r high station.'

FOOTNOTES:

[71] Parker's _Peel_, ii. p. 321.

[72] The _Standard_ marks it 'as a brilliant and triumphant
argument--one of the few gems that have illuminated the reformed House
of Commons.'

[73] 'Motions and Means on Land and Sea at War,' v. 248. Steamboats,
Viaducts, and Railways.

[74] Thomson, 4127; Philips, 3759; Gladstone, 2324.

[75] In this speech he dealt with an attack made upon him by his
opponent, Poulett Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, on the question of
negro slavery:--

'I have had some obloquy cast upon me by Mr. Thomson, in reference to
the part which I took in the question of negro slavery. Now, if there
was ever a question upon which I would desire to submit all that I have
ever said to a candid inquirer, it is that of negro slavery. He should
try me in opposition to Lord Stanley, and did Lord Stanley complain? It
is well known that he stated that the only two speeches which were
decidedly hostile to that measure were delivered by two gentlemen who
hold office under her majesty's present government, whilst, on the
contrary, his lordship was pleased to express candidly his high
approbation of my sentiments, and my individual exertions for the
settlement of that matter. Does Mr. Thomson mean to say that the great
conservative body in parliament has offered opposition to that measure?
Who, I would ask, conducted the correspondence of the government office
with reference to that important question? Will any man who knows the
character of Lord Bathurst--will any man who knows the character of Mr.
Stephen, the under-secretary for the colonies--the chosen assistant of
the noble lord in that ministry of which he was no unimportant
member--will any man say that Mr. Stephen, who was all along the
advocate of the slaves, with his liberal and enlightened views,
exercised an influence less than under Lord Stanley? Does Mr. Thomson
presume to state that Lord Aberdeen was guilty of neglect to the slaves?
When I add that the question underwent a considerable discussion last
year, in the House of Commons, when all parties and all interests were
fairly represented, and the best disposition was evinced to assist the
proper working of the measure, and to alter some parts that were
considered injurious to the slaves, and which had come under the
immediate cognisance of the conservative party, is it fair, is it just,
that a minister of the crown should take advantage, for electioneering
purp