CHAPTER XVI

388 (83K)

CHAPTER XVITHE EASTERN QUESTION

Illus0568 (128K)

During his retirement from the leadership of the Liberal Party, Mr. Gladstone employed his great abilities in theological controversy and literary productions. It was during this period that he collected his miscellaneous writings, entitled "Gleanings from Past Years." A little more than a year had elapsed when he again entered the political arena. "He threw aside polemics and criticisms, he forgot for awhile Homer and the Pope," and "rushed from his library at Hawarden, forgetting alike ancient Greece and modern Rome," as he flung himself with impassioned energy and youthful vigor into a new crusade against Turkey. A quarter of a century before he had aroused all Europe with the story of the Neapolitan barbarities, and now again his keen sense of justice and strong, humanitarian sympathies impel him with righteous indignation to the eloquent defence of another oppressed people, and the denunciation of their wrongs. It was the Eastern Question that at once brought back the Liberal leader into the domain of politics. "The spirit of the war-horse could not be quenched, and the country thrilled with his fiery condemnation of the Bulgarian massacres." His activity was phenomenal. "He made the most impassioned speeches, often in the open air; he published pamphlets which rushed into incredible circulations; he poured letter after letter into the newspapers; he darkened the sky with controversial postcards, and, as soon as Parliament met in February, 1877, he was ready with all his unequalled resources of eloquence, argumentation and inconvenient enquiry, to drive home his great indictment against the Turkish government and its champion, Mr. Disraeli, who had now become Lord Beaconsfield."

"The reason of all this passion is not difficult to discover. Mr. Gladstone is a Christian; and in the Turk he saw the great anti-Christian power where it ought not, in the fairest provinces of Christendom, and stained with the record of odious cruelty practised through long centuries on its defenceless subjects who were worshippers of Jesus Christ."

Turkish oppression, which had for a long time existed in its worst forms, resulted in an insurrection against Turkey and Herzegovina, July 1, 1875. This, however, was only the beginning, for others suffering under Ottoman oppression rebelled, and all Europe was involved.

In January, 1876, the Herzegovinians gained a victory over the Turkish troops. The European powers then suggested a settlement favorable to the insurgents, which was accepted by the Sultan. But early in May another insurrection broke out in several Bulgarian villages, which was quickly followed by the most horrible atrocities. A conference on the Eastern question was held at Berlin in May, and soon afterward the English ministers announced in Parliament that they were unable to assent to the terms agreed upon at the Berlin Conference. This announcement caused much surprise and comment in England. Public feeling already aroused, was not allayed when it became known that the British fleet in the Mediterranean had been ordered to Besiki Bay, seemingly for the protection of the Turkish Empire.

June 28th the Bulgarian insurrection was suppressed. On the 10th of July the Sultan, Abdul Aziz, was deposed and was succeeded by Murad V, who declared that he desired to guarantee liberty to all. Mr. Disraeli stated, in the House of Commons, that the steps taken by the Ministry would lead to permanent peace. But within two weeks theDaily Newspublished a letter from Constantinople detailing the massacre in Bulgaria by the Turks, which moved all England with indignation. Innocent men, women and children had been slaughtered by the thousands; at least sixty villages had been utterly destroyed; the most revolting scenes of violence had been enacted; and a district once the most fertile in the Empire had been laid waste and completely ruined. Forty girls were shut up in a straw loft and burnt, and outrages of the most fearful description were committed upon hundreds of defenceless captives.

Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, grew "jocular upon the cruelties and sufferings almost unparalleled in the world's history," and expressed his belief that the outrages committed by the Turkish troops had been exaggerated, and sneered at the rumor as "coffee-house babble;" while as to the torture of the impalement, which had caused universal anger and disgust, that an Oriental people have their way of executing malefactors, and generally terminated their connection with culprits in an expeditious manner.

In the official report presented to Parliament by Mr. W. Baring, the reported outrages in Bulgaria were corroborated. No fewer than 12,000 persons had perished in the sandjak of Philippopolis! The most fearful tragedy, however, was at Batak, where over 1000 people took refuge in the church and churchyard. The Bashi-Bazouks fired through the windows, and, getting upon the roof, tore off the tiles and threw burning pieces of wood and rags dipped in petroleum among the mass of unhappy human beings inside. At last the door was forced in and the massacre was completed. The inside of the church was then burnt, and hardly one escaped. "The massacre at Batak was the most heinous crime which stained the history of the present century;" and for this exploit the Turkish Commander, Achmet Agha, had bestowed on him the order of the Medjidie. Sir Henry Elliot, the English Ambassador at Constantinople, was directed to lay these facts before the Sultan and to demand the punishment of the offenders. The demand, however, was never enforced.

Prince Milan issued a proclamation to his people, declaring that, while professing neutrality, the Sultan had continued to send military forces of savage hordes to the Servian frontier. In June, Prince Milan left Belgrade and joined his army on the frontier. The Montenegrins declared war on Turkey and joined forces with Servia. July 6th the Servians were defeated. Thus was Turkey plunged into war with her Christian provinces, and all through her own misrule in peace and her barbarities in war.

Mr. Disraeli in a speech made in the House of Commons, August 11th, explained that he had not denied the existence of the "Bulgarian. Atrocities," but he had no official knowledge of them. He affirmed that Great Britain was not responsible for what occurred in Turkey, nor were the Turks the specialprotégésof England. He announced that the special duty of the Government at that moment was to preserve the British Empire, and that they would never consent to any step that would hazard the existence of that empire, This speech, which was distinguished by much of his old brilliancy and power, was his last speech in the House. On the morning after this speech it was publicly announced that Mr. Disraeli would immediately be elevated to the peerage under the title of the Earl of Beaconsfield.

In September, 1876, deeming it high time that the indignant voice of England should be heard in demonstration of the infamous deeds practiced by the Turk, Mr. Gladstone issued his pamphlet, entitled "Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East." It had an enormous circulation. He called for a stop to be put to the anarchy, the misrule and the bloodshed in Bulgaria, and demanded that the Ottoman rule should be excluded, not only from Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also from Bulgaria. The Turks must clear out, "bag and baggage," from the provinces they have desolated and profaned. The pamphlet, and the latter expression especially, produced a great sensation.

The pamphlet "brought home to the English people the idea that for these horrors which were going on, they too, as non-interfering allies of Turkey, were in part responsible." Soon after this Mr. Gladstone addressed a large concourse of his constituents at Blackheath, in which he severely arraigned the Government. This address was one of the most impassioned and eloquent of Mr. Gladstone's political orations, and at some points the people were literally carried away with their feelings.

November 1st, Turkey was forced by Russia to agree to an armistice of eight weeks. On the 2d the Russian Emperor pledged his word to the English Ambassador that he had no intention of acquiring Constantinople; that if compelled to occupy Bulgaria, it would be only until the safety of the Christian inhabitants be secured; and urged the Ambassador to remove the distrust of Russia prevailing in England. Yet, in the face of all these assurances, Lord Beaconsfield delivered a war-like speech, at the banquet at Guildhall, November 9th. Informed of this speech the Czar declared that if the Porte did not accede to his demands, Russia would then act independently.

On the 8th of December there was a great conference at St. James' Hall, London, to discuss the Eastern question. The Duke of Westminster presided at the afternoon meeting. At the evening gathering Lord Shaftesbury occupied the chair. Mr. E. Freeman said: "Perish the interests of England, perish our dominion in India, sooner than we should strike one blow or speak one word on behalf of the wrong against the right." The chief interest of the occasion centered in the speech of Mr. Gladstone who was received with unbounded applause. He declared that there had been no change in public sentiment in England on the question; that the promoters of that meeting had no desire to embarrass the Government; that the power and influence of England had been employed to effect results at variance with the convictions of the country; that Lord Beaconsfield had only recently appeared anxious; and that England had duties towards the Christian subjects of Turkey. Mr. Gladstone continued that he hoped that the instructions given to Lord Salisbury, who had been sent for conference to Constantinople, were not in accordance with the speech at Guildhall, but that he would be left to his own clear insight and generous impulses; that the conference would insist upon the independence of the provinces, or at least would insure them against arbitrary injustice and oppression, and that the work indicated was not merely a worthy deed but an absolute duty.

Mr. Gladstone, during the recess of Parliament, delivered speeches upon the burning question of the day all over England. At Hawarden he pleaded that it was the wretched Turkish system that was at fault, and not the Turks themselves, and hoped for a remedy. To the electors of Frome he spoke of the tremendous responsibility of the Ministers. In a speech at the Taunton Railway Station, he said, in reference to the injunction for himself and friends to mind their own business, that the Eastern question was their own business. And when the Constantinople Conference failed he spoke of this "great transaction and woeful failure," and laid all the blame of failure on the Ministry. As to the treaties of 1856 being in force, his opinion was, that Turkey had entirely broken those treaties and trampled them under foot.

January 20, 1877, the conference closed. Parliament met February 8, 1877, and the conflict was transferred from the country to that narrower arena. In the House of Lords the Duke of Argyle delivered a powerful speech, to which the Premier, Disraeli, replied, that he believed that any interference directed to the alleviation of the sufferings of the Turkish Christians would only make their sufferings worse. He asked for calm, sagacious and statesmanlike consideration of the whole subject, never forgetting the great interests of England, if it was to have any solution at all.

Mr. Gladstone, upon his appearance in the House, was greeted as a Daniel come to judgment. He was taken to task by Mr. Chaplin, who complained that Mr. Gladstone and others of the Liberal party "had endeavored to regulate the foreign policy of the country by pamphlets, by speeches at public meetings, and by a so-called National Conference, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Executive Government," and intimated that Mr. Gladstone was afraid to meet the House in debate upon the question. Mr. Gladstone, rebuking Mr. Chaplain, said that it was the first time in a public career extending over nearly half a century, he had been accused of a disinclination to meet his opponents in a fair fight, and promised him that neither he nor his friends would have reason to complain of his reticence. Tories and Liberals knew he had not shrunk from meeting the public on this question. He was glad that there was a tremendous feeling abroad upon this Eastern question. He had been told that by the pamphlet he wrote and the speech he delivered, he had done all this mischief, and agitated Europe and the world; but if that were the case why did not the honorable gentleman, by writing another pamphlet, and delivering another speech, put the whole thing right? If he (the speaker) had done anything, it was only in the same way that a man applies a match to an enormous mass of fuel already prepared. Mr. Gladstone closed with the following words: "We have, I think, the most solemn and the greatest question to determine that has come before Parliament in my time.... In the original entrance of the Turks into Europe, it may be said to have been a turning point in human history. To a great extent it continues to be the cardinal question, the question which casts into the shade every other question."

April 24, 1877, war was declared by Russia against Turkey. The Czar issued a manifesto, assigning as reasons for this war the refusal of guarantee by the Porte for the proposed reforms, the failure of the Conference and the rejection of the Proteol signed on the previous 31st of March. England, France and Italy proclaimed their neutrality. Mr. Gladstone initiated a great debate in the House of Commons, May 7th, which lasted five days. He presented a series of resolutions expressing grave dissatisfaction with the policy of Turkey, and declared that she had forfeited all claim to support, moral and material. Mr. Gladstone asked whether, with regard to the great battle of freedom against oppression then going on, "we in England could lay our hands upon our hearts, and in the face of God and man, say, 'We have well and sufficiently performed our part?'"

These resolutions were of course hostile to the Government, and many Liberals refused to vote for them, because they pledged England to a policy of force in connection with Russia. Besides the Government gave assurances to avail themselves of any opportunity of interposing their good offices. The resolutions consequently were lost. Mr. Gladstone was not quite the leader of his party again.

Shortly after this debate, and before the close of the session, Mr. Gladstone addressed a large meeting at Birmingham on the Eastern question and the present condition of the Liberal party. Later on he visited Ireland. On his return he addressed, by their request, the people gathered to receive him. He expressed his belief that Turkey would have yielded to the concerted action of Europe; noticed the change in the tone of the ministry from the omission in the Premier's speech of the phrase, "the independence of Turkey;" protested strongly against England being dragged into war, and warmly eulogized the non-conformists for the consistency and unanimity with which they had insisted on justice to the Eastern Christians. Political feeling entered into everything at this time, but as an evidence of the hold Mr. Gladstone retained in the Scottish heart, he was in November elected Lord Rector of Glasgow University by a large majority. Lord Beaconsfield was the retiring Lord Rector, and the Conservatives nominated Sir S. Northcote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Mr. Gladstone's opponent.

The war in the East went disastrously for the Ottoman arms. January 23, 1878, the Porte agreed to accept the terms of peace submitted by the Grand Duke Nicholas.

Mr. Gladstone was invited January 30, 1878, to attend a meeting of undergraduates at Oxford, held to celebrate the formation of a Liberal Palmerston Club. He strongly condemned the sending of the British fleet into the Dardanelles as a breach of European law; and confessed that he had been an agitator for the past eighteen months, day and night, to counteract what he believed to be the evil purposes of Lord Beaconsfield.

In February the House of Commons passed a vote of credit, but on the 3d of March a treaty of peace was signed between Turkey and Russia, at Sanstefano, the terms of which in part were: Turkey to pay a large war indemnity; Servia and Montenegro to be independent and to receive accessions of territory; Bulgaria to be formed into a principality with greatly extended boundaries, and to be governed by a prince elected by the inhabitants; the navigation of the Straits was declared free for merchant vessels, both in times of peace and war; Russian troops to occupy Bulgaria for two years; Batoum, Ardahan, Kars and Bayazid, with their territories, to be ceded to Russia, and Turkey to pay an indemnity to Roumania. The terms of the treaty were regarded oppressive to Turkey by the Beaconsfield Ministry, who proposed that the whole treaty be submitted to a congress at Berlin, to meet in June, 1878. The treaty was approved after some modifications. The English Plenipotentiaries were the Earl of Beaconsfield and Marquis of Salisbury, who, for their share in the treaty, received a popular ovation and rewards from the Queen. Thus was Turkey humiliated and Russia benefited, having obtained her demands. To the people assembled Lord Beaconsfield said from the window of the Foreign Office: "Lord Salisbury and myself have brought you back peace, but a peace, I hope with honor, which may satisfy our Sovereign and tend to the welfare of the country." But at this very time the envoy of Russia, whom the ministry thought to be circumvented, was entering the Afghan capital; so that, although there was peace on the Bosphorus, as a direct result of the Eastern policy, there was war in Afghanistan. The Conservatives were very ready for awhile to use as a watchword the phrase, "Peace and Honor," but before long it became the occasion of ridicule.

Parliament was called upon to appropriate £8,000,000 to defray the cost of the Afghan and Zulu wars. When Mr. Gladstone's government retired from office, there was a surplus of over £3,000,000, but the budgets of 1878 and 1879 both showed large deficits. The people had applauded the "imperial policy," "the jingoism" of Lord Beaconsfield's administration during the past two or three years, but they were not so appreciative when they found it so costly a policy to themselves. The depression in business also had its effect upon the country. The unpopularity of the Liberal government, which culminated in its defeat in 1873, was now, in 1879, being shifted to their Conservative opponents, whose term of office was fast drawing to a close.

"Mr. Gladstone's resolute and splendid hostility to Lord Beaconsfield's whole system of foreign policy restored him to his paramount place among English politicians. For four years—from 1876 to 1880—he sustained the high and holy strife with an enthusiasm, a versatility, a courage and a resourcefulness which raised the enthusiasm of his followers to the highest pitch, and filled his guilty and baffled antagonists with a rage which went near to frenzy. By frustrating Lord Beaconsfield's design of going to war on behalf of Turkey, he saved England from the indelible disgrace of a second and more gratuitous Crimea. But it was not only in Eastern Europe that his saving influence was felt. In Africa and India, and wherever British honor was involved, he was the resolute and unsparing enemy of that odious system of bluster and swagger and might against right, on which Lord Beaconsfield and his colleagues bestowed the tawdry nickname of Imperialism."

404 (28K)

CHAPTER XVIIMIDLOTHIAN AND THE SECOND PREMIERSHIP

The leadership of the Liberal party had, upon the retirement of Mr. Gladstone, been turned over to Lord Hartington. His sympathies were upon the right side on the Eastern question, but he was a calm, slow-moving man. At the proper time he would have taken the right measures in Parliament, but the temper of the Liberal party and of the people demanded present action and emphatic speech, then Mr. Gladstone came to the rescue, and Lord Hartington found himself pushed aside. Mr. Gladstone was again in fact the leader of the Liberal party, whose standard he had carried aloft during those stirring times when the Eastern question was the all-absorbing topic of debate in Parliament and among the people of the land. The foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield in 1878 and 1879 found a sleepless critic in Mr. Gladstone.

The day after the Parliament of 1878 had adjourned for the Easter recess, it was announced that the Ministry had ordered the Indian Government to dispatch 7000 native troops to the Island of Malta. The order occasioned much discussion—political, legal, and constitutional. It was warmly debated. It was thought that Lord Beaconsfield had transcended his powers and done what could be done only by a vote of Parliament. In the House of Commons Mr. Gladstone condemned the proceedings as unconstitutional, and pointed out the dangers of the Ministerial policy. Lord Beaconsfield received what he calculated upon—the support of the House. For a member to differ from his policy was almost to incur the imputation of disloyalty to Crown and country. Indeed, Mr. Gladstone was seriously accused of treason by a member of the House for an article in theNineteenth Century.

Mr. Gladstone undauntedly continued the contest. He addressed a meeting of Liberals in the Drill Hall, Bermondsey, July 20th, in which he said that the Dissolution of Parliament could not long be postponed, and urged the union and organization of all Liberals, and prompt measures to secure such representation as the Liberals deserved in the coming Parliament. Speaking of the Anglo-Turkish treaty, he pointed out the serious obligations which devolved upon England under it. He added, regarding the Turkish Convention, that, possibly it was necessary to sustain the credit of the country, but whether that credit should be sustained at such a price remained for the people to determine at the polls. He rejoiced that these most unwise, extravagant, unwarrantable, unconstitutional and dangerous proceedings had not been the work of the Liberal party, but he was grieved to think that any party should be found in England to perform such transactions.

A great debate arose in the House of Commons, extending over the whole range of the Eastern question: The Treaty of Berlin, the Anglo-Turkish Convention, the acquisition of Cyprus, the claims of Greece, etc. It was begun by the Marquis of Hartington, who offered a resolution regretting the grave responsibilities the Ministry had assumed for England with no means of securing their fulfillment, and without the previous knowledge of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone's speech during this debate is described as "a long and eloquent address, unsurpassable for its comprehensive grasp of the subject, its lucidity, point, and the high tone which animated it throughout." Mr. Gladstone denied that his strictures upon the Government in a speech made out of Parliament could be construed as Lord Beaconsfield had taken them as a personal attack and provocation. If criticism of this kind is prohibited the doors of the House might as well be shut. He observed that, "Liberty of speech is the liberty which secures all other liberties, and the abridgment of which would render all other liberties vain and useless possessions." In discussing the Congress at Berlin, Mr. Gladstone said, that he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the Sclavs, looking to Russia had been freed, while the Greeks, looking to England, remained with all their aspirations unsatisfied; that Russia had secured much territory and large indemnity, with the sanction of Europe; that the English Plenipotentiaries at the Congress, Lord Salisbury and Lord Beaconsfield, as a general rule, took the side of servitude, and that opposed to freedom.

With regard to the English responsibilities in Asiatic Turkey put upon England at the Convention, he called them an "unheard of," and "mad-undertaking," accomplished "in the dark," by the present Ministry. Dealing with the treaty-making power of the country, he claimed that it rested with Parliament in conjunction with the Executive. The strength and the eloquence were on the side of the opposition, but the votes were for the Government. The resolutions of Lord Hartington were defeated, and the "imperial policy" of the Ministry was sustained. TheSpectatorsaid, that, "Reason, prudence, and patriotism have hardly ever in our times been voted down with so little show of argument, and even of plausible suggestion."

The next step taken by the Ministry was to undertake war with Afghanistan, in hopes of checking the advances of Russia in that direction and of redressing grievances. England accomplished her purpose in part, but greatly suffered for her exploit. Mr. Gladstone could not remain quiet under the "adventurous policy" of the Premier. He condemned the ministerial policy which had made the Queen an Empress, then manipulated the prerogative in a manner wholly unexampled in this age, and employed it in inaugurating policies about which neither the nation nor the Parliament had ever been consulted. But arguments were of no avail. The Conservative majority in Parliament had imbibed the idea that the honor of England had to be protected. Some thought it had never been assailed, but Lord Beaconsfield declared it was in peril, and men and money were voted to defend it. "So the order was given for distant peoples to be attacked, English blood to be spilled, the burdens of the people, already too heavy, to be swollen, and the future liabilities of this country to be enormously increased."

In November, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Lord Beaconsfield, speaking of Eastern affairs, said that the Government was not afraid of any invasion of India by its northwestern frontier; but the frontier was "haphazard and not a scientific one," and the Government wanted a satisfactory frontier. Mr. Gladstone, in a letter to the Bedford Liberal Association, asked: "What right have we to annex by war, or to menace the territory of our neighbors, in order to make 'scientific' a frontier which is already safe?"

In the autumn of 1879 Mr. Gladstone, having resolved to retire from the representation of Greenwich at the next election, paid a farewell visit to his constituents. At a luncheon given by the Liberal Association he dwelt upon the necessity of a Liberal union. The Liberals had, owing to their dissensions, given twenty-six votes to their opponents in 1874, while the Government had been carried on for years by a Conservative majority of less than twenty-six, showing the importance of organization. At night Mr. Gladstone attended a great public meeting in the Plumstead Skating Rink. On his entrance the whole audience rose and cheered for several minutes. An address was presented, expressing regret at his retirement, and the pride they would ever feel at having been associated with his name and fame. Mr. Gladstone alluded to Lord Beaconsfield's phrase respecting "harassed interests," and said he knew of only one harassed interest, and that was the British nation. He protested against the words "personal government" being taken to imply that the Sovereign desired to depart from the traditions of the constitution, yet he charged the advisers of the Crown with having invidiously begun a system intended to narrow the liberties of the people of England and to reduce Parliament to the condition of the French Parliaments before the great Revolution.

Illus0570 (93K)

Mr. Gladstone threw the whole responsibility of the Afghan war on the Ministry, and maintaining that England had departed from the customs of the forefathers, concluded as follows: "It is written in the eternal laws of the universe of God that sin shall be followed by suffering. An unjust war is a tremendous sin. The question which you have to consider is whether this war is just or unjust. So far as I am able to collect the evidence, it is unjust."

In December, 1878, the following resolution was offered in the House of Commons: "That this House disapproves the conduct of her Majesty's Government, which has resulted in the war with Afghanistan." Mr. Gladstone strongly condemned the war with Afghanistan and the irritating policy towards the Ameer, and concluded his address with the following eloquent responses to the historical and moral aspects of the Afghan difficulty: "You have made this war in concealment from Parliament, in reversal of the policy of every Indian and Home Government that has existed for the last twenty-five years, in contempt of the supplication of the Ameer and in defiance of the advice of your own agent, and all for the sake of obtaining a scientific frontier." This powerful speech greatly impressed, for the moment, both parties in the House, but the vote of censure was defeated, and the policy of the administration was endorsed. During the debate Mr. Latham made a witty comparison. He said that the Cabinet reminded him of the gentleman, who seeing his horses run away, and being assured by the coachman that they must drive into something, replied, "Then smash into something cheap!"

The Ministry presented a motion that the revenues of India should be applied for the purposes of the war. Mr. Gladstone observed that it was the people of England who had had all the glory and all the advantage which resulted from the destruction of the late administration, and the accession of the present Cabinet; and hence it was the people who must measure theprosand thecons, and who must be content, after having reaped such innumerable benefits, to encounter the disadvantage of meeting charges which undoubtedly the existing government would leave behind it as a legacy to posterity. England gained her end in the humiliation of Russia, but there were those who felt that the result of the English policy would further the advance of Russia in Europe, and that force would never make friends of the Afghans.

In the sessions of 1879 the Greek question came up in the House of Commons on a motion, "That, in the opinion of this House, tranquillity in the East demands that satisfaction be given to the just claims of Greece, and no satisfaction can be considered adequate that does not ensure execution of the recommendations embodied in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress." Mr. Gladstone hoped that even in the present House there would be found those who would encourage the first legitimate aspirations of the Hellenic races after freedom. The government had given pledges to advance the claims of Greece that had not been redeemed at Berlin. Not one of the European powers was now averse to the claims of the Greek kingdom, whose successful pleadings depended wholly upon England for favorable answer. But the government objected, and the motion was rejected. In July, Sir Charles Dilke called the attention of the House to the obligations of Turkey under the Treaty of Berlin, when Mr. Gladstone again earnestly enforced the claims of "Greece, weak as she may be, is yet strong in the principles in which she rests."

December 29, 1879, Mr. Gladstone attained the seventieth year of his age. His friends in Liverpool, and the Greenwich Liberal Association presented him with congratulatory addresses. The journals paid him warm tributes for his long and eminent public services. But few thought that the veteran that had so successfully gone through one electoral campaign was destined in a few months to pass through another, still more remarkable, and yet be fresh for new triumphs. In the autumn of 1879 Mr. Gladstone resolved upon a very important, and as his enemies thought, a hopeless step. He had retired from the representation of Greenwich, and he now boldly decided to contest the election for Midlothian, the county of Edinburgh. He consequently proceeded to Scotland, in November, where such an ovation was given him as has never been accorded to any man in modern times. During the period of three weeks he addressed meetings numbering seventy-five thousand people, while a quarter of a million of people, with every exhibition of good-will and admiration, took part in some way in the demonstration in his honor. In this canvass of delivering political speeches he performed an oratorical and intellectual feat unparalleled in the history of any statesman who had attained his seventieth year. Mr. Gladstone addressed large concourses of people. When he reached Edinburgh, "his progress was as the progress of a nation's guest, or a king returning to his own again."

Midlothian, the scene of Mr. Gladstone's astonishing exertions, was one of the Conservative strongholds, under the dominent influence of the Duke of Buccleuch, whose son, Lord Dalkeith, Mr. Gladstone opposed in contesting for the representation in Parliament. Mr. Gladstone said: "Being a man of Scotch blood, I am very much attached to Scotland, and like even the Scottish accent," and he afterwards said, "and Scotland showed herself equally proud of her son." He spoke at Edinburgh, November 26th, and on the following day at Dalkeith, in the very heart of the Duke of Buccleuch's own property to an audience of three thousand people, mostly agriculturists. At Edinburgh he met nearly five thousand persons at the Corn Exchange, representing more than one hundred Scottish Liberal Associations. In the Waverley Market Mr. Gladstone addressed more than twenty thousand people, one of the largest congregations ever assembled in-doors in Scotland, and met with a reception which for enthusiasm was in keeping with the vastness of the audience. December 5th, at Glasgow, he delivered his address as Lord Rector to the students of the University, and in the evening addressed an immense audience of nearly six thousand in St. Andrew's Hall. He was most enthusiastically received, and he dwelt chiefly on Cyprus, the Suez Canal, India, and Afghanistan. "We had Afghanistan ruined," he urged, "India not advanced, but thrown back in government, subjected to heavy and unjust charges, subjected to what might well be termed, in comparison with the mild government of former years, a system of oppression; and with all this we had at home the law broken and the rights of Parliament invaded."

On the 8th of March, 1880, the immediate dissolution of Parliament was announced in both Houses of Parliament, and the news created intense political excitement and activity throughout the land. In his manifesto, in the shape of a letter to the Duke of Marlborough, the Prime Minister referred to the attempt made to sever the constitutional tie between Great Britain and Ireland, and said: "It is to be hoped that all men of light and leading will resist this destructive doctrine. There are some who challenge the expediency of the Imperial character of this realm. Having attempted and failed to enfeeble our colonies by their policy of decomposition, they may now perhaps recognize in the disintegration of the United Kingdom a mode which will not only accomplish, but precipitate, that purpose. Peace rests on the presence, not to say the ascendency, of England in the councils of Europe."

Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington issued their counter-manifestoes. Mr. Gladstone repudiated Lord Beaconsfield's dark allusion to the repeal of the union and the abandonment of the colonies, characterizing them as base insinuations, the real purpose of which was to hide from view the policy pursued by the Ministry, and its effect upon the condition of the country; and said that public distress had been aggravated by continual shocks from neglected legislation at home, "while abroad they had strained the prerogative by gross misuse, had weakened the Empire by needless wars, and dishonored it in the eyes of Europe by their clandestine acquisition of the Island of Cyprus."

Mr. Gladstone began the electoral campaign with a speech at Marylebone on the 10th of March, in which he announced Lord Derby's secession from the Conservative to the Liberal party; and then he left London to enter upon his second Midlothian campaign. At various points on the journey Mr. Gladstone stopped and addressed the people from the cars, and it is a remarkable fact that wherever he delivered an address the Liberals gained a seat.

Illus0564 (131K)

The first address made by Mr. Gladstone on his own account, was delivered on the 17th of March, in the Music Hall, Edinburgh. After dwelling at great length upon various questions of foreign policy, he concluded with the following references personal to his opponents and himself: "I give them credit for patriotic motives; I give them credit for those patriotic motives which are incessantly and gratuitously denied to us. I believe that we are all united, gentlemen—indeed it would be most unnatural if we were not—in a fond attachment, perhaps in something of a proud attachment, to the great country to which we belong."

In his final speech at West Calder Mr. Gladstone drew a powerful indictment against the administration, and placed the issue before the country in a strong light. Throughout all the campaign, as the time for the general election was approaching, only one question was submitted to the electors, "Do you approve or condemn Lord Beaconsfield's system of foreign policy?" And the answer was given at Easter, 1880, when the Prime Minister and his colleagues received the most empathic condemnation which had ever been bestowed upon an English Government, and the Liberals were returned in an overwhelming majority of fifty over Tories and Home Rulers combined. Mr. Gladstone succeeded in ousting Lord Dalkeith from the representation of Midlothian by a respectable majority. He was also elected at Leeds, but this seat was afterwards given to his son, Herbert Gladstone. At the conclusion of the election all the journals joined in admiring the indomitable energy and vigor of the orator, who could carry out this great enterprise when he had already passed the age of three-score years and ten. Edinburgh was illuminated in the evening, and everywhere were to be witnessed signs of rejoicing at Mr. Gladstone's victory. The result of the elections throughout the country exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the Liberals. So large a proportion of Liberal members had not been returned to the House of Commons since the days of the first Reform Bill.

Lord Beaconsfield, as soon as the result of the election was known, and without waiting for the meeting of Parliament, resigned. The Queen, in conformity with the constitutional custom, summoned Lord Hartington, the titular leader of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, to form a cabinet. But he could do nothing. Then the Queen sent for Lord Granville, who with Lord Hartington, went to Windsor April 23d. They both assured the Queen that the victory was Mr. Gladstone's; that the people had designated him for office, and that the Liberal party would be satisfied with no other, and that he was the inevitable Prime Minister. They returned to London in the afternoon, sought Mr. Gladstone at Harley Street, where he was awaiting the message they brought from the Queen—to repair to Windsor. That evening, without an hour's delay, he went to Windsor, kissed hands, and returned to London Prime Minister for the second time.

Mr. Gladstone again filled the double office of Premier and Chancellor of the Exchequer in the new cabinet, which for general ability and debating power was one of the strongest of the century. While some of the cabinet officers were like Mr. Gladstone himself, without title, others were representatives of the oldest nobility of the land. At the very beginning the new administration were confronted by perplexing questions. The Eastern question, chiefly by Mr. Gladstone's influence, had been settled in accordance with the dictates of humanity and religion. But there were other difficulties to be overcome. "At home, his administration did good and useful work, including the extension of the suffrage to the agricultural laborers; but it was seriously, and at length fatally, embarrassed by two controversies which sprang up with little warning, and found the Liberal party and its leaders totally unprepared to deal with them."

The first embarrassing question which arose when the new Parliament met was the great deficit of nine million pounds instead of an expected surplus in the Indian Budget, owing to the Afghan war.

Foremost among the difficulties encountered was the case of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, elected a member of Parliament for Northampton. He demanded to be permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration of allegiance, instead of taking the usual oath. The question created much discussion and great feeling, and Mr. Bradlaugh's persistence was met by violence. Mr. Bright contended for liberty of conscience. Mr. Gladstone favored permitting Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm on his own responsibility which was finally done, but Mr. Bradlaugh was prosecuted in the courts. The great difficulty arose from Mr. Bradlaugh's atheism.

A considerable share of the session of 1880 was occupied in the consideration of the Irish Compensation for Disturbance Bill and other Irish measures. In consequence of the rapid increase of evictions by landlords, this protective measure had become absolutely necessary in the interests of the Irish tenants. After prolonged debate—very prolonged for so short a bill—thirty-five lines only—the bill was passed by the Commons, but defeated by the Lords. The result was "seen in a ghastly record of outrage and murder which stained the following winter."

Home Rule for Ireland, which movement was started in the "seventies," was gaining ground, and every election returned to the House more members pledged to its support. Those who were bent upon obtaining Home Rule at any cost used obstructive means against other legislation to gain their object, but as yet the movement was confined to the members who had been elected by Irish constituents.

About the close of the session of 1880 the heavy burdens and responsibilities of public service borne by Mr. Gladstone began to tell upon him. At the end of July, while returning from home for the House of Commons, Mr. Gladstone was taken ill. He was prostrated by fever and great fears for his recovery were entertained by his family, his party and a host of admirers throughout the country. A great outburst of popular sympathy was manifested and frequent messages were received from the Queen and many foreign potentates and celebrities. Distinguished callers and telegrams continued to arrive at Downing Street for ten days while the patient was confined to his bed at home. The President of the United States and the King and Queen of the Belgians were among those who sent messages of sympathy. "Rarely indeed, if ever, has there been witnessed such a general and spontaneous expression of the national sympathy towards a distinguished statesman whose life had been imperilled by illness."

Mr. Gladstone's large store of vital energy brought him safely through his dangerous illness and on approaching convalescence he took a sea voyage round the entire coast of England in Sir Donald Currie's steamer, "Grantully Castle."

Three years after this voyage around England the Premier visited the Orkneys on a similar trip, in the "Pembroke Castle," the poet laureate being of the party on this occasion. From the Orkneys he sailed across to Denmark and suddenly appeared at Copenhagen, where Mr. Gladstone entertained the Czar and Czarina, the King of Greece, and the King and Queen of Denmark, and many others of their relatives who happened to be visiting them at that time.

A great meeting was held June 21, 1880, in Her Majesty's opera house, for the purpose of presenting an address from the Liberals of Middlesex to Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who had made a gallant contest in that country at the general election. The entrance of the Premier some time after the meeting began was the signal for an outburst of enthusiasm. Before Mr. Gladstone appeared, the chairman, Mr. Foster, had paid a high tribute to the Premier for his great abilities and his self-denial in the public service. After his son had received the address, the Premier arose to speak, when the whole audience arose to their feet and welcomed him with immense cheering.

Mr. Gladstone referred at length to the Midlothian campaign, and paid a tribute to the spirit and energy of the Liberals of the whole country. The sound which went forth from Midlothian reverberated through the land and was felt to be among the powerful operative causes which led to the great triumph of the Liberal party.

At the Lord Mayor's banquet, November 9, 1880, Mr. Gladstone's speech was looked forward to with much anxiety, owing to the singularly disturbed condition of Ireland. Referring to the "party of disorder" in Ireland, he said that as anxious as the government was to pass laws for the improvement of the land laws, their prior duty was to so enforce the laws as to secure order. If an increase of power was needed to secure this, they would not fail to ask it.

In 1881, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Mr. Gladstone said that he was glad to discern signs of improvement in Ireland during the last twelve months; but the struggle between the representatives of law and the representatives of lawlessness had rendered necessary an augmentation of the executive power.

In August, 1881, at Greenwich, the Liberals of the borough presented Mr. Gladstone with an illustrated address and a carved oak chair as a token of their esteem and a souvenir of his former representation of their borough. On the cushion back of the chair were embossed in gold the arms of Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, with a motto "Fide et Virtute," and above, in the midst of some wood-carving representing the rose, the thistle, the shamrock, and the leek, was a silver plate, bearing a suitable inscription.

The Parliamentary session of 1881 was almost exclusively devoted to Irish affairs. Instead of the contemplated Land Act, the ministry were compelled, on account of the disturbed condition of Ireland, to bring in first a Coercion Act, although the measure was naturally distasteful to such friends of Ireland in the Cabinet as Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright. Property and life had become very insecure, and there was a startling increase of agrarian crime that such a measure was deemed necessary. But while passing the Coercion Act, Mr. Gladstone accompanied it by a great and beneficial measure—a second Irish Land Bill, which instituted a court for the purpose of dealing with the differences between landlord and tenant.

This bill—one of Mr. Gladstone's greatest measures—became a law August 23, 1881. Mr. Gladstone in his speech remarked that the complaint was made that the bill was an infringement of liberty in Ireland and was aimed at the Land League, but no person or body could be touched by the bill unless they violated the law, and then could only be arrested upon reasonable suspicion of crime committed or of inciting to crime or of interfering with law or order. There would be the fullest freedom of discussion allowed. Dealing with the Land League he said it had been attempted to compare it with the Corn Laws, but Mr. Bright had completely demolished that miserable argument. It was compared also to the trade unions, but they made an onward step in the intelligence and in the love of law and order among the working classes. They had never tainted themselves by word or deed which would bring them into suspicion in connection with the maintenance of law. The leaders of the Land League were now put forward as martyrs on the same platform as O'Connell; but on every occasion of his life-long agitation O'Connell set himself to avoid whatever might tend to a breach of law and order. Then Mr. Gladstone showed the necessity of the Coercion Act from the condition of Ireland, where during the past year there had been a great increase of crime, and the outrages were agrarian, and not connected with the distress. It was a significant fact that the agrarian outrages had risen and fallen with the meetings of the Land League. Nothing could be more idle than to confound the agrarian crime of Ireland with the ordinary crime of England, or even of Ireland. In regard to general crime, Ireland held a high and honorable place, but how different was the case with agrarian crime! He referred to the miscarriage of justice in Ireland, and said that the bill, if passed, would restore to Ireland the first conditions of Christian and civilized existence. But it "only irritated while it failed to terrify."

Mr. Gladstone's was a great speech and showed his mastery of details, and his power of expounding and illustrating broad and general principles. He began his exposition by confessing that it was the most difficult question with which he had ever been called upon to deal. He concluded with an eloquent invocation to justice.

On the 19th of April, 1881, Lord Beaconsfield died. For many years he and Mr. Gladstone had been at the head of their respective parties. "Their opposition, as one critic has well and tersely put it, like that of Pitt and Fox, was one of temperament and character as well as of genius, position and political opinions." The Premier paid an eloquent tribute to him and proposed a public funeral, which was declined. Mr. Gladstone then moved for a monument in Westminster Abbey to the memory of the deceased Earl.

In October, 1881, Mr. Gladstone made a visit to Leeds, for which borough he was returned in 1880, but for which his son Herbert sat. He delivered several important addresses on subjects which then absorbed the public attention, especially dealing with the land question local government, and Free TradeversusFair Trade. Mr. Gladstone said:

"My boyhood was spent at the mouth of the Mersey, and in those days I used to see those beautiful American liners, the packets between New York and Liverpool, which then conducted the bulk and the pick of the trade between the two countries. The Americans were then deemed to be so entirely superior to us in shipbuilding and navigation that they had four-fifths of the whole trade between the two countries in their hands, and that four-fifths was the best of the trade. What is the case now, when free trade has operated and has applied its stimulus to the intelligence of England, and when, on the other hand, the action of the Americans has been restrained by the enactment, the enhancement and the tightening of the protective system? The scales are exactly reversed, and instead of America doing four-fifths and that the best, we do four-fifths of the business, and the Americans pick up the leavings of the British and transact the residue of the trade. Not because they are inferior to us in anything; it would be a fatal error to suppose it; not because they have less intelligence or less perseverance. They are your descendants; they are your kinsmen; and they are fully equal to you in all that goes to make human energy and power; but they are laboring under the delusion from which you yourselves have but recently escaped, and in which some misguided fellow-citizens seek again to entangle you.

"I am reminded that I was guilty on a certain occasion of stating in an article—not a political article—that, in my opinion, it was far from improbable that as the volume of the future was unrolled, America, with its vast population and its wonderful resources, and not less with that severe education which, from the high price of labor, America is receiving in the strong necessity of resorting to every description of labor-saving contrivances, and consequent development, not only on a large scale, but down to the smallest scale of mechanical genius of the country—on that account the day may come when that country may claim to possess the commercial primacy of the world, I gave sad offence to many. I at present will say this, that as long as America adheres to the protective system your commercial primacy is secure. Nothing in the world can wrest it from you while America continues to fetter her own strong hands and arms, and with these fettered arms is content to compete with you, who are free, in neutral markets. And as long as America follows the doctrine of protection, or the doctrines now known as those of 'fair trade,' you are perfectly safe, and you need not allow, any of you, even your slightest slumbers to be disturbed by the fear that America will take from you your commercial primacy."

Back to Index Next