sessions, with a view of removing the causes of colonial complaint, diminishing the cost of colonial government, and giving free scope to individual enterprise in the business of colonising.' The motion was seconded by Mr. Hume, and Mr. Gladstone supported it, though he recognised that some objection might be taken to its terms. Lord Grey, notwithstanding his talents and his services, had been led into serious errors, which called for preventive measures. The time had come when an attempt should be made to improve our colonial system, and Mr. Gladstone based his opinion not upon one single consideration, but upon the joint result of many. A commission appointed by the Executive Government, and acting in harmony with that Government, would lead to many useful results. After having touched upon various questions connected with our colonial policy, the right hon. gentleman concluded by expressing his belief that if they studied the welfare of the colonies, it would be the way to maintain our connection with them, and to maintain that which was even more important than the mere political connection between the colonies and this country-namely, the love of the colonies for the mother-country, and a desire to imitate the laws and institutions of the great country from which they had sprung. Sir W. Molesworth's motion, however, was unsuccessful-a majority of 74 appearing against it on a division.

When Mr. J. Stuart Wortley introduced his bill for the purpose of

removing the legal restriction against marriage with a deceased wife's sister, Mr. Gladstone strongly opposed the measure upon theological, social, and moral grounds. He begged the House to respect the sentiment of nearly the entire country, by rejecting the bill. To do otherwise would be to inflict upon the Church the misfortune of having anarchy introduced amongst its ministers. He hoped they would do all that in them lay to maintain the strictness of the obligations of marriage, and the purity of the hallowed sphere of domestic life. In the end the bill was rejected.

One of the chief topics discussed in the Parliamentary session of 1850 was the great depression which still affected the agricultural interests of the country. Although the nation was tranquil, and the state of the revenue satisfactory, and although our foreign trade had largely increased, the farmers still made loud complaints of their disastrous condition, which they attributed to Free Trade measures. The whole of the agricultural interests had, they alleged, been seriously affected. Consequently, on the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole House to consider such a revision of the Poor Laws of the United Kingdom as might mitigate the distress of the agricultural classes. Sir James Graham strongly opposed the motion; but Mr. Gladstone supported it, and entered at length into the reasons which led him to differ from his right hon. friend upon the subject. If he saw in the motion then before the House a reversal of the

policy of Free Trade, he stated that he should join in offering the firmest resistance to such a course. He did not agree with Sir J. Graham as to the effects of the motion upon the recent commercial policy, or upon the stability of the Administration. No one, by voting for the motion, would be committed to these views. Mr. Disraeli had urged that there was a considerable portion of the charges connected with the Poor Law which might be transferred to the Consolidated Fund, without detracting from the advantages of local management or impairing the stimulus which local management gave to economy. Concurring with him in that opinion, he (Mr. Gladstone) was prepared to go into committee, and to consider what establishment charges, or what other charges there were upon the poor-rates (whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland), or what expenses of management there were which, without injury to the great principle of local control, might be advantageously transferred to the Consolidated Fund. The motion could not be construed into a return of Protection, and in fact it had rather a tendency to weaken the arguments in favour of a retrograde policy, and to draw off the moderate Protectionists. He would vote for this motion on the ground upon which his right hon. friend had declared he should resist it the ground of justice. It was impossible to look at the nature of the tax for the support of the poor without being struck by the inequality of its incidence. The rate was levied locally for two reasons: first, for the

purposes of police, and secondly for the discharge of a sacred obligation enforced upon us by religion. The rate ought to fall upon all descriptions of property, taking an abstract view; and though this might be impracticable, that objection did not lie against the motion. before the House. With regard to the position of the landed interest, they were asking at present to be relieved from only a portion of the burden which had descended to them. They did inherit poor-rates with their land, but they also inherited with it protective system, which had given to this property an artificial value-a system which he admitted was as contrary to abstract justice as the inequality of the incidence of the poorrate, which, on the ground of this protective system being thus contrary to abstract justice, the House had effectually destroyed. Mr. Gladstone entirely differed from Sir James Graham as to the class which would be relieved by the transfer of the rate. He believed that the farmer and the independent yeoman would be the persons to benefit by the change; and even if the landlord should ultimately receive the entire benefit, that would not be a fatal objection to the motion. The condition of the farming class and of the agricultural labourers in a large portion of England, to say nothing of Ireland, was such as to demand the careful attention and consideration of the House. the House. He trusted something to the spirit of liberality and conciliation; but he trusted likewise that some who might not consider the claim as exactly

one which could be mathematically demonstrated to be one of justice, but who regarded it as a claim connected with the gallant struggle of the farmers and yeomen, and with the independent condition of a large portion of the peasantry of the country-he trusted that there were many such who would not hesitate to give their support to a proposition the reasonableness of which was, to his mind, clear and satisfactory, both in its substance and spirit.

Mr. Disraeli's motion was negatived by a narrow majority, the numbers being for the resolution, 252; against, 273. Mr. Gladstone voted in the minority, and Sir Robert Peel in the majority.

Another important question of this session was the proposed extension of the benefits of constitutional government to certain of the colonial dependencies. In a comprehensive speech, Lord John Russell unfolded the details of the Government policy on this subject, and introduced the Australian Colonies Government Bill. This measure was combated at every stage. In the outset, referring to the proposition for a single chamber, Mr. Gladstone said he should hereafter press upon the House the expediency of having a double chamber in the scheme of the Australian constitutions. When the colonists knew that the Cape was to have an elective upper chamber, they would desire one too. Accordingly, when Mr. Walpole moved his amendment, the object of which was to establish two chambers, one nominated by the Crown, the other elected by the

colonists, Mr. Gladstone supported the separation into two chambers. The original clause, however, was carried by 198 to 147. On the bringing up of the report, Sir W. Molesworth moved that the bill be re-committed for the purpose of omitting all clauses which empowered the Colonial Office to disallow colonial laws, to cause colonial bills to be reserved, and to instruct colonial governors as to their conduct in the local affairs of the colonies, and for the purpose of adding clauses defining imperial and colonial powers. Mr. Gladstone, in explaining his vote in favour of this motion, said it was a most important and valuable object to emancipate the colonies from the control of the Government at home, as far as was consistent with imperial interests. The difficulties suggested were not a sufficient answer to a motion for considering whether it was not practicable to devise a sufficiently strict enumeration of imperial questions, and thereby get rid of a great portion of the machinery of an administrative department which had of necessity worked in a way to cause painful disputes. Sir W. Molesworth's motion having been rejected, Mr. Gladstone then moved the insertion of a clause empowering the bishop, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in any colonial diocese to meet, and by mutual consent make regulations for the conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, guarding the enactment with various provisoes.

The proposed clause was opposed by Mr. Labouchere and others, and upon a division it was rejected by 187 votes

chamber in each colony, and that chamber composed in part of Government nominees. He complained that they had never given the colonists a chance of a double chamber at all, while the very Government which had denied this chance to the Australian colonists had given to the colonists of the Cape of Good Hope a chamber of representatives and a legislative council based upon the principle of election. On a division, the motion was lost by 226 against 128. Mr. Gladstone acted as teller in this division, his colleague being his seconder, Mr. Roebuck. In the minority, supporting Mr. Gladstone, were Mr. Disraeli, Mr. J. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. Walpole. Looking back upon this division list, and upon Mr. Gladstone's co-teller and supporters, we are tempted to exclaim over the many Parliamentary changes that have since occurred as Wycherley said in contemplating the portrait of his youth-Quantum mutatus ab illo !

Twice during the session Mr. Gladstone addressed the House on questions connected with slavery. On the 31st of May, Sir Edward N. Buxton brought forward the following resolution : — That it is unjust and impolitic to expose the free-grown sugar of the British Colonies and possessions abroad to unrestricted competition with the sugar of foreign slave-trading countries.' The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the moticn on the ground that it would check the growing spirit of energy in the West Indies, and inspire

the delusive hope of a revival of Protection. Mr. Gladstone supported the motion, but asked for only a limited period of Protection, exceptional circumstances seeming to demand it. It was not emancipation, he said, which had ruined the West Indies, but the false policy that succeeded it; for the artificial scarcity of labour in the islands Parliament was responsible. Sir R. Peel had referred to the West Indies as being an exception from the general category of Free Trade. If the evils from which the sugar-growing colonies were suffering could be cured by the restoration of Protection, he (Mr. Gladstone) would vote for it. But though they could not be, he was still of opinion that the scale of duties ought to be arrested in its descent. The negro population had fallen back in the social scale, and this question vitally affected them as well as the illused West India proprietors. He claimed for the latter a fixed period of Protection, which would enable them to surmount their present difficulties. Lord Palmerston touched upon the various inconsistencies of the debate, insisting (not altogether fairly) that Mr. Gladstone intended to vote for a resolution to perpetuate Protection, a system which he condemned. Sir E. N. Buxton's motion was negatived by 275 against 234. The second debate connected with slavery (which, in fact, preceded in point of time that on Sir E. N. Buxton's motion) arose on a resolution proposed by Mr. Hutt for an address to the Crown to direct that negotiations be forthwith entered