of his speech :

Sir, I say the policy of the noble lord tends to encourage and confirm in us that which is our besetting fault and weakness, both as a nation and as individuals. Let an Englishman travel where he

to self-esteem-too little disposition to regard the feelings, the habits, and the ideas of others. Sir, I find this characteristic too plainly legible in the policy of the noble lord. I doubt not that use will be made of our present debate to work upon this peculiar weakness of the English mind. The people

will be told that those who oppose the motion are governed by personal motives, have no regard for public principles, no enlarged ideas of national policy. You will take your case before a favour. able jury, and you think to gain your verdict; but, sir, let the House of Commons be warned-let it warn itself—against all illusions. There is in this case also a course of appeal. There is an appeal,

such as the honourable and learned member for Sheffield has made, from the one House of Parlia ment to the other. There is a further appeal from this House of Parliament to the people of England;

but, lastly, there is also an appeal from the people

of England to the general sentiment of the civilised world; and I, for my part, am of opinion that England will stand shorn of a chief part of her glory and pride if she shall be found to have separated herself, through the policy she pursues abroad, from the moral supports which the general and fixed convictions of mankind afford-if the day shall come when she may continue to excite the wonder and the fear of other nations, but in which she shall have no part in their affection and regard.

No, sir, let it not be so; let us recognise, and recognise with frankness, the equality of the weak with the strong; the principles of brotherhood

among nations, and of their sacred independence.

When we are asking for the maintenance of the rights which belong to our fellow-subjects resident in Greece, let us do as we would be done by, and let us pay all the respect to a feeble State, and to the infancy of free institutions, which we should desire and should exact from others towards their maturity and their strength. Let us refrain from all gratuitous and arbitrary meddling in the internal concerns of other States, even as we should resent the same

interference if it were attempted to be practised

towards ourselves. If the noble lord has indeed acted on these principles, let the Government to which he belongs have your verdict in its favour; but if he has departed from them, as I contend, and as I humbly think and urge upon you that it has been too amply proved, then the House of Commons must not shrink from the performance of its duty under whatever expectations of momentary obloquy or reproach, because we shall have done what is right; we shall enjoy the peace of our own consciences, and receive, whether a little sooner or a little later, the approval of the public voice for having entered our solemn protest against a system of policy which we believe, nay, which we know, whatever may be its first aspect, must, of necessity, in its final results be unfavourable even to the security of British subjects resident abroad, which it professes so much to study; unfavourable to the dignity of the country, which the motion of the honourable and learned member asserts it preserves;

--and equally unfavourable to that other great and sacred object, which also it suggests to our recollection, the maintenance of peace with the nations of the world.

In a debating sense, this speech was the finest which Mr. Gladstone had yet delivered in the House of Commons, and its power was acknowledged by members on both sides of the House.

The importance attached to it may be gathered from a sentence in the speech of Mr. (afterwards Sir Alexander) Cockburn, who on the following night rose to reply to it. Referring to Mr. Gladstone, the distinguished advocate said, 'I

suppose we are now to consider him as the representative of Lord Stanley in this House-Gladstone vice Disraeli, am I to say resigned or superseded?' On a division upon Mr. Roebuck's motion, the Government succeeded in obtaining a majority of 46, the numbers being-Ayes, 310; Noes, 264.

A lamentable accident which occurred to Sir Robert Peel on the 29th of June, 1850, deprived England of one of her most illustrious statesmen. It appears that only a few minutes before this sad incident, Sir Robert had called at Buckingham Palace for the purpose of leaving his card upon her Majesty. In proceeding up Constitution Hill he had met one of Lady Dover's daughters, and exchanged salutes with her. Immediately afterwards his horse became slightly restive, swerved towards the rails of the Green Park, and threw Sir Robert sideways on his left shoulder. Assistance was speedily at hand—Dr. Foucart amongst others having witnessed the accident, and hastened to

the spot. On being raised, Sir Robert groaned heavily, and in reply to the question whether he was much hurt, said, 'Yes, very much.' He was conveyed home, but the effect of meeting his family was extremely painful, and he swooned in the arms of Dr. Foucart. He was placed upon a sofa in the dining-room, and from this room he was never removed. A consultation was held between Sir Benjamin Brodie, Mr. Cesar Hawkins, Dr. Seymour, and Mr. Hodgson, but Sir Robert's sufferings were so acute that a minute examination of his injuries could not be made. He lingered for two or three days before the end came. An examination made after death disclosed the important fact that the fifth rib on the left side was fractured. This was the region where Sir Robert complained of suffering the greatest pain, and was probably the seat of the mortal injurythe broken rib pressing on the lung, and producing what is technically known as effusion and pulmonary engorgement. The news of Sir Robert Peel's death caused a feeling of poignant grief throughout the country. Great and universal were the tokens of respect paid to the memory of one who, whatever may have been his errors (and they were few and insignificant compared with his merits), had reflected undying lustre upon English statesmanship.

The French Assembly gave testimony of their appreciation of the deceased by unanimously entering an official minute respecting his death,

• "Annual Register" for 1850.

mons.

with a record of their sympathetic regret. In England, the national sorrow found voice in the House of ComOn the 3rd of July, Mr. Hume alluded to the great loss which the nation had sustained, and moved that the House should at once adjourn, without transacting any further business. In the Lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Brougham referred in touching terms to the departed statesman. The latter, who had frequently been in antagonism with Sir Robert Peel, acknowledged cheerfully and unreservedly the splendid merits of that eminent individual, and said, 'At the last stage of his public career, chequered as it was—and I told him in private that chequered it would be--when he was differing from those with whom he had been so long connected, and from purely public-spirited feelings was adopting a course which was so galling and unpleasing to them, I told him, I say, that he must turn from the storm without to the sunshine of an approving conscience within. Differing as we may differ on the point whether he was right or wrong, disputing as we may dispute on the results of his policy, we must all agree that to the cause which he believed to be advantageous to his country he firmly adhered, and that in pursuing it he made sacrifices compared with which all the sacrifices exacted from public men by a sense of public duty, which I have ever known or read of, sink into nothing.' Such was the leader whom Mr. Gladstone had faithfully followed for many years. In his own tribute to his late chief in the