he at once commanded the respect and attention of his fellow-members. His earliest effort was in connection with the Slavery question; but the speech was delivered neither in the course of a great debate, nor upon a motion on the one topic then occupying the public mind. During the debate on the Ministerial proposition for the emancipation of slaves, which was brought forward on the 14th of May, 1833, Lord Howick, ex-Under Secretary for the Colonies, had referred to an estate in Demerara owned by Mr. Gladstone's father, for the purpose of showing that a great destruction of human life had taken place in the West Indies, owing to the manner in which the slaves were worked. It was in reply to this accusation that Mr. Gladstone delivered his maiden speech on the 17th of May, the occasion being the presentation of a petition from Portarlington for the abolition of slavery. He challenged the noble lord's statement respecting the decrease of seventy-one slaves upon the estate of Vreeden Hoop, which had been attributed to the increased cultivation of sugar. The real cause of the decrease lay in the very large proportion of Africans upon the estate. When it came into his father's possession, it was so weak, owing to the great number of Africans upon it, that he was obliged to add two hundred people to the gang. It was notorious that Africans were imported into Demerara and Trinidad up to a later period than into any other colony; and he should, when the proper time arrived, be able to prove that the decrease on Vreeden Hoop

was among the old Africans, and that there was an increase going on in the Creole population, which would be a sufficient answer to the statement of the noble lord. The quantity of sugar produced was small in proportion to that produced on many other estates. The cultivation of cotton in Demerara had been abandoned, and that of coffee much diminished, and the people em ployed in these sources of production had been transferred to the cultivation of sugar. Demerara, too, was peculiarly circumstanced, and the labour of the same number of negroes, distributed over the year, would produce in that colony a given quantity of sugar, with less injury to the people, than negroes could produce in other colonies, working only at the stated periods of crop. 'He was ready to admit that this cultivation was of a more severe character than others; and he would ask, were there not certain employments in this and other countries more destructive to life than others? He would only instance those of painting and working in lead mines, both of which were well known to have that tendency. The noble lord attempted to impugn the character of the gentleman acting as manager of his father's estates; and in making this selection he had certainly been most unfortunate; for there was not an individual in the colony more proverbial for humanity and the kind treatment of his slaves than Mr. Maclean.' Mr. Gladstone, in concluding this warm defence of his relative, said he held in his hand two letters from the agent, in which that

gentleman spoke in the kindest terms of the people under his charge; described their state of happiness, content, and healthiness-their good conduct, and the infrequency of severe punishment and recommended certain additional comforts which he said the slaves well deserved.

On the 3rd of June, on the resumption of the debate on the abolition of slavery, Mr. Gladstone again addressed the House. He now entered more fully into the charges which Lord Howick had brought against the management of his father's estates in Demerara, and showed their groundless

ness.

When he had discussed the existing aspect of slavery in Trinidad, Jamaica, and other places, he proceeded to deal with the general question. He confessed with shame and pain that cases of wanton cruelty had occurred in the colonies, but added that they would always exist, particularly under the system of slavery; and this was unquestionably a substantial reason why the British Legislature and public should set themselves in good earnest to provide for its extinction; but he maintained that these instances of cruelty could easily be explained by the West Indians, who represented them as rare and isolated cases, and who maintained that the ordinary relation of master and slave was one of kindliness and not of hostility. He deprecated cruelty, and he deprecated slavery, both of which were abhorrent to the nature of Englishmen; but, conceding these things, he asked, 'Were not Englishmen to retain a right to their own

honestly perty?'

and and legally-acquired proBut the cruelty did not exist, and he saw no reason for the attack which had recently been made upon the West India interest. He hoped the House would make a point to adopt the principle of compensation, and to stimulate the slave to genuine and spontaneous industry. If this were not done, and moral instruction were not imparted to the slaves, liberty would prove a curse instead of a blessing to them. Touching upon the property question, and the proposed plans for emancipation, Mr. Gladstone said that the House might consume its time and exert its wisdom in devising these plans, but without the concurrence of the Colonial Legislatures success would be hopeless. He thought there was excessive wickedness in any violent interference under the present circumstances. They were still in the midst of unconcluded inquiries, and to pursue the measure then under discussion, at that moment, was to commit an act of great and unnecessary hostility towards the island of Jamaica. 'It was the duty of the House to place as broad a distinction as possible between the idle and the industrious slaves, and nothing could be too strong to secure the freedom of the latter; but with respect to the idle slaves, no period of emancipation could hasten. their improvement. If the labours of the House should be conducted to a satisfactory issue, it would redound to the honour of the nation, and to the reputation of his Majesty's Ministers, whilst it would be delightful to the

West India planters themselves, for they must feel that to hold in bondage their fellow-men must always involve the greatest responsibility. But let not any man think of carrying this measure by force. England rested her power not upon physical force, but upon her principles, her intellect, and virtue; and if this great measure were not placed on a fair basis, or were conducted by violence, he should lament it, as a signal for the ruin of the Colonies and the downfall of the Empire.' The attitude of Mr. Gladstone, as borne out by the tenor of his speech, was not one of hostility to emancipation, though he was undoubtedly unfavourable to an immediate and indiscriminate enfranchisement. He demanded, moreover, that the interests of the planters should be duly regarded.

The result of the labours of the House on this question is matter of history. The abolition of Colonial slavery was decreed. As already stated, a sum of £20,000,000 was voted to the slaveowners as compensation for their losses, and the great and noble work initiated by Mr. Wilberforce was thus finally crowned with success.

Mr. Gladstone rose on two or three other occasions during the session of 1833. On the 4th of July Mr. Mark Phillips moved that a Select Committee be appointed to pursue the inquiries entered into by the Committee appointed on the 6th of March, to take into consideration the petition presented to the House on the 21st of February from certain inhabitants of Liverpool, complaining of bribery and corruption in

that borough. Mr. Gladstone, speaking upon this motion, admitted that the the proceedings at the election of 1830 were sufficient to secure for the town of Liverpool an immortality of disgrace; but had it not been for this he should have had no apprehension as to the character of the votes of honourable gentlemen. Before 1830 direct bribery had not prevailed at the elections extensively or systematically. He denied that such a body of evidence had been collected with respect to the last election as to warrant the assumption that bribery and corruption did, during that election, prevail in Liverpool systematically or extensively. If the cases of bribery were so miserably few-if the cases of corruption, of asking for bribes, and of a disposition to receive them, were equivocal, and limited to the allegations of one side, and contradicted as far as the nature of the case admitted by the other-he implored the House of Commons, in the name of principle, in the name of equity, in the name of common sense, to refuse further inquiry, and not to immolate on such insufficient pretexts the rights of the freemen; he implored them not to offer so poor a morsel to appease the hunger of reform.' The inquiry, however, was voted by 166 to 84.

The name of the member for Newark appears in various division lists in the course of this session, and he spoke in the debate which took place upon Lord Althorp's Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. On the 8th of July, on the question that this bill should pass,

would produce the effects which they had ascribed to it—namely, of securing and propping up the Irish Protestant Church. The bill was carried by 274 votes to 94, Mr. Gladstone's name appearing in the minority.

In 1834 he addressed the House very briefly in connection with the Liverpool Freemen Bill, inflicting disfranchisement upon a section of the electors for bribery. When Mr. Hume's Universities Admission Bill was brought forward, it found a strenuous opponent in the young member. One great object of the bill was to remove the necessity of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles on entering the University of Oxford. Mr. Gladstone maintained that, although the measure proposed to alter materially the constitution of the universities, it would be practically inoperative. Yet the bill, while not working out its professed objects, would nevertheless inevitably lead to great dissension and confusion, and eventually to endless applications and legislation in the House. It was said of the ancient Romans that they

Made a solitude and called it peace.'

He very much feared that the House, in establishing their present principle of religious liberty, would drive from their functions men who had so long done honour and service to their country, and thus inaugurate their reign of religious peace by an act of the grossest tyranny. The bill passed by 164 to 75.

the practical ability or the debating power foreshadowed in these early speeches of the new Tory member for Newark would escape the attention of the leaders of his party. But recognition came earlier than even the young orator himself could have anticipated. Towards the close of 1834 it became evident that there were no longer the necessary elements of cohesion in the Liberal Ministry. Amongst the many causes of its downfall, not the least was the transference of Lord Althorp to the Upper House. His lordship, during his continuance in the Commons, had been able to keep the Ministerialists together, as one tolerably compact body. But demoralisation quickly set ina demoralisation accelerated by the growing unpopularity of the Whigs with the country. In the middle of October the Melbourne Ministry was summarily dismissed by the Sovereign. Lord Melbourne had waited upon the King at Brighton to take his commands on the appointment of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the room of Lord Althorp, when his Majesty raised objections to the reconstruction of the Cabinet. The King, further, sent a letter to the Duke of Wellington, who attended upon his Majesty, and advised that Sir Robert Peel should be sent for. Sir Robert, who was then travelling in Italy, hastened home, and on the 9th of December accepted the King's commands to form a new Ministry.

On the 24th Mr. Gladstone, having