One important personage was quite confident that Gladstone would vote

the government out. Another thought that he would be sure to join a

liberal administration. Palmerston believed this too, even though he

might not vote for a motion of want of confidence. Clarendon expected

Gladstone to join, though he would rather see him at the foreign office

than at the exchequer. At a dinner party at Lord Carlisle's where

Palmerston, Lord John, Granville, Clarendon, Lewis, Argyll, and Delane

were present, Sir Charles Wood in a conversation with Mrs. Gladstone

found her much less inclined to keep the Derby government in. In the

last week of May a party feast was planned by Lord Palmerston and the

whip, but Lord John Russell declined to join the dinner. It was decided

to call a meeting of the party. A confidential visitor was talking of it

at Cambridge House, when the brougham came to the door to take

Palmerston down to Pembroke Lodge. He was going, he said, to ask Lord

John what they should say if they were asked at the meeting whether they

had come to an agreement. The interview was not unsatisfactory. Four

days later (June 6) a well-attended meeting of the party was held at

Willis's Rooms. The two protagonists declared themselves ready to aid in

forming a government on a broad basis, and it was understood that either

would serve under the other. It would be for the sovereign to decide.

Mr. Bright spoke in what the whigs pronounced to be a highly reasonable

vein, and they all broke up in great spirits. The whip pored over his

lists, and made out that they could not beat the government by less than

seven. This was but a slender margin for a vote of no confidence, but it

was felt that mere numbers, though a majority might be an indispensable

incident, were in this case not the only test of the conditions required

for a solid government. Lord Hartington, the representative of the great

house of Cavendish, was put up to move a vote of no confidence.[388]

FALL OF THE DERBY GOVERNMENT

After three days' debate, ministers were defeated (June 11) by the

narrow figure of thirteen in a House of six hundred and thirty-seven.

Mr. Gladstone did not speak, but he answered the riddle that had for

long so much harassed the wirepullers, by going into the lobby with

Disraeli and his flock. The general sense of the majority was probably

best expressed by Mr. Bright. Since the fall of the government of Sir

Robert Peel, he said, there had been no good handling of the liberal

party in the House: the cabinet had been exclusive, the policy had been

sometimes wholly wrong, and generally feeble and paltering: if in the

new government there should be found men adequately representing these

reconciled sections, acting with some measure of boldness and power,

grappling with the abuses that were admitted to exist, and relying upon

the moral sense and honest feeling of the House, and the general

sympathy of the people of England for improvement in our legislation, he

was bold to hope that the new government would have a longer tenure of

office than any government that had existed for many years past.

The Queen, in the embarrassment of a choice between the two whig

veterans, induced Lord Granville, whose cabinet life as yet was only

some five years, to try to form a government. This step Palmerston

explained by her German sympathies, which made her adverse alike to Lord

John and himself. Lord Granville first applied to Palmerston, who said

that the Queen ought to have sent for himself first; still he agreed to

serve. Lord John would only serve under Granville on condition of being

leader in the House of Commons; if he joined--so he argued--and if

Palmerston were leader in the Commons, this would make himself third

instead of second: on that point his answer was final. So Lord Granville

threw up a commission that never had life in it; the Queen handed the

task over to Palmerston, and in a few days the new administration was

installed. (June 17, 1859.)

II

Mr. Gladstone went back to the office that he had quitted four years and

a half before, and undertook the department of finance. The appointment

did not pass without considerable remark. 'The real scandal,' he wrote

to his Oxford chairman, 'is among the extreme men on the liberal side;

they naturally say, "This man has done all he could on behalf of Lord

Derby; why is he here to keep out one of us?"' Even some among Mr.

Gladstone's private friends wondered how he could bring himself to join

a minister of whom he had for three or four years used such unsparing

language as had been common on his lips about Lord Palmerston. The plain

man was puzzled by a vote in favour of keeping a tory government in,

followed by a junction with the men who had thrown that government out.

Cobden, as we know, declined to join.[389] 'I am exceedingly sorry,'

wrote Mr. Gladstone to his brother Robertson (July 2), 'to find that

Cobden does not take office. It was in his person that there seemed to

be the best chance of a favourable trial of the experiment of connecting

his friends with the practical administration of the government of this

country. I am very glad we have Gibson; but Cobden would, especially as

an addition to the former, have made a great difference in point of

weight.'[390]

AGAIN AT THE EXCHEQUER

Mr. Gladstone, with no special anxiety to defend himself, was clear

about his own course. 'Never,' he says, 'had I an easier question to

determine than when I was asked to join the government. I can hardly now

think how I could have looked any one in the face, had I refused my aid

(such as it is) at such a time and under such circumstances.' 'At a

moment,' he wrote to the warden of All Souls, 'when war is raging in

Europe, when the English government is the only instrument through which

there is any hope, humanly speaking, of any safe and early settlement,

and when all parties agree that the government of the Queen ought to be

strengthened, I have joined the only administration that could be

formed, in concert with all the friends (setting aside those whom age

excludes) with whom I joined and acted in the government of Lord

Aberdeen.'

To the provost of Oriel he addressed a rather elaborate

explanation,[391] but it only expands what he says more briefly in a

letter (June 16) to Sir William Heathcote, an excellent and honourable

man, his colleague in the representation of Oxford:--

I am so little sensible of having had any very doubtful point to

consider, that I feel confident that, given the antecedents of the

problem as they clearly stood before me, you would have decided in

the way that I have done. For thirteen years, the middle space of

life, I have been cast out of party connection, severed from my old

party, and loath irrecoverably to join a new one. So long have I

adhered to the vague hope of a reconstruction, that I have been

left alone by every political friend in association with whom I had

grown up. My votes too, and such support as I could give, have

practically been given to Lord Derby's government, in such a manner

as undoubtedly to divest me of all claims whatever on the liberal

party and the incoming government. Under these circumstances I am

asked to take office. The two leading points which must determine

immediate action are those of reform and foreign policy. On the

first I think that Lord Derby had by dissolution lost all chance of

settling it; and, as I desire to see it settled, it seems my duty

to assist those who perhaps may settle it. Upon the second I am in

real and close harmony of sentiment with the new premier, and the

new foreign secretary. How could I, under these circumstances, say,

I will have nothing to do with you, and be the one remaining

Ishmael in the House of Commons?

Writing to Sir John Acton in 1864, Mr. Gladstone said:--

When I took my present office in 1859, I had several negative and

several positive reasons for accepting it. Of the first, there were

these. There had been differences and collisions, but there were no

resentments. I felt myself to be mischievous in an isolated

position, outside the regular party organisation of parliament. And

I was aware of no differences of opinion or tendency likely to

disturb the new government. Then on the positive side. I felt sure

that in finance there was still much useful work to be done. I was

desirous to co-operate in settling the question of the franchise,

and failed to anticipate the disaster that it was to undergo. My

friends were enlisted, or I knew would enlist: Sir James Graham

indeed declining office, but taking his position in the party. And

the overwhelming interest and weight of the Italian question, and

of our foreign policy in connection with it, joined to my entire

mistrust of the former government in relation to it, led me to

decide without one moment's hesitation....

CONTEST AT OXFORD

On the day on which Mr. Gladstone kissed hands (June 18) disturbing news

came from Oxford. Not only was his re-election to be opposed, but the

enemy had secured the most formidable candidate that he had yet

encountered, in the person of Lord Chandos, the eldest son of the Duke

of Buckingham. His old chairman became chairman for his new antagonist,

and Stafford Northcote, who with Phillimore and Bernard had hitherto

fought every election on his behalf, now refused to serve on his

committee, while even Sir John Coleridge was alarmed at some reported

wavering on the question of a deceased wife's sister. 'Gladstone,

angry, harassed, sore,' Phillimore records, 'as well he might be.' The

provost of Oriel explains to him that men asked whether his very last

vote had not been a vote of confidence in a Derby government, and of

want of confidence in a Palmerston government, yet he had joined the

government in which he declared by anticipation that he had no

confidence. After all, the root of the anger against him was simply that

the tories were out and the liberals in, with himself as their strongest

confederate. A question was raised whether he ought not to go down and

address convocation in person. The dean of Christ Church, however,

thought it very doubtful whether he would get a hearing. 'Those,' he

told Mr. Gladstone, 'who remember Sir Robert Peel's election testify

that there never was a more unreasonable and ferocious mob than

convocation was at that time. If you were heard, it is doubtful whether

you would gain any votes at that last moment, while it is believed you

would lose some. You would be questioned as to the ecclesiastical policy

of the cabinet. Either you would not be able to answer fully, or you

would answer in such terms as to alienate one or other of the two

numerous classes who will now give you many votes.'

The usual waterspout began to pour. The newspapers asserted that Mr.

Gladstone meant to cut down naval estimates, and this moved the country

clergy to angry apprehension that he was for peace at any price. The

candidate was obliged to spend thankless hours on letters to reassure

them. 'The two assertions of fact respecting me are wholly unfounded. I

mean these two:--1. That as chancellor of the exchequer I "starved" the

Crimean war: that is to say limited the expenditure upon it. There is

not a shadow of truth in this statement. 2. That as soon as the war was

over I caused the government to reduce their estimates, diminish the

army, disband two fleets, and break faith with our seamen. When the war

was over, that is in the year 1856, I did not take objection at all to

the establishment or expenditure of the year. In the next year, 1857, I

considered that they ought to have been further reduced: but neither a

man nor a shilling was taken from them in consequence of my

endeavours.' Other correspondents were uneasy about his soundness on

rifle corps and rifle clubs. 'How,' he replied, 'can any uncertainty

exist as to the intentions in regard to defence in a government with

Lord Palmerston at its head?' He was warned that Cobden, Bright, and

Gibson were odious in Oxford, and he was suspected of being their

accomplice. The clamour against Puseyism had died down, and the

hostility of the evangelicals was no longer keen; otherwise it was the

old story. Goldwin Smith tells him, 'Win or lose, you will have the vote

of every one of heart and brain in the university and really connected

with it. Young Oxford is all with you. Every year more men obtain the

reward of their industry through your legislation. But old Oxford takes

a long time in dying.' In the end (July 1), he won the battle by a

majority of 191--Gladstone, 1050, Chandos, 859.

'My conscience is light and clear,' he wrote to Heathcote in the course

of the contest. 'The interests that have weighed with me are in some

degree peculiar, and I daresay it is a fault in me, especially as member

for Oxford, that I cannot merge the man in the representative. While

they have had much reason to complain, I have not had an over-good

bargain. In the estimate of mere pleasure and pain, the representation

of the university is not worth my having; for though the account is long

on both sides, the latter is the heavier, and sharper. In the true

estimates of good and evil, I can look back upon the last twelve years

with some satisfaction, first, because I feel that as far as I am

capable of labouring for anything, I have laboured for Oxford; and

secondly, because in this respect at least I have been happy, that the

times afforded me in various ways a field. And even as to the

contemptible summing up between suffering and enjoyment, my belief is

that the latter will endure, while the former will pass away.' The

balance struck in this last sentence is a characteristic fragment of Mr.

Gladstone's philosophy of public life. It lightened and dispelled the

inevitable hours of disappointment and chagrin that, in natures of less

lofty fortitude than his, are apt to slacken the nerve and rust the

sword.

III

PARTY SEVERANCE, NOT CHANGED PRINCIPLES

It seems a mistake to treat the acceptance of office under Lord

Palmerston as a chief landmark in Mr. Gladstone's protracted journey

from tory to liberal. The dilemma between joining Derby and joining

Palmerston was no vital choice between two political creeds. The new

prime minister and his chancellor of the exchequer had both of them

started with Canning for their common master; but there was a generation

between them, and Mr. Gladstone had travelled along a road of his own,

perhaps not even now perceiving its goal. As we have seen, he told Mr.

Walpole in May 1858 (p. 584), that there were 'no broad and palpable

differences of opinion on public questions of principle,' that separated

himself from the Derbyite tories.[392] Palmerston on the other hand was

so much of a Derbyite tory, that his government, which Mr. Gladstone was

now entering, owed its long spell of office and power to the countenance

of Derby and his men. Mr. Bright had contemplated (p. 579) the

possibility of a reverse process--a Derbyite government favoured by

Palmerston's men. In either case, the political identity of the two

leaders was recognised. To join the new administration, then, marked a

party severance but no changed principles. I am far from denying the

enormous significance of the party wrench, but it was not a conversion.

Mr. Gladstone was at this time in his politics a liberal reformer of

Turgot's type, a born lover of good government, of just practical laws,

of wise improvement, of public business well handled, of a state that

should emancipate and serve the individual. The necessity of summoning

new driving force, and amending the machinery of the constitution, had

not yet disclosed itself to him. This was soon discovered by events.

Meanwhile he may well have thought that he saw as good a chance of great

work with Palmerston as with Disraeli; or far better, for the election

had shown that Bright was not wrong when he warned him that a Derby

government could only exist upon forbearance.

Bright's own words already referred to (p. 625) sufficiently describe

Mr. Gladstone's point of view; the need for a ministry with men in it

'acting with some measure of boldness and power, grappling with abuses,

and relying upon the moral sense and honest feeling of the House, and

the general sympathy of the people of England for improvement.' With

such purposes an alliance with liberals of Lord Palmerston's temper

implied no wonderful dislodgment. The really great dislodgment in his

life had occurred long before. It was the fates that befell his book, it

was the Maynooth grant, and the Gorham case, that swept away the

foundations on which he had first built. In writing to Manning in 1845

(April 25) after his retirement on the question of Maynooth, Mr.

Gladstone says to him, 'Newman sent me a letter giving his own

explanation of my position. It was admirably done.' Newman in his letter

told him that various persons had asked how he understood Mr.

Gladstone's present position, so he put down what he conceived it to be,

and he expresses the great interest that he feels in the tone of thought

then engaging the statesman's mind:--

LETTER FROM NEWMAN

I say then [writes Newman, addressing an imaginary interlocutor]:

'Mr. Gladstone has said the state _ought_ to have a conscience, but

it has not a conscience. Can _he_ give it a conscience? Is he to

impose his own conscience on the state? He would be very glad to do

so, if it thereby would become the state's conscience. But that is

absurd. He must deal with facts. It has a thousand consciences, as

being in its legislative and executive capacities the aggregate of

a hundred minds; that is, it has no conscience.

'You will say, "Well the obvious thing would be, if the state has

not a conscience, that he shall cease to be answerable for it." So

he has--he has retired from the ministry. While he thought he could

believe it had a conscience--till he was forced to give up, what it

was his duty to cherish as long as ever he could, the notion that

the British empire was a subject and servant of the kingdom of

Christ--he served the state. Now that he finds this to be a mere

dream, much as it ought to be otherwise, and as it once was

otherwise, he has said, I cannot serve such a mistress.

'But really,' I continue, 'do you in your heart mean to say that he

should absolutely and for ever give up the state and country? I

hope not. I do not think he has so committed himself. That the

conclusion he has come to is a very grave one, and not consistent

with his going on blindly in the din and hurry of business, without

having principles to guide him, I admit; and this, I conceive, is

his reason for at once retiring from the ministry, that he may

contemplate the state of things calmly and from without. But I

really cannot pronounce, nor can you, nor can he perhaps at once,

what is a Christian's duty under these new circumstances, whether

to remain in retirement from public affairs or not. Retirement,

however, could not be done by halves. If he is absolutely to give

up all management of public affairs, he must retire not only from

the ministry but from parliament.

'I see another reason for his retiring from the ministry. The

public thought they had in his book a pledge that the government

would not take such a step with regard to Maynooth as is now before

the country. Had he continued in the ministry he would to a certain

extent have been misleading the country.

'You say, "He made some show of seeing his way in future, for he

gave advice; he said it would be well for all parties to yield

something. To see his way and to give advice is as if he had found

some principle to go on." I do not so understand him. I thought he

distinctly stated he had not yet found a principle. But he gave

that advice which facts, or what he called circumstances, made

necessary, and which if followed out, will, it is to be hoped, lead

to some basis of principle which we do not see at present.'

Compared to the supreme case of conscience indicated here, and it

haunted Mr. Gladstone for nearly all his life, the perplexities of party

could be but secondary. Those perplexities were never sharper than in

the four years from 1854 to 1859; and with his living sense of

responsibility for the right use of transcendent powers of national

service, it was practically inevitable that he should at last quit the

barren position of 'the one remaining Ishmael in the House of Commons.'

IV

Later in this year Mr. Gladstone was chosen to be the first lord rector

of the university of Edinburgh under powers conferred by a recent law.

His unsuccessful rival was Lord Neaves, excellent as lawyer, humorist,

and scholar. In April the following year, in the midst of the most

trying session of his life, he went down from the battle-ground at

Westminster, and delivered his rectorial address[393]--not particularly

pregnant, original, or pithy, but marked by incomparable buoyancy;

enforcing a conception of the proper functions of a university that can

never be enforced too strongly or too often; and impressing in melodious

period and glowing image those ever needed commonplaces about thrift of

time and thirst for fame and the glory of knowledge, that kindle sacred

fire in young hearts. It was his own career, intellectual as well as

political, that gave to his discourse momentum. It was his own example

that to youthful hearers gave new depth to a trite lesson, when he

exclaimed: 'Believe me when I tell you that the thrift of time will

repay you in after life with an usury of profit beyond your most

sanguine dreams, and that the waste of it will make you dwindle, alike

in intellectual and in moral stature, beneath your darkest reckonings.'

So too, we who have it all before us know that it was a maxim of his own

inner life, when he told them: 'The thirst for an enduring fame is near

akin to the love of true excellence; but the fame of the moment is a

dangerous possession and a bastard motive; and he who does his acts in

order that the echo of them may come back as a soft music in his ears,

plays false to his noble destiny as a Christian man, places himself in

continual danger of dallying with wrong, and taints even his virtuous

actions at their source.'

FOOTNOTES:

[387] Not, however, Sir Robert until 1862, when he was knighted on

becoming Queen's advocate. He was created baronet in 1881.

[388] Lord Hartington's motion was--'That it is essential for the

satisfactory result of our deliberations, and for facilitating the

discharge of your Majesty's high functions, that your Majesty's

government should possess the confidence of this House and of the

country; and we deem it our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty

that such confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of your

Majesty.'

[389] _Life of Cobden_, ii. pp. 229-233.

[390] There is a strange story in the _Halifax Papers_ of Bright at this

time visiting Lord Aberdeen, and displaying much ill humour. 'He cannot

reconcile himself to not being considered capable of taking office. Lord

John broached a scheme for sending him as governor-general to Canada. I

rather doubted the expediency of this, but Mr. Gladstone seemed to think

it not a bad scheme' (June 15, 1859). Many curious things sprang up in

men's minds at that moment.

[391] Reproduced in Mr. Russell's book on Mr. Gladstone, pp. 144-5.

[392] It is worth noticing that he sat on the ministerial side of the

House without breach of continuity from 1853 to 1866. During the first

Derby government, as we have already seen (p. 423), he sat below the

gangway on the opposition side; during the Palmerston administration of

1855 he sat below the gangway on the government side; and he remained

there after the second Derby accession to office in 1858.

[393] The Address is in _Gleanings_, vii.

APPENDIX

CHOICE OF PROFESSION

_Page 82_

_Mr. Gladstone to his Father_

_Cuddesdon, Aug. 4, 1830._--MY BELOVED FATHER,--I have a good while

refrained from addressing you on a subject of importance and much

affecting my own future destiny, from a supposition that your time and

thoughts have been much occupied for several months past by other

matters of great interest in succession. Now, however, believing you to

be more at leisure, I venture to bring it before you. It is, as you will

have anticipated, the decision of the profession to which I am to look

forward for life. Above eighteen months have now passed since you spoke

to me of it at Seaforth, and most kindly desired me, if unable then to

make up my mind to go into the law, to take some time to consider calmly

of the whole question.

It would have been undutiful to trouble you with a recurrence of it,

until such a period had been suffered to elapse, as would suffice to

afford, by the effects it should itself produce, some fair criterion and

presumption of the inclination which my mind was likely to adopt in

reference to the _final_ decision. At the same time it would also have

been undutiful, and most repugnant to my feelings, to permit the

prolongation of that intervening period to such an extent, as to give

the shadow of a reason to suppose that anything approaching to reserve

had been the cause of my silence. The present time seems to lie between

these two extremes, and therefore to render it incumbent on me to

apprise you of the state of my own views.

I trust it is hardly necessary to specify my knowledge that when I speak

of 'the state of my own views' on this question, I do so not of right

but by sufferance, by invitation from you, by that more than parental

kindness and indulgence with which I have ever met at my parents' hands,

which it would be as absurd to make a matter of _formal_ acknowledgment

as it would be impossible to repay, and for which I can only say, and I

say it from the bottom of my heart, may God reward them with his best

and choicest gifts, eternal, unfading in the heavens.

If then I am to advert to the disposition of my own mind as regards

this matter, I cannot avoid perceiving that it has inclined to the

ministerial office, for what has now become a considerable period, with

a bias at first uncertain and intermittent, but which has regularly and

rapidly increased in force and permanence. It has not been owing as far

as I can myself discern, to the operation of any external cause

whatever; nor of internal ones to any others than those which work their

effects in the most gradual and imperceptible manner. Day after day it

has grown upon and into my habit of feeling and desire. It has been

gradually strengthened by those small accessions of power, each of which

singly it would be utterly impossible to trace, but which collectively

have not only produced a desire of a certain description, but have led

me by reasonings often weighed and sifted and re-sifted to the best of

my ability, to the deliberate conclusion which I have stated above. I do

not indeed mean to say that there has been _no_ time within this period

at which I have felt a longing for other pursuits; but such feelings

have been unstable and temporary; that which I now speak of is the

permanent and habitual inclination of my mind. And such too, I think, it

is likely to continue; as far at least as I can venture to think I see

anything belonging to the future, or can anticipate the continuance of

any one desire, feeling, or principle, in a mind so wayward and

uncertain as my own--so far do I believe that this sentiment will

remain.

It gives me pain, great pain, to communicate anything which I have even

the remotest apprehension can give the slightest annoyance to you. I

trust this will not do so; although I fear it may. But though fearing it

may, I feel it is my duty to do it: because I have only these three

alternatives before me. First, to delay communication to some subsequent

opportunity: but as I have no fair prospect of being able _then_ to

convey a different statement, this plan would be attended with no

advantage whatever, as far as I can see. Secondly, to dissemble my

feelings: an alternative on which if I said another word I should be

behaving undutifully and wickedly towards you. Thirdly, to follow the

course I have now chosen, I trust with no feelings but those of the most

profound affection, and of unfeigned grief that as far as my own view is

concerned, I am unable to make it coincide with yours. I say, _as far_

as my own view goes, because I do not now see that my own view can or

ought to stand for a moment in the way of your desires. In the hands of

my parents, therefore, I am left. But lest you should be led to suppose

that I have never reasoned with myself on this matter, but yielded to

blind impulses or transitory whims, I will state, not indeed at length,

but with as much simplicity and clearness as I am able, some of the

motives which seem to me to urge me with an irresistible accumulation of

moral force, to this conclusion, and this alone. In the first place, I

would say that my own state and character is _not_ one of them; nor, I

believe, could any views of that character be compatible with their

existence and reception, but that in which it now appears to me: namely,

as one on which I can look with no degree of satisfaction whatever, and

for the purification of which I can only direct my eyes and offer up my

prayers to the throne of God.

First, then, with reference to the _dignity_ of this office, I know none

to compare with it; none which can compete with the grandeur of its end

or of its means--the end, the glory of God, and the means, the

restoration of man to that image of his Maker which is now throughout

the world so lamentably defaced. True indeed it is, that there are other

fields for the use and improvement of all which God lends to us, which

are wide, dignified, beneficial, desirable: desirable in the first and

highest degree, _if we had not this_. But as long as this field

continues, and as long as it continues unfilled, I do not see how I am

to persuade myself that any powers, be they the meanest or the greatest,

can be _so_ profitably or _so_ nobly employed as in the performance of

this sublime duty. And that this field is _not_ yet filled, how can any

one doubt who casts his eyes abroad over the moral wilderness of this

world, who contemplates the pursuits, desires, designs, and principles

of the beings that move so busily in it to and fro, without an object

beyond the finding food, be it mental or bodily, for the _present_

moment or the _present_ life--it matters little which--or beyond

ministering to the desires, under whatever modification they may appear,

of self-will and self-love? When I look to the standard of habit and

principle adopted in the world at large, and then divert my eyes for a

moment from that spectacle to the standard fixed and the picture

delineated in the book of revelation, then, my beloved father, the

conviction flashes on my soul with a moral force I cannot resist, and

would not if I could, that the vineyard still wants labourers, that 'the

kingdoms of this world are not yet become the kingdoms of our Lord and

of his Christ,' and that _till_ they are become such, till the frail

race of Adam is restored to the knowledge and the likeness of his Maker,

till universally and throughout the wide world the will of God is become

our delight, and its accomplishment our first and last desire, there can

be no claim so solemn and imperative as that which even now seems to

call to us with the voice of God from heaven, and to say 'I have given

Mine own Son for this rebellious and apostate world, the sacrifice is

offered and accepted, but you, you who are basking in the sunbeams of

Christianity, you who are blessed beyond measure, and, oh, how beyond

desert in parents, in friends, in every circumstance and adjunct that

can sweeten your pilgrimage, why will you not bear to fellow-creatures

sitting in darkness and the shadow of death the tidings of this

universal and incomprehensible love?'

In this, I believe, is included the main reason which influences me; a

reason as full of joy as of glory: that transcendent reason, in

comparison with which every other object seems to dwindle into utter and

absolute insignificance. But I would not conceal from you--why should

I?--that which I cannot conceal from myself: that the darker side of

this great picture sometimes meets me, and it is vain that, shuddering,

I attempt to turn away from it. My mind involuntarily reverts to the sad

and solemn conviction that a fearfully great portion of the world round

me is dying in sin. This conviction is the result of that same

comparison I have mentioned before, between the principles and practices

it embraces, and those which the Almighty authoritatively enjoins: and

_entertaining it_ as I do, how, my beloved parent, can I bear to think

of my own seeking to wanton in the pleasures of life (I mean even its

innocent pleasures), or to give up my heart to its business, while my

fellow-creatures, to whom I am bound by every tie of human sympathies,

of a common sinfulness and a common redemption, day after day are

sinking into death? I mean, not the death of the body, which is but a

gate either to happiness or to misery, but that of the soul, the true

and the only true death. Can I, with this persuasion engrossing me, be

justified in inactivity? or in any measure short of the most direct and

most effective means of meeting, if in _any degree_ it be possible,

these horrible calamities? Nor is impotency and incompetency any

argument on the other side: if I saw a man drowning I should hold out my

hand to help him, although I were uncertain whether my strength would

prove sufficient to extricate him or not; how much more strongly, then,

is this duty incumbent when there are thousands on thousands perishing

in sin and ignorance on every side, and where the stake is not the

addition or subtraction of a few short years from a life, which can but

be a span, longer or shorter, but the doom, the irrevocable doom of

spirits made for God, and once like God, but now alienated and apostate?

And the remedy which God has provided for this portentous evil is not

like the ponderous and elaborate contrivances of men; its spear is not,

like Goliath's, the weaver's beam, but all its weapons are a few pure

and simple elements of truth, ill calculated, like the arms of David, in

the estimation of the world to attain their object, but yet capable of

being wielded by a stripling's hand, and yet more, 'mighty, through God,

to the pulling down of strongholds.'

What I have said is from the bottom of my heart, and put forward without

the smallest reservation of any kind: and I have said it thus, because

in duty bound to do it; and having, too, the comfort of the fullest

persuasion that even if your judgment should disallow it, your affection

would pardon it. It is possible, indeed, that the (as it seems to me)

awful consideration which I have last put forward may have been

misstated or misapprehended. Would God it may be so! happy should I be

to find either by reason or revelation that the principles of this world

were other than I have estimated them to be, and consequently that their

fate would be other likewise. I may be under darkness and delusion,

having consulted with none in this matter; but till it is shown that I

am so, I am bound by all the most solemn ties, ties not created in this

world nor to be dissolved with it, but eternal and changeless as our

spirits and He who made them, to regulate my actions with reference to

these all-important truths--the apostasy of man on the one hand, the

love of God on the other. Of my duties _to men_ as a social being, can

any be so important as to tell them of the danger under which I believe

them to lie, of the precipice to which I fear many are approaching,

while thousands have already fallen headlong, and others again, even

while I write, are continuing to fall in a succession of appalling

rapidity? Of my duties _to God_ as a rational and responsible being,

especially as a being for whom in common with all men the precious blood

of Christ has been given, can any more imperatively and more

persuasively demand all the little I can give than this, the proclaiming

that one instance of God's unfathomable love which alone so transcends

as almost to swallow up all others? while those others thus transcended

and eclipsed are such as would be of themselves by far the highest and

holiest obligations man could know, did we not know this.

Thus I have endeavoured to state these truths, if truths they are, at

least these convictions, to you, dwelling upon them at a length which

may perhaps be tedious and appear affected, simply as I trust, in order

to represent them to your mind as much to the life as possible, I mean

as nearly as possible in the light in which they have again and again

appeared, and do habitually appear, to my own, so as to give you the

best means in my power of estimating the strength or detecting the

weakness of those grounds on which the conclusions above stated rest. (I

have not mentioned the benefit I might hope myself to derive from this

course of living compared with others; and yet this consideration,

though here undoubtedly a secondary one, is, I believe, more weighty

than any of those which can be advanced in favour of an opposite

determination.)

For some time I doubted whether to state reasons at all: fearing that it

might appear presumptuous; but I resolved to do it as choosing rather to

incur that risk, than the hazarding an appearance of reserve and desire

to conceal my real sentiments from one who has a right to see into the

bottom of my heart.

Yet one trespass more I must make on your patience. It may perhaps seem

that the inducements I have stated are of an unusual character,

unsubstantial, romantic, theoretical, and not practical. Unusual,

indeed, they are: because (though it is not without diffidence that I

bring this sweeping charge--indeed, I should not dare to bring it were

it not brought elsewhere) it is a rare thing in this world even where

right actions are performed to ground them upon right motives. At least,

I am convinced that there are fundamental errors on this subject very

prevalent--that they are in general fixed far too low, and that the

height of our standard of practice must ever be adapted more or less to

that of principle. God only knows whether this be right. But hence it

has been that I have endeavoured, I trust not improperly, to put these

motives forward in the simplicity of that form wherein they seem to me

to come down from the throne of God to the hearts of men; and to

consider my prospects and obligations, not under all the limitations

which a highly artificial state of society might seem to impose upon

them, but direct and undiluted; not, in short, as one who has certain

pursuits to follow, certain objects of his own to gain, and relations

to fulfil, and arrangements to execute--but as a being destined shortly

to stand before the judgment seat of God, and there give the decisive

account of his actions at the tribunal whose awards admit of no evasion

and of no appeal.

That I _have_ viewed them in this light I dare not assert; but I have

wished and striven to view them so, and to weigh them, and to answer

these questions in the same manner as I must answer them on that day

when the trumpet of the archangel shall arouse the living and the dead,

and when it will be demanded of me in common with all others, how I have

kept and how employed that which was committed to my charge. I dare not

pretend that I could act even up to the standard here fixed, but I can

eye it though distant, with longing hope, and look upwards for the power

which I know is all-sufficient, and therefore sufficient to enable even

such an one as myself to reach it.

Viewing, then, these considerations in such a light as this, I can come

to no other conclusion, at least unaided, than that the work of

spreading religion has a claim infinitely transcending all others in

dignity, in solemnity, and in usefulness: destined to continue in force

until the happy moment come when every human being has been made fully

and effectually acquainted with his condition and its remedies--when

too, as it seems to me, it will be soon enough--of course, I lay down

this rule for myself, provided as I am to the extent of my wants and

very far beyond them--to devise other occupations: _now_ it behoves me

to discharge the overwhelming obligation which summons me to this.

I have scarcely mentioned my beloved mother in the whole of this letter;

for though little has ever passed between us on this subject through the

medium of language, and nothing whatever, I believe, since I last spoke

with you upon it, yet I have long been well aware of the tendency of her

desires, long indeed before my own in any degree coincided with them.

I await with deference and interest the communication of your desires

upon this subject: earnestly desiring that if I have said anything

through pride or self-love, it may be forgiven me at your hands, and by

God through his Son; and that if my statements be false, or exaggerated,

or romantic, or impracticable, I may, by His mercy and through your

instrumentality or that of others, be brought back to my right mind, and

taught to hold the truth of God in all its sobriety as well as in all

its force.--And believe me ever, my beloved and honoured father, your

affectionate and dutiful son,

WM. E. GLADSTONE.

_John Gladstone to his Son_

_Leamington, 10 Aug. 1830_.

MY BELOVED WILLIAM,--I have read and given my best consideration to your

letter, dated the 4th, which I only received yesterday. I did hope that

you would have delayed making up your mind on a subject so important as

your future pursuits in life must be to yourself and to us all, until

you had completed those studies connected with the attainment of the

honours or distinctions of which you were so justly ambitious, and on

which your mind seemed so bent when we last communicated respecting

them. You know my opinion to be, that the field for actual usefulness to

our fellow-creatures, where a disposition to exercise it actively

exists, is more circumscribed and limited in the occupations and duties

of a clergyman, whose sphere of action, unless pluralities are admitted

(as I am sure they would not be advocated by you) is necessarily in a

great degree confined to his parish, than in those professions or

pursuits which lead to a more general knowledge, as well as a more

general intercourse with mankind, such as the law, taking it as a basis,

and introduction to public life, to which I had looked forward for you,

considering you, as I do, peculiarly well qualified to be made thus

eminently useful to others, with credit and satisfaction to yourself.

There is no doubt but as a clergyman, faithfully and conscientiously

discharging the duties of that office to those whose spiritual interests

are entrusted to your care, should you eventually be placed in that

situation, that you may have both comfort and satisfaction, with few

worldly responsibilities, but you will allow me to doubt whether the

picture your perhaps too sanguine mind has drawn in your letter before

me, would ever be practically realised. Be this as it may, whenever your

mind shall be finally made up on this most important subject, I shall

trust to its being eventually for your good, whatever that determination

may be. In the meantime I am certainly desirous that those studies with

which you have been occupied in reading for your degree may be followed

up, whether the shorter or longer period may be necessary to prepare you

for the results. You are young and have ample time before you. Let

nothing be done rashly; be consistent with yourself, and avail yourself

of all the advantages placed within your reach. If, when that ordeal is

passed, you should continue to think as you now do, I shall not oppose

your _then_ preparing yourself for the church, but I do hope that your

final determination will not until then be taken, and that whatever

events may occur in the interval, you will give them such weight and

consideration as they may appear to merit.... Your mother is much as

usual.--With our united and affectionate love, I ever am your

affectionate father,

JOHN GLADSTONE.

CANADA, 1838

_Page 144_

_Jan. 20/38._--To-day there was a meeting on Canada at Sir R. Peel's.

There were present Duke of Wellington, Lords Aberdeen, Ripon,

Ellenborough, Stanley, Hardinge, and others.... Peel said he did not

object to throwing out the government provided it were done by us on our

own principles; but that to throw them out on radical principles would

be most unwise. He agreed that less might have been done, but was not

willing to take the responsibility of refusing what the government

asked. He thought that this rebellion had given a most convenient

opportunity for settling the question of the Canadian constitution,

which had long been a thorny one and inaccessible; that if we postponed

the settlement by giving the assembly another trial, the revolt would be

forgotten, and in colder blood the necessary powers might be refused. He

thought that when once you went into a measure of a despotic character,

it was well to err, if at all, on the side of sufficiency; Lord Ripon

strongly concurred. The duke sat with his hand to his ear, turning from

one towards another round the circle as they took up the conversation in

succession, and said nothing till directly and pressingly called upon by

Peel, a simple but striking example of the self-forgetfulness of a great

man.

_Jan. 26/38._--I was myself present at about eight hours [_i.e._ on

three occasions] of discussion in Peel's house upon the Canadian

question and bill, and there was one meeting held to which I was not

summoned. The conservative amendments were all adopted in the thoroughly

straightforward view of looking simply at the bill and not at the

government and the position of parties. Peel used these emphatic words:

'Depend upon it, our course is the direct one; don't do anything that is

wrong for the sake of putting them out; don't avoid anything that is

right for the sake of keeping them in.' Every one of these points has

now been carried without limitation or exception. For the opposition

party this is, in familiar language, a feather in its cap. The whole has

been carefully, thoroughly, and effectually done. Nothing since I have

been in parliament--not even the defeat of the Church Rate measure last

year--has been of a kind to tell so strikingly as regards appearances

upon the comparative credit of the two parties.

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S GOVERNMENT

_Page 247_

_In the great mountain of Mr. Gladstone's papers I have come across an

unfinished and undated draft of a letter written by him for the Queen in

1880 on Sir Robert Peel's government_:--

Mr. Gladstone with his humble duty reverts to the letter which your

Majesty addressed to him a few days back, and in which your Majesty

condescended to recollect and to remind him of the day now nearly

forty years ago, a day he fears not altogether one of pleasure to

your Majesty, when together with others he had the honour to be

sworn of your Majesty's privy council. Your Majesty is pleased to

pronounce upon the government then installed into office a high

eulogy: a eulogy which Mr. Gladstone would presume, as far as he

may, to echo. He values it, and values the recollection of the men

who principally composed it, because it was, in the first place, a

most honourable and high-minded government; because its legislative

acts tended greatly, and almost uniformly, to increase the

wellbeing of the country, and to strengthen the attachment of the

people to the throne and the laws; while it studied in all things

to maintain the reverse of an ambitious or disturbing policy.

It was Mr. Gladstone's good fortune to live on terms of intimacy,

and even affection, with the greater portion of its principal and

more active members until the close of their valued lives; and

although he is far from thinking that they, and he himself with

them, committed no serious errors, yet it is his conviction that in

many of the most important rules of public policy that government

surpassed generally the governments which have succeeded it,

whether liberal or conservative. Among them he would mention purity

in patronage, financial strictness, loyal adherence to the

principle of public economy, jealous regard to the rights of

parliament, a single eye to the public interest, strong aversion to

extension of territorial responsibilities, and a frank admission of

the rights of foreign countries as equal to those of their own.

With these recollections of the political character of Sir R. Peel

and his government Mr. Gladstone has in no way altered his feelings

of regard and respect for them. In all the points he has mentioned

he would desire to tread in their steps, and in many of them, or at

least in some, he has no hope of soon seeing them equalled. The

observance of such principles is in his conviction the best means

of disarming radicalism of whatever is dangerous in its

composition, and he would feel more completely at ease as to the

future prospects of this country could he feel more sure of their

being faithfully observed.

Mr. Gladstone is, and has been, but a learner through his life, and

he can claim no special gift of insight into the future: the

history of his life may not be flattering to his self-love, but he

has great consolation in believing that the great legislative acts

of the last half-century, in most of which he has had some share

...

_And here the fragment closes_.

CRISIS ON THE SUGAR DUTIES, 1844

_Page 267_

In 1841 the whig government raised the question of the sugar duties, and

proposed to substitute a protective duty of 12/ per cwt. for the actual

or virtual prohibition of foreign sugars which had up to that time

subsisted. They were strongly opposed, and decisively beaten. The

argument used against them was, I think, twofold. There was the

protection plea on behalf of the West Indians whose estates were now

worked only by free labour--and there was the great and popular

contention that the measure not only admitted sugar the product of slave

labour, which we would not allow our own colonies to employ, but that

our new supplies would be derived from Brazil, and above all from Cuba

and Puerto Rico, where the slave trade was rampant, and was prosecuted

on an enormous scale. The government of Sir R. Peel largely modified our

system. Its general professions were the abolition of prohibition, and

the reduction of protective duties to a moderate rate. In 1844 it was

determined to deal with the sugar duties, and to admit sugar at, I

think, a rate of 10/ per cwt. beyond the rate for British-grown. But we

had to bear in mind the arguments of 1841, and it was determined that

the sugars so to be admitted were to be the product of free labour only.

There was some uncertainty from whence they were to come. Java produced

sugar largely, under a system involving certain restraints, but as we

contended essentially free. The whole argument, however, was difficult

and perplexed, and a parliamentary combination was formed against the

government. The opposition, with perfect consistency, mustered in full

force. The West Indian interest, which, though much reduced in wealth,

still subsisted as a parliamentary entity, was keenly arrayed on the

same side. There were some votes attracted by dislike, perhaps, to the

argument on our side, which appeared to be complex and over-refined. A

meeting of the party was held in order to confront the crisis. Sir

Robert Peel stated his case in a speech which was thought to be haughty

and unconciliatory. I do not recollect whether there was hostile

discussion, or whether silence and the sulks prevailed. But I remember

that when the meeting of the party broke up, Sir Robert Peel said on

quitting the room that it was the worst meeting he had ever attended. It

left disagreeable anticipations as to the division which was in

immediate prospect.... The opposition in general had done what they

could to strengthen their momentary association with the West Indian

conservatives. Their hopes of a majority depended entirely upon

conservative votes. Of course, therefore, it was vital to confine the

attack to the merits of the question immediately before the House, as an

attack upon the policy of the government generally could only strengthen

it by awakening the susceptibilities of party and so reclaiming the

stray voters to the administration. Lord Howick, entering into the

debate as the hours of enhanced interest began, made a speech which

attacked the conservative policy at large, and gave the opening for an

effective reply. Lord Stanley perceived his opportunity and turned it to

account with great force and adroitness. In a strictly retaliatory

speech, he wound up conservative sentiment on behalf of ministers, and

restored the tone of the House. The clouds of the earlier evening hours

dispersed, and the government was victorious. Two speeches, one

negatively and the other positively, reversed the prevailing current,

and saved the administration. I have never known a parallel case. The

whole honour of the fray, in the ministerial sense, redounded to Lord

Stanley. I doubt whether in the twenty-six years of his after life he

ever struck such a stroke as this.

COLONIAL POLICY

_Page 362_

You have reversed, within the last seventy years, every one of these

salutary principles. Your policy has been this; you have retained at

home the management of and property in colonial lands. You have

magnificent sums figuring in your estimates for the ordinary expenses of

their governments, instead of allowing them to bear their own expenses.

Instead of suffering them to judge what are the measures best adapted to

secure their peaceful relations with the aboriginal tribes, and

endeavouring to secure their good conduct--instead of telling them that

they must not look for help from you unless they maintain the principles

of justice, you tell them, 'You must not meddle with the relations

between yourselves and the natives; that is a matter for parliament'; a

minister sitting in Downing Street must determine how the local

relations between the inhabitants of the colony and the aboriginal

tribes are to be settled, in every point down to the minutest detail.

Nay, even their strictly internal police your soldiery is often called

upon to maintain. Then, again, the idea of their electing their own

officers is, of course, revolutionary in the extreme--if not invading

the royal supremacy, it is something almost as bad, dismembering the

empire; and as to making their own laws upon their local affairs without

interference or control from us, that is really an innovation so opposed

to all ideas of imperial policy, that I think my honourable friend the

member for Southwark (Sir William Molesworth) has been the first man in

the House bold enough to propose it. Thus, in fact, the principles on

which our colonial administration was once conducted have been precisely

reversed. Our colonies have come to be looked upon as being, not

municipalities endowed with internal freedom, but petty states. If you

had only kept to the fundamental idea of your forefathers, that these

were municipal bodies founded within the shadow and cincture of your

imperial powers--that it was your business to impose on them such

positive restraints as you thought necessary, and having done so, to

leave them free in everything else--all those principles, instead of

being reversed, would have survived in full vigour--you would have saved

millions, I was going to say countless millions, to your exchequer; but

you would have done something far more important by planting societies

more worthy by far of the source from which they spring; for no man can

read the history of the great American Revolution without seeing that a

hundred years ago your colonies, such as they then were, with the

institutions they then possessed, and the political relations in which

they then stood to the mother-country, bred and reared men of mental

stature and power such as far surpassed anything that colonial life is

now commonly considered to be capable of producing.--_Speech on second

reading of the New Zealand Constitution bill, May_ 21, 1852.

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF 1853 AS AFFECTING IRELAND

_Page 465_

_When the report of the Irish Financial Relations Commission of 1894 was

named to him, Mr. Gladstone made the following observations:--_

The changes adopted in that year were explained in my budget speech, and

will be found in my volume of _Financial Statements_, pp. 53, 60, and

69. They affected the Spirit Duties and the Income-Tax.

1. _The Spirit Duties._--We laid 8d. per gallon upon Irish spirits,

imposed at the same time 1s. per gallon in Scotland, and laid it down

that the equalisation of the duty in the three countries would require a

reduction of the duty of 8s. chargeable in England. Sir Robert Peel had

imposed 1s. per gallon on Irish spirits in 1842, but was defeated by the

smuggler, and repealed the duty in consequence of the failure. In 1842

the duty was levied by a separate revenue police. I abolished this

separate police, and handed the duty to the constabulary force, which

raised it, and without difficulty.

2. _The Income-Tax_ was also in that year extended to Ireland. I pointed

out that Sir Robert Peel, in imposing the burden on Great Britain,

proposed to give a compensation for it by progressive reductions of duty

on consumable commodities, and that Ireland had for twelve years enjoyed

her full share of the compensation without undergoing any part of the

burden; but I also laid it down as a fundamental principle that the

peace income-tax was to be temporary, and I computed that it might cease

in 1860. This computation was defeated, first by the Crimean war, second

by a change of ideas as to expenditure and establishments which I did

everything in my power to check, but which began to creep in with, and

after, that war. We were enabled to hold it in check during the

government of 1859-66. It has since that time, and especially in these

last years, broken all bounds. But although the computation of 1853 was

defeated, the principle that the income-tax should be temporary was

never forgotten, at least by me, and in the year 1874 I redeemed my

pledge by proposing, as mentioned, to repeal it--a course which would

have saved the country a sum which it is difficult to reckon, but very

large. This fact which was in the public mind in 1853 when the

income-tax was temporary, is the key to the whole position. From this

point of view we must combine it with the remission of the consolidated

annuities. I have not now the means of making the calculation exactly,

but it will be found that a descending income-tax on Ireland for seven

years at 7d., then 6d., then 5d., is largely, though not completely,

balanced by that remission. It will thus be seen that the finance of

1853 is not responsible either for a permanent peace income-tax upon

Ireland, or for the present equalisation of the spirit duties. At the

same time, I do not mean to condemn those measures. I condemn utterly

the extravagance of the civil expenditure in Ireland, which, if Ireland

has been unjustly taxed, cannot for a moment be pleaded as a

compensation. I reserve my judgment whether political equality can be

made compatible with privilege in point of taxation. I admit, for my own

part, that in 1853 I never went back to the union whence the difficulty

springs, but only to the union of the exchequers in or about 1817. It is

impossible to resist the authority which has now affirmed that we owe a

pecuniary, as well as a political debt to Ireland.

FINANCIAL PROPOSAL OF 1853

_Page 473_

_Mr. Gladstone to Sir Stafford Northcote_

_Aug._ 6, 1862.--I have three main observations to make upon the

conversion scheme, two of which are confessions, and one a maxim for an

opposition to remember.

1. In the then doubtful state of foreign politics, had I been capable of

fully appreciating it at the time, I ought not to have made the

proposal.

2. Such a proposal when made by a government ought either to be resisted

outright, or allowed to pass, I do not say without protest, but without

delay. For _that_ can do nothing but mischief to a proposal depending on

public impression. The same course should be taken as is taken in the

case of loans.

3. I am sorry to say I made a more serious error, as regards the South

Sea Stocks, than the original proposal. In the summer, I think, of 1853,

and a good while before harvest the company proposed to me to take Mr.

Goulburn's 3 per cents. to an equal amount in lieu of their own. They

were at the time more valuable and I refused; but it would have been

wise to accept, not because the event proved it so, but because the

state of things at the time was so far doubtful as to have made this

kind of insurance prudent.

_For the benefit of the expert, I give Mr. Gladstone's further

observations on this highly technical matter:--_

I have other remarks to offer. I write, however, from memory. Three

millions of the £8,000,000 were paid in exchequer bills. The difference

between £100 and the price of consols at the time may, in argument at

least, fairly be considered as public loss. You say it was 90 or 91. We

could not, however, if the operation had not taken place, have applied

our surplus revenue with advantage to the reduction of debt. The

balances would have been richer by £5,000,000, but we had to raise seven

millions for the services of the year 1854-5. Now, as I am making myself

liable for the loss of half a million of money in repaying the South Sea

Company, and thereby starving the balances, I am entitled to say on the

other hand that the real loss is to be measured by the amount of

necessity created for replenishing them, and the charge entailed in

effecting it. This I think was done by the exchequer bonds: and beyond

all doubt a large saving was effected to the public by raising money

upon those bonds, instead of borrowing in consols at 84 or thereabouts,

which I think would have been the price for which we should in that year

have borrowed--say, at 84. The redemption price, _i.e._ the price at

which on the average consols have been in recent times redeemed, can

hardly I think be less than 95, and may be higher. There was in 1854 a

strong combination in the City to compel a 'loan' by bearing the funds;

and when it was defeated by the vote of the House of Commons, a rapid

reaction took place, several millions, as I understand, were lost by the

'bear,' and the attempt was not renewed in 1855, when the loan was, I

believe, made on fair terms, relatively to the state of the market.

THE REFORM BILL OF 1854

_Page 491_

In cabinet on Wednesday Lord John Russell opened the question of the

Reform bill, stated the prospect of defeat on Sir E. Dering's motion,

and expressed his willingness to postpone the measure until the 27th

April. Lord Palmerston recommended postponement altogether. Lord

Aberdeen and Graham were averse to any postponement, the latter even

declaring his opinion that we ought at the time when the Queen's Speech

was framed to have assumed the present state of circumstances as

inevitable, and that, therefore, we had no apology or ground for change;

further, that we ought if necessary to dissolve upon defeat in order to

carry the measure. No one else went this length. All the three I have

named were, from their different points of view, disposed to concur in

the expedient of postponement, which none of them preferred on its

merits. Of the rest of the cabinet, Molesworth and I expressed decidedly

our preference for the more decided course of at once giving up the bill

for the year, as did the chancellor, and this for the ultimate interest

of the plan itself. Lord Lansdowne, Wood, Clarendon, Herbert were all,

with more or less decision of phrase, in the same sense. Newcastle,

Granville, and Argyll were, I believe, of the same mind. But all were

willing to accept the postponement until April 27, rather than the very

serious alternative. Molesworth and I both expressed our apprehension

that this course would in the end subject the government to far more of

censure and of suspicion than if we dealt with the difficulty at once.

Next day Lord John came to see me, and told me he had the idea that in

April it might probably be found advisable to divide the part of the

bill which enfranchises new classes from that which disfranchises places

and redistributes seats; with a view of passing the first and letting

the latter take its chance; as the popular feeling would tell for the

first while the selfish interests were provoked by the last. He thought

that withdrawal of the bill was equivalent to defeat, and that either

must lead to a summary winding up of the session. I said the division

of the bill was a new idea and a new light to me; but observed that it

would by no means help Graham, who felt himself chiefly tied to the

disfranchising part; and submitted to him that his view of a withdrawal

of the bill, given such circumstances as would alone induce the cabinet

to think of it, was more unfavourable than the case warranted--_March_

3, 1854.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

_Page 511_

_Extracts from a letter to Lord John Russell, Jan. 20, 1854_

... I do not hesitate to say that one of the great recommendations of

the change in my eyes would be its tendency to strengthen and multiply

the ties between the higher classes and the possession of administrative

power. As a member for Oxford, I look forward eagerly to its operation.

There, happily, we are not without some lights of experience to throw

upon this part of the subject. The objection which I always hear there

from persons who wish to retain restrictions upon elections is this: 'If

you leave them to examination, Eton, Harrow, Rugby, and the other public

schools will carry _everything_.' I have a strong impression that the

aristocracy of this country are even superior in natural gifts, on the

average, to the mass: but it is plain that with their acquired

advantages, their _insensible education_, irrespective of book-learning,

they have an immense superiority. This applies in its degree to all

those who may be called gentlemen by birth and training; and it must be

remembered that an essential part of any such plan as is now under

discussion is the separation of _work_, wherever it can be made, into

mechanical and intellectual, a separation which will open to the highly

educated class a career, and give them a command over all the higher

parts of the civil service, which up to this time they have never

enjoyed....

I must admit that the aggregate means now possessed by government for

carrying on business in the House of Commons are not in excess of the

real need, and will not bear serious diminution. I remember being

alarmed as a young man when Lord Althorp said, or was said to have said,

that this country could no longer be governed by patronage. But while

sitting thirteen years for a borough with a humble constituency, and

spending near ten of them in opposition, I was struck by finding that

the loss or gain of access to government patronage was not traceable in

its effect upon the local political influences. I concluded from this

that it was not the intrinsic value of patronage (which is really none,

inasmuch as it does not, or ought not, to multiply the aggregate number

of places to be given, but only acts on the mode of giving them) that

was regarded, but simply that each party liked and claimed to be upon a

footing of equality with their neighbours. Just in the same way, it was

considered necessary that bandsmen, flagmen, and the rest, should be

paid four times the value of their services, without any intention of

bribery, but because it was the custom, and was done on the other

side--in places where this was thought essential, it has now utterly

vanished away, and yet the people vote and work for their cause as

zealously as they did before. May not this after all be found to be the

case in the House of Commons as well as in many constituencies?...

It might increase the uncertainties of the government in the House of

Commons on particular nights; but is not the hold even now uncertain as

compared with what it was thirty or forty years ago; and is it really

weaker for general and for good purposes, on account of that

uncertainty, than it then was? I have heard you explain with great force

to the House this change in the position of governments since the Reform

bill, as a legitimate accompaniment of changes in our political state,

by virtue of which we appeal _more_ to reason, less to habit, direct

interest, or force. May not this be another legitimate and measured step

in the same direction? May we not get, I will not say more ease and

certainty for the leader of the House, but more real and more honourable

strength with the better and, in the long run, the ruling part of the

community, by a signal proof of cordial desire that the processes by

which government is carried on should not in elections only, but

elsewhere too be honourable and pure? I speak with diffidence; but

remembering that at the revolution we passed over from prerogative to

patronage, and that since the revolution we have also passed from

bribery to influence, I cannot think the process is to end here; and

after all we have seen of the good sense and good feeling of the

community, though it may be too sanguine, I cherish the hope that the

day is now near at hand, or actually come, when in pursuit not of

visionary notions, but of a great practical and economical improvement,

we may safely give yet one more new and striking sign of rational

confidence in the intelligence and character of the people.

MR. GLADSTONE AND THE BANK

_Page 519_

From the time I took office as chancellor of the exchequer I began to

learn that the state held in the face of the Bank and the City an

essentially false position as to finance. When those relations began,

the state was justly in ill odour as a fraudulent bankrupt who was ready

on occasion to add force to fraud. After the revolution it adopted

better methods though often for unwise purposes, and in order to induce

monied men to be lenders it came forward under the countenance of the

Bank as its sponsor. Hence a position of subserviency which, as the idea

of public faith grew up and gradually attained to solidity, it became

the interest of the Bank and the City to prolong. This was done by

amicable and accommodating measures towards the government, whose

position was thus cushioned and made easy in order that it might be

willing to give it a continued acquiescence. The hinge of the whole

situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive

power in matters of finance, but was to leave the money power supreme

and unquestioned. In the conditions of that situation I was reluctant to

acquiesce, and I began to fight against it by financial self-assertion

from the first, though it was only by the establishment of the Post

Office Savings Banks and their great progressive development that the

finance minister has been provided with an instrument sufficiently

powerful to make him independent of the Bank and the City power when he

has occasion for sums in seven figures. I was tenaciously opposed by the

governor and deputy-governor of the Bank, who had seats in parliament,

and I had the City for an antagonist on almost every occasion.--_Undated

fragment_.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE AND SIDNEY HERBERT

_Page 521_

With reference to the Crimean war, I may give a curious example of the

power of self-deception in the most upright men. The offices of colonial

secretary and war minister were, in conformity with usage, united in the

hands of the Duke of Newcastle. On the outbreak of war it became

necessary to separate them. It evidently lay with the holder to choose

which he would keep. The duke elected for the war department, and

publicly declared that he did this in compliance with the unanimous

desire of his colleagues. And no one contradicted him. We could only

'grin and bear it.' I cannot pretend to know the sentiments of each and

every minister on the matter. But I myself, and every one with whom I

happened to communicate, were very strongly of an opposite opinion. The

duke was _well_ qualified for the colonial seals, for he was a

statesman; _ill_ for the war office, as he was no administrator. I

believe we all desired that Lord Palmerston should have been war

minister. It might have made a difference as to the tolerance of the

feeble and incapable administration of our army before Sebastopol.

Indeed, I remember hearing Lord Palmerston suggest in cabinet the recall

of Sir Richard Airy.

In that crisis one man suffered most unjustly. I mean Sidney Herbert. To

some extent, perhaps, his extraordinary and most just popularity led

people to refrain from pouring on him those vials of wrath to which his

office exposed him in the eyes especially of the uninformed. The duties

of his department were really financial. I suppose it to be doubtful

whether it was not the duty of the secretary of state's department to

deal with the question of supply for the army, leaving to him only the

management of the purchasing part. But I conceive it could be subject to

no doubt at all that it was the duty of the administrative department of

the army on the spot to anticipate and make known their wants for the

coming winter. This, if my memory serves me, they wholly failed to do:

and, the Duke of Newcastle's staff being in truth very little competent,

Herbert strained himself morning, noon, and night to invent wants for

the army, and according to his best judgment or conjecture to supply

them. So was laden the great steamer which went to the bottom in the

harbour of Balaclava. And so came Herbert to be abused for his good

deeds.--_Autobiographic Note_, Sept. 17, 1897.

THE CRIMEAN WAR

_Page 546_

_Mr. Gladstone to Duke of Argyll_

_Oct._ 18, '55.--You have conferred a great obligation on me by putting

me into the witness-box, and asking me why I thought last year that we

were under an obligation to Lord Palmerston for 'concentrating the

attention of the cabinet on the expedition to the Crimea.' Such was

_then_ my feeling, entertained so strongly that I even wrote to him for

the purpose of giving to it the most direct expression. And such is my

feeling _still_. I think the fall of Sebastopol, viewed in itself and

apart from the mode in which it has been brought about, a great benefit

to Europe.... This benefit I should have contemplated with high and, so

to speak, unmixed satisfaction, were I well assured as to the means by

which we had achieved it. But, of course, there is a great difference

between a war which I felt, however grievous it was, yet to be just and

needful, and a war carried on without any adequate justification; so far

as I can to this hour tell, without even any well-defined practical

object.... Your letter (if I must now pass from the defensive) seems to

me to involve assumptions as to our right to rectify the distribution of

political power by bloodshed, which carry it far beyond just bounds. In

the hour of success doctrines and policy are applauded, or pass

unquestioned even under misgiving, which are very differently handled at

a period of disaster, or when a nation comes to feel the embarrassments

it has accumulated. The government are certainly giving effect to the

public opinion of the day. If that be a justification, they have it: as

all governments of England have had, in all wars, at eighteen months

from their commencement. Apart from the commanding consideration of our

duty as men and Christians, I am not less an objector to the

post-April-policy, on the ground of its certain or probable

consequences--in respect first and foremost to Turkey; in respect to the

proper place and power of France; in respect to the interest which

Europe has in keeping her (and us all) within such place and power; in

respect to the permanence of our friendly relations with her; and

lastly, in respect to the effects of continued war upon the condition of

our own people, and the stability of our institutions. But each of these

requires an octavo volume. I must add another head: I view with alarm

the future use against England of the arguments and accusations we use

against Russia.

_Dec._ 1.--What I find press hardest among the reproaches upon me is

this:--'You went to war for limited objects; why did you not take into

account the high probability that those objects would be lost sight of

in the excitement which war engenders, and that this war, if once begun,

would receive an extension far beyond your views and wishes?'

_Dec. 3._--I _do_ mean that the reproach I named is the one most nearly

just. What the weight due to it is, I forbear finally to judge until I

see the conclusion of this tremendous drama. But I quite see enough to

be aware that the particular hazard in question ought to have been more

sensibly and clearly before me. It _may_ be good logic and good sense, I

think, to say:--'I will forego ends that are just, for fear of being

driven upon the pursuit of others that are not so.' Whether it is so in

a particular case depends very much upon the probable amount of the

driving power, and of the resisting force which may be at our command.

CHRONOLOGY[394]

1832.

Dec. 13. Elected member for Newark,--Gladstone, 887; Handley, 798;

Wilde, 726.

1833.

Jan. 25. Admitted a law student at Lincoln's Inn.

March 6. Elected member of Carlton Club.

April 30. Speaks on a Newark petition.

May 17. Appointed on Colchester election committee.

" 21. Presents an Edinburgh petition against immediate abolition of

slavery.

June 3. On Slavery Abolition bill.

July 4. On Liverpool election petition.

" 8. Opposes Church Reform (Ireland) bill.

" 25 and 29. On negro apprenticeship system.

Aug. 5. Serves on select committee on stationary office.

" 8. Moves for return on Irish education.

1834.

Mar. 12 and 19. On bill disenfranchising Liverpool freemen.

June 4. Serves on select committee on education in England.

July 28. Opposes Universities Admission bill.

Dec. 26. Junior lord of the treasury in Sir R. Peel's ministry.

1835.

Jan. 5. Returned unopposed for Newark.

" 27. Under-secretary for war and the colonies.

March 4. Moves for, and serves on, a committee on military expenditure

in the colonies.

" 19. Brings in Colonial Passengers' bill for improving condition of

emigrants.

" 31. In defence of Irish church.

June 11. Entertained at Newark.

" 22, July 20. Criticises Municipal Corporation bill.

Aug. 21. Defends House of Lords.

Sept. 23. Death of his mother.

1836.

Feb. 8. A member of Aborigines committee.

March 22. On negro apprenticeship in Jamaica.

" 28. A member of negro apprenticeship committee.

June 1. On Tithes and Church (Ireland) bill.

" 8. A member of select committee on disposal of land in the

colonies.

Oct. 18. Speaks at dinner of Liverpool Tradesmen's Conservative

Association.

" 21. Speaks at dinner of Liverpool Operatives' Conservative

Association.

1837.

Jan. 13. Speaks at Peel banquet at Glasgow.

" 17. Speaks at Newark.

Feb. 10. Moves for return showing religious instruction in the

colonies.

March 7. A member of committee on Irish education.

" 8. On affairs of Lower Canada.

" 15. In support of church rates.

April 28. A member of colonial accounts committee.

" 21. At Newark on Poor Law.

" 24. Returned unopposed for Newark.

" 27. Defeated for Manchester,--Thomson, 4127; Philips, 3759;

Gladstone, 2324.

Aug. 9. Speaks at dinner at Manchester.

Dec. 12. Member of committee on education of poor children.

" 22. On Canadian discontent.

1838.

Jan. 23. On Canadian affairs.

March 7. Criticises action of government in Canada.

" 30. In defence of West Indian sugar planters.

June 20. On private bill to facilitate colonisation of New Zealand.

July 10. Moves for a commission on grievances of Cape colonists.

" 11 and 23. Opposes the appointment of dissenting chaplains in

prisons.

" 27. A member of committee on Scotch education.

" 30. Opposes grant to Maynooth College.

Aug. Visits the continent. Oct. in Sicily; Dec. in Rome.

Dec. _The Church in its Relations with the State_, published.

1839.

Jan. 31. Returns to England.

Apr. 15. Withdraws from Lincoln's Inn.

May 6. Opposes Suspension of the Jamaica constitution.

June 10. Opposes bill for temporary government of Jamaica.

" 20. Criticises the proposal for a board of education.

July 25. Married to Miss Catherine Glynne at Hawarden.

1840.

Mar. 30-April 4. Examiner at Eton for Newcastle scholarship.

April 8. Denounces traffic in opium and Chinese war.

" 8. A member of committee on opium question.

May 29. In support of Government of Canada bill.

June 3. Eldest son, William Henry, born.

" 15. On Canadian Clergy Reserves bill.

" 25. On sugar duties.

" 29, July 20. Opposes Ecclesiastical Revenues bill.

July 9. A member of select committee on colonisation of New Zealand.

" 27. Denounces traffic in opium.

Sept. 18. Speaks at Liverpool on religious education.

Nov. _Church Principles considered in their Results_, published.

1841.

Jan. 20. On the corn laws at Walsall.

March 31. Proposes rejection of bill admitting Jews to corporate office.

April Revised edition of _The Church in its Relations with the

State_, published.

May 10. Opposes reduction of duty on foreign sugar.

July 29. Re-elected for Newark,--Mr. Gladstone, 633; Lord John Manners,

630; Mr. Hobhouse, 394.

Sept. 3. Appointed vice-president of the board of trade.

" 14. Returned unopposed for Newark.

1842.

Feb. 8. Proposes colonial trade resolutions, and brings in bill for

better regulation of railways.

" 14. Replies to Lord J. Russell's condemnation of government's

proposals for amending corn law.

" 25. Opposes Mr. Christopher's sliding scale amendment.

March 9. On second reading of corn law importation bill.

April 15. On Colonial Customs Duties bill.

May 13. On preferential duties for colonial goods.

" 23. On importation of live cattle.

June 3. On sugar duties.

" 14. On export duty on coal.

Sept. 18. Loses finger of left hand in gun accident.

1843.

Jan. Anonymous article, 'The Course of Commercial Policy at Home

and Abroad,' in _Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review_.

" 6. Inaugural address at opening of Collegiate Institute,

Liverpool.

Feb. 13. Replies to Viscount Howick on the corn law.

April 25. Opposes Mr. Ricardo's motion for immediate free trade.

May 9. Opposes Mr. Villiers's motion for the immediate abolition of

corn laws.

" 15. Attends first cabinet as president of the board of trade.

" 19. Supports bill reducing duty on Canadian corn.

June 13. Opposes Lord J. Russell's motion for fixed duty on imported

corn.

Aug. 10. Moves second reading of bill legalising exportation of

machinery.

Oct. 'Present Aspects of the Church' in _Foreign and Colonial

Review_.

1844.

Feb. 5. Moves for select committeen on railways.

March 4. On recommendations of committee on railways.

" 7. On slave trade and commercial relations with Brazil.

" 12. Replies to Mr. Cobden's speech on his motion for committee on

protective duties.

" 19. On reciprocity in commercial treaties.

" 26. Opposes motion to extend low duty on Canadian corn to colonial

wheat.

April 'On Lord John Russell's Translation of the Francesca da

Rimini,' in the _English Review_.

" 2. Outlines provisions of Joint Stock Companies Regulation bill.

" 4. Second son, Stephen Edward, born.

May 18. Presides at Eton anniversary dinner.

June 3. On sugar duties bill.

" 6. In support of Dissenters' Chapels bill.

" 25. Opposes Mr. Villiers's motion for abolition of corn laws.

July. Review of 'Ellen Middleton,' in _English Review._

" 8. On second reading of Railways bill.

Aug. 5. Introduces three bills for regulating private bill procedure.

Oct. 'The Theses of Erastus and the Scottish Church Establishment'

in the _New Quarterly Review_.

Dec. On Mr. Ward's 'Ideal Church,' in _Quarterly Review_.

1845.

Jan. 28. Retires from cabinet.

Feb. 4. Personal explanation.

" 24. In favour of discriminating duties on sugar.

" 26. Defends distinction between free-labour and slave-labour

sugar.

March. _Remarks upon recent Commercial Legislation_, published.

April 11. On second reading of Maynooth College bill.

June. Review of 'Life of Mr. Blanco White,' in _Quarterly_.

" 2. Supports Academical Institutions (Ireland) bill.

July 15. On Spanish treaties and slave-labour sugar.

Sept. 25-Nov. 18. Visits Germany.

Dec. 'Scotch Ecclesiastical Affairs,' in the _Quarterly_.

" 23. Colonial secretary.

Publishes, _A Manual of Prayers from the Liturgy, Arranged for

Family Use_.

1846.

Jan. 5. Retires from the representation of Newark.

1847.

June 'From Oxford to Rome' in the _Quarterly_.

" 7. Captain Gladstone defends his brother's action in recalling

Sir Eardley Wilmot.

Aug. 3. Elected for Oxford University,--Sir R. Inglis, 1700; W. E.

Gladstone, 997; Mr. Round, 824.

Sept. On Lachmann's 'Ilias' in the _Quarterly_.

Dec. 8. Supports Roman Catholic Relief bill.

" 13. On government of New Zealand.

" 16. In favour of admission of Jews to parliament.

1848.

Feb. 9 and 14. On New Zealand Government bill.

" 16. On Roman Catholic Relief bill.

March 10. On recent commercial changes.

April 3. On repeal of Navigation laws, criticising government's

proposal.

" 4. On episcopal revenues.

" 10. Serves as special constable.

" 22. Moves address to the Queen at vestry of St.

Martin's-in-the-Fields.

May 16. In favour of increasing usefulness of cathedrals.

" 23. Replies to Lord G. Bentinck on free trade.

June 2. In favour of freedom of navigation.

" 22. Opposes reduction of sugar duties.

Aug. 17. In favour of legalising diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

" 18. On Vancouver's Island, and free colonisation.

Dec. On the Duke of Argyll's _Presbytery Examined_ in the

_Quarterly_.

1849.

Feb. 19. On revision of parliamentary oaths.

" 22, May 2. In favour of Clergy Relief bill.

March 8. On transportation of convicts.

" 12. On Navigation laws.

" 13. On church rates.

" 27. In favour of scientific colonisation at St.

Martin's-in-the-Fields.

April 16. On colonial administration.

May 10. Defends right of parliament to interfere in colonial affairs.

" 24. In favour of better government of colonies.

June 4. On Australian Colonies bill.

" 14. Protests against compensating Canadian rebels.

" 20. Opposes bill legalising marriage with deceased wife's sister.

" 26. Explains views on colonial questions and policy.

July 5. Moves for inquiry into powers of Hudson Bay Company.

" 13-Aug. 9. Visits Italy: Rome, Naples, Como.

Dec. 'The Clergy Relief Bill' in _Quarterly_.

1850.

Feb. 8. In favour of double chamber constitutions for colonies.

" 21. On causes of agricultural distress, in support of Mr.

Disraeli's motion.

March. 'Giacomo Leopardi' in the _Quarterly_.

" 19. On suppression of slave trade.

" 22. On principles of colonial policy.

April 9. Death of his daughter, Catherine Jessy.

May 6. In favour of colonial self-government, and ecclesiastical

constitution for church in Australia.

" 13. Moves that Australian Government bill be submitted to

colonists.

" 31. In favour of differential sugar duties.

June 4. Letter to Bishop of London: _Remarks on the Royal Supremacy._

" 27. Attacks Lord Palmerston's foreign policy in Don Pacifico

debate.

July 3. On death of Sir R. Peel.

" 8. Criticises Ecclesiastical Commission bill.

" 15. Explains plan for creation of new bishoprics.

" 18. Opposes commission of inquiry into English and Irish

universities.

Aug. 1. 'Last earnest protest' against Australian Colonies Government

bill.

Oct. 26. Leaves England for Naples.

1851.

Feb. 26. Returns to England from Naples. Declines Lord Stanley's

invitation to join his government.

March 25. Opposes Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption bill.

April 11. On financial plans to relieve agricultural distress.

" 15. Opposes appointment of committee on relations with Kaffir

tribes.

May 29. On grievances of inhabitants of Ceylon.

June 30. Opposes Inhabited House Duty bill.

July 4. Protests against Ecclesiastical Titles bill.

" 10. On Rajah Brooke's methods of suppressing piracy.

" 19. On discipline in colonial church.

" Publishes two letters to Lord Aberdeen on Neapolitan

misgovernment.

Dec. 7. Death of Sir John Gladstone at Fasque.

" Letter to Dr. Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen, _On the functions

of laymen in the Church_.

Translation of Farini's _The Roman State_, 1815 to 1850, vols.

i. and ii. published.

1852.

Jan. 29. Publishes _An Examination of the Official Reply of the

Neapolitan Government_.

Feb. 20. Brings in Colonial Bishops bill.

March 15. On free trade.

April On Farini's 'Stato Romano,' in _Edinburgh Review_.

" 2. Third son, Henry Neville, born.

" 5. Protests against policy of Kaffir war.

" 28. Moves second reading of Colonial Bishops bill.

" 30. On Mr. Disraeli's budget statement.

May 10. Proposes rejection of bill to assign disenfranchised seats of

St. Albans and Sudbury.

" 11. In favour of select committee on education at Maynooth

College.

" 12. On paper duty.

" 21. On New Zealand Government bill.

June 8 and 10. Defends action of Bishop of Bath and Wells in the case

of Frome vicarage.

" 23. Brings in bill to amend colonial church laws.

July 14. Re-elected for Oxford University,--Sir. R. Inglis, 1368; W. E.

Gladstone, 1108; Dr. Marsham, 758.

Nov. 11, 25. In defence of principles of free trade.

" 26. Defends Sir R. Peel's free trade policy.

Dec. 'Count Montalembert on Catholic Interests in the Nineteenth

Century' in the _Quarterly_.

" 6. Attacks government's income-tax proposals.

" 16. Replies to Mr. Disraeli's speech in defence of his budget

proposals.

" 23. Appointed chancellor of the exchequer.

1853.

Jan. 20. Re-elected for Oxford University,--W. E. Gladstone, 1022; Mr.

Perceval, 898.

March 3. Speech on Mr. Hume's motion for repeal of all protective

import duties.

" 4 and 18. On Clergy reserves (Canada) bill.

" 28. At Mansion House banquet, on public opinion and public

finance.

April 4. On government's proposal to improve education in England and

Wales.

" 8. Explains nature of proposals for conversion of portion of

national debt.

" 8. On Irish taxation.

" 14. Opposes motion for repeal of advertisement duty, newspaper

stamp tax, and paper duty on financial grounds.

" 18. Introduces his first budget.

" 22. Defends South Sea commutation bill.

May 9. Opposes amendment, in the interest of property, to income-tax.

" 12. Explains changes proposed in succession duties.

" 23. On taxation of Ireland.

June 13. Moves second reading of Savings Bank bill; and July 21.

July 1. Proposes reduction of advertisement duty to sixpence.

" 29. On South Sea Annuities.

Aug. 3. On Colonial Church Regulation bill.

Sept. 27. At Dingwall and Inverness, on results of free trade and evils

of war.

Oct. 12. Tribute to memory of Sir R. Peel at unveiling of statue at

Manchester. At town hall on Russo-Turkish question.

1854.

Jan. 7. Fourth son, Herbert John, born.

March 6. Introduces budget.

" 17. In support of Oxford University bill.

" 21. Replies to Mr. Disraeli's attack on his financial schemes.

" 25. At Mansion House banquet on war and finance.

April 7. On second reading of Oxford University bill.

" 11. Statement on public expenditure and income.

May 8. Introduces war budget.

" 22. Defends resolution empowering government to issue two millions

of exchequer bonds against criticism of Mr. Disraeli.

" 25. On second reading of bill for revision of parliamentary oaths.

" 29. On withdrawal of Bribery Prevention bills.

June 2. Explains provisions of Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges

bill.

" 21. On proposal to abolish church rates.

" 29. Brings in bill for repeal of usury laws.

Dec. 13. On the Crimean war.

" 2. Moves resolution for regulation of interest on Savings Bank

deposits.

1855.

Jan. 29. Opposes Mr. Roebuck's motion.

Feb. 5. Explains reasons for government's resignation.

" 22. Withdraws from cabinet.

" 23. Explains reasons.

March 19. Explains methods adopted to meet war expenditure.

" 19. In favour of free press.

" 26. Defends government of Sardinia in debate on military

convention.

April 20. Criticises budget of Sir G. C. Lewis.

" 26. On principles of taxation.

" 30. Criticises government Loan bill.

May 9. Opposes bill for amendment of marriage law.

" 21. Moves adjournment of debate to discuss Vienna conferences.

" 24. On prosecution of the war.

June. 'Sardinia and Rome,' in _Quarterly_.

" 15. On civil service reform.

" 15. Statement as to Aberdeen government, and terms of peace.

July 10. In favour of open admission to civil service.

" 20, 23, and 27. Protests against the system of subsidies, on the

guarantee of Turkish loan.

Aug. 3. On Vienna negotiations.

Oct. 12. Lecture on Colonial Policy at Hawarden.

Nov. 12. Lecture on Colonies at Chester.

1856.

Feb. 29. On report of Crimean commissioners.

April 11. Condemns government proposals for national education.

" 24. On civil service reform.

May 6. On treaty of peace.

" 19. Criticises budget.

July 1. On differences with the United States government on recruiting

for the British army.

" 11. Criticises County Courts Amendment bill.

" 23. Strongly opposes the Bishops of London and Durham Retirement

bill.

Aug. 'The War and the Peace' in _Gentleman's Magazine_.

Sept. 'The Declining Efficiency of Parliament' in the _Quarterly_.

" 29. At town hall, Mold, in support of Foreign Missionary Society;

in the evening at Collegiate Institution, Liverpool, for

Society for Propagation of the Gospel.

1857.

Jan. 'Homer and His Successors in Epic Poetry,' and 'Prospects

Political and Financial' in _Quarterly_.

" 31. At Stepney, on duty of rich to poor.

Feb. 3. Criticises government's foreign policy and financial measures.

" 5. In support of motion to appoint committee on the Hudson Bay

Company. Nominated member of the committee.

" 20. Condemns budget of Sir G. C. Lewis.

March 3. Supports Mr. Cobden's resolution on China.

" 6. Proposes reduction of tea duty, and condemns Sir G. C. Lewis's

financial proposals.

" 10. Moves resolution in favour of revising and reducing

expenditure.

" 27. Returned unopposed for Oxford University.

April. 'The New Parliament and its Work' in _Quarterly_.

June 2. Speaks at Oxford at inauguration of Diocesan Spiritual Help

Society.

July. 'The Bill for Divorce,' and 'Homeric Characters In and Out of

Homer' in _Quarterly_.

" 9. At Glenalmond College on Christian and classical education.

" 16. On the Persian war.

" 17. Denounces war with China.

" 21. On Lord J. Russell's Oaths Validity Act Amendment bill.

" 22, Aug. 4. Criticises and moves amendments to Burials Act

Amendment bill.

" 24. Explains strong objections to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes

bill.

" 29. Opposes Superannuation Act Amendment bill.

" 31. Opposes second reading of the Divorce bill.

Aug. 7. Protests against unequal treatment of men and women in Divorce

bill.

" 12. Supports continuance of tea and sugar duties.

" 14. On Balkan Principalities.

" 14. Personal explanation regarding his connection with Lord

Lincoln's divorce.

Oct. 12. At Chester, on duty of England to India.

" 22. At Liverpool, urging closer connection between the great

manufacturing towns and the universities.

Dec. 4 and 7. Criticises the Bank Issues Indemnity bill.

" 9. Protests against proposal to increase pension of Sir Henry

Havelock.

" 11. On appointment of select committee on Bank Act.

1858.

Feb. 19. Opposes Conspiracy to Murder bill.

March. _Studies in Homer and the Homeric Age_ published.

April. 'The Fall of the Late Ministry' in _Quarterly_.

" 19. On Mr. Disraeli's budget statement.

" 21, June 8. Criticises Church Rates Abolition bill.

" 26 and 30. On proposals for government of India.

May 3. On financial condition of the country.

" 3, June 7, 14, 17, and July 1. On government of India.

" 4. Moves address on Danubian Principalities.

" 21. Defends Lord Canning in debate on the Oude Proclamation.

June 1. On the Suez Canal, condemning English interference with the

project.

" 28. Supports Funded Debt bill.

July 1 and 5. Proposes additional clause to Universities (Scotland)

bill facilitating the creation of a national university.

" 6. Moves that the army of India be not employed beyond the

frontiers of India without permission of parliament.

" 19. On Government of British Columbia bill.

" 20. On Hudson Bay Company.

Oct. 'The Past and Present Administrations' in _Quarterly_.

" 17. Address at Liverpool on university extension.

Nov. 8. Leaves England for Corfu, on appointment as lord high

commissioner extraordinary of the Ionian Islands.

Dec. 3. Addresses Ionian Assembly.

1859.

Feb. 5. Presents new constitution to Ionian Chamber of Deputies.

" 12. Returned unopposed for Oxford University.

March 8. Returns to London.

" 29. On Representation of the People bill.

April. 'The War in Italy' in the _Quarterly_.

" 18. On the state of Italy.

" 29. Returned unopposed for Oxford University.

June 17. Letter to the provost of Oriel.

" 20. Appointed chancellor of the exchequer.

" 22. Presides at annual dinner of Royal Literary Fund.

July 1. Re-elected for Oxford University,--Mr. Gladstone, 1050;

Marquis of Chandos, 859.

" 12. Supports bill enabling Roman catholics to hold office of

chancellor of Ireland.

" 18. Introduces budget.

" 21. Replies to Mr. Disraeli's criticisms.

Aug. 8. In defence of government's Italian policy.

Oct. On 'Tennyson's Poems' in _Quarterly_.

Nov. 1. At Cambridge, in support of Oxford and Cambridge mission to

Central Africa.

" 12. Elected Lord Rector of University of Edinburgh,--Mr.

Gladstone, 643; Lord Neaves, 527.

Dec. 'Nelda, a Romance,' translated from Grossi, in _Fraser's

Magazine_.

FOOTNOTES:

[394] All speeches unless otherwise stated were made in the House of

Commons.