became acquainted with, as we have already seen; but his mind was far
too closely filled with transcendentalisms of his own to offer much
hospitality to the serene and beautiful transcendentalism of Emerson. He
read _Oliver Twist_ and _Nicholas Nickleby_, and on the latter he makes
a characteristic comment--'the tone is very human; it is most happy in
touches of natural pathos. No church in the book, and the motives are
not those of religion.' So with Hallam's _History of Literature_,
'Finished (Oct. 10, 1839) his theological chapter, in which I am sorry
to find amidst such merits, what is even far more grievous than his
anti-church sarcasms, such notions on original sin as in iv. p. 161.' He
found Chillingworth's _Religion of Protestants_ 'a work of the most
mixed merits,' an ambiguous phrase which I take to mean not that its
merits were various, but that they were much mixed with those demerits
for which the puritan Cheynell baited the unlucky latitudinarian to
death. About this time also he first began Father Paul's famous history
of the Council of Trent, a work that always stood as high in his esteem
as in Macaulay's, who liked Sarpi the best of all modern historians.

To the great veteran poet of the time Mr. Gladstone's fidelity was
unchanging, even down to compositions that the ordinary Wordsworthian
gives up:--

Read aloud Wordsworth's _Cumberland Beggar_ and _Peter Bell_. The
former is generally acknowledged to be a noble poem. The same
justice is not done to the latter; I was more than ever struck with
the vivid power of the descriptions, the strong touches of feeling,
the skill and order with which the plot upon Peter's conscience is
arranged, and the depth of interest which is made to attach to the
humblest of quadrupeds. It must have cost great labour, and is an
extraordinary poem, both as a whole and in detail.

Let not the scorner forget that Matthew Arnold, that admirable critic
and fine poet, confesses to reading _Peter Bell_ with pleasure and
edification.

In the political field he moved steadily on. Sir R. Peel spoke to him
(April 19, 1839) in the House about the debate and wished him to speak
after Sheil, if Graham, who was to speak about 8 or 9, could bring him
up. Peel showed him several points with regard to the committee which he
thought might be urged. 'This is very kind in him as a mark of
confidence; and assures me that if, as I suspect, he considers