THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

It may seem presumptuous for me at the present time to write on

Gladstone, whose public life presents so many sides, concerning which

there is anything but unanimity of opinion,--a man still in full life,

and likely to remain so for years to come;[4] a giant, so strong

intellectually and physically as to exercise, without office, a

prodigious influence in national affairs by the sole force of genius and

character combined. But how can I present the statesmen of the

nineteenth century without including him,--the Nestor among political

personages, who for forty years has taken an important part in the

government of England?

[Footnote 4: This was written by Dr. Lord in 1891. Gladstone died in

1898.]

This remarkable man, like Canning, Peel, and Macaulay, was precocious in

his attainments at school and college,--especially at Oxford, which has

produced more than her share of the great men who have controlled

thought and action in England during the period since 1820. But

precocity is not always the presage of future greatness. There are more

remarkable boys than remarkable men. In England, college honors may have

more influence in advancing the fortunes of a young man than in this

country; but I seldom have known valedictorians who have come up to

popular expectations; and most of them, though always respectable, have

remained in comparative obscurity.

Like the statesmen to whom I have alluded, Gladstone sprang from the

middle ranks, although his father, a princely Liverpool merchant, of

Scotch descent, became a baronet by force of his wealth, character, and

influence. Seeing the extraordinary talents of his third son,--William

Ewart,--Sir John Gladstone spared neither pains nor money on his

education, sending him to Eton in 1821, at the age of twelve, where he

remained till 1827, learning chiefly Latin and Greek. Here he was the

companion and friend of many men who afterward became powerful forces in

English life,--political, literary, and ecclesiastical. At the age of

seventeen we find him writing letters to Arthur Hallam on politics and

literature: and his old schoolfellows testify to his great influence

among them for purity, humanity, and nobility of character, while he was

noted for his aptness in letters and skill in debate. In 1827 the boy

was intrusted to the care of Dr. Turner,--afterward bishop of

Calcutta,--under whom he learned something besides Latin and Greek,

perhaps indirectly, in the way of ethics and theology, and other things

which go to the formation of character. At the age of twenty he entered

Christ Church at Oxford--the most aristocratic of colleges--with more

attainments than most scholars reach at thirty, and was graduated in

1831 "double-first class," distinguished not only for his scholarship

but for his power of debate in the Union Society; throwing in his lot

with Tories and High Churchmen, who, as he afterward confesses, "did not

set a due value on the imperishable and inestimable principles of human

liberty." With strong religious tendencies and convictions, he

contemplated taking orders in the Church; but his father saw things

differently,--and thus, with academic prejudices which most graduates

have to unlearn, he went abroad in 1832 to complete the education of an

English gentleman, spending most of his time in Italy and Sicily, those

eternally interesting countries to the scholar and the artist, whose

wonders can scarcely be exaggerated,--affording a perpetual charm and

study if one can ignore popular degradation, superstition, unthrift, and

indifference to material and moral progress. He who enjoys Italy must

live in the past, or in the realm of art, or in the sanctuaries where

priests hide themselves from the light of what is most valuable in

civilization and most ennobling in human consciousness.

Mr. Gladstone returned to England in the most interesting and exciting

period of her political history since the days of Cromwell,--soon after

the great Reform Bill had been passed, which changed the principle of

representation in Parliament, and opened the way for other necessary

reforms. His personal _éclat_ and his powerful friends gave him an

almost immediate entrance into the House of Commons as member for

Newark. The electors knew but little about him; they only knew that he

was supported by the Duke of Newcastle and preponderating Tory

interests, and were carried away by his youthful eloquence--those

silvery tones which nature gave--and that strange fascination which

comes from magnetic powers. The ancients said that the poet is born and

the orator is made. It appears to me that a man stands but little chance

of oratorical triumphs who is not gifted by nature with a musical voice

and a sympathetic electrical force which no effort can acquire.

On the 29th of January, 1833, at the age of twenty-four, Gladstone

entered upon his memorable parliamentary career, during the ministry of

Lord Grey; and his maiden speech--fluent, modest, and earnest--was in

the course of the debate on the proposed abolition of slavery in the

British colonies. It was in reply to an attack made upon the management

of his father's estates in the treatment of slaves in Demerara. He

deprecated cruelty and slavery alike, but maintained that emancipation

should be gradual and after due preparation; and, insisting also that

slaves were private property, he demanded that the interests of planters

should be duly regarded if emancipation should take place. This was in

accordance with justice as viewed by enlightened Englishmen generally.

Negro emancipation was soon after decreed. All negroes born after August

1,1834, as well as those then six years of age were to be free; and the

remainder were, after a kind of apprenticeship of six years, to be set

at liberty. The sum of £20,000,000 was provided by law as a compensation

to the slave-owners,--one of the noblest acts which Parliament ever

passed, and one of which the English nation has never ceased to boast.

Among other measures to which the reform Parliament gave its attention

in 1833 was that relating to the temporalities of the Irish Church, by

which the number of bishops was reduced from twenty-two to twelve, with

a corresponding reduction of their salaries. An annual tax was also

imposed on all livings above £300, to be appropriated to the

augmentation of small benefices. Mr. Gladstone was too conservative to

approve of this measure, and he made a speech against it.

In 1834 the reform ministry went out of power, having failed to carry

everything before them as they had anticipated, and not having produced

that general prosperity which they had promised. The people were still

discontented, trade still languished, and pauperism increased rather

than diminished.

Under the new Tory ministry, headed by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone

became a junior lord of the Treasury. His great abilities were already

recognized, and the premier wanted his services, as Pitt wanted those of

Canning before he was known to fame. Shortly after Parliament assembled,

in February, 1835, Mr. Gladstone was made under-secretary for the

Colonies,--a very young man for such an office. But the Tory ministry

was short-lived, and the Whigs soon returned to power under Lord

Melbourne. During this administration, until the death of William IV. in

1837, there was no display of power or eloquence in Parliament by the

member for Newark of sufficient importance to be here noted, except

perhaps his opposition to a bill for the re-arrangement of church-rates.

As a Conservative and a High Churchman, Gladstone stood aloof from those

who would lay unhallowed hands on the sacred ark of ecclesiasticism. And

here, at least, he has always been consistent with himself. From first

to last he has been the zealous defender and admirer of the English

Church and one of its devoutest members, taking the deepest interest in

everything which concerns its doctrines, its ritual, and its connection

with the State,--at times apparently forgetting politics to come to its

support, in essays which show a marvellous knowledge of both theology

and ecclesiastical history. We cannot help thinking that he would have

reached the highest dignities as a clergyman, and perhaps have been even

more famous as a bishop than as a statesman.

In the Parliament which assembled after Queen Victoria's accession to

the throne, in 1837, the voice of Gladstone was heard in nearly every

important discussion; but the speech which most prominently brought him

into public notice and gave him high rank as a parliamentary orator was

that in 1838, in reference to West India emancipation. The evils of the

negro apprenticeship system, which was to expire in 1840, had been laid

before the House of Lords by the ex-chancellor, Brougham, with his usual

fierceness and probable exaggeration; and when the subject came up for

discussion in the House of Commons Gladstone opposed immediate

abolition, which Lord Brougham had advocated, showing by a great array

of facts that the relation between masters and negroes was generally

much better than it had been represented. But he was on the unpopular

side of the question, and his speech excited admiration without

producing conviction,--successful only as a vigorous argument and a

brilliant oratorical display. The apprenticeship was cut short, and

immediate abolition of slavery decreed.

At that time, Gladstone's "appearance and manners were much in his

favor. His countenance was mild and pleasant; his eyes were clear and

quick; his eyebrows were dark and prominent; his gestures varied but not

violent; his jet black hair was parted from his crown to his brow;" his

voice was peculiarly musical, and his diction was elegant and easy,

without giving the appearance of previous elaboration. How far his

language and thoughts were premeditated I will not undertake to say.

Daniel Webster once declared that there was no such thing as _ex

tempore_ speaking,--a saying not altogether correct, but in the main

confirmed by many great orators who confess to laborious preparation for

their speech-making, and by the fact that many of our famous

after-dinner speakers have been known to send their speeches to the

Press before they were delivered. The case of Demosthenes would seem to

indicate the necessity of the most careful study and preparation in

order to make a truly great speech, however gifted an orator may be; and

those who, like the late Henry Ward Beecher, have astonished their

hearers by their ready utterances have generally mastered certain lines

of fact and principles of knowledge which they have at command, and

which, with native power and art of expression, they present in fresh

forms and new combinations. They do not so much add new stores of fact

to the kaleidoscope of oratory,--they place the familiar ones in new

positions, and produce new pictures _ad infinitum_. Sometimes a genius,

urged by a great impulse, may dash out in an untried course of thought;

but this is not always a safe venture,--the next effort of the kind may

prove a failure. No man can be sure of himself or his ground without

previous and patient labor, except in reply to an antagonist and when

familiar with his subject. That was the power of Fox and Pitt. What gave

charm to the speeches of Peel and Gladstone in their prime was the new

matter they introduced before debate began; and this was the result of

laborious study. To attack such matter with wit and sarcasm is one

thing; to originate it is quite another. Anybody can criticise the most

beautiful picture or the grandest structure, but to paint the one or

erect the other,--_hic labor, hoc opus est_. One of the grandest

speeches ever made, for freshness and force, was Daniel Webster's reply

to Hayne; but the peroration was written and committed to memory, while

the substance of it had been in his thoughts for half a winter, and his

mind was familiar with the general subject. The great orator is

necessarily an artist as much as Pascal was in his _Pensées_; and his

fame will rest perhaps more on his art than on his matter,--since the

art is inimitable and peculiar, while the matter is subject to the

conditions of future, unknown, progressive knowledge. Probably the most

effective speech of modern times was the short address of Abraham

Lincoln at Gettysburg; but this was simply the expression of the

gathered forces of his whole political life.

In the month of July, 1837, Mr. Gladstone was married to Miss Catherine

Glyn, daughter of Sir Stephen Richard Glyn, of Hawarden Castle, in

Flintshire, Wales,--a marriage which proved eminently happy. Eight

children have been the result of this union, of whom but one has died;

all the others have "turned out well," as the saying is, though no one

has reached distinguished eminence. It would seem that Mr. Gladstone,

occupying for forty years so superb a social and public station, has not

been ambitious for the worldly advancement of his children, nor has he

been stained by nepotism in pushing on their fortunes. The eldest son

was a member of Parliament; the second became a clergyman; and the

eldest daughter married a clergyman in a prominent position as

headmaster of Wellington College.

It would be difficult to say when the welfare of the Church and the

triumph of theological truth have not received a great share of Mr.

Gladstone's thoughts and labors. At an early period of his parliamentary

career he wrote an elaborate treatise on the "State in its relation to

the Church." It is said that Sir Robert. Peel threw the book down on the

floor, exclaiming that it was a pity so able a man should jeopardize his

political future by writing such trash; but it was of sufficient

importance to furnish Macaulay a subject for one of his most careful

essays, in which however, though respectful in tone,--patronizing rather

than eulogistic,--he showed but little sympathy with the author. He

pointed out many defects which the critical and religious world has

sustained. In the admirable article which Mr. Gladstone wrote on Lord

Macaulay himself for one of the principal Reviews not many years ago, he

paid back in courteous language, and even under the conventional form of

panegyric, in which one great man naturally speaks of another, a still

more searching and trenchant criticism on the writings of the eminent

historian. Gladstone shows, and shows clearly and conclusively, the

utter inability of Macaulay to grasp subjects of a spiritual and

subjective character, especially exhibited in his notice of the

philosophy of Bacon. He shows that this historian excels only in

painting external events and the outward acts and peculiarities of the

great characters of history,--and even then only with strong prejudices

and considerable exaggerations, however careful he is in sustaining his

position by recorded facts, in which he never makes an error. To the

subjective mind of Gladstone, with his interest in theological subjects,

Macaulay was neither profound nor accurate in his treatment of

philosophical and psychological questions, for which indeed he had but

little taste. Such men as Pascal, Leibnitz, Calvin, Locke, he lets alone

to discuss the great actors in political history, like Warren Hastings,

Pitt, Harley; but in his painting of such characters he stands

pre-eminent over all modern writers. Gladstone does justice to

Macaulay's vast learning, his transcendent memory, and his matchless

rhetoric,--making the heaviest subjects glow with life and power,

effecting compositions which will live for style alone, for which in

some respects he is unapproachable.

Indeed, I cannot conceive of two great contemporary statesmen more

unlike in their mental structure and more antagonistic in their general

views than Gladstone and Macaulay, and unlike also in their style. The

treatise on State and Church, on which Gladstone exhibits so much

learning, to me is heavy, vague, hazy, and hard to read. The subject,

however, has but little interest to an American, and is doubtless much

more highly appreciated by English students, especially those of the

great universities, whom it more directly concerns. It is the argument

of a young Oxford scholar for the maintenance of a Church establishment;

is full of ecclesiastical lore, assuming that one of the chief ends of

government is the propagation of religious truth,--a ground utterly

untenable according to the universal opinion of people in this country,

whether churchmen or laymen, Catholic or Protestant, Conservative

or liberal.

On the fall of the Whig government in 1841, succeeded by that of Sir

Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone was appointed vice-president of the Board of

Trade and master of the Mint, and naturally became more prominent as a

parliamentary debater,--not yet a parliamentary leader. But he was one

of the most efficient of the premier's lieutenants, a tried and faithful

follower, a disciple, indeed,--as was Peel himself of Canning, and

Canning of Pitt. He addressed the House in all the important

debates,--on railways, on agricultural interests, on the abolition of

the corn laws, on the Dissenters' Chapel Bills, on sugar duties,--a

conservative of conservatives, yet showing his devotion to the cause of

justice in everything except justice to the Catholics in Ireland. He was

opposed to the grant to Maynooth College, and in consequence resigned

his office when the decision of the government was made known,--a rare

act of that conscientiousness for which from first to last he has been

pre-eminently distinguished in all political as well as religious

matters. His resignation of office left him free to express his views;

and he disclaimed, in the name of law, the constitution, and the

history of the country, the voting of money to restore and strengthen

the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland. In deference to Sir Robert Peel

and the general cause of education his opposition was not bitter or

persistent; and the progressive views which have always marked his

career led him to support the premier in his repeal of the corn laws, he

having been, like his chief, converted to the free-trade doctrines of

Cobden. But the retirement of such prominent men as the Duke of

Buccleuch and Lord Stanley (of Alderley) from his ministry, as

protectionists, led to its breaking up in 1846 and an attempt to form a

new one under Lord John Russell, which failed; and Sir Robert Peel

resumed direction of a government pledged to repeal the corn laws of

1815. As the Duke of Newcastle was a zealous protectionist, under whose

influence Mr. Gladstone had been elected member of Parliament, the

latter now resigned his seat as member for Newark, and consequently

remained without a seat in that memorable session of 1846 which repealed

the corn laws.

The ministry of Sir Robert Peel, though successful in passing the most

important bill since that of Parliamentary reform in 1832, was doomed;

as we have already noted in the Lecture on that great leader, it fell on

the Irish question, and Lord John Russell became the head of the

government. In the meantime, Mr. Gladstone was chosen to represent the

University of Oxford in Parliament,--one of the most distinguished

honors which he ever received, and which he duly prized. As the champion

of the English Church represented by the University, and as one of its

greatest scholars, he richly deserved the coveted prize.

On the accidental death of Sir Robert Peel in 1850 the conservative

party became disintegrated, and Mr. Gladstone held himself aloof both

from Whigs and Tories, learning wisdom from Sir James Graham (one of the

best educated and most accomplished statesman of the day), and devoting

himself to the study of parliamentary tactics, and of all great

political questions. It was then that in the interval of public business

he again visited Italy, in the winter of 1850-51; this time not for mere

amusement and recreation, but for the health of a beloved daughter.

While in Naples he was led to examine its prisons (with philanthropic

aim), and to study the general policy and condition of the Neapolitan

government. The result was his famous letters to Lord Aberdeen on the

awful despotism under which the kingdom of the Two Sicilies groaned,

where over twenty thousand political prisoners were incarcerated, and

one-half of the Deputies were driven into exile in defiance of all law;

where the prisons were dens of filth and horror, and all sorts of unjust

charges were fabricated in order to get rid of inconvenient persons. I

have read nothing from the pen of Mr. Gladstone superior in the way of

style to these letters,--earnest and straightforward, almost fierce in

their invective, reminding one in many respects of Brougham's defence of

Queen Caroline, but with a greater array of facts, so clearly and

forcibly put as not only to produce conviction but to kindle wrath. The

government of Naples had sworn to maintain a free constitution, but had

disgracefully and without compunction violated every one of its

conditions, and perpetrated cruelties and injustices which would have

appalled the judges of imperial Rome, and defended them by a casuistry

which surpassed in its insult to the human understanding that of the

priests of the Spanish Inquisition.

The indignation created by Gladstone's letters extended beyond England

to France and Germany, and probably had no slight influence in the final

overthrow of the King of Naples, whose government was the most unjust,

tyrannical, and cruel in Europe, and perhaps on the face of the globe.

Its chief evil was not in chaining suspected politicians of character

and rank to the vilest felons, and immuring them in underground cells

too filthy and horrible to be approached even by physicians, for months

and years before their mock-trials began, but in the utter perversion of

justice in the courts by judges who dared not go counter to the

dictation or even wishes of the executive government with its deadly and

unconquerable hatred of everything which looked like political liberty.

All these things and others Mr. Gladstone exposed with an eloquence

glowing and burning with righteous and fearless indignation.

The Neapolitan government attempted to make a denial of the terrible

charges; but the defence was feeble and inconclusive, and the statesman

who made the accusation was not convicted even of exaggeration, although

the heartless tyrant may have felt that he was no more guilty than other

monarchs bent on sustaining absolutism at any cost and under any plea in

the midst of atheists, assassins, and anarchists. It is said that Warren

Hastings, under the terrible invectives of Burke, felt himself to be the

greatest criminal in the world, even when he was conscious of having

rendered invaluable services to Great Britain, which the country in the

main acknowledged. In one sense, therefore, a statement may be

rhetorically exaggerated, even when the facts which support it are

incontrovertible, as the remorseless logic of Calvin leads to deductions

which no one fully believes,--the _decretum quidem horribile_, as Calvin

himself confessed. But is it easy to convict Mr. Gladstone of other

exaggeration than that naturally produced by uncommon ability to array

facts so as to produce conviction, which indeed is the talent of the

advocate rather than that of the judge?

The year 1848 was a period of agitation and revolution in every country

in Europe; and most governments, being unpopular, were compelled to

suppress riots and insurrections, and to maintain order under exceeding

difficulties. England was no exception; and public discontents had some

justification in the great deficiency in the national treasury, the

distress of Ireland, and the friction which new laws, however

beneficent, have to pass through.

About this time Mr. Disraeli was making himself prominent as an orator,

and as a foe to the administration. He was clever in nicknames and witty

expressions,--as when he dubbed the Blue Book of the Import Duties

Committee "the greatest work of imagination that the nineteenth century

had produced." Mr. Gladstone was no match for this great parliamentary

fencer in irony, in wit, in sarcasm, and in bold attacks; but even in a

House so fond of jokes as that of the Commons he commanded equal if not

greater attention by his luminous statements of fact and the earnest

solemnity of his manner. Benjamin Disraeli entered Parliament in 1837,

as a sort of democratic Tory, when the death of King William IV.

necessitated a general election. His maiden speech as member for

Maidstone was a failure; not because he could not speak well, but

because a certain set determined to crush him, and made such a noise

that he was obliged to sit down, declaring in a loud voice that the time

would come when they should hear him. He was already famous for his

novels, and for a remarkable command of language; the pet of

aristocratic women, and admired generally for his wit and brilliant

conversation, although he provoked criticism for the vulgar finery of

his dress and the affectation of his manners. Already he was intimate

with Lord Lyndhurst, a lion in the highest aristocratic circles, and

universally conceded to be a man of genius. Why should not such a man,

at the age of thirty-three, aspire to a seat in Parliament? His future

rival, Gladstone, though five years his junior, had already been in

Parliament three years, and was distinguished as an orator before

Disraeli had a chance to enter the House of Commons as a supporter of

Sir Robert Peel; but his extraordinary power was not felt until he

attacked his master on the repeal of the corn laws, nor was he the rival

of Mr. Gladstone until the Tory party was disintegrated and broken into

sections. In 1847, however, he became the acknowledged leader of the

most conservative section,--the party of protection,--while Gladstone

headed the followers of Peel.

On the disruption of the Whig administration in 1851 under Lord John

Russell, who was not strong enough for such unsettled times, Lord Derby

became premier, and Disraeli took office under him as chancellor of the

exchequer,--a post which he held for only a short time, the "coalition

cabinet" under Lord Aberdeen having succeeded that of Lord Derby,

keeping office during the Crimean war, and leaving the Tories out in the

cold until 1858.

Of this famous coalition ministry Mr. Gladstone naturally became

chancellor of the exchequer, having exhibited remarkable financial

ability in demolishing the arguments of Disraeli when he introduced his

budget as chancellor in 1851; but although the rivalry between the two

great men began about this time, neither of them had reached the lofty

position which they were destined to attain. They both held subordinate

posts. The prime minister was the Earl of Aberdeen; but Lord Palmerston

was the commanding genius of the cabinet, controlling as foreign

minister the diplomacy of the country in stormy times. He was

experienced, versatile, liberal, popular, and ready in debate. His

foreign policy was vigorous and aggressive, raising England in the

estimation of foreigners, and making her the most formidable Power in

Europe. His diplomatic and administrative talents were equally

remarkable, so that he held office of some kind in every successive

administration but one for fifty years. He was secretary-at-war as far

back as the contest with Napoleon, and foreign secretary in 1830 during

the administration of Lord Grey. His official life may almost be said to

have been passed in the Foreign Office; he was acquainted with all its

details, and as indefatigable in business as he was witty in society, to

the pleasures of which he was unusually devoted. He checked the ambition

of France in 1840 on the Eastern question, and brought about the cordial

alliance between France and England in the Crimean war.

Mr. Gladstone did not agree with Lord Palmerston in reference to the

Crimean war. Like Lord Aberdeen, his policy was pacific, avoiding war

except in cases of urgent necessity; but in this matter he was not only

in the minority in the cabinet but not on the popular side,--the Press

and the people and the Commons being clamorous for war. As already

shown, it was one of the most unsatisfactory wars in English

history,--conducted to a successful close, indeed, but with an immense

expenditure of blood and money, and with such an amount of blundering in

management as to bring disgrace rather than glory on the government and

the country. But it was not for Mr. Gladstone to take a conspicuous part

in the management of that unfortunate war. His business was with the

finances,--to raise money for the public exigencies; and in this

business he never had a superior. He not only selected with admirable

wisdom the articles to be taxed, but in his budgets he made the

minutest details interesting. He infused eloquence into figures; his

audiences would listen to his financial statements for five continuous

hours without wearying. But his greatest triumph as finance minister was

in making the country accept without grumbling an enormous income tax

because he made plain its necessity.

The mistakes of the coalition ministry in the management of the war led

to its dissolution, and Lord Palmerston became prime minister, Lord

Clarendon foreign minister, while Mr. Gladstone retained his post as

chancellor of the exchequer, yet only for a short time. On the

appointment of a committee to examine into the conduct of the war he

resigned his post, and was succeeded by Sir G.C. Lewis. At this crisis

the Emperor Nicholas of Russia died, and the cabinet, with a large

preponderance of Whigs, having everything their own way, determined to

prosecute the war to the bitter end.

Yet the great services and abilities of Gladstone as finance minister

were everywhere conceded, not only for his skill in figures but for his

wisdom in selecting and imposing duties that were acceptable to the

country and did not press heavily upon the poor, thus following out the

policy which Sir Robert Peel bequeathed. Ever since, this has been the

aim as well as the duty of a chancellor of the exchequer whatever party

has been in the ascendent.

From this time onward Mr. Gladstone was a pronounced free-trader of the

Manchester school. His conscientious studies into the mutual relations

of taxation, production, and commerce had convinced him that national

prosperity lay along the line of freedom of endeavor. He had taken a

great departure from the principles he had originally advocated, which

of course provoked a bitter opposition from his former friends and

allies. He was no longer the standard-bearer of the conservative party,

but swung more and more by degrees from his old policy as light dawned

upon his mind and experience taught him wisdom. Perhaps the most

remarkable characteristics of this man,--opinionated and strong-headed

as he undoubtedly is,--are to be found in the receptive quality of his

mind, by which he is open to new ideas, and in the steady courage with

which he affirms and stands by his convictions when once he has by

reasoning arrived at them. It took thirteen years of parliamentary

strife before the Peelites, whom he led, were finally incorporated with

the Liberal party.

Mr. Gladstone, now without office, became what is called an independent

member of the House, yet active in watching public interests, giving his

vote and influence to measures which he considered would be most

beneficial to the country irrespective of party. Meantime, the continued

mistakes of the war and the financial burdens incident to a conflict of

such magnitude had gradually produced disaffection with the government

of which Lord Palmerston was the head. The ministry, defeated on an

unimportant matter, but one which showed the animus of the country, was

compelled to resign, and the Conservatives--no longer known by the

opprobrious nickname of Tories--came into power (1858) under the

premiership of Lord Derby, Disraeli becoming chancellor of the exchequer

and leader of his own party in the House of Commons. But this

administration also was short-lived, lasting only about a year; and in

June, 1859, a new coalition ministry was again formed under Lord

Palmerston, which continued seven years, Mr. Gladstone returning to his

old post as chancellor of the exchequer.

Mr. Gladstone was at this time fifty years of age. His political career

thus far, however useful and honorable, had not been extraordinary. Mr.

Pitt was prime minister at the age of twenty-eight. Fox, Canning, and

Castlereagh at forty were more famous than Gladstone. His political

promotion had not been as rapid as that of Lord John Russell or Lord

Palmerston or Sir Robert Peel. He was chiefly distinguished for the

eloquence of his speeches, the lucidity of his financial statements, and

the moral purity of his character; but he was not then pre-eminently

great, either for initiative genius or commanding influence. Aside from

politics, he was conceded to be an accomplished scholar and a learned

theologian,--distinguished for ecclesiastical lore rather than as an

original thinker. He had written no great book likely to be a standard

authority. As a writer he was inferior to Macaulay and Newman, nor had

he the judicial powers of Hallam. He could not be said to have occupied

more than one sphere, that of politics,--here unlike Thiers, Guizot, and

even Lyndhurst and Brougham.

In 1858, however, Gladstone appeared in a new light, and commanded

immediate attention by the publication of his "Studies on Homer and the

Homeric Age,"--a remarkable work in three large octavo volumes, which

called into the controversial field of Greek history a host of critics,

like Mr. Freeman, who yet conceded to Mr. Gladstone wonderful classical

learning, and the more wonderful as he was preoccupied with affairs of

State, and without the supposed leisure for erudite studies. This

learned work entitled him to a high position in another sphere than that

of politics. Guizot wrote learned histories of modern political

movements, but he could not have written so able a treatise as

Gladstone's on the Homeric age. Some advanced German critics took

exceptions to the author's statements about early Greek history; yet it

cannot be questioned that he has thrown a bright if not a new light on

the actors of the siege of Troy and the age when they were supposed to

live. The illustrious author is no agnostic. It is not for want of

knowledge that in some things he is not up to the times, but for a

conservative bent of mind which leads him to distrust destructive

criticism. Gladstone has been content to present the ancient world as

revealed in the Homeric poems, whether Homer lived less than a hundred

years from the heroic deeds described with such inimitable charm, or

whether he did not live at all. He wrote the book not merely to amuse

his leisure hours, but to incite students to a closer study of the works

attributed to him who alone is enrolled with the two other men now

regarded as the greatest of immortal poets. Gladstone's admiration for

Homer is as unbounded as that of German scholars for Dante and

Shakspeare. It is hardly to be supposed that this work on the heroic age

was written during the author's retirement from office; it was probably

the result of his life-studies on Grecian literature, which he pursued

with unusual and genuine enthusiasm. Who among American statesmen or

even scholars are competent to such an undertaking?

Two years after this, in 1860, Mr. Gladstone was elected Lord Rector of

the University of Edinburgh in recognition of his scholarly

attainments, and delivered a notable inaugural address on the work of

universities.

The chief duty of Mr. Gladstone during his seven years connection with

the new coalition party, headed by Lord Palmerston, was to prepare his

annual budget, or financial statement, with a proposed scheme of

taxation, as chancellor of the exchequer. During these years his fame as

a finance minister was confirmed. As such no minister ever equalled him,

except perhaps Sir Robert Peel. My limits will not permit me to go into

a minute detail of the taxes he increased and those he reduced. The end

he proposed in general was to remove such as were oppressive on the

middle and lower classes, and to develop the industrial resources of the

nation,--to make it richer and more prosperous, while it felt the burden

of supplying needful moneys for the government less onerous. Nor would

it be interesting to Americans to go into those statistics. I wonder

even why they were so interesting to the English people. One would

naturally think that it was of little consequence whether duties on some

one commodity were reduced, or those on another were increased, so long

as the deficit in the national income had to be raised somehow, whether

by direct or indirect taxation; but the interest generally felt in these

matters was intense, both inside and outside Parliament. I can

understand why the paper-makers should object when it was proposed to

remove the last protective duty, and why the publicans should wax

indignant if an additional tax were imposed on hops; but I cannot

understand why every member of the House of Commons should be present

when the opening speech on the budget was to be made by the chancellor,

why the intensest excitement should prevail, why members should sit for

five hours enraptured to hear financial details presented, why every

seat in the galleries should be taken by distinguished visitors, and all

the journals the next day should be filled with panegyrics or

detractions as to the minister's ability or wisdom.

It would seem that no questions concerning war or peace, or the

extension of the suffrage, or the removal of great moral evils, or

promised boons in education, or Church disestablishment, or threatened

dangers to the State,--questions touching the very life of the

nation,--received so much attention or excited so great interest as

those which affected the small burdens which the people had to bear; not

the burden of taxation itself, but how that should be distributed. I

will not say that the English are "a nation of shopkeepers;" but I do

say that comparatively small matters occupy the thoughts of men in every

country outside the routine of ordinary duties, and form the staple of

ordinary conversation,--among pedants, the difference between _ac_ and

_et_; among aristocrats, the investigation of pedigrees; in society,

the comparative merits of horses, the movements of well-known persons,

the speed of ocean steamers, boat-races, the dresses of ladies of

fashion, football contests, the last novel, weddings, receptions, the

trials of housekeepers, the claims of rival singers, the gestures and

declamation of favorite play-actors, the platitudes of popular

preachers, the rise and fall of stocks, murders in bar-rooms, robberies

in stores, accidental fires in distant localities,--these and other

innumerable forms of gossip, collected by newspapers and retailed in

drawing-rooms, which have no important bearing on human life or national

welfare or immortal destiny. It is not that the elaborate presentations

of financial details for which Mr. Gladstone was so justly famous were

without importance. I only wonder why they should have had such

overwhelming interest to English legislators and the English public; and

why his statistics should have given him claims to transcendent oratory

and the profoundest statesmanship,--for it is undeniable that his

financial speeches brought him more fame and importance in the House of

Commons than all the others he made during those seven years of

parliamentary gladiatorship. One of these triumphantly carried through

Parliament a commercial reciprocity treaty with France, arranged by Mr.

Cobden; and another, scarcely less notable, repealed the duty on

paper,--a measure of great importance for the facilitation of making

books and cheapening newspapers, but both of which were desperately

opposed by the monopolists and manufacturers.

Some of Mr. Gladstone's other speeches stand on higher ground and are of

permanent value; they will live for the lofty sentiments and the

comprehensive knowledge which marked them,--appealing to the highest

intellect as well as to the hearts of those common people of whom all

nations are chiefly composed. Among these might be mentioned those which

related to Italian affairs, sympathizing with the struggle which the

Italians were making to secure constitutional liberty and the unity of

their nation,--severe on the despotism of that miserable king of Naples,

Francis II., whom Garibaldi had overthrown with a handful of men. Mr.

Gladstone, ever since his last visit to Naples, had abominated the

outrages which its government had perpetrated on a gallant and aspiring

people, and warmly supported them by his eloquence. In the same friendly

spirit, in 1858, he advocated in Parliament a free constitution for the

Ionian islands, then under British rule; and when sent thither as

British commissioner he addressed the Senate of those islands, at Corfu,

in the Italian language. The islands were by their own desire finally

ceded to Greece, whose prosperity as an independent and united nation

Mr. Gladstone ever had at heart. The land of Homer to him was

hallowed ground.

On one subject Mr. Gladstone made a great mistake, which he afterward

squarely acknowledged,--and this was in reference to the American civil

war. In 1862, while chancellor of the exchequer, he made a speech at

Newcastle in which he expressed his conviction that Jefferson Davis had

"already succeeded in making the Southern States of America [which were

in revolt] an independent nation." This opinion caused a great sensation

in both England and the United States, and alienated many

friends,--especially as Earl Russell, the minister of foreign affairs,

had refused to recognize the Confederate States. It was the indiscretion

of the chancellor of the exchequer which disturbed some of his warmest

supporters in England; but in America the pain arose from the fact that

so great a man had expressed such an opinion,--a man, moreover, for whom

America had then and still has the greatest admiration and reverence. It

was feared that his sympathies, like those of a great majority of the

upper classes in England at the time, were with the South rather than

the North, and chiefly because the English manufacturers had to pay

twenty shillings instead of eight-pence a pound for cotton. It was

natural for a manufacturing country to feel this injury to its

interests; but it was not magnanimous in view of the tremendous issues

which were at stake, and it was inconsistent with the sacrifices which

England had nobly made in the emancipation of her own slaves in the West

Indies. For England to give her moral support to the revolted Southern

States, founding their Confederacy upon the baneful principle of human

slavery, was a matter of grave lamentation with patriots at the North,

to say nothing of the apparent English indifference to the superior

civilization of the free States and the great cause to which they were

devoted in a struggle of life and death. It even seemed to some that the

English aristocracy were hypocritical in their professions, and at heart

were hostile to the progress of liberty; that the nation as a whole

cared more for money than justice,--as seemingly illustrated by the war

with China to enforce the opium trade against the protest of the Chinese

government, pagan as it was.

Mr. Gladstone had now swung away from the Conservative party. In 1864 he

had vigorously supported a bill for enlarging the parliamentary

franchise by reducing the limit of required rental from £10 to £6,

declaring that the burden of proof rested on those who would exclude

forty-nine-fiftieths of the working-classes from the franchise. He also,

as chancellor of the exchequer, caused great excitement by admitting

the unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Church,--that is, the Church

of England among the Irish people; sustained by their taxes, but

ministering to only one-eighth or one-ninth of the population. These and

other similar evidences of his liberal tendencies alienated his Oxford

constituency, the last people in the realm to adopt liberal measures;

and on the proroguement of Parliament in 1865, and the new election

which followed, he was defeated as member for the University, although

he was a High Churchman and the pride of the University, devoted to its

interests heart and soul. It is a proof of the exceeding bitterness of

political parties that such ingratitude should have been shown to one of

the greatest scholars that Oxford has produced for a century. It was in

this year also that on completing his term as Rector of the University

of Edinburgh he retired with a notable address on the "Place of Ancient

Greece in the Providential Order;" thus anew emphasizing his scholarly

equipment as a son of Oxford.

The Liberal party, however, were generally glad of Gladstone's defeat,

since it would detach him from the University. He now belonged more

emphatically to the country, and was more free and unshackled to pursue

his great career, as Sir Robert Peel had been before him in similar

circumstances. Instead of representing a narrow-minded and bigoted set

of clergymen and scholars, he was chosen at once to represent quite a

different body,--even the liberal voters of South Lancashire, a

manufacturing district.

The death of Lord Palmerston at the age of eighty, October 17, 1865,

made Earl Russell prime minister, while Gladstone resumed under the new

government his post as chancellor of the exchequer, and now became

formally the leader of the Liberals in the House of Commons.

Irish questions in 1866 came prominently to the front, for the condition

of Ireland at that time was as alarming as it was deplorable, with

combined Fenianism and poverty and disaffection in every quarter. So

grave was the state of this unhappy country that the government felt

obliged to bring in a bill suspending the habeas corpus act, which the

chancellor of the exchequer eloquently supported. His conversion to

Liberal views was during this session seen in bringing in a measure for

the abolition of compulsory church-rates, in aid of Dissenters; but

before it could be carried through its various stages a change of

ministry had taken place on another issue, and the Conservatives again

came into power, with Lord Derby for prime minister and Disraeli for

chancellor of the exchequer and leader of his party in the House

of Commons.

This fall of the Liberal ministry was brought about by the Reform Bill,

which Lord Russell had prepared, and which was introduced by the

chancellor of the exchequer amid unparalleled excitement. Finance

measures lost their interest in the fierceness of the political combat.

It was not so important a measure as that of the reform of 1832 in its

political consequences, but it was of importance enough to enlist

absorbing interest throughout the kingdom; it would have added four

hundred thousand new voters. While it satisfied the Liberals, it was

regarded by the Conservatives as a dangerous concession, opening the

doors too widely to the people. Its most brilliant and effective

opponent was Mr. Lowe, whose oratory raised him at once to fame and

influence. Seldom has such eloquence been heard in the House of Commons,

and from all the leading debaters on both sides. Mr. Gladstone outdid

himself, but perhaps was a little too profuse with his Latin quotations.

The debate was continued for eight successive nights. The final division

was the largest ever known: the government found itself in a minority of

eleven, and consequently resigned. Lord Derby, as has been said, was

again prime minister.

The memorable rivalry between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli was now

continued in deeper earnest, and never ceased so long as the latter

statesman was a member of the House of Commons, They were recognized to

be the heads of their respective parties,--two giants in debate; two

great parliamentary gladiators, on whom the eyes of the nation rested.

Mr. Gladstone was the more earnest, the more learned, and the more solid

in his blows. Mr. Disraeli was the more adroit, the more witty, and the

more brilliant in his thrusts. Both were equally experienced. The one

appealed to justice and truth; the other to the prejudices of the House

and the pride of a nation of classes. One was armed with a heavy dragoon

sword; the other with a light rapier, which he used with extraordinary

skill. Mr. G.W.E. Russell, in his recent "Life of Gladstone," quotes the

following passage from a letter of Lord Houghton, May, 1867:--

"I met Gladstone at breakfast. He seems quite awed with the diabolical

cleverness of Dizzy, 'who,' he says, 'is gradually driving all ideas of

political honor out of the House, and accustoming it to the most

revolting cynicism,' There is no doubt that a sense of humor has always

been conspicuously absent from Mr. Gladstone's character."

Sometimes one of these rival leaders was on the verge of victory and

sometimes the other, and both equally gained the applause of the

spectators. Two such combatants had not been seen since the days of Pitt

and Fox,--one, the champion of the people; the other, of the

aristocracy. What each said was read the next day by every family in the

land. Both were probably greatest in opposition, since more

unconstrained. Of the two, Disraeli was superior in the control of his

temper and in geniality of disposition, making members roar with

laughter by his off-hand vituperation and ingenuity in inventing

nicknames. Gladstone was superior in sustained reasoning, in lofty

sentiments, and in the music of his voice, accompanied by that solemnity

of manner which usually passes for profundity and the index of deep

convictions. As for rhetorical power, it would be difficult to say which

was the superior,--though the sentences of both were too long. It would

also be difficult to tell which of the two was the more ambitious and

more tenacious of office. Both, it is said, bade for popularity in the

measures they proposed. Both were politicians. There is, indeed, a great

difference between politicians and statesmen; but a man may be politic

without ceasing to be a lover of his country, like Lord Palmerston

himself; and a man may advocate large and comprehensive views of

statesmanship which are neither popular nor appreciated.

The new Conservative ministry was a short one. Coming into power on the

defeat of the Liberal reform bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone, the Tory

government recognized the popular demand on which that bill had been

based; and though Mr. Disraeli coolly introduced a reform bill of their

own which was really more radical than the Liberal bill had been, and

although at the hands of the opposition it was so modified that the Duke

of Buccleuch declared that the only word unaltered was the initial

"whereas," its passage was claimed as a great Conservative victory.

Shortly after this, the Earl of Derby retired on account of ill-health,

and was succeeded by Mr. Disraeli as premier; but the current of

Liberalism set in so strongly in the ensuing elections that he was

forced to resign in 1868, and Mr. Gladstone now for the first time

became prime minister.

This was the golden period of Gladstone's public services. During

Disraeli's short lease of power, Gladstone had carried the abolition of

compulsory church-rates, and had moved, with great eloquence, the

disestablishment of the English Church in Ireland. On the latter

question Parliament was dissolved, and an appeal made to the country;

and the triumphant success of the Liberals brought Mr. Gladstone into

power with the brightest prospects for the cause to which he was now

committed. He was fifty-nine years old before he reached the supreme

object of his ambition,--to rule England; but in accordance with law,

and in the interest of truth and justice. In England the strongest man

can usually, by persevering energy, reach the highest position to which

a subject may aspire. In the United States, political ambition is

defeated by rivalries and animosities. Practically the President reigns,

like absolute kings, "by the grace of God,"--as it would seem when so

many ordinary men, and even obscure, are elevated to the highest place,

and when these comparatively unknown men often develop when elected the

virtues and abilities of a Saul or a David, as in the cases of Lincoln

and Garfield.

So great was the popularity of Mr. Gladstone at this time, so profound

was the respect he inspired for his lofty character, his abilities, his

vast and varied learning, his unimpeachable integrity and conscientious

discharge of his duties, that for five years he was virtually dictator,

wielding more power than any premier since Pitt, if we except Sir Robert

Peel in his glory. He was not a dictator in the sense that Metternich or

Bismarck was,--not a grand vizier, the vicegerent of an absolute

monarch, controlling the foreign policy, the army, the police, and the

national expenditures. He could not send men to prison without a trial,

or interfere with the peaceful pursuits of obnoxious citizens; but he

could carry out any public measure he proposed affecting the general

interests, for Parliament was supreme, and his influence ruled the

Parliament. He was liable to disagreeable attacks from members of the

opposition, and could not silence them; he might fall before their

attacks; but while he had a great majority of members to back him,

ready to do his bidding, he stood on a proud pedestal and undoubtedly

enjoyed the sweets of power. He would not have been human if he had not.

Yet Mr. Gladstone carried his honors with dignity and discretion. He was

accessible to all who had claims upon his time; he was never rude or

insolent; he was gracious and polite to delegations; he was too

kind-hearted to snub anybody. No cares of office could keep him from

attending public worship; no popular amusements diverted him from his

duties; he was feared only as a father is feared. I can conceive that he

was sometimes intolerant of human infirmities; that no one dared to

obtrude familiarities or make unseemly jokes in his presence; that few

felt quite at ease in his company,--oppressed by his bearing, and awed

by his prodigious respectability and grave solemnity. Not that he was

arrogant and haughty, like a Roman cardinal or an Oxford Don; he was

simply dignified and undemonstrative, like a man absorbed with weighty

responsibilities. I doubt if he could unbend at the dinner-table like

Disraeli and Palmerston, or tell stories like Sydney Smith, or drink too

much wine with jolly companions, or forget for a moment the proper and

the conventional. I can see him sporting with children, or taking long

walks, or cutting down trees for exercise, or given to deep draughts of

old October when thirsty; but to see him with a long pipe, or dallying

with ladies, or giving vent to unseemly expletives, or retailing

scandals,--these and other disreputable follies are utterly

inconceivable of Mr. Gladstone. A very serious man may be an object of

veneration; but he is a constant rebuke to the weaknesses of our common

humanity,--a wet blanket upon frivolous festivities.

Let us now briefly glance at the work done by Gladstone during the five

years when in his first premiership he directed the public affairs of

England,--impatient of opposition, and sensitive to unjust aspersions,

yet too powerful to be resisted in the supreme confidence of his party.

The first thing of note he did was to complete the disestablishment of

the Irish Church,--an arduous task to any one lacking Mr. Gladstone's

extraordinary influence. Here he was at war with his former friends, and

with a large section of the Conservative party,--especially with

ecclesiastical dignitaries, who saw in this measure hostility to the

Church as well as a national sin. It was a dissolution of the union

between the Churches of England and Ireland; a divestment of the

temporalities which the Irish clergy had enjoyed; the abolition of all

ecclesiastical corporations and laws and courts in Ireland,--in short,

the sweeping away of the annuities which the beneficed clergy had

hitherto received out of the property of the Established Church, which

annuities were of the nature of freeholds. It was not proposed to

deprive the clergy of their income, so long as they discharged their

clerical duties; but that the title to their tithes should be vested in

commissioners, so that these church freeholds could not be bought and

sold by non-residents, and churches in decadence should be taken from

incumbents. The peerage rights of Irish bishops were also taken away. It

was not proposed to touch private endowments; and glebe-houses which had

become generally dilapidated were handed over to incumbents by their

paying a fair valuation. Not only did the measure sweep away the abuses

of the Establishment which had existed for centuries,--such as

endowments held by those who performed no duties, which they could

dispose of like other property,--but the _regium donum_ given to

Presbyterian ministers and the Maynooth Catholic College grant, which

together amounted to £70,000, were also withdrawn, although compensated

on the same principles as those which granted a settled stipend to the

actual incumbents of the disestablished churches.

By this measure, the withdrawal of tithes and land rents and other

properties amounted to sixteen millions; and after paying ministers and

actual incumbents their stipends of between seven or eight millions,

there would remain a surplus of seven or eight millions, with which Mr.

Gladstone proposed to endow lunatic and idiot asylums, schools for the

deaf, dumb, and blind, institutions for the training of nurses, for

infirmaries, and hospitals for the needy people of Ireland.

There can be no rational doubt that this reform was beneficent, and it

met the approval of the Liberal party, being supported with a grand

eloquence by John Bright, who had under this ministry for the first time

taken office,--as President of the Board of Trade; but it gave umbrage

to the Irish clergy as a matter of course, to the Presbyterians of

Ulster, to the Catholics as affecting Maynooth, and to the conservatives

of Oxford and Cambridge on general principles. It was a reform not

unlike that of Thomas Cromwell in the time of Henry VIII., when he

dissolved the monasteries, though not quite so violent as the

secularization of church property in France in the time of the

Revolution. It was a spoliation, in one sense, as well as a needed

reform,--a daring and bold measure, which such statesmen as Lords

Liverpool, Aberdeen, and Palmerston would have been slow to make, and

the weak points of which Disraeli was not slow to assail. To the radical

Dissenters, as led by Mr. Miall, it was a grateful measure, which would

open the door for future discussions on the disestablishment of the

English Church itself,--a logical contingency which the premier did not

seem to appreciate; for if the State had a right to take away the

temporalities of the Irish Church when they were abused, the State would

have an equal right to take away those of the English Church should they

hereafter turn out to be unnecessary, or become a scandal in the eyes of

the nation.

One would think that this disestablishment of the Irish Church would

have been the last reform which a strict churchman like Gladstone would

have made; certainly it was the last for a politic statesman to make,

for it brought forth fruit in the next general election. It is true that

the Irish Establishment had failed in every way, as Mr. Bright showed in

one of his eloquent speeches, and to remove it was patriotic. If Mr.

Gladstone had his eyes open, however, to its natural results as

affecting his own popularity, he deserves the credit of being the most

unselfish and lofty statesman that ever adorned British annals.

Having thus in 1869 removed one important grievance in the affairs of

Ireland, Mr. Gladstone soon proceeded to another, and in February, 1870,

brought forward, in a crowded House, his Irish Land Bill. The evil which

he had in view to cure was the insecurity of tenure, which resulted in

discouraging and paralyzing the industry of tenants, especially in the

matter of evictions for non-payment of rent, and the raising of rents on

land which had been improved by them. As they were liable at any time

to be turned out of their miserable huts, the rents had only doubled in

value in ninety years; whereas in England and Scotland, where there was

more security of tenure, rents had quadrupled. This insecurity and

uncertainty had resulted in a great increase of pauperism in Ireland,

and prevented any rise in wages, although there was increased expense of

living. The remedy proposed to alleviate in some respect the condition

of the Irish tenants was the extension of their leases to thirty-three

years, and the granting national assistance to such as desired to

purchase the lands they had previously cultivated, according to a scale

of prices to be determined by commissioners,--thus making improvements

the property of the tenants who had made them rather than of the

landlord, and encouraging the tenants by longer leases to make such

improvements. Mr. Gladstone's bill also extended to twelve months the

time for notices to quit, bearing a stamp duty of half-a-crown. This

measure on the part of the government was certainly a relief, as far as

it went, to the poor people of Ireland. It became law on August 1, 1870.

The next important measure of Mr. Gladstone was to abolish the custom of

buying and selling commissions in the army, which provoked bitter

opposition from the aristocracy. It was maintained by the government

that the whole system of purchase was unjust, and tended to destroy the

efficiency of the army by preventing the advancement of officers

according to merit. In no other country was such a mistake committed. It

is true that the Prussian and Austrian armies were commanded by officers

from the nobility; but these officers had not the unfair privilege of

jumping over one another's heads by buying promotion. The bill, though

it passed the Commons, was thrown out by the Lords, who wished to keep

up the aristocratic quality of army officers, among whom their younger

sons were enrolled. Mr. Gladstone cut the knot by advising her Majesty

to take the decisive step of cancelling the royal warrant under

which--and not by law--purchase had existed. This calling on the Queen

to do by virtue of her royal prerogative what could not be done by

ordinary legislation, though not unconstitutional, was unusual. True, a

privilege which royalty had granted, royalty could revoke; but in

removing this evil Mr. Gladstone still further alienated the army and

the aristocracy.

Among other measures which the premier carried for the public good, but

against bitter opposition, were the secret ballot, and the removal of

University Tests, by which all lay students of whatever religious creed

were admitted to the universities on equal terms. The establishment of

national and compulsory elementary education, although not emanating

from Mr. Gladstone, was also accomplished during his government.

It now began to be apparent that the policy of the prime minister was

reform wherever reform was needed. There was no telling what he would do

next. Had he been the prime minister of an absolute monarch he would

have been unfettered, and could have carried out any reform which his

royal master approved. But the English are conservative and slow to

change, no matter what party they belong to. It seemed to many that the

premier was iconoclastic, and was bent on demolishing anything and

everything which he disliked. Consequently a reaction set in, and Mr.

Gladstone's popularity, by which he had ruled almost as dictator,

began to wane.

The settlement of the Alabama Claims did not add to his popularity.

Everybody knows what these were, and I shall merely allude to them.

During our Civil War, injuries had been inflicted on the commerce of the

United States by cruisers built, armed, and manned in Great Britain, not

only destroying seventy of our vessels, but by reason of the fear of

shippers, resulting in a transfer of trade from American to British

ships. It having been admitted by commissioners sent by Mr. Gladstone to

Washington, that Great Britain was to blame for these and other injuries

of like character, the amount of damages for which she was justly

liable was submitted to arbitration; and the International Court at

Geneva decided that England was bound to pay to the United States more

than fifteen million dollars in gold. The English government promptly

paid the money, although regarding the award as excessive; but while the

judicious rejoiced to see an arbitrament of reason instead of a resort

to war, the pugnacious British populace was discontented, and again

Gladstone lost popularity.

And here it may be said that the foreign policy of Mr. Gladstone was

pacific from first to last. He opposed the Crimean war; he kept clear of

entangling alliances; he maintained a strict neutrality in Eastern

complications, and in the Franco-German embroilment; he never stimulated

the passion of military glory; he ever maintained that--

"There is a higher than the warrior's excellence."

He was devoted to the development of national resources and the removal

of evils which militated against justice as well as domestic prosperity.

His administration, fortunately, was marked by no foreign war. Under his

guidance the nation had steadily advanced in wealth, and was not

oppressed by taxation; he had promoted education as wall as material

thrift; he had attempted to heal disorders in Ireland by benefiting the

tenant class. But he at last proposed a comprehensive scheme for

enlarging higher education in Ireland, which ended his administration.

The Irish University Bill, which as an attempted compromise between

Catholic and Protestant demands satisfied neither party, met with such

unexpected opposition that a majority of three was obtained against the

government. Mr. Gladstone was, in accordance with custom, compelled to

resign or summon a new Parliament. He accepted the latter alternative;

but he did not seem aware of the great change in public sentiment which

had taken place in regard to his reforms. Not one of them had touched

the heart of the great mass, or was of such transcendent importance to

the English people as the repeal of the corn laws had been. They were

measures of great utility,--indeed, based on justice,--but were of a

kind to alienate powerful classes without affecting universal interests.

They were patriotic rather than politic. Moreover, he was not supported

by lieutenants of first-class ability or reputation. His immediate

coadjutors were most respectable men, great scholars, and men of more

experience than genius or eloquence. Of his cabinet, eight of them it is

said were "double-firsts" at Oxford. There was not one of them

sufficiently trained or eminent to take his place. They were his

subordinates rather than his colleagues; and some of them became

impatient under his dictation, and witnessed his decline in popularity

with secret satisfaction. No government was ever started on an ambitious

course with louder pretensions or brighter promises than Mr. Gladstone's

cabinet in 1868. In less than three years their glory was gone. It was

claimed that the bubble of oratory had burst when in contact with fact,

and the poor English people had awoke to the dreary conviction that it

was but vapor after all; that Mr. Disraeli had pricked that bubble when

he said, "Under his influence [Gladstone's] we have legalized

confiscation, we have consecrated sacrilege, we have condoned treason,

we have destroyed churches, we have shaken property to its foundation,

and we have emptied jails."

Everything went against the government. Russia had torn up the Black Sea

treaty, the fruit of the Crimean war; the settlement of the "Alabama"

claims was humiliating; "the generous policy which was to have won the

Irish heart had exasperated one party without satisfying another. He had

irritated powerful interests on all sides, from the army to the licensed

victuallers."

On the appeal to the nation, contrary to Mr. Gladstone's calculations,

there was a great majority against him. He had lost friends and made

enemies. The people seemingly forgot his services,--his efforts to give

dignity to honest labor, to stimulate self-denial, to reduce unwise

expenditures, to remove crying evils. They forgot that he had reduced

taxation to the extent of twelve millions sterling annually; and all the

while the nation had been growing richer, so that the burdens which had

once been oppressive were now easy to bear. It would almost appear that

even Gladstone's transcendent eloquence had lost in a measure its charm

when Disraeli, in one of his popular addresses, was applauded for saying

that he was "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of

his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can

at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of

arguments to malign his opponents and to glorify himself,"--one of the

most exaggerated and ridiculous charges that was ever made against a

public man of eminence, yet witty and plausible.

On the retirement of the great statesman from office in 1875, in sadness

and chagrin, he declined to continue to be the leader of his party in

opposition. His disappointment and disgust must have been immense to

prompt a course which seemed to be anything but magnanimous, since he

well knew that there was no one capable of taking his place; but he

probably had his reasons. For some time he rarely went to the House of

Commons. He left the leaders of his party to combat an opponent whom he

himself had been unable to disarm. Fortunately no questions came up of

sufficient importance to arouse a nation or divert it from its gains or

its pleasures. It was thinking of other things than budgets and the

small extension of the suffrage, or even of the Eastern question. It was

thinking more of steamships and stock speculations and great financial

operations, of theatres, of operas, of new novels, even of ritualistic

observances in the churches, than of the details of government in

peaceful times, or the fireworks of the great magician who had by arts

and management dethroned a greater and wiser man than himself.

Although Mr. Gladstone was only occasionally seen, after his retirement,

in the House of Commons, it must not be supposed that his political

influence was dead. When anything of special interest was to be

discussed, he was ready as before with his voice and vote. Such a

measure as the bill to regulate public worship--aimed at suppressing

ritualism--aroused his ecclesiastical interest, and he was voluminous

upon it, both in and out of Parliament. Even when he was absent from his

seat, his influence remained, and in all probability the new leader of

the Liberals, Lord Hartington, took counsel from him. He was simply

taking a rest before he should gird on anew his armor, and resume the

government of the country.

Meantime, his great rival Disraeli led his party with consummate skill.

He was a perfect master of tactics, wary, vigilant, courteous,

good-natured, seizing every opportunity to gain a party triumph. He was

also judicious in his selection of ministers, nor did he attempt to lord

it over them. He showed extraordinary tact in everything, and in nothing

more than in giving a new title to the Queen as Empress of India. But no

measures of engrossing interest were adopted during his administration.

He was content to be a ruler rather than a reformer. He was careful to

nurse his popularity, and make no parliamentary mistakes. At the end of

two years, however, his labors and cares told seriously on his health.

He had been in Parliament since 1837; he was seventy-one years of age,

and he found it expedient to accept the gracious favor of his sovereign,

and to retire to the House of Lords, with the title of Earl of

Beaconsfield, yet retaining the office of prime minister.

During the five years that Mr. Gladstone remained in retirement, he was

by no means idle, or a silent spectator of political events. He was

indefatigable with his pen, and ever ready with speeches for the

platform and with addresses to public bodies. During this period three

new Reviews were successfuly started,--the "Fortnightly," the

"Contemporary," and the "Nineteenth Century,"--to all of which he was a

frequent contributor, on a great variety of subjects. His articles were

marked by characteristic learning and ability, and vastly increased his

literary reputation. I doubt, however, if they will be much noticed by

posterity. Nothing is more ephemeral than periodical essays, unless

marked by extraordinary power both in style and matter, like the essays

of Macaulay and Carlyle. Gladstone's articles would make the fortune of

ordinary writers, but they do not stand out, as we should naturally

expect, as brilliant masterpieces, which everybody reads and glows while

reading them. Indeed, most persons find them rather dry, whether from

the subject or the style I will not undertake to say. But a great man

cannot be uniformly great or even always interesting. How few men at

seventy will give themselves the trouble to write at all, when there is

no necessity, just to relieve their own minds, or to instruct without

adequate reward! Michael Angelo labored till eighty-seven, and Titian

till over ninety; but they were artists who worked from the love of art,

restless without new creations. Perhaps it might also be said of

Gladstone that he wrote because he could not help writing, since he knew

almost everything worth knowing, and was fond of telling what he knew.

At length Mr. Gladstone emerged again from retirement, to assume the

helm of State. When he left office in 1875, he had bequeathed a surplus

to the treasury of nearly six millions; but this, besides the

accumulation of over five millions more, had been spent in profitless

and unnecessary wars. In 1876 a revolt against Turkish rule broke out in

Bulgaria, and was suppressed with truly Turkish bloodthirstiness and

outrage. "The Bulgarian atrocities" became a theme of discussion

throughout Europe; and in England, while Disraeli and his government

made light of them, Gladstone was aroused to all his old-time vigor by

his humanitarian indignation. Says Russell: "He made the most

impassioned speeches, often in the open air; he published pamphlets,

which rushed into incredible circulations; he poured letter after letter

into the newspapers; he darkened the sky with controversial post-cards;

and, as soon as Parliament met, he was ready with all his unequalled

resources of eloquence, argumentation, and inconvenient inquiry, to

drive home his great indictment against the Turkish government and its

friends and champions in the House of Commons."

Four years of this vigorous bombardment, which included in its objects

the whole range of Disraeli's "brilliant foreign policy" of threat and

bluster, produced its effect, A popular song of the day gave a nickname

to this policy:--

"We don't want to fight, but, by Jingo, if we do,

We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money, too."

And _Jingoism_ became in the mouths of the Liberals a keen weapon of

satire. The government gained the applause of aristocrats and populace,

but lost that of the plain people.

The ninth Victorian Parliament was dying out, and a new election was at

hand. Mr. Gladstone, now at the age of seventy, went to Edinburgh, the

centre of Scottish conservatism, and in several masterly and memorable

speeches, showing that his natural vigor of mind and body had not

abated, he exposed the mistakes and shortcomings of the existing

government and presented the boons which a new Liberal ministry were

prepared to give. And when in 1880 the dissolution of Parliament took

place, he again went to Scotland and offered himself for the county of

Edinburgh, or Midlothian, making a series of astonishing speeches, and

was returned as its representative. The general elections throughout the

kingdom showed that the tide had again turned. There was an immense

Liberal gain. The Earl of Beaconsfield placed his resignation in the

hands of the Queen, and Gladstone was sent for,--once more to be prime

minister of England.

And here I bring to a close this imperfect notice of one of the greatest

men of modern times,--hardly for lack of sufficient material, but

because it is hard to find a proper perspective in viewing matters which

are still the subject of heated contest and turmoil. Once again

Gladstone was seated on the summit of power, and with every prospect of

a long-continued reign. Although an old man, his vigor of mind and body

had not abated. He was never stronger, apparently, than when he was past

seventy years of age. At no previous period of his life was his fame so

extended or his moral influence so great. Certainly no man in England

was more revered than he or more richly deserved his honors. He entered

upon his second premiership with the veneration of the intelligent and

liberal-minded patriots of the realm, and great things were expected

from so progressive and lofty a minister. The welfare of the country it

was undoubtedly his desire and ambition to promote.

But his second administration was not successful. Had the aged premier

been content to steer his ship of State in placid waters, nothing would

have been wanting to gratify moderate desires. It was not, however,

inglorious repose he sought, but to confer a boon for which all future

ages would honor his memory.

That boon was seemingly beyond his power. The nation was not prepared to

follow him in his plans for Irish betterment. Indeed, he aroused English

opposition by his proposed changes of land-tenure in Ireland, and Irish

anger by attempted coercion in suppressing crime and disorder. This, and

the unfortunate policy of his government in Egypt, brought him to

parliamentary defeat; and he retired in June, 1885, declining at the

same time the honor of an earldom proffered by the Queen. The ministry

was wrecked on the rock which has proved so dangerous to all British

political navigators for a hundred years. No human genius seems capable

of solving the Irish question. It is apparently no nearer solution than

it was in the days of William Pitt. In attempts to solve the problem,

Mr. Gladstone found himself opposed by the aristocracy, by the Church,

by the army, by men of letters, by men of wealth throughout the country.

Lord Salisbury succeeded him; but only for a few months, and in January,

1886, Mr. Gladstone was for the third time called to the premiership. He

now advanced a step, and proposed the startling policy of Home Rule for

Ireland in matters distinctly Irish; but his following would not hold

together on the issue, and in June he retired again.

From then until 1891 he was not in office, but he was indefatigably

working with voice and pen for the Irish cause. He made in his

retirement many converts to his opinions, and was again elevated to

power on the Irish question as an issue in 1891. Yet the English on the

whole seem to be against him in his Irish policy, which is denounced as

unpractical, and which his opponents even declare to be on his part an

insincere policy, entered upon and pursued solely as a bid for power.

It is generally felt among the upper classes that no concession and no

boons would satisfy the Irish short of virtual independence of British

rule. If political rights could be separated from political power there

might be more hope of settling the difficulty, which looks like a

conflict between justice and wisdom. The sympathy of Americans is mostly

on the side of the "grand old man" in his Herculean task, even while

they admit that self-government in our own large cities is a dismal

failure from the balance of power which is held by foreigners,--by the

Irish in the East, and by the Germans in the West. And those who see the

rapid growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States,

especially in those sections of the country where Puritanism once had

complete sway, and the immense political power wielded by Roman Catholic

priests, can understand why the conservative classes of England are

opposed to the recognition of the political rights of a people who might

unite with socialists and radicals in overturning the institutions on

which the glory and prospects of a great nation are believed to be

based. The Catholics in Ireland constitute about seven-eighths of the

population, and English Protestants fear to deliver the thrifty

Protestant minority into the hands of the great majority armed with the

tyrannical possibilities of Home Rule. It is indeed a many-sided and

difficult problem. There are instincts in nations, as among individuals,

which reason fails to overcome, even as there are some subjects in

reference to which experience is a safer guide than genius or logic.

Little by little, however, at each succeeding election the Liberal party

gained strength, not only in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but even in

England also, and their power in Parliament increased; until, in 1893,

after a long and memorable contest, the Commons passed Mr. Gladstone's

Home Rule bill by a pronounced majority. Then it was thrown out by the

Lords, with very brief consideration. This, and other overrulings of the

Lower House by the Peers, aroused deep feeling throughout the nation. In

March, 1894, the venerable Gladstone, whose impaired hearing and sight

warned him that a man of eighty-five--even though a giant--should no

longer bear the burdens of empire, retired from the premiership, his

last speech being a solemn intimation of the issues that must soon arise

if the House of Lords persisted in obstructing the will of the people,

as expressed in the acts of their immediate representatives in the House

of Commons.

But, whatever the outcome of the Irish question, the claim of William

Ewart Gladstone to a high rank among the ruling statesmen of Modern

Europe cannot be gainsaid. Moreover, as his influence has been so

forceful a part of the great onward-moving modern current of democratic

enlargement,--and in Great Britain one of its most discreet and potent

directors,--his fame is secure; it is unalterably a part of the noblest

history of the English people.[5]

[Footnote 5: Mr. Gladstone died May 19, 1898. Perhaps at once the most

intimate and comprehensive account of him is "The Story of Gladstone's

Life," by Justin McCarthy.]