IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT
It was in February, 1855, that Mr. Gladstone resigned his seat in the
Cabinet. After the Treaty of Paris, March, 1856, which put an end to the
Crimean War, Mr. Gladstone found himself in opposition to the Ministry
of Lord Palmerston. He had assumed a position of independence,
associating politically with neither party. The political parties
dreaded criticism and attack from him, for he was not properly
constructed for the defense of either. He had himself declared his
"sympathies" were "with the Conservatives, and his opinions with the
Liberals," and that he and his Peelite colleagues, during this period of
political isolation, were like roving icebergs on which men could not
land with safety, but with which ships might come into perilous
collision. Their weight was too great not to count, but it counted first
this way and then that. Mr. Gladstone was conscientious in his
opposition. He said: "I greatly felt being turned out of office. I saw
great things to do. I longed to do them. I am losing the best years of
my life out of my natural service. Yet I have never ceased to rejoice
that I am not in office with Palmerston, when I have seen the tricks,
the shufflings, the frauds he daily has recourse to as to his business.
I rejoice not to sit on the Treasury Bench with him."
In August, 1855, Lord Aberdeen said; "Gladstone intends to be Prime
Minister. He has great qualifications, but some serious defects. He is
supreme in the House of Commons. He is too obstinate; if a man can be
too honest, he is too honest. I have told Gladstone that when he is
Prime Minister, I will have a seat in his Cabinet, if he desires it,
without an office."
During 1856, several measures came before Parliament which Mr. Gladstone
opposed. He vindicated the freedom of the Belgian press, whose liberty
some of the powers would curtail, and opposed resolutions to consider
the state of education in England and Wales, as tending to create a
central controlling power, involving secular instruction and endless
religious quarrels. He also opposed the budget of Sir G.C. Lewis, which
imposed more duties upon the tea and sugar of the working-man, and was
said to be generally at variance with the policy pursued by every
enlightened minister of finance. Besides, he condemned the continuance
of the war duties in times of peace. "He was a particularly acute thorn
in the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and criticised the
budget with unsparing vigor. 'Gladstone seems bent on leading Sir George
Lewis a weary life,' wrote Mr. Greville. But finance was by no means the
only subject of this terrible free-lance."
A resolution was offered in the House of Commons expressing
disapprobation with the English Cabinet for sanctioning, in 1855 and
'56, the violation of international law, by secretly enlisting the
subjects of the United States as recruits for the British army, by the
intervention of the English Ambassador. Mr. Gladstone said: "It appears
to me that the two cardinal aims that we ought to keep in view in the
discussion of this question are peace and a thoroughly cordial
understanding with America for one, the honor and fame of England for
the other. I am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points
am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with the conduct of
Her Majesty's Government. A cordial understanding with America has not
been preserved, and the honor of this country has been compromised."
Lord Palmerston, though very popular with the people, had greatly
offended a large portion of the House of Commons by his interference in
China. A lorcha, called the _Arrow_, flying the British flag, had been
seized by the Chinese, and the question arose as to the right of the
vessel to the protection of England. The opponents of the government
contended that the vessel was built in China, was captured by pirates,
and recaptured by the Chinese, and hence had no claim to British
protection. To bring the matter to an issue Mr. Cobden introduced a
resolution of inquiry and censure. For five nights the debate was
protracted, and many able speeches were made on both sides, but Mr.
Gladstone made one of the most effective speeches, against the ministry.
He said: "Every man, I trust, will give his vote with the consciousness
that it may depend upon his single vote whether the miseries, the
crimes, the atrocities that I fear are now proceeding in China are to be
discountenanced or not. We have now come to the crisis of the case.
England is not yet committed. With you, then, with us, with every one of
us, it rests to show that this House, which is the first, the most
ancient, and the noblest temple of freedom in the world, is also the
temple of that everlasting justice without which freedom itself would
only be a name or only a curse to mankind."
The Premier ably defended himself, but the resolution of Mr. Cobden was
passed. Parliament was dissolved March 21, 1857, and Lord Palmerston
appealed to the country. He was victorious at the polls. Among the
prominent Liberals who lost their seats were Cobden, Bright, and Milner
Gibson. The Peelites suffered loss too, but Mr. Gladstone was again
elected for Oxford University. However, Mr. Greville writes, under date
of June 3d: "Gladstone hardly ever goes near the House of Commons, and
never opens his lips." But his indifference and silence were not to
last long.
When the Divorce Bill, which originated in the Lords, came up in the
Commons, Mr. Gladstone made an impassioned speech against the measure,
contending for the equality of woman with man in all the rights
pertaining to marriage. He dealt with the question on theological, legal
and social grounds. He contended that marriage was not only or chiefly a
civil contract, but a "mystery" of the Christian religion. By the law of
God it could not be so annulled as to permit of the re-marriage of the
parties. "Our Lord," he says, "has emphatically told us that, at and
from the beginning, marriage was perpetual, and was on both sides
single." He dwelt with pathetic force on the injustice between man and
woman of the proposed legislation, which would entitle the husband to
divorce from an unfaithful wife, but would give no corresponding
protection to the woman; and predicted the gloomiest consequences to the
conjugal morality of the country from the erection of this new and
odious tribunal. Nevertheless the bill became a law.
In 1858 a bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Lord
Palmerston, to make conspiracy to murder a felony. It grew out of the
attempt of Orsini upon the life of Napoleon III. The bill at first was
carried by an immense majority, but the conviction spread that the
measure was introduced solely at the dictation of the French Emperor,
and hence the proposal was strongly opposed. Mr. Gladstone said: "These
times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk
of progress; we believe we are advancing, but can any man of observation
who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe have failed
to perceive that there is a movement indeed, but a downward and backward
movement? There are few spots in which institutions that claim our
sympathy still exist and flourish.... But in these times more than ever
does responsibility centre upon the institutions of England, and if it
does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws and upon
her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of
Commons--the chief hope of freedom--which attempts to establish a moral
complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures,
will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every
country in the world."
The bill was defeated by a majority of nineteen, and Lord Palmerston
again resigned. He was succeeded by Lord Derby, who once more came into
power. Mr. Disraeli again became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader
of the House of Commons. The new ministry, which existed largely on
sufferance, passed some good measures.
The one hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassey was celebrated in
England June 23, 1857, to obtain funds for a monument to Lord Clive, who
secured India to England. The English then felt secure in the government
of that land, yet at that very time one of the most wide-spread,
destructive and cruel rebellions was raging, and shaking to its very
foundations the English rule in Hindostan. Suddenly the news came of the
terrible Indian mutiny and of the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women
and children, filling all hearts with horror, and then of the crushing
out of the rebellion. Lord Canning, Governor-General, issued a
proclamation to the chiefs of Oudh, looking to the confiscation of the
possessions of mutineers who failed to return to the allegiance of
England. It was meant as clemency. But Lord Ellenborough, the officer in
charge of affairs in India, dispatched "a rattling condemnation of the
whole proceeding." Says Justin McCarthy: "It was absurd language for a
man like Lord Ellenborough to address to a statesman like Lord Canning,
who had just succeeded in keeping the fabric of English government in
India together during the most terrible trial ever imposed on it by
fate." The matter was taken up by Parliament. Lord Shaftesbury moved
that the Lords disprove the sending of the dispatch. In the Commons the
ministry were arraigned. But Lord Ellenborough took upon himself the
sole responsibility of the dispatch, and resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
invited to the vacant place, but declined.
The most important among the bills passed by Parliament was the India
Bill, by which the government of India was transferred from the East
India Company to the Crown and the Home government. Mr. Gladstone, who
opposed the bill, proposed a clause providing that the Indian troops
should not be employed in military operations beyond the frontiers
of India.
In November, 1858, Mr. Gladstone accepted from the Premier the post of
Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian Islands. The people
of the Ionian Islands, which in 1800 was formed into the Republic of the
Seven Islands, and was under the protection of Great Britain from 1815,
were desirous of adding themselves to Greece. But the British government
objected to the separation and their union with Greece. Mr. Gladstone
was to repair to Corfu for the purpose of reconciling the people to the
British protectorate. The Ionians regarded his appointment as a virtual
abandonment of the protectorate of Great Britain. Mr. Gladstone,
December 3d, addressed the Senate at Corfu in Italian. He had the
reputation of being a Greek student, and the inhabitants of the Islands
persisted in regarding him not as a Commissioner of a Conservative
English Government, but as "Gladstone the Phil-Hellene!" He made a tour
of the Islands, holding levees, receiving deputations and delivering
harangues, and was received wherever he went with the honors due to a
liberator. His path everywhere was made to seem like a triumphal
progress. It was in vain he repeated his assurance that he came to
reconcile them to the protectorate and not to deliver them from it. But
the popular instinct insisted upon regarding him as at least the
precursor of their union with the Kingdom of Greece. The legislative
assembly met January 27, 1859, and proposed annexation to Greece.
Finding that this was their firm wish and determination, Mr. Gladstone
despatched to the Queen a copy of the vote, in which the representatives
declared that "the single and unanimous will of the Ionian people has
been and is for their union with the Kingdom of Greece." Mr. Gladstone
returned home in February, 1859. The Ionians continued their agitation,
and in 1864 were formally given over to the government of Greece.
Parliament was opened February 3, 1859, by the Queen, who in her speech
from the throne said that the attention of Parliament would be called
to the state of the law regulating the representation of the people. The
plan of the government was presented by Mr. Disraeli. "It was a fanciful
performance," says an English writer. The ministry proposed not to alter
the limits of the franchise, but to introduce into boroughs a new kind
of franchise founded on personal property. Mr. Disraeli characterized
the government measure as "wise, prudent, adequate, conservative, and
framed by men who reverence the past, are proud of the present, and
confident of the future." Two members of the Cabinet promptly resigned
rather than be parties to these proposals. Mr. Bright objected because
the working classes were excluded. An amendment was moved by Lord John
Russell condemning interference with the franchise which enabled
freeholders in boroughs to vote in counties, and demanding a wider
extension of the suffrage in boroughs.
Mr. Gladstone, though agreeing with these views, declined to support the
amendment, because, if carried, it would upset the government and bring
in a weaker administration. He did not propose to support the
government, but he desired to see a settlement of the question of
reform, and he thought the present opportunity advantageous for such
settlement. He pleaded eloquently for the retention of the
small boroughs.
The bill was lost by a majority of thirty-nine. Lord Derby having
advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament, this was done April 3d. The
general elections which resulted from the defeat of the Conservatives in
the House of Commons on the Reform Bill, resulted in returning the
Liberals with a considerable majority. Mr. Gladstone was again returned
unopposed for the University of Oxford. The Queen opened the new
Parliament June 7th. In reply to the speech from the throne an amendment
to the address was moved by Lord Hartington, proposing a vote of want of
confidence in the ministers. After three nights debate it was carried on
June 10th, by a majority of thirteen, Mr. Gladstone voting with the
government. Lord Derby and his colleagues immediately resigned. The
Queen being averse to choosing between Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston, turned to Lord Granville, leader of the Liberal party in the
House of Lords. He failed to form a Cabinet, and Lord Palmerston again
became Prime Minister.
The revolution of the political wheel once more brought Mr. Gladstone
into office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It became necessary in
accepting a Cabinet position to again appeal to his constituents at
Oxford for re-election. He voted as he did to sustain Lord Derby's
administration and to settle the Reform question, yet he was
misunderstood and some of his constituents alienated. He was strongly
opposed by the Conservative Marquis of Chandos. The Conservatives
claimed that he should not be returned, because, as Professor Mansel
said, by his "acceptance of office he must now be considered as giving
his definite adhesion to the Liberal party, as at present reconstructed,
and as approving of the policy of those who overthrew Lord Derby's
government." It was found on the conclusion of the poll, which continued
for five days, that Mr. Gladstone was returned with a majority of nearly
two hundred over his opponent. It is worthy of note that this same year
Cambridge conferred upon Mr. Gladstone the honorary degree of D.C.L.
[Illustration]