T was once in fashion to apply "meter tests" to the mind. If one could do "stunts" in mathematics, Greek and other studies lending themselves to these experiments, it was thought that comparative results in brain power could be reached. It was claimed at that time that Gladstone had "nineteen times as much intellectual capacity as the lowest man in his class." It is well not to be very serious about this "meter test" and yet the impression that his shining gifts make upon the student, is that his powers of acquisition and of expression are such as to put him in a class far removed from the general run of educated men. Nor is it his mind alone. Lord Derby once said, "It isn't Gladstone's mind that is so extraordinary, it is his body." To go from the heat of great debate in which every faculty had been used to its utmost four successive hours and yet be able to drop upon a sofa and sleep like a child almost instantaneously until the nervous tides had risen, is as much a talent as any other. His toughness and endurance were as astonishing as his versatility and resourcefulness.

Early in his career it was said of him, "Gladstone is Oxford on the surface and Liverpool beneath." He was born in that city in 1809, the son of one of its most famous mer

*This is the sixth in a series of studies of famous Englishmen appearing in THE CHAUTAUQUAN during the months from December to May: Charles Darwin, by Prof. John M. Coulter (December); John Burns, by Mr. John Graham Brooks (January); Dean Stanley, by Bishop Williams of Michigan (February); Sir Edward Burne-Jones, by Prof. Cecil Lavell (March); Benjamin Jowett, by Professor Paul Shorey (April); Gladstone, by Mr. John Graham Brooks (May).

chants. That the more famous son should be "Liverpool beneath" expressed the gifts of this polished Oxford scholar in dealing with such brilliant mastery with every phase of finance and commerce.

His student life at Eton and for a time at Oxford was without distinction. Before leaving the university he had, however, shown such powers both as scholar and debater that the highest honors came to him. It was the great year of English reform, 1832, and because this highly tutored youth had made so thrilling a speech in the Oxford Union against reform, the Duke of Newcastle offered him a seat in Parliament. Gladstone was in Italy when he received this "stunning and overpowering proposal" as he wrote his father.

This is to be noted well, that he was chosen expressly to defend class privileges against the rising protest of the people. Landlords like the Duke held as private possessions more than fifty "rotten boroughs," thus depriving the people of nearly one hundred and fifty representatives in Parliament. It was at this time that Tories began to be called Conservatives. "Of very noble appearance" young Gladstone entered the House of Commons to become almost at once the darling of the whole Tory reaction. Even the West Indian slaves, of which his father owned many, were not to be emancipated, but to have Christian instruction instead. It was for this that the anti-slavery party put his name straightway on the blacklist. Against the vote by ballot, he turned both ridicule and history. He would admit no Jew to Parliament, neither should any dissenter come in until he had bowed to the university tests. He stood for the tax on corn, for retaining naval and military sinecures, even for the atrocities of flogging, and strange as it now seems, for

all that was worst in the Irish Coercion Bill.

It was Gladstone's life achievement to fight victoriously against every one of his early Tory opinions. From the pet and pride of the aristocratic Carlton Club, he became the best hated man in public life by the whole body of “gig

gentry." On this low relief as background, Gladstone's greatness shows its clearest outlines and also some of his undeniable weakness. He had a passion to be thought "consistent," and his speeches were too heavy laden with tortuous passages in order to prove the undeviating line of his past activities. The foibles of the great do not surprise us because almost none of the gods are free from them. To take the quickened pace of reform periods, to keep mind and heart open to evidences of change, means growth and readjustment. Gladstone began by distrusting liberty. He ended by making it the guiding star of his policies. Very nobly he expresses this in one of his last letters, "the love of liberty, of liberty for all without distinction of class, creed or country, and the resolute preference of the interests of the whole to any interest, be it what it may, of a narrower scope." He told John Morley that his main passion was trust in an ever enlarging liberty.

Now it needs no proof that Gladstone must have changed opinions on fundamental issues; changed them so often and so radically that he at least seemed inconsistent to all opponents. One does not start out in 1832 with the narrow bigotry of those first declarations, to become in the early eighties the terror and demagogue of all Toryism without inconsistencies. But it was an inconsistency in which his friends rejoiced. Spurgeon wrote, "We believe in no man's infallibility, but it is restful to be sure of one man's integrity," lines which gave the statesman real pleasure. Though he passed from the championship of a class to the championship of the whole English people, his integrity was unimpaired. There are hesitations, pedantries, wordy intricacies of style that are too often plainly tiresome. Some wag said of Gladstone that he would be a great orator if he would only finish his sentence before he began the next but one after it. Some of his lifelong friends like John Bright and Tom Hughes believed that when pressed too hard by his great rival Disraeli, Gladstone came perilously near the arts of the demagogue. The author of "Tom

chants. That the more famous son should be "Liverpool beneath" expressed the gifts of this polished Oxford scholar in dealing with such brilliant mastery with every phase of finance and commerce.

His student life at Eton and for a time at Oxford was without distinction. Before leaving the university he had, however, shown such powers both as scholar and debater that the highest honors came to him. It was the great year of English reform, 1832, and because this highly tutored youth had made so thrilling a speech in the Oxford Union against reform, the Duke of Newcastle offered him a seat in Parliament. Gladstone was in Italy when he received this "stunning and overpowering proposal" as he wrote his father.

This is to be noted well, that he was chosen expressly to defend class privileges against the rising protest of the people. Landlords like the Duke held as private possessions more than fifty "rotten boroughs," thus depriving the people of nearly one hundred and fifty representatives in Parliament. It was at this time that Tories began to be called Conservatives. "Of very noble appearance" young Gladstone entered the House of Commons to become almost at once the darling of the whole Tory reaction. Even the West Indian slaves, of which his father owned many, were not to be emancipated, but to have Christian instruction instead. It was for this that the anti-slavery party put his name straightway on the blacklist. Against the vote by ballot, he turned both ridicule and history. He would admit no Jew to Parliament, neither should any dissenter come in until he had bowed to the university tests. He stood for the tax on corn, for retaining naval and military sinecures, even for the atrocities of flogging, and strange as it now seems, for all that was worst in the Irish Coercion Bill.

It was Gladstone's life achievement to fight victoriously against every one of his early Tory opinions. From the pet and pride of the aristocratic Carlton Club, he became the best hated man in public life by the whole body of "gig

gentry." On this low relief as background, Gladstone's greatness shows its clearest outlines and also some of his undeniable weakness. He had a passion to be thought "consistent," and his speeches were too heavy laden with tortuous passages in order to prove the undeviating line of his past activities. The foibles of the great do not surprise us because almost none of the gods are free from them. To take the quickened pace of reform periods, to keep mind and heart open to evidences of change, means growth and readjustment. Gladstone began by distrusting liberty. He ended by making it the guiding star of his policies. Very nobly he expresses this in one of his last letters, "the love of liberty, of liberty for all without distinction of class, creed or country, and the resolute preference of the interests of the whole to any interest, be it what it may, of a narrower scope." He told John Morley that his main passion was trust in an ever enlarging liberty.

Now it needs no proof that Gladstone must have changed opinions on fundamental issues; changed them so often and so radically that he at least seemed inconsistent to all opponents. One does not start out in 1832 with the narrow bigotry of those first declarations, to become in the early eighties the terror and demagogue of all Toryism without inconsistencies. But it was an inconsistency in which his friends rejoiced. Spurgeon wrote, "We believe in no man's infallibility, but it is restful to be sure of one man's integrity," lines which gave the statesman real pleasure. Though he passed from the championship of a class to the championship of the whole English people, his integrity was unimpaired. There are hesitations, pedantries, wordy intricacies of style that are too often plainly tiresome. Some wag said of Gladstone that he would be a great orator if he would only finish his sentence before he began the next but one after it. Some of his lifelong friends like John Bright and Tom Hughes believed that when pressed too hard by his great rival Disraeli, Gladstone came perilously near the arts of the demagogue. The author of "Tom