important question, the Commons was crowded to its fullest capacity and great numbers would be immediately outside, anxious to be informed of the course of events. His speeches, like Webster's, are permanent literature the best part of his authorship. He appealed to the higher and better part of men's nature. Because of his disposition to be candid and fair he was highly respected by all parties. He inspired men, and because of his open-mindedness and freedom from ignoble motives he was listened to with the profoundest respect and attention. On this account he could sway a hostile audience as could few men of the last century. Redmond called him the "greatest of English orators and the last." He must be set down as one of the ablest debaters and most commanding personalities that ever spoke in Parliament. On every measure of importance his voice was awaited by the people. "What will Gladstone say?" was the word.

One of his most powerful and impressive addresses was on the Reform Bill of 1866, which he closes with the following significant prophecy in regard to the extension of the suffrage: "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side. The great social forces which move onwards in their might and majesty, and which the tumult of our debates does not for a moment impede or disturb those great social forces are against you. They are marshaled on our side, and the banner which we now carry in this fight, though perhaps at some moment it may drop over our sinking heads, yet it soon again will float in the eye of heaven and will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of the three kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy but to a certain and not far-distant victory.”

If one were asked, on hearing of the death of Gladstone, who in all this world exercised the greatest influence during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the answer would be with hardly a dissenting voice, William E. Gladstone.

John Bright, the only Englishman of the same period who may be ranked with him in eloquence and influence, exclaims of Gladstone, "Who is there in the House of Commons who equals him in knowledge of all political questions? Who equals him in earnestness? Who equals him in eloquence? Who equals him in courage and fidelity to his convictions?' Another speaks of him as a "unique figure in the world's history and progress; a man of unsullied reputation, of lofty impulses, a master of eloquence, an earnest defender of Christianity, one of the great leaders of the nineteenth century."

None who knew him ever judged him to be an ordinary man. He was the trusted representative of the English people for four decades, a man of lofty ideals, integrity of purpose and moral force, and withal a deeply religious man; a prime minister under whose influence more laws took shape than under the administration of any other minister. With ceaseless activity and undaunted courage he entered the public service and devoted himself entirely and unselfishly to the welfare of the people of the British Empire.

But his efforts toward the uplifting of humanity were not confined to the British people. His hatred of cruelty and oppression made him enter the lists against the foes of the common people of Italy, and even after he had retired from active public service, his appeal in behalf of the people of Armenia and his philippic against the "Unspeakable Turk” stirred the hearts of England and the world, and, perhaps more than any other one influence, caused the Sultan to relax his cruelties in Armenia.

Gladstone's chief speeches as they are preserved to us are as follows: "The Error of English Colonial Aggrandizement" (1865), "Disestablishment of the Irish Church" (1869), Domestic and Foreign Affairs" (1879), "Home Rule and Autonomy" (1886), "The Armenian Massacres" (1896).

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

This speech was delivered at West Calder, November 27, 1879. It was the third made by Mr. Gladstone during his famous Midlothian canvass, extending from November 24 to December 9. He attacked the policy of Lord Beaconsfield with so much vigor that it was a prime factor in returning the Liberal party to power the next year.

I. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS

Yesterday I ventured to state a number of matters connected with the state of legislation, in which it appears to me to be of vital importance, both to the agricultural interest and to the entire community, that the occupiers and cultivators of the land of this country should be relieved from restraints under the operation of which they now suffer considerably. Beyond those two great heads, gentlemen, what you have to look to, I believe, is your own energy, your own energy of thought and action, and your care not to undertake to pay rents greater than, in reasonable calculation, you think you can afford.

There are some gentlemen, and there are persons for whom I for one have very great respect, who think that the difficulties of our agriculture may be got over by a fundamental change in the landholding system of this country. I do not mean, now pray observe, a change as to the law of entail and settlement, but I mean those who think that if you can cut up the land, or a large part of it, into a multitude of small properties, that of itself will solve the difficulty and start everybody on a career of prosperity.

Now, gentlemen, to a proposal of that kind, I, for one, am not going to object upon the ground that it would be inconsistent with the privileges of landed proprietors. In my opinion, if it is known to be for the welfare of the community at large, the legislature is perfectly entitled to buy out the landed proprietors. It is not intended probably to confiscate the property of a landed proprietor more than the property of any other man; but the state is perfectly entitled, if it please, to buy out the landed proprietors as it may think fit, for the purpose of dividing the property into small

lots. I do not wish to recommend it, because I will show you the doubts that, to my mind, hang about that proposal; but I admit that on principle no objection can be taken. Those persons who possess large portions of the spaces of the earth are not altogether in the same position as the possessors of mere personality; that personality does not impose the same limitations upon the action and industry of man, and upon the well-being of the community, as does the possession of land, and, therefore, I freely own that compulsory expropriation is a thing which for an adequate public object is in itself admissible and so far sound in principle.

Now, gentlemen, this idea about small proprietors, however, is one which very large bodies and parties in this country treat with the utmost contempt. But it is fair that justice should be done to what is called the peasant proprietary. Peasant proprietary is an excellent thing, if it can be had, in many points of view. It interests an enormous number of the people in the soil of the country, and in the stability of its institutions and its laws. But now look at the effect that it has upon the progressive value of the land. What will you think when I tell you that the agricultural value of France the taxable income derived from the land, and therefore the income of the proprietors of that land has advanced during our lifetime far more rapidly than that of England? While the agricultural income of France increased forty per cent in thirteen years, the agricultural income of England increased twenty per cent in thirty-four years. The increase in France was three per cent per annum; the increase in England was about one half or three fifths per cent per annum. Now, gentlemen, I wish this justice to be done to a system where peasant proprietary prevails. It is of great importance. And will you allow me, you who are Scotch agriculturists, to assure you that I speak to you not only with the respect which is due from a candidate to a constituency, but with the deference which is due from a man knowing very little of agricultural matters to those who know a great deal? And there is one point at which the considerations that I have been opening up, and this rapid increase of the value of the soil in France, bear upon

our discussions. Let me try to explain it. I believe myself that the operation of economic laws is what in the main dictates the distribution of landed property in this country. I doubt if those economic laws will allow it to remain cut up into a multitude of small properties like the small properties of France. As to small holdings, I am one of those who attach the utmost value to them.

What do the peasant properties mean? They mean what, in France, is called the small cultivation, cultivation of superior articles, pursued upon a small scale, cultivation of flowers, cultivation of trees and shrubs, cultivation of fruits of every kind, and all that which rises above the ordinary character of farming produce, and rather approaches the produce of the gardener.

But I now come to the region of what I have presumed to call quack remedies. There is a quack remedy which is called reciprocity. Let me test, gentlemen, the efficacy of this quack remedy for your agricultural pressure, and general distress. Pray watch its operation; pray note what is said by the advocates of reciprocity. They always say, We are the soundest and best free traders. We recommend reciprocity because it is the truly effectual method of bringing about free trade. At present America imposes enormous duties upon our cotton goods and upon our iron goods. Put reciprocity into play, and America will become a free-trading country. Very well, gentlemen, how would that operate upon you agriculturists in particular? Why, it would operate thus: If your condition is to be regretted in certain particulars, and capable of amendment, I beg you to cast an eye of sympathy upon the condition of the American agriculturist. It has been very well said, and very truly said, — though it is a smart antithesis, the American agriculturist has got to buy everything that he wants at prices which are fixed in Washington by the legislation of America, but he has got to sell everything that he produces at prices which are fixed in Liverpool — fixed by the free competition of the world. How would you like that, gentlemen, to have protective prices to pay for everything that you use, and at the same time to have to sell what you produce in the free and open market of the world?