MEMBER 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 his _Alma Mater_
confessed 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."
Mr. Gladstone, as well as others, was profoundly agitated by these
events, and June 4th he expressed his views in a letter to Dr.
Blomfield, Bishop of London. The theme of his letter was, "The Royal
Supremacy, viewed in the light of Reason, History and the Constitution."
He contended that the Royal Supremacy, as settled at the Reformation,
was not inconsistent with the spiritual life and inherent jurisdiction
of the Church, but the recent establishment of the Privy Council as the
ultimate court of appeal in religious causes was "an injurious and even
dangerous departure from the Reformation settlement."
In this letter Mr. Gladstone said, in summing up: "I find it no part of
my duty, my lord, to idolize the Bishops of England and Wales, or to
place my conscience in their keeping. I do not presume or dare to
speculate upon their particular decisions; but I say that, acting
jointly, publicly, solemnly, responsibly, they are the best and most
natural organs of the judicial office of the Church in matters of
heresy, and, according to reason, history and the constitution, in that
subject-matter the fittest and safest counsellors of the Crown."
But this view regarding the Church of England did not suit some minds,
and among them the two friends with whom Mr. Gladstone had, up to this
time, acted in religious matters. These troubles in the Church so
powerfully affected them that they withdrew.
The following quotation shows Mr. Gladstone's firmness in regard to his
own choice of the Protestant Christianity over and above Catholicism, In
a letter, written in 1873, to Mrs. Maxwell-Scott, of Abbotsford, the
daughter of his friend Hope, he thus writes of an interview had with
her father: "It must have been about this time that I had another
conversation with him about religion, of which, again, I exactly
recollect the spot. Regarding (forgive me) the adoption of the Roman
religion by members of the Church of England as nearly the greatest
calamity that could befall Christian faith in this country, I rapidly
became alarmed when these changes began; and very long before the great
luminary, Dr. Newman, drew after him, it may well be said, 'the third
part of the stars of Heaven.' This alarm I naturally and freely
expressed to the man upon whom I most relied, your father."
[Illustration: Gladstone in Wales; addressing a meeting at the foot of
Snowden]