of the main complaints of the crofters is the want of harbours. Now, in this little island of Guernsey we have a population of freeholders and traders numbering nearly 35.000, or over 1200 to the square mile, and, instead of being “congested," labour is both dear and scarce. Sutherlandshire has a "congested" population of just 12 to the same area, and no harbours. Here we have the best harbour of refuge in the English Channel, built at a cost of over £300,000 by the inhabitants. The amount required was over-subscribed for, and with the balance they built a beautiful market at a cost of £30,000. It is estimated that the average wealth per head of the popula tion is double that of the United Kingdom.

The part of your temperate article to which I desire to direct particular attention is the felt difficulty as to the "remedy." Allow me to quote your remarks on this important subject, not for the purpose of animadversion, but with a view, if possible, to throw a gleam of light upon a very difficult problem. You say :--" Mr Ferguson points for a solution to the few yeomen in Orkney who own their holdings, and have no cares and no grievances. A very pleasant idyllic picture was certainly presented to the Commissioners, which shows us what thrift, and industry, and long possession of small farms with prudence can do. But the State did not buy their farms for these happy Orcadians, and did not supply the stock for them. How are we to provide the crofters of Lewis and Skye with equally free lands, well stocked, and with the same thrift and prudence? It is all very well to say here is the solution, but how is it to be applied? Is the State to buy out the landlords, and give sufficient farms to the crofters, stock the farms for them, and set them agoing rejoicing as small and independent lairds? The working men of the country in that case will have to pay for making the crofters happy and prosperous, and probably working men will ask what have the crofters done that we should so handsomely provide for them, If, on the other hand, the crofters are to pay back the money advanced by the State, the State will become the landlord and the receiver of the rents. What advantage will that be?" Pardon me for saying so, but if you had more faith in the Highlanders you would not think so much of the "hill Difficulty."

I am very much mistaken if the consent of the British workman, to whom you point, and very justly so, as the most interested outside party, is not the easiest part of the business. I should like to feel equally certain about the consent of the House of Lords. The "farmers' friends," who now find that the current of public opinion and feeling is running strongly against them, and seeing that no permanent relief can be extended to agricultural industry without some extensive scheme of finance, are taking the British workman into their confidence, and are acting upon his fears by shedding crocodile tears over him. We do not hear very much about him from that quarter when Afghan, African, and Egyptian wars are to be waged. The twenty millions that were spent on the Afghan wars is more than what may be required to expropriate Highland proprietors en bloc for constituting the remnant of the gallant Gaelic race into freeholders. We must therefore ask the British workman if he is equally willing to advance twenty millions, not as a gratuity, but at 3 per cent., on the security of the Highlands. Hard-pressed as the poor fellows have been, the crofters are not much in arrears for rack rents, and, perhaps, less so than large farmers, whilst many of them, I am glad to know, have money on deposit in the banks, which, as well as their labour, they are not free to deposit in a much safer bank-the soil of their country - for fear of confiscation.

The economic law to which you refer in another part of the article, as having brought about the present crisis, does not appear to have affected freeholders. Does

this not prove that it is not an economic but a very wasteful law? The answer comes readily enough to everybody's lips, "It is the rights of property." But in what de these consist? If landlords are supposed to be carrying on a business, the only commercial definition I can give of them is that they are land usurers - a thing that has been hateful to God and man since the world began. By the operation of this economic law sheep-farming paid the landlord better than a peasantry, and now deer forests pay better than farming. Therefore it will pay the proprietors of Lewis (to which island, by the way, Mr Gladstone was so thankful for defending him from the waves of the Atlantic -a piece of good luck which was hardly vouchsafed to the Royal Commissioners) to convert it entirely into a deer forest and grouse moors, and get the population to emigrate. But then its trade with Glasgow would cease, and Stornoway would dwindle down to the size of Ullapool. Under these circumstances to expect that landlords will meet the demand of the crofters by enlarging their holdings is hopeless, and it is equally hopeless to expect that any measure on the lines of the Irish Land Act will meet the case.

Of course, it would be foolish to expect that the crofters could at once by a coup d'etat be placed in equally comfortable a position with the freeholders of Orkney and the Channel Islands, or that they could get land without paying for it. You are supposing a case which they themselves do not suppose or anticipate. There are crofter-fishermen in the Island of Lewis who are able to pay down for as much land as they care to occupy. The price at which that estate was bought was under ten shillings an acre. Supposing it to have doubled in value, a crofter could have ten acres of moor land for ten pounds, which, by the labour of himself and family, he would in the course of time raise to the value of twenty pounds per acre. It will not pay the capitalist to do it, but it will pay the poor man handsomely if he can call it his own for ever, but not otherwise. The reason is apparent. The capitalist has to

pay for adult labour, whereas the labour of the crofter's wife and children is as effective as his own in removing peat banks and clearing the ground of stones They will be able to stock and improve their own farms if they get what they want-more ground and elbow-room - and in course of time there is no reason why they should not be as comfortable as the freeholders of Orkney.

But in order to accomplish so desirable an object, they must be made freeholders at a quit-rent, after the manner of the Prussian legislation; and, to go on the lines of the British Constitution, it is only necessary to put the ancient prerogative of the Crown in motion by resuming the Highlands as a State domain for the purpose of re colonisation in freehold, after the example of Frederic the Great, father of his country. Why should not we have a Victoria the Great, the mother of her country? Indeed, it would be but a well-deserved tribute of respect to her personal worth to second her well-known affection for the Highlands and to confer freedom upon that portion of her people. Let Caledonia be free! Freedom and security in perpetuity will act like magic, as it has done elsewhere, in calling forth industry and producing thrift. In a condition of freedom the bones and sinews of Highlanders will exert themselves as well in peace as in war, and no better security, in both fields, can the British workman find anywhere, whilst the certain future unearned increment" will go to reduce his taxes Nor is it the crofters alone who stand in need of this blessing. The large farmers have had as little security for their capital in improvements as the crofters have had in respect of their labour, and the houses of the former are perhaps as much in want of repairs as those of the latter.

What I should propose to the British workman is to make it a test question at

the next election that a bill for the resumption of the Highlands in the name of the Crown be brought into Parliament, under which the Government should expropriate all landlords except those who farm, or are willing to farm, their estates by means of paid labour, leaving their manorial residences, home farms, and policies to large owners. Thit a loan bearing 3 per cent. interest be issued to the public as the opening of a gen.ral national land fund capable of any expansion that may from time to time be found necessary for enabling farmers to become freeholders of their holdings. If the Highland landlor is should stand too much on the validity of their original titles, on examination it may be found that most, if not all of them, are very largely tainted with fraud, force, and high treason. -I am, &c.

Guernsey.

MALCOLM MACKENZIE.

THE NAME RIACH OR REOCH.-In the Celtic Magazine, Oct. 1883, is a query about this name. The Gaelic Riabhach means greyish. It was applied to some one, say Donald Macgregor, when he arrived at the age of forty or fifty, to distinguish him from some younger person bearing the same Christian name, and also a Macgregor. In English the name is spelled Riach, Reoch, Reik, Reikie: near Dunkeld a resident there is satisfied with spelling it Rake. Rough (Perthshire) is perhaps the same. The clever and popular writer, Angus B Reach, was a Riach. Perhaps some of those called Rich belong to this name What is the best way to spell the name in English? As Riach is nearer Riabhach, it is better than Reoch. When our Scotch names go south across the Border, they suffer many things: the natives there, with a real or a pretended inability to sound ch guttural, make it either a k or ch soft ; sometimes they drop it altogether. Thus Tulloch is altered to Tullock and to Tulloh. Kinloch is made Kinlock. Strachan is made Straghan and Strahan. Murdoch is turned into Murdock and Murdo. Rolloch was made Rollock and Rollo. Malloch

appears as Mallock. Are the Riachs a clan? This question is asked by your correspondent. The descriptive word Riabhach was used in the same way as Dubh, dark ; Donn, brown-haired; Ban, light-haired; Buidhe, light-haired; Gorm, having blue eyes; Mor, More, big, tall; Beag, Begg, short; Kitto, Ciotach, left handed; Cam, deformed; Borrie, Bodhar, deaf; Glas, grey, pale; Og, young. Several others might be added. When a person lived in a district where all were Macgregors, and many of them named Donald, people got tired of giving a person any more names than his Christian name and his name of description. If he emigrated he might go on with the name of Donald Riach, leaving out his family-name or clan-name of Macgregor. It would be a mistake to suppose that Riach is a clan name. In theory all Macgregors are related to each other. Calling the number of clans twenty, you may have twenty groups of Riachs who are not related to each other. I apologise for making this note so long, and for telling many readers what they knew before. Fragments about Scotch national matters and family-names are read with interest by ScotoAustralians, and in many a Canadian log-house the exile from Lochaber has his youth renewed by the matter in the Celtic Magazine. I know that many are very sensitive about remarks made on the spelling of their names. I cheerfully take the risk I have never observed the name connected with Ireland. "Riabhach" might try to discover in what localities in Scotland the name is found, and put the same on record My own district is the triangle formed by Dunkeld, the parish of Caputh, and the town of Perth. There are some instances in Perth and at Birnam, but the name is rather rare.

Devonport, Devon.

THOMAS STRATTON, M.D.

A RUN THROUGH CANADA AND THE STATES.

BY KENNETH MACDONALD, F.S.A., Scot.

IX. CHICAGO.

SHORTLY before reaching Chicago—which we did between eight and nine in the evening-a gentleman decorated with a stout leather strap, on which some fifty or seventy brass checks were strung, asked each passenger to what Hotel he proposed going, and on being told, handed him one of the checks and demanded fifty cents in return. He was the agent of an Omnibus Company in Chicago which carries passengers and their baggage to any of the Hotels in the city, however near or distant, for a uniform charge of half-a-dollar. As things go in Chicago, the charge is not unreasonable, and the arrangement is convenient, especially for strangers. On the advice of my friend, the Inspector, I chose the Grand Pacific Hotel, and when we got into Chicago I handed my baggage check to one of the Hotel Porters, and thus relieved by the admirable system of American railways in dealing with baggage, of all impedimenta, I soon found myself in my room in the Grand Pacific-a large and finely appointed house in the centre of the business portion of the city. On the table lay a history of the great Chicago fire and of the rebuilding of the city, and near the window hung a patent fire escape, consisting apparently of a block and tackle enclosed in a linen or canvas bag, on the outside of which directions for its use were printed. I afterwards ascertained that every bedroom in the house was similarly furnished.

Chicago, the busy, aggressive, prosperous Chicago, is not to be seen by night. A walk through the city after ten o'clock disclosed this much. The men who have made Chicago are not then about. Public Drinking-bars, Singing and Dancing Saloons there are, however, in plenty, and well patronised, too, by all appearance. Poverty and wretchedness manifest their presence as elsewhere. A two hours' walk through the streets disclosed the fact that unless a stranger chooses to go deeper into Chicago nightlife than is safe, he will learn little of the city by wandering about

after dark. As I came to this conclusion, the row of Electric lamps. in front of the Grand Pacific showed me where my temporary home was, and I made for it. An hour spent in the large entrance hall of the Hotel, studying American Hotel life, and moving about among the two hundred or so guests, who are scattered about in all sorts of attitudes smoking and talking, is much more pleasant, and probably more profitable, than an hour abroad in the streets at night. Right in front is the Hotel office, where the clerks stand behind the counter on which lies the Hotel Register. To the left is the Tobacconist's counter, where a brisk business is being done; and further on the Barber's shop, in front of which is a Hosier's shop, also entered from the Hotel. To the right of the entrance, and inside the Hotel, is a small office where carriages can be hired, and round a corner, and further in on the same side, is a shop where all the newspapers and magazines of the day can be purchased. Liquors can probably be had, but the Bar is not in sight. None of the smokers are drinking-drinking is not a feature of American Hotel life. In the Hall there is a fountain where iced water can be had by turning on a tap. This is occasionally resorted to by the thirsty, but apparently nothing else is drunk. At the Bar counter, had I seen it, I should probably have seen, as I did elsewhere, a few thirsty souls, but they are the minority. The American makes his Hotel his home for the time, and he does not think it his duty to drink there oftener than he would at home. The absurd idea, so common on this side of the Atlantic, that he is bound to drink for "the good of the house," does not seem to occur either to him or his host. I do not say that Americans drink less than we do, probably they do not, for their public drinking bars are numerous, and apparently well patronised, but in their principal hotels the sale of drink is in practice kept apart from the ordinary business of the house, and the guest who wishes to have a drink is expected to go to the Bar for it.

Before going to my bedroom I visited the Reading-room—a large hall on the first floor over the entrance Hall-and looked through that day's Chicago newspapers. American journalism I was not unfamiliar with, but the freedom with which the Chicago editor expresses himself is enough to send a cold shiver down the back of one accustomed to the "pink of propriety"