ho
at the time was little more than a contemptible antagonist. At that
period shirt collars were made with 'gills' which came up upon the
cheek; and Peel's gills were so soaked with perspiration that they
actually lay down upon his neck-cloth.

In one of these years, I think 1833, a motion was made by some
political economist for the abolition of the corn laws. I (an
absolute and literal ignoramus) was much struck and staggered with
it. But Sir James Graham--who knew more of economic and trade
matters, I think, than the rest of the cabinet of 1841 all put
together--made a reply in the sense of protection, whether high or
low I cannot now say. But I remember perfectly well that this
speech of his built me up again for the moment and enabled me (I
believe) to vote with the government.

A YEAR OF SPLENDID LEGISLATION

The year 1833 was, as measured by quantity and in part by quality,
a splendid year of legislation. In 1834 the Government and Lord
Althorp far beyond all others did themselves high honour by the new
Poor Law Act, which rescued the English peasantry from the total
loss of their independence. Of the 658 members of Parliament about
480 must have been their general supporters. Much gratitude ought
to have been felt for this great administration. But from a variety
of causes, at the close of the session 1834 the House of Commons
had fallen into a state of cold indifference about it.

He was himself destined one day to feel how soon parliamentary reaction
may follow a sweeping popular triumph.

FOOTNOTES:

[54] Sir Henry James's Act (1883).

[55] Thuc. i. 84, Sec. 7.--'We should remember that man differs little from
man, except that he turns out best who is trained in the sharpest
school.'

[56] Proposed by Sir R. Inglis and seconded by George Denison,
afterwards the militant Archdeacon of Taunton. He was on the committee
from 1834 to 1838, and he withdrew from the Club at the end of 1842.

[57] Sadler is now not much more than a name, except to students of the
history of social reform in England, known to some by a couple of
articles of Macaulay's, written in that great man's least worthy and
least agreeable style, and by the fact that Macaulay beat him at Leeds
in 1832. But he deserves our honourable recollection on the ground
mentioned by Mr. Gladstone, as a man of indefat