ic farmer. These meetings, which were regularly addressed by
Hankin, Mrs. Abel used frequently to attend. The effect of this was
twofold. On the one hand, it was no small stimulus to Hankin that among
the handful of uneducated irreconcilables who gathered to hear him, he
might have for auditor one of the keenest and most cultivated minds in
England--one who, as he was well aware, had no sympathy with his
opinions. I once heard him lecture on one of his favourite topics while
she was present, and I must say that I have seldom heard a bad case
better argued. On the other hand, Mrs. Abel's presence served to rob his
lectures of much of the force which opinions, when condemned by the
rich, invariably have among the poor. She was shrewd enough to perceive
that active repression of Hankin, who she well knew could not be
repressed, would only swell his following and strengthen his position.

This, of course, was not understood by the local guardians of morality
and religion. After vainly appealing to Mr. Abel, who turned an
absolutely deaf ear to the petitioners, they proceeded to lay the case
before the Bishop, who happened to be, unfortunately for them, one of
the most courageous and enlightened prelates of his time. The Bishop, on
whom considerable pressure was brought to bear, resolved at last to come
down to Deadborough and have an interview with Mrs. Abel. The result was
that he and the lady became fast and lifelong friends. He returned to
his palace determined to take the risk, and to all further importunities
he merely returned a formal answer that he saw no reason to interfere.
This was not the least daring of many actions which have distinguished,
by their boldness and commonsense, the record of a singularly noble
career. The case did not get into the papers; none the less, it was much
talked of in clerical circles, and its effect was to give the Bishop a
reputation among prelates not unlike that which Mrs. Abel had won among
clergymen's wives.

The Bishop's intervention having failed, the party of repression now
determined on the short and easy way. Hankin's landlord was Peter Shott,
whose holding consisted of two small farms which had been joined
together. In the house belonging to one of these farms lived Hankin, a
sub-tenant of Shott. To Shott there came, in due course, a hint from an
exalted quarter that it would be to his interests to give Hankin notice
to quit. Shott was willing enough, and presently the notic