The British weekly magazine Country Life has a regular feature called Country Mouse and Town Mouse. They are binary reflections upon rural and urban themes. Notwithstanding notable similarities there remain indisputable distinctions between the two. Not all of the differences are without an element of sharpness – the summary of which tends to favour one or the other. While it is perhaps more sustainable to have an urban haughtiness, the rural residents are not entirely spared a thread of arrogance. I have always dismissed the rivalry as a purely competitive enterprise, the type common among schools clans (the character of which amounts to a distinction without a difference). Yet the parallel tracks of both maintain a formidable direction, one that preserves the close but separate nature of each.

In the end however the individuality of each – country and city – is proudly marked and independently supported. Rarely have I seen anything but polite acknowledgement of the more salient attributes – things such as traffic, sidewalk conversations, accessible local and imported talent, retail varieties, domestic and foreign car dealerships, tranquility and white noise levels, acreage estate and cave dwellers. The richness of each characteristic – especially when put to the test – is greedily maintained and advanced as a saving and distinguishing grace.

There thus survives an irreconcilable difference between the Country Mouse and the Town Mouse. So long as the soldiers of each rank confine their particular scope to immediate orbit, there is no conflict. But should one mistakenly provoke an overlapping argument between the two, there is assured to be a standoff, a stubborn resistance to fruitful comparison.

This, in its most abstract assessment, inspires what are felt to be innate and imperishable gifts gleefully embraced by the separate adherents. I am forever thankful to Senator George McIlraith QC PC for having recommended my introduction to