Macaulay was not a vain man, nor even egotistical; but he had a tremendous self-consciousness, which annoyed his equals in literary fame, and repelled such a giant as Brougham, who had no idea of sharing his throne with any one,—­being more overbearing even than Macaulay, but more human.  This new rival in the Edinburgh Review, of which for a long time Brougham had been dictator, was, much to Jeffrey’s annoyance, not convivial.  He did not drink two bottles at a sitting, but guarded his health and preserved his simple habits.  Though he speaks with gusto of Lord Holland’s turtle and turbot and venison and grouse, he was content when alone with a mutton-chop and a few glasses of sherry, or the October ale of Cambridge, which was a part of his perquisites as Fellow.  He was very exclusive, in view of the fact that he was a poor man, without aristocratic antecedents or many powerful friends.  Outside the class of rank and fashion, his friends seem to have been leading politicians of the Liberal school, the stanch Whigs who passed the Reform Bill, to whom he was true.  To his credit, his happiest hours were spent with his sisters in the quiet seclusion of his father’s modest home.  All his best letters were to them; and in these he detailed his intercourse with the great, and the splendor of their banquets and balls.

Macaulay’s rise, after he had written his famous article on Milton, was rapid.  The article itself, striking as it is, must be confessed to be disappointing in so far as it attempted to criticise the “Paradise Lost” and Milton’s other poems.  Macaulay’s genius was historical, not critical; and the essay is notable rather for its review of the times of Charles I. and Archbishop Laud, of the Puritans and the Royalists, than for its literary flavor, except as a brilliant piece of composition.  It was, however, the picturesque style of the new writer which was the chief attraction, and the fact that the essay came from so young a man.  Macaulay followed the Milton essay with others on Macchiavelli, Dryden, Hallam’s “Constitutional History,” and on history in general, which displayed to great advantage his unusual learning, his keen historic instinct, and his splendor of style.  He became the most popular contributor to the Edinburgh Review, which was beginning to be dull and heavy; and this kept him before the eyes of politicians and professional men.

Macaulay’s ambition was now divided between literature and politics.  His first appearance as a public speaker was at an annual anti-slavery convention in London, in 1826, when he made a marked impression.  He eagerly embraced the offer of a seat in the House of Commons, which was secured to him in 1830; and as soon as he entered Parliament he began to make speeches, which were carefully composed and probably committed to memory.  At a single bound he became one of the leading orators of that renowned assembly.  Some of his orations were masterpieces of argument and rhetoric in favor of reform, and of