trade; and shall now proceed to recall the attention of the House to what has been its uniform, consistent, and unchangeable opinion for the last eighteen years, during which we should blush to have it stated that not one step has yet been taken toward the abolition of the trade. If, then, we have never ceased to express our reprobation, surely the House must