CHAPTER VII

Illus0567 (110K)

The new Parliament met in August, and the ministers were defeated, in both Houses, on the Address and resigned. Sir Robert Peel was called upon by the Queen to form a new ministry, and Mr. Gladstone was included by his leader in the administration. In appearing on the hustings at Newark Mr. Gladstone said that there were two points upon which the British farmer might rely—the first being that adequate protection would be given him, and, second, that protection would be given him through the means of the sliding scale. The duties were to be reduced and the system improved, but the principle was to be maintained. "There was no English statesman who could foresee at this period the results of that extraordinary agitation which, in the course of the next five years, was destined to secure the abrogation of the Corn Laws."

There is a tradition that, having already conceived a lively interest in the ecclesiastical and agrarian problems of Ireland, Mr. Gladstone had set his affections on the Chief Secretaryship. But Sir Robert Peel, a consummate judge of administrative capacity, had discerned his young friend's financial aptitude, and the member for Newark became vice-president of the Board of Trade and master of the Mint.

Although in the midst of engrossing cares of office as vice-president of the Board of Trade, yet Mr. Gladstone found time to renew his old interest in ecclesiastical concerns. In the fall of 1841 an English Episcopal Bishopric was established at Jerusalem, Mr. Gladstone dined with Baron Bunsen on the birthday of the King of Prussia, when, as reported by Lord Shaftesbury, he "stripped himself of a part of his Puseyite garments, spoke like a pious man, rejoiced in the bishopric of Jerusalem, and proposed the health of Alexander, the new Bishop of that see. This is delightful, for he is a good man, a clever man and an industrious man." And Baron Bunsen, speaking of the same occasion, said, "Never was heard a more exquisite speech, It flowed like a gentle, translucent stream. We drove back to town in the clearest starlight; Gladstone continuing with unabated animation to pour forth his harmonious thoughts in melodious tone." And Mr. Gladstone himself writes later; "Amidst public business, quite sufficient for a man of my compass, I have, during the whole of the week, perforce, been carrying on with the Bishop of London and with Bunsen a correspondence on, and inquisition into, the Jerusalem design, until I almost reel and stagger under it."

And still later he writes: "I am ready individually to brave misconstruction for the sake of union with any Christian men, provided the terms of the union be not contrary to sound principle; and perhaps in this respect might go further, at least in one of the possible directions, than you. But to declare the living constitution of a Christian Church to be of secondary moment is of course in my view equivalent to a denial of a portion of the faith—and I think you will say it is a construction which can not fairly be put upon the design, as far as it exists in fixed rules and articles. It is one thing to attribute this in the way of unfavorable surmise, or as an apprehension of ultimate developments—it is another to publish it to the world as a character ostentatiously assumed."

We have evidence also that at this time he was not permitted to forget that he was an author, for he thus writes, April 6, 1842, to his publisher: "Amidst the pressure of more urgent affairs, I have held no consultation with you regarding my books and the sale or no sale of them. As to the third edition of the 'State in its Relations,' I should think that the remaining copies had better be got rid of in whatever summary or ignominious mode you may deem best. They must be dead beyond recall. As to the others, I do not know whether the season of the year has at all revived the demand; and would suggest to you whether it would be well to advertise them a little. I do not think they find their way much into the second-hand shops. With regard to the fourth edition, I do not know whether it would be well to procure any review or notice of it, and I am not a fair judge of its merits, even in comparison with the original form of the work; but my idea is that it is less defective, both in the theoretical and in the historical development, and ought to be worth the notice of those who deemed the earlier editions worth their notice and purchase; that it would really put a reader in possession of the view it was intended to convey, which I fear is more than can with any truth be said of its predecessors. I am not, however, in any state of anxiety or impatience; and I am chiefly moved to refer these suggestions to your judgment from perceiving that the fourth edition is as yet far from having cleared itself."

It was from this time that a marked change was observable in the subjects of Mr. Gladstone's Parliamentary addresses. "Instead of speaking on the corporate conscience of the State and the endowments of the Church, the importance of Christian education and the theological unfitness of the Jews to sit in Parliament, he was solving business-like problems about foreign tariffs and the exportation of machinery; waxing eloquent over the regulation of railways and a graduated tax on corn; subtle on the momentary merits of half-farthings and great in the mysterious lore of quassia and cocculus indicus."

In the short session of Parliament, in 1841, that which followed the accession of Sir Robert Peel to the office of Prime Minister, he was questioned by his opponents as to his future policy. The Premier declined to state the nature of the measures he intended to present, or which he contemplated making, in the intervening months of the recess of Parliament so near at hand. He wanted time for the arrangement of his plans and the construction of his political programme. An effort was made to embarrass the administration by refusing to vote the necessary supplies, until inquiry should be made into the existing distress, but it was defeated. Three weeks later Parliament was dissolved by Royal commission. In the following sitting of Parliament several measures of high practical character were presented.

Sir Robert Peel acceded to office in very critical times. The condition of the country was truly lamentable. Distress and discontent were widespread and the difficulties of the government were greatly enhanced by popular tumults. The Free Trade agitation was already making great headway in the land, and when the Premier brought forward his new sliding scale of duties in the House of Commons it was denounced by Mr. Cobden as an insult to a suffering people. The Premier said that he considered the present not an unfavorable time for discussing the corn laws; that there was no great stock on hand of foreign growth to alarm the farmers; that the recess had been marked by universal calm; that there was no popular violence to interrupt legislation; and that there was a disposition to view any proposal for the adjustment of the question with calmness and moderation.

The Premier's view of the situation did not seem to be wholly in accord with the well-known facts, for the Queen even, on her appearance at the London theatres, had been hooted, and the Prime Minister himself was burnt in effigy during a riot at Northampton; great excitement prevailed throughout the country, and Lord John Russell moved as an amendment "That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the present corn laws and especially by the fluctuation of the graduated or sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's government, which is founded on the same principles and is likely to be attended by similar results."

It was incumbent upon Mr. Gladstone to lead the opposition to this motion. He showed that the proposed plan was not founded on the same principle of the existing one, except that both involved a sliding scale; that the present distress was caused by fluctuation of the seasons and not by the laws; that high prices of food were chargeable to successive failures of the crops; that these unavoidable fluctuations were not aggravated by the corn laws; that Sir Robert Peel's plan of working was far superior to that of Lord John Russell; that the drains upon the currency, caused by bad harvests, were not to be prevented by a fixed duty; that a uniform protection could not be given to corn, as to other articles, because at high prices of corn no duty could be maintained, and that, therefore, at low prices, it was but just to give a duty which would be an effectual protection. The debate which followed was characterized by vigorous speeches from Mr. Roebuck and Lord Palmerston. Lord John Russell's amendment was lost by a large majority. A motion presented by Mr. Villiers, the Free Trade advocate, for the immediate repeal of the corn laws was also lost by a majority of over three hundred.

On the 11th of March Sir Robert Peel introduced his budget. The budget for 1842 was produced under depressing circumstances. There was a deficit of £2,750,000, or about $15,000,000, and taxation upon articles of consumption had been pushed to its utmost limit. Peel was a great financier, but the fiscal difficulties by which he was now surrounded were enough to appall the most ingenious of financial ministers.

Mr. Gladstone rendered the Premier invaluable service in the preparation both of his budget and of his tariff scheme. The merit of the budget was its taxation of wealth and the relief of the manufacturing industry. The second branch of the financial plan, the revised tariff—a customs duties scheme—was very important, and it was understood to be mainly the work of Mr. Gladstone. Out of nearly 1200 duty-paying articles, a total abolition, or a considerable reduction, was made in no fewer than 750. This was certainly a great step towards the freedom of manufacturers, Sir Robert Peel's boast that he had endeavored to relieve manufacturing industries was more than justified by this great and comprehensive measure. The very best means for relieving the manufacturing industries had been devised.

But while this great relief to industry was welcomed the Opposition did not relax their efforts for the abolition of the corn laws, which were continued into the session of 1843. Sir Robert Peel acknowledged, amidst loud cheers from the Opposition, that all were agreed in the general rule that we should purchase in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest; but he added, "If I propose a greater change in the corn laws than that which I submit to the consideration of the House I should only aggravate the distress of the country, and only increase the alarm which prevails among important interests." Mr. Hume hailed with joy the appearance of the Premier and his colleagues as converts to the principles of Free Trade; Mr. Gladstone replied, that, whoever were the authors of the principles on which the government measures rested, he must protest against the statement that the ministry came forward as converts to principles which they had formerly opposed.

During the progress of the debate of 1842, on the revised Tariff Bill, Mr. Gladstone's labors were very great. He was called upon to explain or defend the details of the scheme, and had something to say about every article of consumption included in, or excluded from, the list. He spoke one hundred and twenty-nine times, chiefly on themes connected with the new fiscal legislature. He demonstrated his capacity for grasping all the most complicated details of finance, and also the power of comprehending the scope and necessities of the commercial interests of the country. No measure with which his name has since been connected has done him more credit. He spoke incessantly, and amazed the House by his mastery of details, his intimate acquaintance with the commercial needs of the country, and his inexhaustible power of exposition. On March 14th Greville wrote, "Gladstone has already displayed a capacity which makes his admission into the Cabinet indispensable." A commercial minister had appeared on the scene, and the shade of Hoskisson had revived.

Though engrossed in schemes of practical legislation, and in all the excitements and interests of office, he could, as he has ever done during his long career, turn aside for the discourse on social and educational questions with much earnestness and eloquence, as if they, and only they, possessed his mind. In January, 1843, he spoke at the opening of the Collegiate Institute of Liverpool, and delivered a powerful plea for the better education of the middle classes, which was one of the most forcible speeches he ever delivered. He said:

"We believe that if you could erect a system which should present to mankind all branches of knowledge save the one that is essential, you would only be building up a Tower of Babel, which, when you had completed it, would be the more signal in its fall, and which would bury those who had raised it in its ruins. We believe that if you can take a human being in his youth, and if you can make him an accomplished man in natural philosophy, in mathematics, or in the knowledge necessary for the profession of a merchant, a lawyer, or a physician; that if in any or all of these endowments you could form his mind—yes, if you could endow him with the science and power of a Newton, and so send him forth—and if you had concealed from him, or, rather, had not given him a knowledge and love of the Christian faith—he would go forth into the world, able indeed with reference to those purposes of science, successful with the accumulation of wealth for the multiplication of more, but 'poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked' with reference to everything that constitutes the true and sovereign purposes of our existence—nay, worse, worse—with respect to the sovereign purpose— than if he had still remained in the ignorance which we all commiserate, and which it is the object of this institution to assist in removing."

It was admitted on all hands that great fiscal reforms had been conceived and executed; and speaking of the session of 1842, a writer, not favorable to the Tories, wrote: "The nation saw and felt that its business was understood and accomplished, and the House of Commons was no longer like a sleeper under a nightmare. The long session was a busy one. The Queen wore a cheerful air when she thanked Parliament for their effectual labors. The Opposition was such as could no longer impede the operations of the next session. The condition of the country was fearful enough, but something was done for its future improvement, and the way was now shown to be open for further beneficent legislation."

The corn law reformers renewed their efforts, led by Lord Howick, as soon as the parliamentary session of 1843 opened. An inquiry by the whole House was demanded into the causes of the long continued manufacturing depression referred to in the Queen's speech. Mr. Gladstone replied that while the Opposition proposed to repeal the corn laws, they offered no measure of relief in their place. The corn laws were at the root of the distress in the country, but the difficulty was to unite the ranks of the Opposition in opinion as to what ought to follow the repeal of the corn laws. The question between the government and the Opposition was not really so great as the latter wished to make out. It was simply as to the amount of relaxation the country could bear in the duties. It was the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to attain his object "by increasing the employment of the people, by cheapening the prices of the articles of consumption, as also the articles of industry, by encouraging the means of exchange with foreign nations, and thereby encouraging in return an extension of the export trade; but besides all this, if he understood the measure of the government last year, it was proposed that the relaxation should be practically so limited as to cause no violent shock to existing interests, such as would have the tendency of displacing that labor which should be employed, and which, if displaced, would be unable to find another field." The measure of the previous year had nothing but a beneficial effect, but the repeal of the corn laws would displace a vast mass of labor. Lord Howick's motion was defeated and so were others offered by Mr. Villiers and Lord John Russell, by diminishing majorities, and Mr. Gladstone protested against the constant renewal of uneasiness in the country by successive motions of this kind in Parliament.

The year 1843 was one destined to witness a great advance in Mr. Gladstone's progress towards the front rank among statesmen. June 10th, Lord Ripon, who was President of the Board of Trade, left this place for the Board of Control, and Mr. Gladstone was appointed to the position, and thus became a member of the Cabinet at the age of thirty-three Mr. Gladstone now became in name what he had been already in fact—the President of the Board of Trade. He states that "the very first opinion which he was ever called upon to give in Cabinet" was an opinion in favor of withdrawing the bill providing education for children in factories; to which vehement opposition was offered by the Dissenters, on the ground that it was too favorable to the Established Church. It seemed that his position was assured and yet in October he wrote to a friend: "Uneasy, in my opinion, must be the position of every member of Parliament who thinks independently in these times, or in any that are likely to succeed them; and in proportion as a man's course of thought deviates from the ordinary lines his seat must less and less resemble a bed of roses." Mr. Gladstone possibly felt when he penned these lines that the time was at hand when his convictions would force him to take a position that would array against him some of his most ardent friends.

During the session of 1844 Mr. Gladstone addressed the House on a variety of subjects, including rail ways, the law of partnership, the agricultural interest, the abolition of the corn laws, the Dissenters' Chapel Bill and the sugar duties. One very valuable bill he had carried was a measure for the abolition of restrictions on the exportation of machinery. Another was the railway bill, to improve the railway system, by which the Board of Trade had conditional power to purchase railways which had not adopted a revised scale of tolls. The bill also compulsorily provided for at least one third-class train per week-day upon every line of railway, to charge but one penny a mile, regulated the speed of traveling, compelled such trains to stop at every station, and arranged for the carrying of children under three years of age for nothing and those under twelve at reduced fares. This measure, conceived so distinctly in the interests of the poorer classes, met with considerable opposition at first from the various railway companies, but it was ultimately passed into law. These were measures passed in the spirit of reform, though by a Conservative government.

There was another matter legislated upon which shows how Mr. Gladstone's mind was undergoing changes in the direction of religious toleration. Lady Hewley had originally founded and given to Calvinistic Independents certain charities which had gradually passed to Unitarians, who were ousted from their benefits. A bill was proposed to vest property left to Dissenting bodies in the hands of that religions body with whom it had remained for the preceding twenty years. The measure was passed, but when it was discussed in the House of Commons Mr. Gladstone said that it was a bill which it was incumbent upon the House to endorse; that there was no contrariety between his principles of religious belief and those on which legislation in this case ought to proceed; that there was a great question of justice, viz., whether those who were called Presbyterian Dissenters, and who were a century and a half ago of Trinitarian opinions, ought not to be protected at the present moment in possession of the chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of those chapels? On the question of substantial justice he pronounced the strongest affirmative opinion. "After this speech there were those who thought, and expressed their hope and belief in words, that the 'champion of Free Trade' would ere long become the advocate of the most unrestricted liberty in matters of religion. Their hope, if sanguine as to its immediate fulfillment, was far from groundless."

However, in December of the same year Mr. Gladstone wrote to his friend Archdeacon, afterwards Bishop Wilberforce, about the prospects of the Church of England: "I rejoice to see that your views on the whole are hopeful. For my part I heartily go along with you. The fabric consolidates itself more and more, even while the earthquake rocks it; for, with a thousand drawbacks and deductions, love grows larger, zeal warmer, truth firmer among us. It makes the mind sad to speculate upon the question how much better all might have been; but our mourning should be turned into joy and thankfulness when we think also how much worse itwas."

The next event in the life of Mr. Gladstone is marked by a momentous change in his political position. Scarcely had Parliament met in January, 1845, when it was announced to the astonishment of everyone that Mr. Gladstone had resigned his place as President of the Board of Trade in the Cabinet. He set a good deal of speculation at rest by the announcement made in his speech on the address of the Queen, that his resignation was due solely to the government intentions with regard to Maynooth College. Before, however, he had resigned, Mr. Gladstone had completed a second and revised tariff, carrying further the principles of the revision of 1842.

In the session of 1844 Sir Robert Peel, in response to the requests of Irish members, had promised that the Government would take up the question of academical education in Ireland, with the view of bringing it more nearly to the standard of England and Scotland, increasing its amount and improving its quality. In fulfillment of this pledge the government, at the beginning of the session of 1845, proposed to establish non-sectarian colleges in Ireland, and to increase the appropriation to Maynooth. The College of Maynooth, which was established for the education of Roman Catholic priests and laymen, had fallen into poverty and decay. In order to gratify the Irish, the government offered to increase the grant already made from $45,000 to $150,000 a year. This appropriation was not to be subject to any annual vote, and the affairs of the College were to be executed by the Board of Works. These proposals placed Mr. Gladstone in a position of great difficulty. He must either support Sir Robert Peel's measure, or retire from the Cabinet into isolation, if not subject to the imputation of eccentricity. He took council with his friends, Archdeacon Manning and Mr. Hope, who advised him to remain, and with Lord Stanley who warned him that his resignation must be followed by resistance of the proposals of the government, which would involve him in a storm of religious agitation. But Mr. Gladstone persisted in his intention, in what seemed like giving up his brilliant prospects, but said it would not necessarily be followed by resistance to the proposal about Maynooth.

Mr. Gladstone said that the proposed increase in the Maynooth endowment and the establishment of non-sectarian colleges were at variance with views he had written and uttered upon the relations of the Church and State. "I am sensible how fallible my judgment is," said Mr. Gladstone, "and how easily I might have erred; but still it has been my conviction that although I was not to fetter my judgment as a member of Parliament by a reference to abstract theories, yet, on the other hand, it was absolutely due to the public and due to myself that I should, so far as in me lay, place myself in a position to form an opinion upon a matter of so great importance, that should not only be actually free from all bias or leaning with respect to any consideration whatsoever, but an opinion that should be unsuspected. On that account I have taken a course most painful to myself in respect to personal feelings, and have separated myself from men with whom and under whom I have long acted in public life, and of whom I am bound to say, although I have now no longer the honor of serving my most gracious Sovereign, that I continue to regard them with unaltered sentiments both of public regard and private attachment."

Then again he said: "My whole purpose was to place myself in a position in which I should be free to consider any course without being liable to any just suspicion on the ground of personal interest. It is not profane if I now say, 'with a great price obtained I this freedom.' The political association in which I stood was to me at the time thealphaandomegaof public life. The government of Sir Robert Peel was believed to be of immovable strength. My place, as President of the Board of Trade, was at the very kernel of its most interesting operations; for it was in progress from year to year, with continually waxing courage, towards the emancipation of industry, and therein towards the accomplishment of another great and blessed work of public justice. Giving up what I highly prized, aware that

male sartaGratia nequicquam coit, et rescinditur.

I felt myself open to the charge of being opinionated and wanting in deference to really great authorities, and I could not but know that I should inevitably be regarded as fastidious and fanciful, fitter for a dreamer, or possibly a schoolman, than for the active purposes of public life in a busy and moving age."

There were some of his party angry and others who thought that there was something almost Quixotic in Mr. Gladstone's honorable resignation, because so soon as he felt himself free he gave his support to the Maynooth Bill and also to the scheme for the extension of academical education in Ireland, which latter was described by Sir R. Inglis as a "gigantic scheme of godless education." In Greville's "Memoirs" we find: "Gladstone's explanation is ludicrous. Everybody said that he had only succeeded in showing that his resignation was unnecessary. He was criticised as the possessor of a kind of supernatural virtue that could scarcely be popular with the slaves of party, and he was considered whimsical, fantastic, impracticable, a man whose 'conscience was so tender that he could not go straight,' a visionary not to be relied on—in fact, a character and intellect useless to the political manager." "I am greatly alarmed at Gladstone's resignation. I fear it foretells measures opposed to the Church truth," wrote Wilberforce; and Peel told Gladstone beforehand that his reasons for his resignation would be considered insufficient. But Mr. Gladstone's resignation, when understood, elicited the liveliest expressions of regret from friend and foe, as well as the most flattering testimonies as to his ability and character. His chief, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord John Russell, the leader of the Opposition, were alike complimentary in their remarks.

Dr. Russell, the biographer of Mr. Gladstone, says: "Mr. Gladstone's retirement, by impairing his reputation for common sense, threatened serious and lasting injury to his political career, But the whirligig of time brought its revenges even more swiftly than usual. A conjunction of events arose in which he was destined to repair the mischief which the speculative side had wrought; but for the moment the speculative side was uppermost."

Mr. Gladstone was fast leaving his Toryism behind. To show how far his views had changed in the course of seven years, it may be said that in his speech on these measures he observed how that exclusive support to the Established Church was a doctrine that was being more and more abandoned. Mr. Burke considered it contrary to wise policy to give exclusive privileges to a negative creed like that of Protestantism. They could not prove their religious scruples for denying this grant to Roman Catholics, because they gave their votes of money to almost every Dissenting seat. He hoped the concession now made—which was a great and liberal gift, because unrestricted and given in a spirit of confidence—would not lead to the renewal of agitation in Ireland by Mr. O'Connell. It might be well for him to reflect that agitation was a two-edged sword. Being conformable to justice and not contrary to principle, he hoped the measure proposed would pass into a law.

W.T. Stead, in a recent article, said, in relation to Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the Cabinet, that "It is ridiculous to pretend, with Mr. Gladstone's career before us, that his course has been swayed by calculating self-interest. He has been the very madman of politics from the point of view of Mr. Worldly Wiseman. 'No man,' said he, the other day, 'has ever committed suicide so often as I,' and that witness is true. The first and perhaps the most typical of all his many suicides was his resignation of his seat in Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, not because he disapproved of the Maynooth Grant, but because, as he had at one time written against it, he was determined that his advocacy of it should be purged of the last taint of self-interest. As Mr. George Russell rightly remarks, 'This was an act of Parliamentary Quixotism too eccentric to be intelligible. It argued a fastidious sensitiveness of conscience, and a nice sense of political propriety so opposed to the sordid selfishness and unblushing tergiversation of the ordinary place-hunter as to be almost offensive.' But as Mr. Gladstone was then, so he has been all his life—the very Quixote of conscience. Judged by every standard of human probability, he has ruined himself over and over and over again. He is always ruining himself, and always rising, like the Phoenix, in renewed youth from the ashes of his funeral pyre. As was said in homely phrase some years ago, he 'always keeps bobbing up again.' What is the secret of this wonderful capacity of revival? How is it that Mr. Gladstone seems to find even his blunders help him, and the affirmation of principles that seem to be destructive to all chance of the success of his policy absolutely helps him to its realization?"

From a merely human standpoint it is inexplicable. But

'If right or wrong in this God's world of oursBe leagued with higher powers,'

then the mystery is not so insolvable. He believed in the higher powers. He never shrank from putting his faith to the test; and on the whole, who can deny that for his country and for himself he has reason to rejoice in the verification of his working hypothesis?

'We walk by faith and not by sight,' he said once; 'and by no one so much as by those who are in politics is this necessary.' It is the evidence of things not seen, the eternal principles, the great invisible moral sanctions that men are wont to call the laws of God, which alone supply a safe guide through this mortal wilderness.

'Men of a thousand shifts and wiles, look here!See one straightforward conscience put in pawnTo win a world; see the obedient sphereBy bravery's simple gravitation drawn!Shall we not heed the lesson taught of old,And by the Present's lips repeated still?In our own single manhood to be bold,Fortressed in conscience and impregnable.'

"Mr. Gladstone has never hesitated to counter at sharp right angles the passion and the fury of the day. Those who represent him as ever strong upon the strong side, wilfully shut their eyes to half his history. He challenged Lord Palmerston over the Don Pacifico question, and was believed to have wrecked himself almost as completely as when in 1876 he countered even more resolutely the fantastic Jingoism of Lord Beaconsfield. It is easy for those who come after and enter into the spoils gained by sacrifices of which they themselves were incapable to describe the Bulgarian agitation as an astute party move. The party did not think so. Its leaders did not think so. Some of those who now halloo loud enough behind Mr. Gladstone were then bitter enough in their complaint that he had wrecked his party. One at least, who was constrained to say the other thing in public, made up for it by bitter and contemptuous cavilings in private. Now it is easy to see that Lord Beaconsfield was mistaken and that Mr. Gladstone held the winning card all along. But no one knew it at the time when the card had to be played, certainly not Mr. Gladstone himself. He simply saw his duty a dead sure thing, and, like Jim Bludsoe on the burning boat, 'He went for it there and then.' It turned up trumps, but no one knew how heavy were the odds against it save those who went through the stress and the strain of that testing and trying time by his side."

In the summer of 1845 Mr. Gladstone proposed to his intimate friend, Mr. J.R. Hope, that they should spend the month of September in a working tour in Ireland, giving evidence of his characteristic desire always to come in personal contact with any question that he had to discuss. He suggests "their eschewing all grandeur, and taking little account even of scenery, compared with the purpose of looking, from close quarters, at the institutions for religion and education of the country, and at the character of the people. It seems ridiculous to talk of supplying the defects of second-hand information by so short a trip; but although a longer time would be much better, yet even a very contracted one does much when it is added to an habitual, though indirect, knowledge." The projected trip, however, had to be abandoned.

Towards the close of the year 1845 Mr. Gladstone issued a pamphlet entitled "Remarks upon recent Commercial Legislation," in which he not only discussed the salutary effects of the late commercial policy, but used arguments clearly showing that he was advancing to the position of a free-trader. His general conclusion was that English statesmen should use every effort to disburden of all charges, so far as the law was concerned, the materials of industry, and thus enable the workman to approach his work at home on better terms, as the terms in which he entered foreign markets were altered for the worse against him.

While Mr. Gladstone was so willing to deal generously more than ever before with the Irish Roman Catholics, his confidence in the Established Episcopal Church of Ireland was growing less. "I am sorry," he wrote to Bishop Wilberforce, "to express my apprehension that the Irish Church is not in a large sense efficient; the working results of the last ten years have disappointed me. I may be answered, Have faith in the ordinance of God; but then I must see the seal and signature, and these, how can I separate from ecclesiastical descent? The title, in short, is questioned, and vehemently, not only by the Radicalism of the day, but by the Roman Bishops, who claim to hold succession of St. Patrick, and this claim has been alive all along from the Reformation, so that lapse of years does nothing against it."

The name of Dr. Döllinger, the distinguished reformed Roman Catholic, has been mentioned already in connection with that of Mr. Gladstone. In the fall of 1845 Mr. Gladstone went to Munich and paid his first visit to Dr. Döllinger. For a week he remained in daily intercourse with this eminent divine, and the foundation was laid of a friendship which was sustained by repeated visits and correspondence, and which lasted until the doctor's death in 1890.

In the winter of 1845 Mr. Gladstone met with a painful accident that resulted in a permanent injury to his hand. He was by no means what is termed a sportsman, yet he was somewhat fond of shooting. His gun was prematurely discharged while he was loading it, and shattered the first finger of his left hand, so that amputation was necessary.

213 (98K)

CHAPTER VIIMEMBER FOR OXFORD

"Mr. Gladstone's career," says his biographer, G.W.E. Russell, "naturally divides itself into three parts. The first of them ends with his retirement from the representation of Newark. The central part ranges from 1847 to 1868. Happily the third is still incomplete." The first division, according to Dr. Russell, of this remarkable life, we have considered, and we now pass on to the development of the second period. The causes which led up to Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the representation for Newark to that of Oxford we will now proceed to trace.

The agitation by the ablest orators against the corn laws had been going on for ten years, when an announcement was made in the "Times" of December 4, 1845, that Parliament would be convened the first week in January, and that the Queen's address would recommend the immediate consideration of the corn laws, preparatory to their total abolition. This startling news took the other daily papers by surprise, for there had been recently a lull in the agitation, and several of them contradicted it positively. Yet the newspapers had noticed the unusual occurrence of four cabinet meetings in one week. The original statement was confirmed. The ministry was pledged to support the measure. The hour had come, the doom of the corn laws was sealed. Mr. Gladstone's thoughts and labors for some years past had been leading him away from Protection, in which he had been brought up, in the direction of Free Trade; and although he was unable to participate in the last part of the struggle in Parliament, because he was not a member of the House, he was yet in harmony with Sir Robert Peel, and indeed is said to have converted the Premier to Free Trade views. Such a change of views was not the sudden impulse of an hour. The next step was to announce his changed convictions. And so upon other occasions in his life, his attitude on the question of the corn laws led to his separation from some old and greatly cherished political and personal friends, and among the first to disapprove of his new departure must have been his own father, who would think his son was going to ruin the country.

The Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley informed Sir Robert Peel that they could not support a measure for the repeal of the corn laws, and Sir Robert Peel, being doubtful whether he could carry through the proposed measure in the face of such opposition, tendered his resignation as premier to the Queen. Lord John Russell was called upon to form a new ministry, but, having failed in this, the Queen desired Sir Robert Peel to withdraw his resignation, and resume the head of the government again.

It was found when the list of the new Peel Cabinet was published, that Mr. Gladstone was a member of it; having accepted the office of Colonial Secretary, in the place of Lord Stanley, who had resigned because not in sympathy with the proposed movement and of repeal. Accepting office in a ministry pledged to repeal the corn laws led to the retirement of Mr. Gladstone from the House of Commons as the representative for Newark. The Duke of New Castle, the patron and friend of Mr. Gladstone, was an ardent Protectionist, and could not sanction the candidature of a supporter of Free Trade principles. His patronage was therefore necessarily withdrawn from Mr. Gladstone. Indeed, the Duke had turned his own son, Lord Lincoln, out of the representation of Nottinghamshire for accepting office under Sir Robert Peel, and he naturally showed no mercy to the brilliant but wayward politician, whom his favor had made member for Newark. Besides, Mr. Gladstone felt he held opposite principles from those he held when elected, and that unless the constituency had changed with him, he could no longer honorably continue to represent them, even if the influence and friendship of the Duke permitted it.

Accordingly he did not offer himself for re-election, but retired and issued an address to the electors of Newark, dated January 5, 1846, of which the following is an extract: "By accepting the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, I have ceased to be your representative in Parliament. On several accounts I should have been peculiarly desirous at the present time of giving you an opportunity to pronounce your constitutional judgment on my public conduct, by soliciting at your hands a renewal of the trust which I have already received from you on five successive occasions, and held during a period of thirteen years. But as I have good reason to believe that a candidate recommended to your favor through local connections may ask your suffrages, it becomes my very painful duty to announce to you on that ground alone my retirement from a position which has afforded me so much of honor and of satisfaction." Mr. Gladstone further goes on to explain that he accepted office because he held that "it was for those who believed the Government was acting according to the demands of public duty to testify that belief, however limited their sphere might be, by their co-operation." He had acted "in obedience to the clear and imperious call of public obligation."

It was in this way that Mr. Gladstone became a voluntary exile from the House of Commons during this important season, and took no part in the debates, his personal powerful advocacy being lost in the consideration of the great measure before the House. He was a member of the Cabinet, but not of the House of Commons. It was no secret, however, that he was the most advanced Free Trader in the Peel Cabinet, and that the policy of the government in regard to this great measure of 1846 was to a large extent moulded by him.

It is also known that his representations of the effects of Free Trade on the industry of the country and the general well-being of the people strengthened the Premier in his resolve to sweep away the obnoxious corn laws. His pamphlet on recent commercial legislation had prepared the way for the later momentous changes; and to Mr. Gladstone is due much of the credit for the speedy consummation of the Free Trade policy of the Peel Ministry. Mr. Gladstone may be regarded as the pioneer of the movement.

Just at this time a calamity occurred in Ireland which furnished Sir Robert Peel an additional argument for the prompt repeal of the corn laws; namely, a prospective famine, owing to the failure of the potato crop. With threatened famine in Ireland, such as had never been experienced, the Prime Minister saw clearly that corn must be admitted into the country free of duty. The Anti-Corn Law League was growing powerful and even irresistible, while both in England and Ireland many landlords of influence, who did not belong to the League, were in sympathy with the movement started by the Premier and ready to extend to him a hearty support.

But the friends of Protection did not leave the Premier without opposition. Knowing that Sir Robert Peel's personal influence was greater than that of any minister who had "virtually governed the empire," they used every means at their command, fair and unfair, to defeat the bill. However, their efforts were destined to failure. Some contended that the presentation and passage of the corn law repeal bill ought to be left to the Liberals. But Free Trade had not received the support of every member of the Liberal party, and Sir Robert Peel was in a position to carry out the measure, and it was not in accordance with the wisdom of practical politics to halt. Indeed, at this very juncture, Mr. Cobden wrote to the Premier that he had the power, and that it would be disastrous to the country for him to hesitate. Writing from Edinburgh, Lord John Russell announced his conversion to total and immediate repeal of the corn laws. Sir Robert Peel hesitated no longer, but, feeling that the crisis had arrived, determined to grapple with it. It was duty to country before and above fancied loyalty to party to be considered. It is strange what remedies some men deem sensible, suggested to prevent famine in Ireland.

"Obviously the Government was in difficulties. What those difficulties were it was not hard to guess. In the previous autumn it had become known that, after a long season of sunless wet, the potatoes had everywhere been attacked by an obscure disease. The failure of this crop meant an Irish famine. The steps suggested to meet this impending calamity were strange enough. The head of the English peerage recommended the poor to rely on curry-powder as a nutritious and satisfying food. Another duke thought that the government could show no favor to a population almost in a state of rebellion, but that individuals might get up a subscription. A noble lord, harmonizing materialism and faith, urged the government to encourage the provision of salt fish, and at the same time to appoint a day of public acknowledgment of our dependence on Divine goodness. The council of the Royal Agricultural Society, numbering some of the wealthiest noblemen and squires in England, were not ashamed to lecture the laborers on the sustaining properties of thrice-boiled bones."

When Parliament assembled the Premier entered into an explanation of the late ministerial crisis, and unfolded his projected plans. He said that the failure of the potato crop had led to the dissolution of the late government, that matters now could brook no further delay; that prompt action must now be taken on the Corn Laws; that the progress of reason and truth demanded it; that his opinions on the subject of Protection had undergone a great change; that the experience of the past three years confirmed him in his new views; that he could not conceal the knowledge of his convictions, however much it might lay him open to the charge of inconsistency; that, though accused of apathy and neglect, he and his colleagues were even then engaged in the most extensive and arduous inquiries into the true state of Ireland; and that, as these inquiries progressed, he has been forced to the conclusion that the protection policy was unsound and consequently untenable.

It is worthy of note that Mr. Disraeli, the future Parliamentary rival of Mr. Gladstone, took part, as a member of the House of Commons, in the discussion of the question under consideration. The following words show his attitude: "To the opinions which I have expressed in this House in favor of Protection I adhere. They sent to this House, and if I had relinquished them I should have relinquished my seat also." "It would be an unprofitable talk," writes Barnett Smith, "to unravel the many inconsistencies of Lord Beaconsfield's career; but with regard to this deliverance upon Protection, the curious in such matters may turn back to the records of 1842, when they will discover that at that time he was quite prepared to advocate measures of a Free Trade character. But we must pass on from this important question of the Corn Laws, with the angry controversy to which it gave rise. Sir Robert Peel brought forward his measure, and after lengthened debate in both Houses, it became law, and grain was admitted into English ports under the new tariff."

After all their success in carrying through the important Corn Law Repeal scheme, the ministry of Sir Robert Peel was doomed to fall upon an Irish question. The very day that brought their victory in the passage of the Corn Law Repeal Act in the House of Lords saw the defeat of the ministry in the House of Commons on their bill for the suppression of outrage in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel found himself in a minority of 73 and therefore tendered his resignation. It was accepted and Sir Robert Peel went out of office forever. Lord John Russell was sent for by the Queen, and he succeeded in forming a Whig Ministry.

Mr. Gladstone's return to the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel, as we have seen, cost him his seat in the House of Commons. It was not until the brief session of 1847, that he appeared again in Parliament. The Queen dissolved Parliament in person, July, 23d. The election succeeding turned in many instances upon ecclesiastical questions, and especially upon the Maynooth grant.

It was announced early in 1847 that one of the two members of the House of Commons for the University of Oxford intended to retire at the next general election. Mr. Canning had pronounced the representation of the university as the most coveted prize of public life, and Mr. Gladstone himself confessed that he "desired it with an almost passionate fondness." Mr. Gladstone, as a graduate of Oxford, was looked upon not only by his contemporaries, but by his seniors and those who came after him, with feelings of enthusiastic admiration. The feeling then was reciprocal, and he was proposed for the vacant seat. Sir R.N. Inglis was secure in his seat, and so the contest lay between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Round, who was of the ultra-Protestant and Tory school. The contest excited the keenest interest and was expected on all hands to be very close.

Mr. Gladstone in his address to the electors of hisAlma Materconfessed that in the earlier part of his public life he had been an advocate for the exclusive support of the national religion of the state, but it had been in vain; the time was against him. He said: "I found that scarcely a year passed without the adoption of some fresh measure involving the national recognition and the national support of various forms of religion, and, in particular, that a recent and fresh provision had been made for the propagation from a public chair of Arian or Socinian doctrines. The question remaining for me was whether, aware of the opposition of the English people, I should set down as equal to nothing, in a matter primarily connected not with our own but with their priesthood, the wishes of the people of Ireland; and whether I should avail myself of the popular feeling in regard to the Roman Catholics for the purpose of enforcing against them a system which we had ceased by common consent to enforce against Arians—a system, above all, of which I must say that it never can be conformable to policy, to justice or even to decency, when it has become avowedly partial and one-sided in its application."

This address intensified the determination of those opposed to Mr. Gladstone to defeat him. A great portion of the press was, however, in his favor. Some of the journals that were enthusiastic for Mr. Gladstone were very bitter against Mr. Round. Mr. Gladstone's distinguished talent and industry were lauded, as well as his earnest attachment to the Church of England. He had, however, renounced the exclusiveness of his politico-ecclesiastical principles, and no longer importuned Parliament to ignore all forms of religion but those established by law, or which were exactly coincident with his own belief. "His election," declared one journal, "unlike that of Mr. Round, while it sends an important member to the House of Commons, will certainly be creditable, and may be valuable to the university; and we heartily hope that no negligence or hesitation among his supporters may impede his success." Even outside of church circles the election was regarded with great interest.

The nomination took place July 29th. After the usual ceremony, the voting commenced in convocation-house, which was densely crowded. So great was the pressure of the throng that men fainted and had to be carried out. Mr. Coleridge, afterward Lord Coleridge, was the secretary of Mr. Gladstone's committee. Distinguished men, among them Sir Robert Peel, his colleague in the Cabinet, came from a great distance to "plump" for Mr. Gladstone. The venerable Dr. Routh, then nearly ninety-two years old, came forth from his retirement at Magdalen College to vote for him. Mrs. Gladstone, according to Mr. Hope-Scott, was an indefatigable canvasser for her husband. At the close of the poll the vote stood: Inglis, 1700; Gladstone, 997; Round, 824. Of course Sir Robert Inglis, with his "prehistoric Toryism," stood at the head. To the supporters of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Round must be added 154 who were paired. Mr. Gladstone received a majority of 173 over his ultra-Protestant opponent. The total number of those polled exceeded that registered at any previous election, showing the intense and general interest in the result.

This period of Mr. Gladstone's life has been very properly styled by one of his biographers, as the transition period. "On one side the Conservative Free-trader clings fondly and tenaciously to the Toryism of his youth, on another, he is reaching out toward new realms of Liberal thought and action. He opposes marriage with a deceased wife's sister on theological and social grounds, asserting roundly that such marriage is 'contrary to the law of God, declared for three thousand years and upwards.' He deprecates the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Universities, because it will deter intending benefactors from effecting their munificent intentions. He argues for a second chamber in Australian legislatures, citing, perhaps a little unfortunately, the constitutional example of contemporary France. In all these utterances it is not hard to read the influence of the traditions in which he was reared, or of the ecclesiastical community which he represents in Parliament.

"Yet even in the theological domain a tendency towards Liberalism shows itself. His hatred of Erastianism is evinced by his gallant but unsuccessful attempt to secure for the clergy and laity of each colonial diocese the power of self-government. Amid the indignant protests of his Tory allies, and in opposition to his own previous speech and vote, he vindicates the policy of admitting the Jews to Parliament. He defends the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; he supports the alteration of the parliamentary oath; and, though he will not abet an abstract attack on Church Rates, he contends that their maintainance involves a corresponding duty to provide accommodation in the church for the very poorest of the congregation.

"On the commercial side his Liberalism is rampant. With even fanatical faith he clings to Free Trade as the best guarantee for our national stability amid the crash of the dynasties and constitutions which went down in '48. He thunders against the insidious dangers of reciprocity. He desires, by reforming the laws which govern navigation, to make the ocean, 'that great highway of nations, as free to the ships that traverse its bosom as to the winds that sweep it.'

"And so the three years—1847, 1848, 1849—rolled by, full of stirring events in Europe and in England, in Church and in State, but marked by no special incidents in the life of Mr. Gladstone. For him these years were a period of mental growth, of transition, of development. A change was silently proceeding, which was not completed for twenty years, if, indeed, it has been completed yet. 'There have been,' he wrote in later days to Bishop Wilberforce, 'two great deaths, or transmigrations of spirit, in my political existence—one, very slow, the breaking of ties with my original party.' This was now in progress. The other will be narrated in due course."

One of the features of the general election of 1847 that excited the wildest popular comment was the election of Baron Rothschild for the City of London. There was nothing illegal in the election of a Jew, but he was virtually precluded from taking his seat in the House of Commons, because the law required every member to subscribe not only to the Christian religion, but to the Protestant Episcopal faith. To obviate this difficulty, Lord John Russell, soon after Parliament assembled, offered a resolution affirming the eligibility of Jews to all functions and offices to which Roman Catholics were admissible by law. Sir R.H. Inglis opposed the resolution and Mr. Gladstone, his colleague, supported it.

Mr. Gladstone inquired whether there were any grounds for the disqualification of the Jews which distinguished them from any other classes in the community. They contended for a "Christian Parliament, but the present measure did not make severance between politics and religion, it only amounted to a declaration that there was no necessity for excluding a Jew, as such, from an assembly in which every man felt sure that a vast and overwhelming majority of its members would always be Christian. It was said that by admitting a few Jews they would un-Christianize Parliament; that was true in word, but not in substance." He had no doubt that the majority of the members who composed it would always perform their obligations on the true faith of a Christian. It was too late to say that the measure was un-Christian, and that it would call down the vengeance of heaven. When he opposed the last law of the removal of Jewish disabilities, he foresaw that if he gave the Jew municipal, magisterial and executive functions, we could not refuse him legislative functions any longer. "The Jew was refused entrance into the House because he would then be a maker of the law; but who made the maker of the law? The constituencies; and into these constituencies had been admitted the Jews. Now were the constituencies Christian constituencies? If they were, was it probable that the Parliament would cease to be a Christian Parliament?"

Mr. Gladstone admitted the force of the prayer in Bishop Wilberforce's petition, that in view of this concession measures should be taken to give greater vigor to the Church, and thus operate to the prevention of an organic change in the relations between Church and State. In concluding his defence of Lord John Russell's resolution Mr. Gladstone expressed the opinion that if they admitted Jews into Parliament, prejudice might be awakened for awhile, but the good sense of the people would soon allay it, and members would have the consolation of knowing that in case of difficulty they had yielded to a sense of justice, and by so doing had not disparaged religion or lowered Christianity, but rather had elevated both in all reflecting and well-regulated minds. The logic of this speech could not be controverted, though Mr. Newdegate declared that Mr. Gladstone would never have gained his election for the University of Oxford had his sentiments on the Jewish question been then known. The resolution of Lord John Russell was carried by a large majority, whereupon he announced first a resolution, and then a bill, in accordance with its terms.

The year 1848 was a year of excitement and revolution. All Europe was in a state of agitation, and France by a new revolution presented another one of her national surprises. The news of a revolution in France caused the greatest perturbation throughout England, and disturbances in the capital of the country. Great demonstrations were made at Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross, March 6th, but the meetings assumed more of a burlesque than of a serious character. In Glasgow and other parts of the country there were serious riots. Shops were sacked, and the military was called out to quell the disturbance, which was not effected until the soldiers fired with fatal results upon the rioters. There were uprisings and mob violence also at Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, but they were of a less formidable character. A Chartist meeting was held on Kennington Common, March 13th, but, though the meeting had been looked forward to with great apprehensions by all lovers of law and order, yet it passed off without the serious results anticipated.

Though great preparations were made in view of the demonstration, yet, fortunately it passed off without loss of life. The meeting however had furnished a pretext for the gathering of a lawless mob, although but few were politically concerned in it. It was deemed necessary, to provide against every emergency, so special constables in great numbers were sworn in previous to the meetings, and it is interesting to observe that amongst the citizens who came forward in London to enroll themselves as preservers of the peace of society were William Ewart Gladstone, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Derby, and Prince Louis Napoleon, afterwards Emperor of France.

The people were becoming dissatisfied with the government of the country, particularly with its financial measures. A deficiency of two million pounds appeared, and additional taxation would be necessary owing to the Caffre War. It was therefore proposed to continue the income tax for five years and increase it slightly. Owing to the distress in Ireland it was not proposed to extend the operation of this measure to that country. The property tax was defended on the same principles laid down by Mr. Pitt, and in 1842, by Sir Robert Peel. But this scheme was bitterly opposed and many attributed the depressed condition of the finances to free trade. Sir Robert Peel decided to support the proposed tax for three years. Mr. Disraeli desired the success of Sir Robert Peel's policy, and described himself as a "free-trader, but not a free-booter of the Manchester school;" and he dubbed the blue-book of the Import Duties Committee "the greatest work of imagination that the nineteenth century has produced." He said that the government, by acting upon it, and taking it for a guide, resembled a man smoking a cigar on a barrel of gunpowder.

This epigrammatic speech of Mr. Disraeli brought Mr. Gladstone to his feet. He said, by way of introduction, that he could not hope to sustain the lively interest created by the remarkable speech of his predecessor—a display to which he felt himself unequal—he would pass over the matters of a personal description touched upon by the honorable gentleman, and confine himself to defending the policy which had been assailed. Mr. Gladstone then demonstrated, by a series of elaborate statistics, the complete success of Sir Robert Peel's policy. He also said, that the confidence of the public would be greatly shaken by an adverse vote, and he alluded to the unsettled condition of affairs in the Cabinet. "I am sure," said Mr. Gladstone, "that this House of Commons will prove itself to be worthy of the Parliaments which preceded it, worthy of the Sovereign which it has been called to advise, and worthy of the people which it has been chosen to represent, by sustaining this nation, and enabling it to stand firm in the midst of the convulsions that shake European society; by doing all that pertains to us for the purpose of maintaining social order, the stability of trade, and the means of public employment; and by discharging our consciences, on our own part, under the difficult circumstances of the crisis, in the perfect trust that if we set a good example to the nations—for whose interests we are appointed to consult—they, too, will stand firm as they have in other times of almost desperate emergency; and that through their good sense, their moderation, and their attachment to the institutions of the country, we shall see these institutions still exist, a blessing and a benefit to prosperity, whatever alarms and whatever misfortunes may unfortunately befall other portions of civilized Europe."

"It was fortunate for the future interests of the country," says Dr. Smith, his biographer, "that the proposals of the government were at this juncture supported by a great majority of the House of Commons. In a moment of unreasoning panic there was some danger of the adoption of a reactionary policy—a step that would have lost to the country those blessings which it subsequently enjoyed as the outcome of Free Trade."

May 15, Mr. Labouchere, President of the Board of Trade, proposed a plan for the modification of the navigation laws. Reserving the coasting trade and fisheries of Great Britain and the Colonies, it was proposed "to throw open the whole navigation of the country, of every sort and description." But the Queen claimed the right of putting such restrictions as she saw fit upon the navigation of foreign countries, if those countries did not meet England on equal terms; and that each colony should be allowed to throw open its coasting trade to foreign countries. Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy speech, examining closely the operation of existing laws, and showing the necessity for their repeal. With regard to the power claimed by the Queen in Council, with a view to enforcing reciprocity, Mr. Gladstone said, "I confess it appears to me there is a great objection to conferring such a power as that which is proposed to be given to the Queen in Council." He contended also for a gradual change in the laws. The policy of excluding the coasting trade from the measure he also condemned. "It would have been much more frank to have offered to admit the Americans to our coasting trade if they would admit us to theirs." If England and America concurred in setting an example to the world, he hoped we should "live to see the ocean, that great highway of nations, as free to the ships that traverse its bosom as the winds that sweep it. England would then have achieved another triumph, and have made another powerful contribution to the prosperity of mankind." The bill was postponed until the following year.

During the session of 1848 Mr. Gladstone spoke upon the proposed grant of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company; and upon the Sugar Duties Bill; but the most important speech delivered by him at that time was upon a measure to legalize diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. It was objected that thus recognizing the spiritual governor of Rome and of all the Roman Catholic population of the world, would neither conciliate the affections of the Protestants, nor satisfy the wishes of the Roman Catholics, who had denounced it strongly to the Pope.

Mr. Gladstone took broad and comprehensive views of the question. To some features of the Bill he was opposed, but was in favor of its principle. It was unfortunate as to time, owing to the condition of affairs in Italy. England must take one of two positions. If she declined political communication with the See of Rome, she had no right to complain of any steps which the Pope might take with respect to the administration of his own ecclesiastical affairs; but an act so directly in contravention of the laws of the land as the partitioning of the country into archbishoprics and bishoprics was a most unfortunate proceeding; wrong because it was generally and justly offensive to the feelings of the people of England, and totally unnecessary, as he believed, for Roman Catholic purposes, but also because it ill assorted with the grounds on which the Parliament was invited by the present bill to establish definite relations with the See of Rome. For one hundred years after the Reformation the Pope was actually in arms for the purpose of recovering by force his lost dominions in this country. It was only natural, therefore, that we should have prohibited relations with the See of Rome when it attacked the title of the Sovereign of these realms, but there was no such reason for continuing the prohibition at the present moment.

Those who have studied Mr. Gladstone's career carefully attest that this speech would have been impossible from his lips ten years before the time it was delivered; and early in the next session of Parliament he delivered another speech which furnishes us an example of the growth of his liberal views in matters of conscience. Lord John Russell proposes further relief upon the matter of oaths to be taken by members of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone said that the civil political claims of the Jew should not be barred, and he deprecated the tendency to degenerate formalism in oaths, but he was glad that the words, "on the true faith of a Christian" in respect to all Christian members of the House of Commons had been retained. He also, later in the session, favored correcting the enormous evils growing out of the Church rate system, with taxation of all the further support of the State Church. He did not believe in imposing an uncompensated burden upon any man. Every man contributing his quota was entitled to demand a free place in the house of his Maker. "But the centre and best parts of the Church were occupied by pews exclusively for the middle classes, while the laboring classes were jealously excluded from almost every part of light and hearing in the Churches, and were treated in a manner most painful to reflect upon."

When Mr. Labouchere re-introduced the ministerial bill for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, in the session of 1849, Mr. Gladstone supported generally the measure in a full and exhaustive speech. He favored the bill with certain modifications. The Marquis of Granby expressed fears at the consequences of the change proposed, and Mr. Gladstone answered him: "The noble Marquis," he observed, "desired to expel the vapours and exhalations that had been raised with regard to the principle of political economy, and which vapours and exhalations I find for the most part in the fears with which those changes are regarded. The noble Marquis consequently hoped that the Trojan horse would not be allowed to come within the walls of Parliament. But however applicable the figures may be to other plans, it does not, I submit, apply to the mode of proceeding I venture to recommend to the House, because we follow the precedent of what Mr. Huskisson did before us. Therefore more than one moiety of the Trojan horse has already got within the citadel—it has been there for twenty-five years, and yet what has proceeded from its bowels has only tended to augment the rate of increase in the progress of your shipping. Therefore, let us not be alarmed by vague and dreamy ratiocinations of evil, which had never been wanting on any occasion, and which never will be wanting so long as this is a free State, wherein every man can find full vent and scope for the expression, not only of his principles, but of his prejudices and his fears. Let us not be deterred by those apprehensions from giving a calm and serious examination to this question, connected as it is with the welfare of our country. Let us follow steadily the light of experience, and be convinced that He who preserved us during the past will also be sufficient to sustain us during all the dangers of the future."

Mr. Disraeli seized the opportunity to make a caustic speech, in which he fiercely attacked both Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Gladstone, and alluded sarcastically to their "great sacrifices," and said that the latter was about to give up that good development of the principle of reciprocity which the House had waited for with so much suspense. Mr. Gladstone replied, "I am perfectly satisfied to bear his sarcasm, good humoured and brilliant as it is, while I can appeal to his judgment as to whether the step I have taken was unbecoming in one who conscientiously differs with him on the freedom of trade, and has endeavoured to realize it; because, so far from its being the cause of the distress of the country, it has been, under the mercy of God, the most signal and effectual means of mitigating this distress, and accelerating the dawn of the day of returning prosperity."

Mr. Gladstone spoke also during the session upon the subject of Colonial Reform which came before the House on several occasions, and especially in connection with riots in Canada; and on a bill for the removal of legal restrictions against marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He opposed the latter measure upon theological, social, and moral grounds, and begged the House to repeat the almost entire sentiment of the country respecting the bill. To do otherwise would be to inflict upon the Church the misfortune of having anarchy introduced among its ministers. He hoped they would do all that in them lay to maintain the strictness of the obligations of marriage, and the purity of the hallowed sphere of domestic life. The bill was rejected.

In the Parliamentary session of 1850 one of the chief topics of discussion was the great depression of the agricultural interests of the country. The country was at peace, the revenues were in a good condition, foreign trade had increased, but the farmers still made loud complaints of the disastrous condition, which they attributed to free-trade measures, which they contended had affected the whole of the agricultural interests. Consequently, February 19th, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole House to consider such a revision of the Poor Laws of the United Kingdom as might mitigate the distress of the agricultural classes. Some thought that this was a movement against free-trade, but Mr. Gladstone courted the fullest investigation, and seeing no danger in the motion, voted for it. However, the motion of Mr. Disraeli was lost.

Mr. Gladstone likewise favored the extension of the benefits of Constitutional government to certain of the colonies,—for example as set forth in the Australian Colonies Government Bill; and twice during the session he addressed the House on questions connected with slavery, and upon motion of Mr. Haywood for an inquiry into the state of the English and Irish universities, and the government unexpectedly gave their consent to the issuing of a Royal Commission for the purpose. Mr. Gladstone said that any person who might be deliberating with himself whether he would devote a portion of his substance for prosecuting the objects of learning, civilization and religion, would be checked by the prospect that at any given time, and under any given circumstances, a minister, who was the creature of a political majority, might institute a state inquiry into the mode in which the funds he might devise were administered. It was not wise to discourage eleemosynary establishments. It would be better for the Crown to see what could be done to improve the colleges by administering existing laws.

In reviewing the past ten years we exclaim, truly has the period from 1841 to 1850, in the political life of Mr. Gladstone, been called a memorable decade.

It was in the year 1850, as we have seen, that the Gladstones were plunged into domestic sorrow by the death of their little daughter, Catharine Jessy; and it was this same year that brought to Mr. Gladstone another grief from a very different source. This second bereavement was caused by the withdrawal of two of his oldest and most intimate friends, the Archdeacon of Chichester and Mr. J.R. Hope, from the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and their union with the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Hope, who became Hope-Scott on succeeding to the estate of Abbotsford, was the gentleman who helped Mr. Gladstone in getting through the press his book on Church and State, revising, correcting and reading proof. The Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal Manning, had, from his undergraduate days, exercised a powerful influence over his contemporaries. He was gifted with maturity of intellect and character, had great shrewdness, much tenacity of will, a cogent, attractive style, combined with an impressive air of authority, to which the natural advantages of person and bearing added force. Besides having these qualifications for leadership, he had fervid devotion, enlarged acquaintance with life and men, and an "unequalled gift of administration;" though a priest, he was essentially a statesman, and had at one time contemplated a political career. He was Mr. Gladstone's most trusted counsellor and most intimate friend.

The cause, or rather occasion for these secessions from the Church of England to the Church of Rome, is thus related: "An Evangelical clergyman, the Rev. G.C. Gorham, had been presented to a living in the diocese of Exeter; and that truly formidable prelate, Bishop Phillpotts, refused to institute him, alleging that he held heterodox views on the subject of Holy Baptism. After complicated litigation, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided, on March 8, 1850, that the doctrine held by the incriminated clergyman was not such as to bar him from preferment in the Church of England. This decision naturally created great commotion in the Church. Men's minds were rudely shaken. The orthodoxy of the Church of England seemed to be jeopardized, and the supremacy of the Privy Council was in a matter touching religious doctrine felt to be an intolerable burden."

Back to Index Next