Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Charlie Kirschner, Tom
Allen, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.









THE GRAND OLD MAN

OR THE

Life and Public Services

of

The Right Honorable William Ewart

GLADSTONE


Four Times

Prime Minister of England

BY

Richard B. Cook, D.D.




PREFACE

William E. Gladstone was cosmopolitan. The Premier of the British Empire
is ever a prominent personage, but he has stood above them all. For more
than half a century he has been the active advocate of liberty, morality
and religion, and of movements that had for their object the prosperity,
advancement and happiness of men. In all this he has been upright,
disinterested and conscientious in word and deed. He has proved himself
to be the world's champion of human rights. For these reasons he has
endeared himself to all men wherever civilization has advanced to
enlighten and to elevate in this wide world.

With the closing of the 19th century the world is approaching a crisis
in which every nation is involved. For a time the map of the world
might as well be rolled up. Great questions that have agitated one or
more nations have convulsed the whole earth because steam and
electricity have annihilated time and space. Questions that have sprung
up between England and Africa, France and Prussia, China and Japan,
Russia and China, Turkey and Armenia, Greece and Turkey, Spain and
America have proved international and have moved all nations. The daily
proceedings of Congress at Washington are discussed in Japan.

In these times of turning and overturning, of discontent and unrest, of
greed and war, when the needs of the nations most demand men of
world-wide renown, of great experience in government and diplomacy, and
of firm hold upon the confidence of the people; such men as, for
example, Gladstone, Salisbury, Bismark, Crispi and Li Hung Chang, who
have led the mighty advance of civilization, are passing away. Upon
younger men falls the heavy burden of the world, and the solution of the
mighty problems of this climax of the most momentous of all centuries.

However, the Record of these illustrious lives remains to us for
guidance and inspiration. History is the biography of great men. The
lamp of history is the beacon light of many lives. The biography of
William E. Gladstone is the history, not only of the English
Parliament, but of the progress of civilization in the earth for the
whole period of his public life. With the life of Mr. Gladstone in his
hand, the student of history or the young statesman has a light to guide
him and to help him solve those intricate problems now perplexing the
nations, and upon the right solution of which depends Christian
civilization--the liberties, progress, prosperity and happiness of the
human race.

Hence, the life and public services of the Grand Old Man cannot fail to
be of intense interest to all, particularly to the English, because he
has repeatedly occupied the highest position under the sovereign of
England, to the Irish whether Protestant or Catholic, north or south,
because of his advocacy of (Reforms) for Ireland; to the Scotch because
of his Scottish descent; to the German because he reminds them of their
own great chancellor, the Unifier of Germany, Prince Bismarck; and to
the American because he was ever the champion of freedom; and as there
has been erected in Westminster Abbey a tablet to the memory of Lord
Howe, so will the American people enshrine in their hearts, among the
greatest of the great, the memory of William Ewart Gladstone.

     "In youth a student and in eld a sage;
        Lover of freedom; of mankind the friend;
        Noble in aim from childhood to the end;
      Great is thy mark upon historic page."




CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I
ANCESTRY AND BIRTH

CHAPTER II
AT ETON AND OXFORD

CHAPTER III
EARLY PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCES

CHAPTER IV
BOOK ON CHURCH AND STATE

CHAPTER V
TRAVELS AND MARRIAGE

CHAPTER VI
ENTERS THE CABINET

CHAPTER VII
MEMBER FOR OXFORD

CHAPTER VIII
THE NEAPOLITAN PRISONS

CHAPTER IX
THE FIRST BUDGET

CHAPTER X
THE CRIMEAN WAR

CHAPTER XI
IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER XII
HOMERIC STUDIES

CHAPTER XIII
GREAT BUDGETS

CHAPTER XIV
LIBERAL REFORMER AND PRIME MINISTER

CHAPTER XV
THE GOLDEN AGE OF LIBERALISM

CHAPTER XVI
THE EASTERN QUESTION

CHAPTER XVII
MIDLOTHIAN AND THE SECOND PREMIERSHIP

CHAPTER XVIII
THIRD ADMINISTRATION AND HOME RULE

CHAPTER XIX
PRIME MINISTER THE FOURTH TIME

CHAPTER XX
IN PRIVATE LIFE

CHAPTER XXI
CLOSING SCENES

[Illustration: Gladstone entering Palace Yard, Westminster.]



                        "In thought, word and deed,
     How throughout all thy warfare thou wast pure,
     I find it easy to believe."
                                --ROBERT BROWNING




List of Illustrations.

WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE (_Frontispiece_)

GLADSTONE ENTERING PALACE YARD, WESTMINSTER

GLADSTONE AND SISTER

INTERIOR OF THE OLD HOUSE OF COMMONS

BIRTHPLACE OF GLADSTONE

GLIMPSES OF GLADSTONE'S EARLIER YEARS

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

GLADSTONE'S LONDON RESIDENCE

LOBBY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

GRATTAN

KILMAINHAM JAIL

GLADSTONE'S MARRIAGE AT HAWARDEN

NO. 10 DOWNING STREET, LONDON

THE PARK GATE, HAWARDEN

OLD HAWARDEN CASTLE

HAWARDEN CASTLE, FROM THE PARK

WATERFALL IN HAWARDEN PARK

COURT YARD, HAWARDEN

GLADSTONE READING THE LESSONS AT HAWARDEN CHURCH

THE REV. H. DREW

DOROTHY'S DOVECOTE

DINING-ROOM IN THE ORPHANAGE

STAIRCASE IN THE ORPHANAGE

HAWARDEN CHURCH

HAWARDEN CASTLE

LOYAL ULSTER

GLADSTONE'S EARLY ENGLISH CONTEMPORARIES

GLADSTONE'S LATER ENGLISH CONTEMPORARIES

GLADSTONE IN WALES

CITY AND COUNTY VOLUNTEERS OF DUBLIN

CONDITION OF IRELAND, 1882

GLADSTONE VISITING NEAPOLITAN PRISONS

GLADSTONE INTRODUCING HIS FIRST BUDGET

THE SUNDERLAND SHIPOWNER SURPRISED

FAMILY GROUP AT HAWARDEN

HOUSE OF COMMONS

WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR

GLADSTONE AND GRANDDAUGHTER

GLADSTONE'S AXE

GLADSTONE FAMILY GROUP

SALISBURY MINISTRY DEFEATED

THE OLD LION

GLADSTONE'S RECEPTION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

GLADSTONE'S MAIL

RELEASE OF PARNELL, DILLON AND O'KELLY

GLADSTONE ON HIS WAY HOME

THE MIDLOTHIAN CAMPAIGN

QUEEN VICTORIA

GLADSTONE AND HIS SON, HERBERT

GALLERY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

IRISH LEADERS

IRISH CONSTABULARY EVICTING TENANTS

GLADSTONE'S STUDY AT HAWARDEN

FOURTH ADMINISTRATION CABINET

GLADSTONE ON THE QUEEN'S YACHT

ST. JAMES PALACE

QUEEN AND PREMIER

GLADSTONE IN HIS STUDY, READING

MR. AND MRS. GLADSTONE, 1897



INTRODUCTORY.

There are few, even among those who differed from him, who would deny to
Mr. Gladstone the title of a great statesman: and in order to appreciate
his wonderful career, it is necessary to realize the condition of the
world of thought, manners and works at the time when he entered
public life.

In medicine there was no chloroform; in art the sun had not been
enlisted in portraiture; railways were just struggling into existence;
the electric telegraph was unknown; gas was an unfashionable light;
postage was dear, and newspapers were taxed.

In literature, Scott had just died; Carlyle was awaiting the publication
of his first characteristic book; Tennyson was regarded as worthy of
hope because of his juvenile poems; Macaulay was simply a brilliant
young man who had written some stirring verse and splendid prose; the
Brontës were schoolgirls; Thackeray was dreaming of becoming an artist;
Dickens had not written a line of fiction; Browning and George Eliot
were yet to come.

In theology, Newman was just emerging from evangelicalism; Pusey was an
Oxford tutor; Samuel Wilberforce a village curate; Henry Manning a young
graduate; and Darwin was commencing that series of investigations which
revolutionized the popular conception of created things.

Princess, afterwards Queen Victoria, was a girl of thirteen; Cobden a
young calico printer; Bright a younger cotton spinner; Palmerston was
regarded as a man-about-town, and Disraeli as a brilliant and eccentric
novelist with parliamentary ambition. The future Marquis of Salisbury
and Prime Minister of Great Britain was an infant scarcely out of arms;
Lord Rosebery, (Mr. Gladstone's successor in the Liberal Premiership),
Lord Spencer, Lord Herschell, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,
Mr. Asquith, Mr. Brice, Mr. Acland and Mr. Arnold Morley, or more than
half the members of his latest cabinet remained to be born; as did also
the Duke of Devonshire, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain, among those who
were his keenest opponents toward the end of his public career.

At last the end of Mr. Gladstone's public life arrived, but it had been
extended to an age greater than that at which any English statesman had
ever conducted the government of his country.

Of the significance of the life of this great man, it would be
superfluous to speak. The story will signally fail of its purpose if it
does not carry its own moral with it. We can best conclude these
introductory remarks by applying to the subject of the following pages,
some words which he applied a generation ago to others:

In the sphere of common experience we see some human beings live and
die, and furnish by their life no special lessons visible to man, but
only that general teaching in elementary and simple forms which is
derivable from every particle of human histories. Others there have
been, who, from the times when their young lives first, as it were,
peeped over the horizon, seemed at once to--

       "'Flame in the forehead of the evening sky,'"
     --Whose lengthening years have been but one growing
              splendor, and who at last--
       "------Leave a lofty name,
     A light, a landmark on the cliffs of fame."




CHAPTER I


ANCESTRY AND BIRTH

All history, says Emerson, "resolves itself into the biographies of a
few stout and earnest persons." These remarks find exemplification in
the life of William Ewart Gladstone, of whom they are pre-eminently
true. His recorded life, from the early period of his graduation to his
fourth premiership, would embrace in every important respect not only
the history of the British Empire, but very largely the international
events of every nation of the world for more than half a century.

William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., D.C.L., statesman, orator and scholar,
was born December 27, 1809, in Liverpool, England. The house in which he
was born, number 62 Rodney Street, a commodious and imposing
"double-fronted" dwelling of red brick, is still standing. In the
neighborhood of the Rodney Street house, and a few years before or after
the birth of William E. Gladstone, a number of distinguished persons
were born, among them William Roscoe, the writer and philanthropist,
John Gibson, the sculptor, Doctor Bickersteth, the late Bishop of Ripon,
Mrs. Hemans, the poetess, and Doctor James Martineau, Professor of
Mental and Moral Philosophy in Manchester New College, and the brother
of Harriet Martineau, the authoress.

The Gladstone family, or Gledstanes, which was the original family name,
was of Scottish origin. The derivation of the name is obvious enough to
any one familiar with the ancestral home. A _gled_ is a hawk, and that
fierce and beautiful bird would have found its natural refuge among the
_stanes_, or rocks, of the craggy moorlands which surround the
"fortalice of gledstanes." As far back as 1296 Herbert de Gledstane
figures in the Ragman Roll as one of the lairds who swore fealty to
Edward I. His descendants for generations held knightly rank, and bore
their part in the adventurous life of the Border. The chief stock was
settled at Liberton, in the upper part of Clydesdale. It was a family of
Scottish lairds, holding large estates in the sixteenth century. The
estate dwindled, and in the beginning of the seventeenth century passed
out of their hands, except the adjacent property of Authurshiel, which
remained in their possession for a hundred years longer. A younger
branch of the family--the son of the last of the Gledstanes of
Arthurshiel--after many generations, came to dwell at Biggar, in
Lanarkshire, where he conducted the business of a "maltster," or
grain merchant.

Here, and at about this time, the name was changed to Gladstones, and a
grandson of the maltster of Biggar, Thomas Gladstones, settled in Leith
and there became a "corn-merchant." He was born at Mid Toftcombs, in
1732, and married Helen Neilson, of Springfield. His aptitude for
business was so great that he was enabled to make ample provision for a
large family of sixteen children. His son, John Gladstone, was the
father of William E. Gladstone, the subject of our sketch.

Some have ascribed to Mr. Gladstone an illustrious, even a royal
ancestry, through his father's marriage. He met and married a lovely,
cultured and pious woman of Dingwall, in Orkney, the daughter of Andrew
Robertson, Provost of Dingwall, named Ann Robertson, whom the
unimpeachable Sir Bernard Burke supplied with a pedigree from Henry III,
king of England, and Robert Bruce, of Bannockburn, king of Scotland, so
that it is royal English and Scottish blood that runs in the veins of
Mr. Gladstone.

"This alleged illustrious pedigree," says E.B. Smith, in his elaborate
work on William E. Gladstone, "is thus traced: Lady Jane Beaufort, who
was a descendant of Henry III, married James I, of Scotland, who was a
descendant of Bruce. From this alliance it is said that the steps can be
followed clearly down to the father of Miss Robertson. A Scottish writer
upon genealogy, also referring to this matter, states that Mr. Gladstone
is descended on the mother's side from the ancient Mackenzie of Kintail,
through whom is introduced the blood of the Bruce, of the ancient Kings
of Man, and of the Lords of the Isles and Earls of Ross; also from the
Munros of Fowlis, and the Robertsons of Strowan and Athole. What was of
more consequence to the Gladstones of recent generations, however, than
royal blood, was the fact that by their energy and honorable enterprise
they carved their own fortunes, and rose to positions of public esteem
and eminence." It has been their pride that they sprang from the ranks
of the middle classes, from which have come so many of the great men of
England eminent in political and military life.

In an address delivered at the Liverpool Collegiate Institute, December
21, 1872, Sir John Gladstone said; "I know not why the commerce of
England should not have its old families rejoicing to be connected with
commerce from generation to generation. It has been so in other
countries; I trust it may be so in this country. I think it is a subject
of sorrow, and almost of scandal, when those families who have either
acquired or recovered wealth and station through commerce, turn their
backs upon it and seem to be ashamed of it. It certainly is not so with
my brother or with me. His sons are treading in his steps, and one of my
sons, I rejoice to say, is treading in the steps of my father and
my brother."

George W.E. Russell, in his admirable biography of Mr. William E.
Gladstone, says, "Sir John Gladstone was a pure Scotchman, a lowlander
by birth and descent. Provost Robertson belonged to the Clan Donachie,
and by this marriage the robust and business-like qualities of the
Lowlander were blended with the poetic imagination, the sensibility and
fire of the Gael."

An interesting story is told, showing how Sir John Gladstone, the father
of William E. Gladstone, came to live in Liverpool, and enter upon his
great business career, and where he became a merchant prince. Born at
Leith in 1763, he in due time entered his father's business, where he
served until he was twenty-one years old. At that time his father sent
him to Liverpool to dispose of a cargo of grain, belonging to him, which
had arrived at that port. His demeanor and business qualities so
impressed Mr. Corrie, a grain merchant of that place, that he urged his
father to let him settle there. Consent was obtained and young Gladstone
entered the house of Corrie & Company as a clerk. His tact and
shrewdness were soon manifest, and he was eventually taken into the firm
as a partner, and the name of the house became Corrie, Gladstone
& Bradshaw.

John Gladstone on one occasion proved the temporary preserver of the
firm of which he had become a member. He was sent to America to buy
grain for the firm, in a time of great scarcity in Europe, owing to the
failure of the crops, but he found the condition of things the same in
America. There was no grain to be had. While in great perplexity as to
what to do he received advices from Liverpool that twenty-four vessels
had been dispatched for the grain he was expected to purchase, to bring
it to Europe. The prospect was that these vessels would have to return
to Europe empty as they had come, and the house of Corrie & Company be
involved thereby in ruin. It was then that John Gladstone rose to the
emergency of the occasion, and by his enterprise and energy saved
himself and partners from financial failure, to the great surprise and
admiration of the merchants of Liverpool. It was in this way: He made a
thorough examination of the American markets for articles of commerce
that could be sold in Europe to advantage, and filling his vessels with
them sent them home. This sagacious movement not only saved his house,
but gave him a name and place among the foremost merchants of his day.
His name was also a synonym for push and integrity, not only on the
Liverpool exchange, but in London and throughout all England. The
business of the firm became very great and the wealth of its members
very large.

During the war with Napoleon, on the continent, and the war of 1812 with
the United States, the commerce of England, as mistress of the seas, was
injured, and the Gladstone firm suffered greatly and was among the first
to seek peace, for its own sake and in the interests of trade. In one
year the commerce of Liverpool declined to the amount of 140,000 tons,
which was about one-fourth of the entire trade, and there was a decrease
of more than $100,000 in the dock-dues of that port. John Gladstone was
among those who successfully petitioned the British government for a
change of its suicidal policy towards the American States.

After sixteen years of successful operations, during a part of which
time it had been government agent, the firm was dissolved and its
business was continued by John Gladstone. His six brothers having
followed him from Leith to Liverpool, he took into partnership with him
his brother Robert. Their business became very extensive, having a large
trade with Russia, and as sugar importers and West India merchants. John
Gladstone was the chairman of the West India Association and took an
active part in the improvement and enlargement of the docks of
Liverpool. In 1814, when the monopoly of the East India Company was
broken and the trade of India and China thrown open to competition, the
firm of John Gladstone & Company was the first to send a private vessel
to Calcutta.

John Gladstone was a public-spirited man and took great interest in the
welfare of his adopted city. He was ever ready to labor for its
prosperity, and consequently endeared himself to the people of all
classes and conditions, and of every shade of political opinion.

The high estimation in which he was held by the citizens of Liverpool
was especially manifest October 18, 1824, when they presented him with a
testimonial, consisting of a magnificent service of plate, of
twenty-eight pieces, and bearing the following inscription: "_To John
Gladstone, Esq., M.P., this service of plate was presented MDCCCXXIV, by
his fellow townsmen and friends, to mark their high sense of his
successful exertions for the promotion of trade and commerce, and in
acknowledgment of his most important services rendered to the town of
Liverpool_."

John Gladstone, though devoted to commerce, had time for literary
pursuits. He wrote a pamphlet, "On the Present State of Slavery in the
British West Indies and in the United States of America; and on the
Importation of Sugar from British Settlements in India." He also
published, in 1830, another pamphlet, containing a statement of facts
connected with the same general subject, "in a letter addressed to Sir
Robert Peel." In 1846 he published a pamphlet, entitled "Plain facts
intimately connected with the intended Repeal of the Corn Laws; or
Probable Effects on the Public Revenue and the Prosperity of
the Country."

From the subject discussed it can be readily and truly imagined that
John Gladstone had given thought to political subjects. He was in favor
of a qualified reform which, while affording a greater enfranchisement
of the people, looked also to the interests of all. Having an opinion,
and not being afraid to express it, he was frequently called upon to
address public meetings. The matters discussed by him were, however,
rather national than municipal, rather humane than partisan. He was a
strong advocate for certain reforms at home in 1818, and in 1823 on the
seas, and for Greek independence in 1824. "On the 14th of February,
1824, a public meeting was held in Liverpool Town Hall, 'for the purpose
of considering the best means of assisting the Greeks in their present
important struggle for independence.' Mr. Gladstone spoke impressively
in favor of the cause which had already evoked great enthusiasm amongst
the people, and enlisted the sympathies and support of Lord Byron and
other distinguished friends of freedom."

It was in 1818 that he addressed a meeting called "to consider the
propriety of petitioning Parliament to take into consideration the
progressive and alarming increase in the crimes of forging and uttering
forged Bank of England notes." The penalties for these crimes were
already heavy, but their infliction did not deter men from committing
them, and these crimes increased at an enormous rate. Resolutions were
passed at the Liverpool meeting, recommending the revision and amendment
of existing laws.

Then again, so late as the year 1823, the navigation between Liverpool
and Dublin was in a lamentable condition, and human life was recklessly
imperiled, and no one seemed willing to interfere and to interest
himself in the interests of humanity. It was then that he again came to
the front to advocate a just cause. To illustrate the dangers to vessels
and passengers, the case of the sloop _Alert_ may be cited. It was
wrecked off the Welsh coast, with between 100 and 140 persons on board,
of whom only seventeen were saved. For the safety and rescue of all
those souls on board this packet-boat there was only one small shallop,
twelve feet long. Mr. Gladstone was impressed with the terrible nature
of the existing evil, and obtained an amendment to the Steamboat Act,
requiring imperatively that every passenger vessel should be provided
with boats sufficient for every passenger it was licensed to carry. By
this wise and humane provision thousands of lives were doubtless saved
that would otherwise have been lost--the victims of reckless seamanship
and commercial greed.

John Gladstone, either through the influence of Mr. Canning, or from
having imbibed some political taste, sat in the House of Commons nine
years, representing Lancaster in 1819, Woodstock from 1821 to 1826, and
Berwick in 1827; but he never would consent to sit in Parliament for the
city of Liverpool, for he thought that so large and important a
constituency required peculiar representation such as he was
unqualified to give.

He was the warm supporter and intimate friend of the celebrated Canning.
At first he was a Whig, but finally came to support Mr. Canning, and
became a Liberal Conservative. In 1812 he presided over a meeting at
Liverpool, which was called to invite Mr. Canning to represent the
borough in Parliament. After the election the successful candidates were
claimed and carried in procession through the streets. The procession
finally halted at Mr. Gladstone's house, in Rodney Street, from the
balcony of which Mr. Canning addressed the populace. His election laid
the foundation of a deep and lasting friendship between Mr. Canning and
Mr. Gladstone. "At this time the son of the latter was but three years
of age. Shortly afterwards--that is, as soon as he was able to
understand anything of public men, and public movements and
events"--says G.B. Smith, "the name of Canning began to exercise that
strange fascination over the mind of William Ewart Gladstone which has
never wholly passed away," and Mr. Gladstone himself acknowledged that
he was brought up "under the shadow of the great name of Canning."

John Gladstone presided at a farewell dinner given by the Liverpool
Canning Club, in August, 1822, in honor of Mr. Canning, who had been
Governor-General of India. But Mr. Canning, instead of going to India,
entered the British Cabinet, and in 1827 became Prime Minister, and John
Gladstone moved a congratulatory address to the king upon the formation
of the Canning Ministry.

In 1845 John Gladstone was created a baronet by Sir Robert Peel, but he
lived to enjoy his deserved honors but a short time, for he died in
1851, at the advanced age of eighty-eight. His motto had ever been,
"Diligent in business." His enormous wealth enabled him to provide
handsomely for his family, not only after death, but during
his lifetime.

At the time of his father's death, William E. Gladstone was still an
adherent of the Tory party, yet his steps indicated that he was
advancing towards Liberalism; and he had already reached distinction as
a statesman, both in Parliament and in the Cabinet, while as yet he was
but 42 years old, which was about half of his age when called for the
fourth time to be Prime Minister of England.

Sir John Gladstone and his wife had six children--four sons, Thomas
Gladstone, afterwards baronet; John Gladstone, who became a captain, and
died in 1863; Robert Gladstone, brought up a merchant, who died in 1875,
and two daughters, Annie McKenzie Gladstone, who died years ago, and
Helen Jane Gladstone. William E. Gladstone was the fourth son. The
following is from the pen of the son, who says of his aged father, Sir
John Gladstone: "His eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated; he
was full of bodily and mental vigor; whatsoever his hand found to do he
did it with his might; he could not understand or tolerate those who,
perceiving an object to be good, did not at once and actively pursue it;
and with all this energy he gained a corresponding warmth, and, so to
speak, eagerness of affection, a keen appreciation of humor, in which he
found a rest, and an indescribable frankness and simplicity of
character, which, crowning his other qualities, made him, I think, and I
strive to think impartially, nearly or quite the most interesting old
man I ever knew."

Personally, Sir John Gladstone was a man of much intelligence and of
sterling principle, of high moral and religious character, and his
house consequently was a model home. "His house was by all accounts a
home pre-eminently calculated to mould the thoughts and direct the
course of an intelligent and receptive nature. There was a father's
masterful will and keen perception, the sweetness and piety of the
mother, wealth with all its substantial advantages and few of its
mischiefs, a strong sense of the value of money, a rigid avoidance of
extravagance and excesses; everywhere a strenuous purpose in life,
constant employment, and concentrated ambition."

Mrs. John Gladstone, the wife and mother, is described by one who knew
her intimately as "a lady of very great accomplishments; of fascinating
manners, of commanding presence and high intellect; one to grace any
home and endear any heart."

The following picture of the everyday life of the family is interesting
and instructive, on account of Sir John Gladstone, as well as on that of
his more distinguished son, and is from the pen of an eye-witness:
"Nothing was ever taken for granted between him and his sons. A
succession of arguments on great topics and small topics
alike--arguments conducted with perfect good humor, but also with the
most implicable logic--formed the staple of the family conversation. The
children and their parents argued upon everything. They would debate as
to whether a window should be opened, and whether it was likely to be
fair or wet the next day. It was all perfectly good-humored, but curious
to a stranger, because of the evident care which all the disputants took
to advance no proposition, even as to the prospect of rain, rashly."

In such a home as this was William E. Gladstone in training as the great
Parliamentary debater and leader, and for the highest office under the
British crown. This reminds us of a story of Burke. The king one day,
unexpectedly entering the office of his minister, found the elder Burke
sitting at his desk, with his eyes fixed upon his young son, who was
standing on his father's desk in the attitude of speaking. "What are you
doing?" asked the astonished king. "I am making the greatest minister
England ever saw," was the reply. And so in fact, and yet all
unconsciously, was Sir John doing for his son, William.

William E. Gladstone "was born," says his biographer, G.W.E. Russell,
"at a critical moment in the fortunes of England and of Europe. Abroad
the greatest genius that the world has ever seen was wading through
slaughter to a universal throne, and no effectual resistance had as yet
been offered to a progress which menaced the liberty of Europe and the
existence of its States. At home, a crazy king and a profligate
heir-apparent presided over a social system in which all civil evils
were harmoniously combined. A despotic administration was supported by a
parliamentary representation as corrupt as illusory; a church, in which
spiritual religion was all but extinct, had sold herself as a bondslave
to the governing classes. Rank and wealth and territorial ascendency
were divorced from public duty, and even learning had become the
handmaid of tyranny. The sacred name of justice was prostituted to
sanction a system of legal murder. Commercial enterprise was paralyzed
by prohibitive legislation; public credit was shaken to its base; the
prime necessaries of life were ruinously dear. The pangs of poverty were
aggravated by the concurrent evils of war and famine, and the common
people, fast bound in misery and iron, were powerless to make their
sufferings known or to seek redress, except by the desperate methods of
conspiracy and insurrection. None of the elements of revolution were
wanting, and the fates seemed to be hurrying England to the brink of a
civil catastrophe.

"The general sense of insecurity and apprehension, inseparable from such
a condition of affairs, produced its effect upon even the robust minds.
Sir John Gladstone was not a likely victim of panic, but he was a man
with a large stake in the country, the more precious because acquired by
his own exertion; he believed that the safeguards of property and order
were imperilled by foreign arms and domestic sedition; and he had seen
with indignation and disgust the excesses of a factious Whiggery, which
was not ashamed to exult in the triumph of the French over the English
Government. Under the pressure of these influences Sir John Gladstone
gradually separated himself from the Whigs, with whom in earlier life he
had acted, and became the close ally of Canning, whose return for
Liverpool he actually promoted."

With such surroundings it is not to be wondered at that William E.
Gladstone entered political life a Tory, contending against the
principles he afterwards espoused. His original bent, however, was not
towards politics, but the church; and it was only at the earnest desire
of his father that he ultimately decided to enter Parliament, and serve
his country in the Legislature.

His subsequent life proved the wisdom of the choice. In the Legislature
of his country was begun, carried on and consummated grandly, one of the
most remarkable careers in the annals of history for versatility,
brilliancy, solidity and long continuance. Rarely has there been
exhibited so complete a combination of qualities in statesmanship. His
intellectual endowments were almost without a parallel, and his
achievements without a precedent. In him seemed to be centered a rich
collection of the highest gifts of genius, great learning and readiness
in debate and discourse in the House of Commons, and extraordinary
wisdom in the administration of the affairs of the nation. His financial
talent, his business aptitude, his classical attainments, and above all
his moral fervor, and religious spirit were conspicuous. Some men would
have been contented with political power, or classical learning, or
literary distinction, but he excelled in all these--not only as a
statesman, but as a man of letters and a classical scholar. Neither has
held him exclusively as its own--he belongs to all, or rather they
belong to him--for he explored and conquered them. His literary
productions equal in merit his papers of State, while his knowledge of
the classics would do credit to any scholar.

He possessed the unusual quality of throwing the light of his own mind
on the greatest questions of national and international importance, of
bringing them down to the understanding and appreciation of the masses
of the people, of infusing, by his earnestness, the fire of his own soul
in the people, and of arousing in them the greatest enthusiasm.

In the biography of this wonderful person we propose to set before the
reader the man himself--his words and his deeds. This method enables him
to speak for himself, and thus the reader may study him and know him,
and because thereof be lifted into a higher plane of nobler and better
being. The acts and utterances of such a character are his best
biography, and especially for one differing so largely from all other
men as to have none to be compared with him.

In this record we simply spread before the reader his private life and
public services, connected together through many startling changes, from
home to school, from university to Parliament, from Tory follower to
Liberal leader, from the early start in his political course to the
grand consummation of the statesman's success in his attainment to the
fourth Premiership of this Grand Old Man, and the glorious end of an
eventful life.

We could not do better, in closing this chapter, than to reproduce a
part of the character sketch of William E. Gladstone, from the pen of
William T. Stead, and published in the "Review of Reviews:"

"So much has been written about Mr. Gladstone that it was with some
sinking of heart I ventured to select him as a subject for my next
character sketch. But I took heart of grace when I remembered that the
object of these sketches is to describe their subject as he appears to
himself at his best, and his countrymen. There are plenty of other
people ready to fill in the shadows. This paper claims in no way to be a
critical estimate or a judicial summing up of the merits and demerits
of the most remarkable of all living Englishmen. It is merely an attempt
to catch, as it were, the outline of the heroic figure which has
dominated English politics for the lifetime of this generation, and
thereby to explain something of the fascination which his personality
has exercised and still exercises over the men and women of his time. If
his enemies, and they are many, say that I have idealized a wily old
opportunist out of all recognition, I answer that to the majority of his
fellow-subjects my portrait is not overdrawn. The real Gladstone may be
other than this, but this is probably more like the Gladstone for whom
the electors believe they are voting, than a picture of Gladstone,
'warts and all,' would be. And when I am abused, as I know I shall be,
for printing such a sketch, I shall reply that there is at least one
thing to be said in its favor. To those who know him best, in his own
household, and to those who only know him as a great name in history, my
sketch will only appear faulty because it does not do full justice to
the character and genius of this extraordinary man."

Mr. Gladstone appeals to the men of to-day from the vantage point of
extreme old age. Age is so frequently dotage, that when a veteran
appears who preserves the heart of a boy and the happy audacity of
youth, under the 'lyart haffets wearing thin and bare' of aged manhood,
it seems as if there is something supernatural about it, and all men
feel the fascination and the charm. Mr. Gladstone, as he gleefully
remarked the other day, has broken the record. He has outlived Lord
Palmerston, who died when eighty-one, and Thiers, who only lived to be
eighty. The blind old Dandolo in Byron's familiar verse--

     The octogenarian chief, Byzantium's conquering foe,

had not more energy than the Liberal leader, who, now in his
eighty-third year, has more nerve and spring and go than any of his
lieutenants, not excluding the youngest recruit. There is something
imposing and even sublime in the long procession of years which bridge
as with eighty-two arches the abyss of past time, and carry us back to
the days of Canning, and of Castlereagh, of Napoleon, and of Wellington.
His parliamentary career extends over sixty years--the lifetime of two
generations. He is the custodian of all the traditions, the hero of the
experience of successive administrations, from a time dating back longer
than most of his colleagues can remember. For nearly forty years he has
had a leading part in making or unmaking of Cabinets; he has served his
Queen and his country in almost every capacity in office and in
opposition, and yet to-day, despite his prolonged sojourn in the malaria
of political wire-pulling, his heart seems to be as the heart of a
little child. If some who remember 'the old Parliamentary hand' should
whisper that innocence of the dove is sometimes compatible with the
wisdom of the serpent, I make no dissent. It is easy to be a dove, and
to be as silly as a dove. It is easy to be as wise as a serpent, and as
wicked, let us say, as Mr. Governor Hill or Lord Beaconsfield. But it is
the combination that is difficult, and in Mr. Gladstone the combination
is almost ideally complete.

"Mr. Gladstone is old enough to be the grandfather of the younger race
of politicians, but still his courage, his faith, his versatility, put
the youngest of them to shame. It is this ebullience of youthful energy,
this inexhaustible vitality, which is the admiration and despair of his
contemporaries. Surely when a schoolboy at Eton he must somewhere have
discovered the elixir of life, or have been bathed by some beneficent
fairy in the well of perpetual youth. Gladly would many a man of fifty
exchange physique with this hale and hearty octogenarian. Only in one
respect does he show any trace of advancing years. His hearing is not
quite so good as it was, but still it is far better than that of
Cardinal Manning, who became very deaf in his closing years. Otherwise
Mr. Gladstone is hale and hearty. His eye is not dim, neither is his
natural force abated. A splendid physical frame, carefully preserved,
gives every promise of a continuance of his green old age.

"His political opponents, who began this Parliament by confidently
calculating upon his death before the dissolution, are now beginning to
admit that it is by no means improbable that Mr. Gladstone may survive
the century. Nor was it quite so fantastic as it appears at first sight,
when an ingenious disciple told him the other day that by the fitness of
things he ought to live for twenty years yet. 'For,' said this political
arithmetician, 'you have been twenty-six years a Tory, twenty-six years
a Whig Liberal, and you have been only six years a Radical Home Ruler.
To make the balance even you have twenty years still to serve.'

"Sir Provo Wallis, the Admiral of the Fleet, who died the other day at
the age of one hundred, had not a better constitution than Mr.
Gladstone, nor had it been more carefully preserved in the rough and
tumble of our naval war. If the man who smelt powder in the famous fight
between the Chesapeake and the Shannon lived to read the reports of the
preparations for the exhibition at Chicago, it is not so incredible that
Mr. Gladstone may at least be in the foretop of the State at the dawn of
the twentieth century.

"The thought is enough to turn the Tories green with sickening despair,
that the chances of his life, from a life insurance office point of
view, are probably much better than Lord Salisbury's. But that is one of
the attributes of Mr. Gladstone which endear him so much to his party.
He is always making his enemies sick with despairing jealousy. He is the
great political evergreen, who seems, even in his political life, to
have borrowed something of immortality from the fame which he has won.
He has long been the Grand Old Man. If he lives much longer he bids fair
to be known as the immortal old man in more senses than one."

[Illustration: GLADSTONE'S BIRTHPLACE, RODNEY STREET, LIVERPOOL.]




CHAPTER II


AT ETON AND OXFORD

There is very little recorded of the boyhood of some great men, and this
is true of the childhood of William E. Gladstone, until he leaves the
parental home for school, which he does in 1821, at the early age of
eleven. He was fortunate in his parentage, but no less so in his early
associations, both in and out of school. We refer particularly to his
private preceptors, two of whom, the venerable Archdeacon Jones and the
Rev. William Rawson, first Vicar of Seaforth, a watering-place near
Liverpool, were both men of high character and great ability. Mr.
Gladstone always highly esteemed Mr. Rawson, his earliest preceptor, and
visited him on his death-bed. Dr. Turner, afterwards Bishop of Calcutta,
was for two years young Gladstone's private tutor, beginning his
instruction when his pupil left Eton in 1827.

Besides these associations of his early life there were Canning, a
frequent visitor, as has been mentioned, at his father's house, and
Hannah More--"Holy Hannah," as Horace Walpole called her. She singled
out "Billy" Gladstone for her especial pet out of the group of eleven
children in whom her warm heart delighted, and it has been asked
wonderingly if Miss More could preternaturally have lengthened her days
until William E. Gladstone's present glory, whether she would have gone
on dubbing him "Billy" in undignified brevity until the end.

William E. Gladstone, when very young, gave such evidence of uncommon
intellectual ability and promise of future greatness that his father
resolved upon educating him in the best schools of England. There are
four or five great schools in England in which the English youth are
prepared in four or five years for Cambridge or Oxford. "Eton, the
largest and the most celebrated of the public schools of England, ranks
as the second in point of antiquity, Winchester alone being older."
After the preparation at home, under private teachers, to which we have
referred, William E. Gladstone was sent to Eton, in September, 1821. His
biographer, George W.E. Russell, writes, "From a provincial town, from
mercantile surroundings, from an atmosphere of money-making, from a
strictly regulated life, the impressible boy was transplanted, at the
age of eleven, to the shadow of Windsor and the banks of the Thames, to
an institution which belongs to history, to scenes haunted by the
memory of the most illustrious Englishmen, to a free and independent
existence among companions who were the very flower of English boyhood.
A transition so violent and yet so delightful was bound to produce an
impression which lapse of time was powerless to efface, and no one who
knows the man and the school can wonder that for seventy years Mr.
Gladstone has been the most enthusiastic of Etonians."

Eton of to-day is not in all respects the Eton of three-quarters of a
century ago, and yet in some particulars it is as it was when young
"Billy" Gladstone studied within its walls. The system of education and
discipline pursued has undergone some modifications in recent
years--notably during the provostship of the Rev. Francis Hodgson; but
radical defects are still alleged against it. It is not remarkable,
however, that every Eton boy becomes deeply attached to the school,
notwithstanding the apprenticeship to hardships he may have been
compelled to undergo.

The "hardships" there must have been particularly great when young
Gladstone entered Eton, at the close of the summer holidays of 1821. The
school was under the head-mastership of "the terrific Dr. Keate." He was
not the man to spare even the scholar who, upon the emphatic testimony
of Sir Roderick Murchison, was "the prettiest boy that ever went to
Eton," and who was as studious and well-behaved as he was good-looking.

The town of Eton, in which the school is located, about 22 miles from
London, in Berkshire, is beautifully situated on the banks of the river
Thames, opposite Windsor Castle, the residence of the Queen of England.

Eton College is one of the most famous and best endowed educational
institutions of learning in England. It was founded in 1440 by Henry VI.
The king was very solicitous that the work should be of a durable kind,
and he provided for free scholarships. Eton of Mr. Gladstone's day,
according to a critic, was divided into two schools--the upper and the
lower. It also had two kinds of scholars, namely, seventy called king's
scholars or "collegers," who are maintained gratuitously, sleep in the
college, and wear a peculiar dress; and another class--the
majority--called "oppidans," who live in the town. Between these two
classes of students there prevails perpetual hostility. At Cambridge,
there was founded, in connection with Eton, what is called King's
College, to receive as fellows students from Eton, and to give them
gratuitously an education. The ground on which students of Eton were
promoted to King's College and these fellowships was, strangely to say,
upon that of seniority, or long residence, and not of merit. Because
there was no competition, scholars who were deficient in education at
Eton were promoted to Cambridge, where they had no incentive to work,
being exempt from the ordinary university examination.

At Eton "no instruction was given in any branch of mathematical,
physical, metaphysical or moral science, nor in the evidences of
Christianity. The only subjects which it professed to impart a knowledge
of were the Greek and Latin languages; as much divinity as can be gained
from construing the Greek Testament, and reading a portion of Tomline on
the Thirty-nine Articles, and a little ancient and modern geography." So
much for the instruction imparted. As regards the hours of tuition,
there seems to have been fault there, in that they were too few and
insufficient, there being in all only eleven hours a week study. Then as
to the manner of study, no time was given the scholar to study the style
of an author; he was "hurried from Herodotus to Thucydides, from
Thucydides to Xenophon, from Xenophon to Lucian, without being
habituated to the style of any one author--without gaining an interest
in the history, or even catching the thread of the narrative; and when
the whole book is finished he has probably collected only a few vague
ideas about Darius crying over a great army, Abydos and Nicias and
Demosthenes being routed with a great army near Syracuse, mixed up with
a recollection of the death of Cyrus and Socrates, some moral precept
from Socrates, and some jokes against false philosophers and heathen
gods." Hence the Eton student who goes to Cambridge finds he has done
but a little desultory reading, and that he must begin again. It was
charged that the system of education at Eton failed in every point. The
moral discipline of the school was also called in question. The number
of scholars was so great that the proper control of them seemed
impossible under the management. Great laxity prevailed among the larger
boys, while the younger and weaker students were exposed to the tyranny
of the older and stronger ones without hope of redress. The result was
that the system of "fagging," or the acting of some boys as drudges for
the others, flourished. "The right" of fagging depended upon the place
in the school; all boys in the sixth and fifth forms had the power of
ordering--all below the latter form being bound to obey. This system of
fagging has a very injurious effect upon most of the boys; "it finds
them slaves and leaves them despots. A boy who has suffered himself,
insensibly learns to see no harm in making others suffer in turn. The
whole thing is wrong in principle, and engenders passions which should
be stifled and not encouraged." Why free and enlightened England should
tolerate, even then, such barbarous slavery cannot be understood and
yet there are outrageous customs prevailing among college students of
our day in every civilized land that should be suppressed.

Flogging was in vogue, too, at Eton, with all its degrading and
demoralizing effects, and was performed by the Head-Master himself. In
1820, the year before Mr. Gladstone entered Eton, there were 280 upper
students and 319 lower, a total of 612, and none were exempt.

Some curious stories are told of flogging, which has ever existed at
Eton, and from which even the largest boys were not exempt. Mr. Lewis
relates how a young man of twenty, just upon the point of leaving
school, and engaged to be married to a lady at Windsor, was well and
soundly whipped by Dr. Goodford, for arriving one evening at his tutor's
house after the specified time. And it is related that Arthur Wellesley,
afterwards the Iron Duke of Wellington, was flogged at Eton for having
been "barred out." At the same time there were eighty boys who
were whipped.

And the Eton of twenty years later was very little improved over its
condition in Mr. Gladstone's time there, or in 1845. John D. Lewis,
speaking of this period, says that after the boys reached the fifth
form, then began "some of the greatest anomalies and absurdities of the
then Etonian system." The student was now safe from the ordeal of
examinations, and that the higher classes, including ten senior
collegers and ten senior oppidans, contained some of the very worst
scholars. "A boy's place on the general roll was no more a criterion of
his acquirements and his industry than would be the 'year' of a young
man at Oxford or Cambridge." The collegers, however, were required to
pass some kind of examination, in accordance with which their place on
the list for the King's college was fixed. But the evils regarding the
hours of study and the nature of the studies were as bad. "The regular
holidays and Saints' days, two whole holidays in a week, and two
half-holidays, were a matter of common occurrence."

Lord Morley, in his examination before the Commission on Public Schools,
was asked whether a boy would be looked down upon at Eton for being
industrious in his studies, replied, "Not if he could do something else
well." And this seems to be the spirit of the Eton boy with whom a lack
of scholarship is more than made up by skill in river or field sports.

This is true to-day; for a recent writer in the _Forum_, upon "The
Training of Boys at Eton," says: "Athletic prominence is in English
public schools almost synonymous with social prominence; many a boy
whose capacity and character commanded both respect and liking at the
universities and in after life, is almost a nobody at a public school,
because he has no special athletic gifts.... Great athletic capacity may
co-exist with low moral and intellectual character."

There were few inducements to study and to excel in scholarship, and
plenty to idleness and neglect, hence he who did so must study in hours
and out of hours, in season and out of season. The curriculum is still
strictly classical, but French, German and mathematics are taught. The
collegers of recent years have done very fair work and carried off many
distinctions at Cambridge. With all these odds against them, and these
difficulties to surmount, yet there were Eton boys whose attainments
were deep and solid, and who became famous men, and one of these was
William E. Gladstone.

When young Gladstone entered Eton his brothers, Thomas and Robertson
Gladstone, were already there, and the three boys boarded at Mrs.
Shurey's, whose house "at the south end of the broad walk in front of
the schools and facing the chapel," was rather nearer the famous
"Christopher Inn" than would be thought desirable nowadays. On the wall
opposite the house the name of "Gladstone" is carved. Thomas Gladstone
was in the fifth form, and William was placed in the middle remove of
the fourth form, and became his eldest brother's "fag." This doubtlessly
saved him much annoyance and suffering, and allowed him better to
pursue the studious bent of his indications.

William E. Gladstone was what Etonians called a "sap"--in other words, a
student faithful in the discharge of every duty devolving upon him at
school--one who studied his lessons and was prepared for his recitations
in the classroom. This agreeable fact has been immortalized in a famous
line in Lord Lytton's "New Timon." He worked hard at his classical
studies, as required by the rules of the school, and applied himself
diligently to the study of mathematics during the holidays.

It is said that his interest in the work of the school was first aroused
by Mr. Hawtrey, who afterwards became Head-Master, who commended some of
his Latin verses, and "sent him up for good." This led the young man to
associate intellectual work with the ideas of ambition and success.
While he did not seem to be especially an apt scholar in the restricted
sense for original versification in the classical languages, or for
turning English into Greek or Latin, yet he seemed to seize the precise
meaning of the authors and to give the sense. "His composition was
stiff," but yet, says a classmate, "when there were thrilling passages
of Virgil or Homer, or difficult passages in 'Scriptores Graeci' to
translate, he or Lord Arthur Hervey was generally called up to edify
the class with quotations or translations."

He had no prizes at Eton except what is called being sent up for good,
on account of verses, and he was honored on several occasions. Besides
he took deep interest in starting a college periodical, and with some of
the most intellectual of the students sustained it with his pen. The
more studious of Eton boys have on several occasions in the present
century been in the habit of establishing periodicals for the purpose of
ventilating their opinions. In 1786 Mr. Canning and Mr. Hookham Frere
established the _Microcosm_, whose essays and _jeux d'esprit_, while
having reference primarily to Eton, demonstrated that the writers were
not insensible to what was going on in the great world without. It was
for this college paper that Canning wrote his "Essay on the Epic of the
Queen of Hearts," which, as a burlesque criticism, has been awarded a
high place in English literature. Lord Henry Spencer, Hookham Frere,
Capel Lofft, and Mr. Millish, were also contributors to the columns of
the _Microcosm_. In the year 1820 W. Mackworth Praed set on foot a
manuscript journal, entitled _Apis Matina_. This was in turn succeeded
by the _Etonian_, to which Praed contributed some of his most brilliant
productions. John Moultrie, Henry Nelson Coleridge, Walter Blunt, and
Chauncy Hare Townshend were also among the writers for its papers, who
helped to make it of exceptional excellence. Its articles are of no
ordinary interest even now.

In the last year of William E. Gladstone's stay at Eton, in 1827, and
seven years after Praed's venture, he was largely instrumental in
launching the _Eton Miscellany_, professedly edited by Bartholomew
Bouverie, and Mr. Gladstone became a most frequent, voluminous and
valuable contributor to its pages. He wrote articles of every
kind--prologues, epilogues, leaders, historical essays, satirical
sketches, classical translations, humorous productions, poetry and
prose. And among the principal contributors with him were Sir Francis
Doyle, George Selwyn, James Colville, Arthur Hallam, John Haumer and
James Milnes-Gaskell. The introduction, written by and signed "William
Ewart Gladstone" for this magazine, contained the following interesting
and singular passage, which probably fairly sets forth the hopes and
fears that beset statesmen in maturer years, as well as Eton boys of
only seventeen years of age:

"In my present undertaking there is one gulf in which I fear to sink,
and that gulf is Lethe. There is one stream which I dread my inability
to stem--it is the tide of Popular Opinion. I have ventured, and no
doubt rashly ventured--

     Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
     To try my fortune in a sea of glory,
     But far beyond my depth."

At present it is hope alone that buoys me up; for more substantial
support I must be indebted to my own exertions, well knowing that in
this land of literature merit never wants its reward. That such merit is
mine I dare not presume to think; but still there is something within me
that bids me hope that I may be able to glide prosperously down the
stream of public estimation; or, in the words of Virgil,

     '--Celerare viam rumore secundo.'

"I was surprised even to see some works with the names of Shakespeare
and Milton on them sharing the common destiny, but on examination I
found that those of the latter were some political rhapsodies, which
richly deserved their fate; and that the former consisted of some
editions of his works which had been burdened with notes and mangled
with emendations by his merciless commentators. In other places I
perceived authors worked up into frenzy by seeing their own compositions
descending like the rest. Often did the infuriated scribes extend their
hands, and make a plunge to endeavor to save their beloved offspring,
but in vain; I pitied the anguish of their disappointment, but with
feelings of the same commiseration as that which one feels for a
malefactor on beholding his death, being at the same time fully
conscious how well he has deserved it."

Little did this diffident and youthful editor imagine that he was
forecasting the future for himself by the aid of youth's most ardent
desires, and that he would live to become the Primate of all England and
the foremost statesman of his day.

There were two volumes of the _Miscellany_, dated June-July and
October-November, respectively, and Mr. Gladstone contributed thirteen
articles to the first volume. Among the contributions were an "Ode to
the Shade of Watt Tyler," a vigorous rendering of a chorus from the
Hucuba of Euripides, and a letter under the name of "Philophantasm,"
detailing an encounter he had with the poet Virgil, in which the great
poet appeared muttering something which did not sound like Latin to an
Eton boy, and complaining that he knew he was hated by the Eton boys
because he was difficult to learn, and pleading to be as well received
henceforth as Horace.

We give a quotation from a poem, consisting of some two hundred and
fifty lines, from his pen, which, appeared also in the _Miscellany_:

     "Who foremost now the deadly spear to dart,
      And strike the javelin to the Moslem's heart?
      Who foremost now to climb the leaguered wall,
      The first to triumph, or the first to fall?
      Lo, where the Moslems rushing to the fight,
      Back bear their squadrons in inglorious flight.
      With plumed helmet, and with glittering lance,
     'Tis Richard bids his steel-clad bands advance;
     'Tis Richard stalks along the blood-dyed plain,
      And views unmoved the slaying and the slain;
     'Tis Richard bathes his hands in Moslem blood,
      And tinges Jordan with the purple flood.
      Yet where the timbrels ring, the trumpets sound,
      And tramp of horsemen shakes the solid ground,
      Though 'mid the deadly charge and rush of fight,
      No thought be theirs of terror or of flight,--
      Ofttimes a sigh will rise, a tear will flow,
      And youthful bosoms melt in silent woe;
      For who of iron frame and harder heart
      Can bid the mem'ry of his home depart?
      Tread the dark desert and the thirsty sand,
      Nor give one thought to England's smiling land?
      To scenes of bliss, and days of other years--
      The Vale of Gladness and the Vale of Tears;
      That, passed and vanish'd from their loving sight,
      This 'neath their view, and wrapt in shades of night?"

Among other writers who contributed to the first volume of the
_Miscellany_ were Arthur Henry Hallam and Doyle, also G.A. Selwyn,
afterwards Bishop Selwyn, the friend of Mr. Gladstone, and to whom he
recently paid the following tribute: "Connected as tutor with families
of rank and influence, universally popular from his frank, manly, and
engaging character--and scarcely less so from his extraordinary rigor as
an athlete--he was attached to Eton, where he resided, with a love
surpassing the love of Etonians. In himself he formed a large part of
the life of Eton, and Eton formed a large part of his life. To him is
due no small share of the beneficial movement in the direction of
religious earnestness which marked the Eton of forty years back, and
which was not, in my opinion, sensibly affected by any influence
extraneous to the place itself. At a moment's notice, upon the call of
duty, he tore up the singularly deep roots which his life had struck
deep into the soil of England."

Both Mr. Gladstone and the future Bishop of Selwyn contributed humorous
letters to "The Postman," the correspondence department of the _Eton
Miscellany_.

In the second volume of the _Eton Miscellany_ are articles of equal
interest to those that appeared in the first. Doyle, Jelf, Selwyn,
Shadwell and Arthur Henry Hallam were contributors, the latter having
written "The Battle of the Boyne," a parody upon Campbell's
"Hohenlinden." But here again Mr. Gladstone was the principal
contributor, having contributed to this even more largely than to the
first, having written seventeen articles, besides the introductions to
the various numbers of the volume. Indeed one would think from his
devotion to these literary pursuits during his last year at Eton, that
he had very little leisure for those ordinary sports so necessary to
Eton boys. He seems to have begun his great literary activity. Among
them may be mentioned an "Ode to the Shade of Watt Tyler," mentioned
before, which is an example of his humorous style:

     "Shade of him whose valiant tongue
      On high the song of freedom sung;
      Shade of him, whose mighty soul
      Would pay no taxes on his poll;
      Though, swift as lightning, civic sword
        Descended on thy fated head,
      The blood of England's boldest poured,
        And numbered Tyler with the dead!

     "Still may thy spirit flap its wings
      At midnight o'er the couch of kings;
      And peer and prelate tremble, too,
      In dread of mighty interview!
      With patriot gesture of command,
        With eyes that like thy forges gleam,
      Lest Tyler's voice and Tyler's hand
        Be heard and seen in nightly dream.

     "I hymn the gallant and the good
      From Tyler down to Thistlewood,
      My muse the trophies grateful sings,
      The deeds of Miller and of Ings;
      She sings of all who, soon or late,
        Have burst Subjection's iron chain,
      Have seal'd the bloody despot's fate,
        Or cleft a peer or priest in twain.

     "Shades, that soft Sedition woo,
      Around the haunts of Peterloo!
      That hover o'er the meeting-halls,
      Where many a voice stentorian bawls!
      Still flit the sacred choir around,
        With 'Freedom' let the garrets ring,
      And vengeance soon in thunder sound
        On Church, and constable, and king."

In a paper on "Eloquence," in the same volume, he shows that even then
his young mind was impressed by the fame attached to successful oratory
in Parliament. Visions of glory and honor open before the enraptured
sight of those devoted to oratorical pursuits, and whose ardent and
aspiring minds are directed to the House of Commons. Evidently the young
writer himself "had visions of parliamentary oratory, and of a
successful _debut_ in the House of Commons, with perhaps an offer from
the Minister, a Secretaryship of State, and even the Premiership itself
in the distance." But then there are barriers to pass and ordeals to
undergo. "There are roars of coughing, as well as roars of cheering"
from the members of the House, "and maiden speeches sometimes act more
forcibly on the lungs of hearers than the most violent or most cutting
of all the breezes which AEOLUS can boast." But the writer draws comfort
from the fact that Lord Morfeth, Edward Geoffrey, Stanley and Lord
Castlereagh who were all members of the Eton college debating society
were then among the most successful young speakers in Parliament. This
sounds more like prophecy than dreams, for within a very few years after
writing this article the writer himself had passed the dreaded barrier
and endured the ordeal, and had not only made his appearance in the
House of Commons, but had been invited to fill an honorable place in the
Cabinet of the Ministry then in power.

Another contribution of Mr. Gladstone's to the _Miscellany_, and perhaps
the most meritorious of the youthful writer's productions, was
entitled, "Ancient and Modern Genius Compared," in which the young
Etonian editor ardently and affectionately apostrophized the memory of
Canning, his father's great friend and his own ideal man and statesman,
who had just then perished untimely and amid universal regret. In this
article he first takes the part of the moderns as against the ancients,
though he by no means deprecates the genius of the latter, and then
eloquently apostrophizes the object of his youthful hero-worship, the
immortal Canning, whose death he compares to that of the lamented Pitt.
The following are extracts from this production:

"It is for those who revered him in the plenitude of his meridian glory
to mourn over him in the darkness of his premature extinction: to mourn
over the hopes that are buried in his grave, and the evils that arise
from his withdrawing from the scene of life. Surely if eloquence never
excelled and seldom equalled--if an expanded mind and judgment whose
vigor was paralleled only by its soundness--if brilliant wit--if a
glowing imagination--if a warm heart, and an unbending firmness--could
have strengthened the frail tenure, and prolonged the momentary duration
of human existence, that man had been immortal! But nature could endure
no longer. Thus has Providence ordained that inasmuch as the intellect
is more brilliant, it shall be more short-lived; as its sphere is more
expanded, more swiftly is it summoned away. Lest we should give to man
the honor due to God--lest we should exalt the object of our admiration
into a divinity for our worship--He who calls the weary and the mourner
to eternal rest hath been pleased to remove him from our eyes.

"The degrees of inscrutable wisdom are unknown to us; but if ever there
was a man for whose sake it was meet to indulge the kindly though frail
feelings of our nature--for whom the tear of sorrow was to us both
prompted by affection and dictated by duty--that man was
George Canning."

After Hallam, Selwyn and other contributors to the _Miscellany_ left
Eton, at midsummer, 1827, Mr. Gladstone still remained and became the
mainstay of the magazine. "Mr. Gladstone and I remained behind as its
main supporters," writes Sir Francis Doyle, "or rather it would be more
like the truth if I said that Mr. Gladstone supported the whole burden
upon his own shoulders. I was unpunctual and unmethodical, so were his
other vassals; and the '_Miscellany_' would have fallen to the ground
but for Mr. Gladstone's untiring energy, pertinacity and tact."

Although Mr. Gladstone labored in editorial work upon the _Miscellany_,
yet he took time to bestow attention upon his duties in the Eton
Society of the College, learnedly called "The Literati," and vulgarly
called "Pop," and took a leading part in the debates and in the private
business of the Society. The Eton Society of Gladstone's day was a
brilliant group of boys. He introduced desirable new members, moved for
more readable and instructive newspapers, proposing new rules for better
order and more decorous conduct, moving fines on those guilty of
disorder or breaches of the rules, and paying a fine imposed upon
himself for putting down an illegal question. "In debate he champions
the claims of metaphysics against those of mathematics, and defends
aristocracy against democracy;" confesses innate feelings of dislike to
the French; protests against disarmament of the Highlanders as
inexpedient and unjust; deplores the fate of Strafford and the action of
the House of Commons, which he claimed they should be able to "revere as
our glory and confide in as our protection." The meetings of the Eton
Society were held over Miss Hatton's "sock-shop."

In politics its members were Tory--intensely so, and although current
politics were forbidden subjects, yet, political opinions were disclosed
in discussions of historical or academical questions. "The execution of
Strafford and Charles I, the characters of Oliver Cromwell and Milton,
the 'Central Social' of Rousseau, and the events of the French
Revolution, laid bare the speakers' political tendencies as effectually
as if the conduct of Queen Caroline, the foreign policy of Lord
Castlereagh, or the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act had been the
subject of debate."

It was October 15, 1825, when Gladstone was elected a member of the Eton
Society, and on the 29th of the same month made his maiden speech on the
question "Is the education of the poor on the whole beneficial?" It is
recorded in the minutes of the meeting that "Mr. Gladstone rose and
eloquently addressed the house." He spoke in favor of education; and one
who heard him says that his opening words were, "Sir, in this age of
increased and increasing civilization." Says an eminent writer, by way
of comment upon these words, "It almost oppresses the imagination to
picture the shoreless sea of eloquence which rolls between that exordium
and the oratory to which we still are listening and hope to listen for
years to come."

"The peroration of his speech on the question whether Queen Anne's
Ministers, in the last four years of her reign, deserved well of their
country, is so characteristic, both in substance and in form," that we
reproduce it here from Dr, Russell's work on Gladstone:

"Thus much, sir, I have said, as conceiving myself bound in fairness not
to regard the names under which men have hidden their designs so much
as the designs themselves. I am well aware that my prejudices and my
predilections have long been enlisted on the side of Toryism (cheers)
and that in a cause like this I am not likely to be influenced unfairly
against men bearing that name and professing to act on the principles
which I have always been accustomed to revere. But the good of my
country must stand on a higher ground than distinctions like these. In
common fairness and in common candor, I feel myself compelled to give my
decisive verdict against the conduct of men whose measures I firmly
believe to have been hostile to British interests, destructive of
British glory, and subversive of the splendid and, I trust, lasting
fabric of the British constitution."

The following extracts from the diary of William Cowper, afterwards Lord
Mount-Temple, we also reproduce from the same author: "On Saturday,
October 27, 1827, the subject for debate was:

"'Whether the deposition of Richard II was justifiable or not.' Jelf
opened; not a good speech. Doyle spoke _extempore_, made several
mistakes, which were corrected by Jelf. Gladstone spoke well. The Whigs
were regularly floored; only four Whigs to eleven Tories, but they very
nearly kept up with them in coughing and 'hear, hears,' Adjourned to
Monday after 4.

"Monday, 29.--Gladstone finished his speech, and ended with a great deal
of flattery of Doyle, saying that he was sure he would have courage
enough to own that he was wrong. It succeeded. Doyle rose amidst
reiterated cheers to own that he was convinced by the arguments of the
other side. He had determined before to answer them and cut up
Gladstone!

"December 1.--Debate, 'Whether the Peerage Bill of 1719 was calculated
to be beneficial or not.' Thanks voted to Doyle and Gladstone; the
latter spoke well; will be a great loss to the Society."

There were many boys at Eton--schoolfellows of Mr. Gladstone--who became
men of note in after days. Among them the Hallams, Charles Canning,
afterwards Lord Canning and Governor-General of India; Walter Hamilton,
Bishop of Salisbury; Edward Hamilton, his brother, of Charters; James
Hope, afterwards Hope-Scott; James Bruce, afterwards Lord Elgin; James
Milnes-Gaskell, M.P. for Wenlock; Henry Denison; Sir Francis Doyle;
Alexander Kinglake; George Selwyn, Bishop of New Zealand and of
Litchfield; Lord Arthur Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells; William
Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire; George Cornwallis Lewis; Frederic
Tennyson; Gerald Wellesley, Dean of Windsor; Spencer Walpole, Home
Secretary; Frederic Rogers, Lord Blachford; James Colvile, Chief Justice
at Calcutta, and others.

By universal acknowledgment the most remarkable youth at Eton in that
day was Arthur Hallam, "in mind and character not unworthy of the
magnificent eulogy of 'In Memoriam.'" He was the most intimate friend of
young Gladstone. They always took breakfast together, although they
boarded apart in different houses, and during the separation of
vacations they were diligent correspondents.

The father of William E. Gladstone, as we have seen, discovered
premonitions of future greatness in his son, and we may well ask the
question what impression was made by him upon his fellow school-mates at
Eton. Arthur Hallam wrote: "Whatever may be our lot, I am confident that
_he_ is a bud that will bloom with a richer fragrance than almost any
whose early promise I have witnessed."

James Milnes-Gaskell says: "Gladstone is no ordinary individual; and
perhaps if I were called on to select the individual I am intimate with
to whom I should first turn in an emergency, and whom I thought in every
way pre-eminently distinguished for high excellence, I think I should
turn to Gladstone. If you finally decide in favor of Cambridge, my
separation from Gladstone will be a source of great sorrow to me." And
the explanation of this latter remark is that the writer's mother wanted
him to go to Cambridge, while he wished to go to Oxford, because
Gladstone was going there.

Sir Francis Doyle writes: "I may as well remark that my father, a man of
great ability, as well as of great experience of life, predicted
Gladstone's future eminence from the manner in which he handled this
somewhat tiresome business. [The editorial work and management of the
_Eton Miscellany._] 'It is not' he remarked, 'that I think his papers
better than yours or Hallam's--that is not my meaning at all; but the
force of character he has shown in managing his subordinates, and the
combination of ability and power that he has made evident, convince me
that such a young man cannot fail to distinguish himself hereafter.'"

The recreations of young Gladstone were not in all respects like his
school-mates. He took no part in games, for he had no taste in that
direction, and while his companions were at play he was studiously
employed in his room. One of the boys afterwards declared, "without
challenge or contradiction, that he was never seen to run." Yet he had
his diversions and was fond of sculling, and kept a "lock-up," or
private boat, for his own use. He liked walking for exercise, and walked
fast and far. His chief amusement when not writing, reading or debating,
was to ramble among the delights of Windsor with a few intimate friends;
and he had only a few whom he admitted to his inner circle. To others
beyond he was not known and was not generally popular. Gladstone,
Charles Canning, Handley, Bruce, Hodgson, Lord Bruce and Milnes-Gaskell
set up a Salt Hill Club. They met every whole holiday or half-holiday,
as was convenient, after twelve, "and went up to Salt Hill to bully the
fat waiter, eat toasted cheese, and drink egg-wine." It is startling to
hear from such an authority as James Milnes-Gaskell that "in all our
meetings, as well as at almost every time, Gladstone went by the name of
Mr. Tipple."

[Illustration: HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.]

The strongest testimony is borne to the moral character of young
Gladstone while at Eton. By common consent he was pre-eminently
God-fearing, orderly and conscientious. Bishop Hamilton, of Salisbury,
writes: "At Eton I was a thoroughly idle boy; but I was saved from some
worse things by getting to know Gladstone." This is the strong testimony
of one school-boy after he has reached maturity and distinction for
another. "To have exercised, while still a school-boy, an influence for
good upon one of the greatest of contemporary saints, is surely such a
distinction as few Prime Ministers ever attain."

Two stories are told of him while at Eton that go to show the moral
determination of the boy to do right. On one occasion he turned his
glass upside down and refused to drink a coarse toast proposed,
according to annual custom, at an election dinner at the "Christopher
Inn." This shows the purity of his mind, but there is another
illustrating the humane feeling in his heart. He came forth as the
champion of some miserable pigs which it was the inhumane custom to
torture at Eton Fair on Ash Wednesday, and when he was bantered by his
school-fellows for his humanity, he offered to write his reply "in good
round hand upon their faces."

At Christmas, 1827, Gladstone left Eton, and after that studied six
months under private tutors, Dr. Turner, afterwards Bishop of Calcutta,
being one. Of this Mr. Gladstone writes: "I resided with Dr. Turner at
Wilmslow (in Cheshire) from January till a few months later. My
residence with him was cut off by his appointment to the Bishopric of
Calcutta.... My companions were the present (1877) Bishop of Sodor and
Man, and Sir C.A. Wood, Deputy-Chairman of the G.W. Railway. We employed
our spare time in gymnastics, in turning, and in rambles. I remember
paying a visit to Macclesfield. In a silk factory the owner showed us
his silk handkerchiefs, and complained much of Mr. Huskisson for having
removed the prohibition of the foreign article. The thought passed
through my mind at the time: Why make laws to enable people to produce
articles of such hideous pattern and indifferent quality as this?
Alderly Edge was a favorite place of resort. We dined with Sir John
Stanley (at Alderly) on the day when the king's speech was received; and
I recollect that he ridiculed (I think very justly) the epithet
_untoward_, which was applied in it to the Battle of Navarino."

In 1828, and after two years as a private pupil of Dr. Turner, Mr.
Gladstone entered Christ Church College, Oxford and in the following
year was nominated to a studentship on the foundation. Although he had
no prizes at Oxford of the highest class, unless honors in the schools
be so called--and in this respect he achieved a success which falls to
the lot of but few students. In the year 1831, when he went up for his
final examination, he completed his academical education by attaining
the highest honors in the university--graduating double-first-class.

Of the city of Oxford, where Oxford University is situated, Matthew
Arnold writes: "Beautiful city! So venerable, so lovely, so unravaged by
the fierce intellectual life of our century, so serene! And yet, steeped
in sentiment as she lies, spreading her gardens to the moonlight, or
whispering from her towers the last enchantments of the Middle Age, who
will deny that Oxford, by her ineffable charm, keeps ever calling us
near to the true goal of all of us, to the ideal, to perfection--to
beauty, in a word, which is only truth seen from another side."

Describing Christ Church College, a writer has said that there is no
other College where a man has so great a choice of society, or a man
entire freedom in choosing it.

As to the studies required, a greater stress was laid upon a knowledge
of the Bible and of the evidences of Christianity than upon classical
literature; some proficiency was required also, either in mathematics or
the science of reasoning. The system of education accommodated itself to
the capacity and wants of the students, but the man of talent was at no
loss as to a field for his exertions, or a reward for his industry. The
honors of the ministry were all within his reach. In the cultivation of
taste and general information Oxford afforded every opportunity, but the
modern languages were not taught.

An interesting fact is related of young Gladstone when he entered
Oxford, as to his studies at the university. He wrote his father that he
disliked mathematics, and that he intended to concentrate his time and
attention upon the classics. This was a great blow to his father, who
replied that he did not think a man was a man unless he knew
mathematics. The dutiful son yielded to his father's wishes, abandoned
his own plan, and applied himself with energy and success to the study
of mathematics. But for this change of study he might not have become
the greatest of Chancellors of the Exchequer.

Gladstone's instructors at Oxford were men of reputation. Rev. Robert
Biscoe, whose lectures on Aristotle attracted some of the best men to
the university, was his tutor; he attended the lectures of Dr. Burton on
Divinity, and of Dr. Pusey on Hebrew, and read classics privately with
Bishop Wordsworth. He read steadily but not laboriously. Nothing was
ever allowed to interfere with his morning's work. He read for four
hours, and then took a walk. Though not averse to company and suppers,
yet he always read for two or three hours before bedtime.

Among the undergraduates at Oxford then, who became conspicuous, were
Henry Edward Manning, afterwards Cardinal Archbishop; Archibald Campbell
Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury; Sidney Herbert, Robert Lowe, Lord
Sherbrooke, and Lord Selborne. "The man who _took_ me most," says a
visitor to Oxford in 1829, "was the youngest Gladstone of Liverpool--I
am sure a very superior person."

Gladstone's chosen friends were all steady and industrious men, and many
of them were more distinctively religious than is generally found in the
life of undergraduates. And his choice of associates in this respect was
the subject of criticism on the part of a more secularly minded student
who wrote, "Gladstone has mixed himself up with the St. Mary Hall and
Oriel set, who are really, for the most part, only fit to live with
maiden aunts and keep tame rabbits." And the question, Which was
right--Gladstone or the student? may be answered by another, Which one
became Prime Minister of England?

"Gladstone's first rooms were in the 'old library,' near the hall; but
for the greater part of his time he occupied the right-hand rooms on the
first floor of the first staircase, on the right as the visitor enters
Canterbury gate. He was, alike in study and in conduct, a model
undergraduate, and the great influence of his character and talents was
used with manly resolution against the riotous conduct of the 'Tufts,'
whose brutality caused the death of one of their number in 1831. We read
this note in the correspondence of a friend: 'I heard from Gladstone
yesterday; he says that the number of gentlemen commoners has increased,
is increasing, and ought to be diminished.' Every one who has
experienced the hubristic qualities of the Tufted race, and its
satellites, will cordially sympathize with this sentiment of an orderly
and industrious undergraduate. He was conspicuously moderate in the use
of wine. His good example in this respect affected not only his
contemporaries but also his successors at the university; men who
followed him to Oxford ten years later found it still operative, and
declare that undergraduates drank less in the forties, because Gladstone
had been courageously abstemious in the thirties."

But there were those who better estimated Gladstone's worth and looked
approvingly upon his course, as "the blameless schoolboy became the
blameless undergraduate; diligent, sober, regular alike in study and
devotion, giving his whole energies to the duties of the place, and
quietly abiding in the religious faith in which he had been trained.
Bishop Charles Wordsworth said that no man of his standing in the
university habitually read his Bible more or knew it better. Cardinal
Manning described him walking in the university with his 'Bible and
Prayer-book tucked under his arm.' ... He quitted Oxford with a
religious belief still untinctured by Catholic theology. But the great
change was not far distant, and he had already formed some of the
friendships which, in their development were destined to effect so
profoundly the course of his religious thought."

In reference to the religious and political opinions and influences
prevailing at Oxford, it may be remarked that the atmosphere of Oxford
was calculated to strengthen Mr. Gladstone's conservative views, and did
have this effect, and as English statesmen had not then learned to put
their trust in the people, the cause of reform found few or no friends
at the university, and he was among those hostile to it, and was known
for his pronounced Tory and High Church opinions.

He belonged to the famous debating society known as the Oxford Union,
was a brilliant debater, and in 1831 was its secretary, and later its
president. On various occasions he carried, by a majority of one only, a
motion that the Wellington Administration was undeserving of the
confidence of the country; he defended the results of the Catholic
Emancipation; he opposed a motion for the removal of Jewish
disabilities, and he persuaded 94 students out of 130 to condemn Earl
Grey's Reform Bill as a measure "which threatened not only to change the
form of government, but ultimately to break up the very foundation of
social order." His last speech at Oxford was in support of his own
amendment to a motion for the immediate emancipation of the slaves in
the West Indies. On a certain occasion he entertained a party of
students from Cambridge, consisting of Sir Francis Doyle, Monckton
Milnes, Sunderland, and Arthur H. Hallam, who discussed among them the
superiority of Shelley over Byron as a poet. The motion was opposed by
one Oxonion, the late Cardinal Manning, but Shelley received 90 votes to
33 for Byron.

One who heard the debate on the Reform Bill says that "it converted
Alston, the son of the member in Parliament for Hertford, who
immediately on the conclusion of Gladstone's speech walked across from
the Whig to the Tory side of the house, amidst loud acclamations."
Another who was present writes, "Most of the speakers rose, more or
less, above their usual level, but when Mr. Gladstone sat down we all of
us felt that an epoch in our lives had occurred. It certainly was the
finest speech of his that I ever heard." And Bishop Charles Wordsworth
writes his experience of Mr. Gladstone at this time, "made me feel no
less sure than of my own existence that Gladstone, our then
Christ-Church undergraduate, would one day rise to be Prime Minister
of England."

In the spring of 1832 Mr. Gladstone quitted Oxford. In summing up
results it may be said, in the language of Mr. Russell: "Among the
purely intellectual effects produced on Mr. Gladstone by the discipline
of Oxford, it is obvious to reckon an almost excessive exactness in the
statement of propositions, a habit of rigorous definition, a microscopic
care in the choice of words, and a tendency to analyze every sentiment
and every phrase, and to distinguish with intense precaution between
statements almost exactly similar. From Aristotle and Bishop Butler and
Edmund Burke he learned the value of authority, the sacredness of law,
the danger of laying rash and inconsiderate hands upon the ark of State.
In the political atmosphere of Oxford he was taught to apply these
principles to the civil events of his time, to dread innovation, to
respect existing institutions, and to regard the Church and the Throne
as inseparably associated by Divine ordinance."

[Illustration: Gladstone's London Home]




CHAPTER III


EARLY PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCES

It is customary for the sons of gentlemen who graduate at Cambridge and
Oxford to spend some time in travel on the continent upon the completion
of their university studies. The custom was observed in Mr. Gladstone's
early days even more than at the present. In accordance then with the
prevailing usage he went abroad after graduating at Oxford. In the
spring of 1832 he started on his travels and spent nearly the whole of
the next six months in Italy, "learning the language, studying the art,
and revelling in the natural beauties of that glorious land." In the
following September, however, he was suddenly recalled to England to
enter upon his first Parliamentary campaign.

At Oxford Toryism prevailed, and was of the old-fashioned type, far
removed from the utilitarian conservatism of the present day. Charles I
was a saint and a martyr, the claims of rank and birth were admitted
with a childlike simplicity, the high functions of government were the
birthright of the few, and the people had nothing to do with the laws,
except to obey them. Mr. Gladstone was a Tory. The political views he
held upon leaving Oxford had much to do with his recall from abroad and
his running for a seat in the House of Commons. Of these opinions held
by him then, and afterwards repudiated, he, in a speech delivered at the
opening of the Palmerston Club, Oxford, in December, 1878, says: "I
trace in the education of Oxford of my own time one great defect.
Perhaps it was my own fault; but I must admit that I did not learn, when
at Oxford, that which I have learned since, viz., to set a due value on
the imperishable and inestimable principles of human liberty. The temper
which, I think, too much prevailed in academic circles, was that liberty
was regarded with jealousy and fear, which could not be wholly dispensed
with, but which was continually to be watched for fear of excess.... I
think that the principle of the Conservative party is jealousy of
liberty and of the people, only qualified by fear; but I think the
policy of the Liberal party is trust in the people, only qualified by
prudence. I can only assure you, gentlemen, that now I am in front of
extended popular privileges. I have no fear of those enlargements of the
Constitution that seem to be approaching. On the contrary, I hail them
with desire. I am not in the least degree conscious that I have less
reverence for antiquity, for the beautiful, and good, and glorious
charges that our ancestors have handed down to us as a patrimony to our
race, than I had in other days when I held other political opinions. I
have learnt to set the true value upon human liberty, and in whatever I
have changed, there, and there only, has been the explanation of
the change."

It was Mr. Gladstone's Tory principles that led to an invitation from
the Duke of Newcastle, whose son, the Earl of Lincoln, afterwards a
member of Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet during the Crimean War, had been his
schoolmate at Eton and Oxford, and his intimate friend; to return to
England and to contest the representation of Newark in Parliament. In
accordance with this summons he hurried home.

Let us review the national situation. It was a time of general alarm and
uncertainty, from political unrest, commercial stagnation, and
devastating pestilence. "The terrors of the time begat a hundred forms
of strange fanaticism; and among men who were not fanatics there was a
deep and wide conviction that national judgments were overtaking
national sins, and that the only hope of safety for England lay in a
return to that practical recognition of religion in the political sphere
at the proudest moments of English history. 'The beginning and the end
of what is the matter with us in these days,' wrote Carlyle, 'is that we
have forgotten God.'"

England was in a condition of great political excitement and expectancy.
One of the greatest battles in Parliamentary history had just been
fought and won by the people. The Reform Bill, which admitted large
classes, hitherto unrepresented, to the right of citizenship, had
passed, after a long struggle, during which law and order were defied
and riots prevailed in various parts of the kingdom.

The King clearly perceiving that the wish of the people could no longer
be disregarded with safety, and heedless of the advice of the
aristocracy, gave his assent to the measure. This bill, which became a
law June 7, 1832, "transformed the whole of the Electoral arrangements
of the United Kingdom." It was demanded that the King be present in the
House of Lords to witness the ceremony of the subjugation of his crown
and peers, as it was deemed, but the King, feeling he had yielded enough
to the popular will, refused. Walpole, in his history, writes: "King and
Queen sat sullenly apart in their palace. Peer and country gentleman
moodily awaited the ruin of their country and the destruction of their
property. Fanaticism still raved at the wickedness of a people; the
people, clamoring for work, still succumbed before the mysterious
disease which was continually claiming more and more victims. But the
nation cared not for the sullenness of the Court, the forebodings of the
landed classes, the ravings of the pulpit, or even the mysterious
operations of a new plague. The deep gloom that had overshadowed the
land had been relieved by one single ray. The victory had been won. The
bill had become law."

The first reformed House of Commons, after the passage of the terrible
Reform Bill, met and was looked upon by some of the friends of Reform
with fond hopes and expectations, and by others, the Tories, with fear
and apprehension. The poor looked upon the Reform Bill as a measure for
their redemption, and the landed proprietors regarded it as the first
sign of departed national greatness. Both classes were disappointed. It
neither revived business nor despoiled owners. The result was a surprise
to politicians of both parties. The Reformers did not, as was
anticipated, carry their extreme measures, and the Tories did not
realize the great losses they expected. While the Ministry preserved its
power and even obtained some victories in England and Scotland, it
sustained serious defeats in Ireland. In England many earnest and
popular friends of Reform were defeated in the election, and some
counties, among them Bristol, Stamford, Hertford, Norwich and Newark,
were pronounced against the Ministry.

The Duke of Newcastle, who was one of the chief potentates of the high
Tory party, and had lost his control of Newark in 1831, by the election
of a Radical, was determined to regain it. He regarded it as his right
to be represented in the House of Commons, or that Newark should elect
whom he nominated. And he had propounded the memorable political maxim,
"Have I not a right to do what I like with my own?" The Duke wanted a
capable candidate to help him regain his ascendency. His son, Lord
Lincoln, here came to his aid. He had heard the remarkable speech of his
friend, Mr. Gladstone, in the Oxford Union, against the Reform Bill, and
had written home regarding him, that "a man had uprisen in Israel." At
his suggestion the Duke invited the young graduate of Oxford to run as
the Tory candidate for a seat in Parliament from Newark. The wisdom of
this selection for the accomplishment of the purpose in view, was fully
demonstrated.

[Illustration: The Lobby of the House of Commons]

His personal appearance at this time may be thus described: He was
somewhat robust. His youthful face bore none of those deep furrows which
have rendered his countenance so remarkable in maturer years. But there
was the same broad intellectual forehead, the massive nose, the same
anxious eyes and the earnest enthusiasm of later years. His look was
bright and thoughtful and his bearing attractive. He was handsome and
possessed a most intelligent and expressive countenance. Says his
biographer, Mr. Russell: "William Ewart Gladstone was now twenty-two
years old, with a physical constitution of unequalled vigor, the
prospect of ample fortune, great and varied knowledge, and a natural
tendency to political theorization, and an inexhaustible copiousness and
readiness of speech. In person he was striking and attractive, with
strongly marked features, a pale complexion, abundance of dark hair and
eyes of piercing lustre. People who judged only by his external aspect
considered that he was delicate."

Young Gladstone found two opponents contesting with him to represent
Newark in Parliament, W.F. Handley and Sergeant Wilde, afterwards Lord
Chancellor Truro. The latter was an advanced Liberal and had
unsuccessfully contested the borough in 1829 and 1830, and had in
consideration of his defeat received from his sympathetic friends a
piece of plate inscribed: "By his ardent friends, the Blue electors of
the borough, who by their exertions and sufferings in the cause of
independence, largely conduced to awaken the attention of the nation to
the necessity of Reform in Parliament. Upon this humble token of respect
(contributed in the hour of defeat) the Blue electors of Newark inscribe
their sense of the splendid ability, unwearied perseverance, and
disinterested public spirit displayed by Sergeant Wilde in maintaining
the two contests of 1829 and 1830, in order to emancipate the borough
from political thraldoms, and restore to its inhabitants the free
exercise of their long-lost rights." But Sergeant Wilde was more
successful the following year, 1831, when the "Reform fever" was at its
height, and defeated the Duke of Newcastle's nominee and became member
of the House of Commons for the borough. These facts made the coming
election, which followed the passage of the Reform Bill, of unusual
interest, to those concerned, and the struggle would be of a close and
determined character.

Mr. Gladstone entered upon the contest with his experienced, able and
popular antagonist, with much against him, for he was young, unknown and
untried; but his youth and personal appearance and manly bearing were in
his favor, and these, with his eloquence and ready wit, gained for him
many friends. His speeches demonstrated that he lacked neither
arguments, nor words wherewith to clothe them. He needed, however, to
call into requisition all his abilities, for Sergeant Wilde was a
powerful antagonist, and had no thought of being displaced by his
youthful opponent, "a political stripling," as he called him, without a
desperate struggle. But Mr. Gladstone had behind him the ducal influence
and the support of the Red Club, so he entered upon the contest with
energy and enthusiasm.

The young Tory's first election address was delivered upon this
occasion. It was dated October 9th, 1832, was all such an address should
be, and was addressed, "To the worthy and independent electors of the
borough of Newark." It began by saying that he was bound in his opinions
by no man and no party, but that he deprecated the growing unreasonable
and indiscriminating desire for change then so common, but confessed
that labor has a right to "receive adequate remuneration." On the
question of human slavery, then greatly agitated, he remarked, "We are
agreed that both the physical and the moral bondage of the slave are to
be abolished. The question is as to the _order_, and the order only; now
Scripture attacks the moral evil _before_ the corporal one, the corporal
one _through_ the moral one, and I am content with the order which
Scripture has established." He saw insurmountable obstacles against
immediate emancipation, one of which was that the negro would exchange
the evil now affecting him for greater ones--for a relapse into deeper
debasement, if not for bloodshed and internal war.

He therefore advocated a system of Christian education, to make the
negro slaves fit for emancipation and to prepare them for freedom, Then,
he argued, without bloodshed and the violation of property rights, and
with unimpaired benefit to the negro, the desirable end might be reached
in the utter extinction of slavery.

Of this appropriate address, so important in the light of coming events,
we quote two paragraphs in full. In speaking of existing evils and the
remedies for them, he observed: "For the mitigation of these evils, we
must, I think, look not only to particular measures, but to the
restoration of sounder general principles. I mean especially that
principle on which alone the incorporation of Religion with the State in
our Constitution can be defended; that the duties of governors are
strictly and peculiarly religious; and that legislatures, like
individuals, are bound to carry throughout their acts the spirit of the
high truths they have acknowledged. Principles are now arrayed against
our institutions; and not by truckling nor by temporizing--not by
oppression nor corruption--but by principles they must be met.

"And now, gentlemen, as regards the enthusiasm with which you have
rallied round your ancient flag, and welcomed the humble representative
of those principles whose emblem it is, I trust that neither the lapse
of time nor the seductions of prosperity can ever efface it from my
memory. To my opponents, my acknowledgments are due for the good humor
and kindness with which they have received me; and while I would thank
my friends for their jealous and unwearied exertions in my favor, I
briefly but emphatically assure them, that if promises be an adequate
foundation of confidence, or experience a reasonable ground of
calculation, our victory _is sure_"

The new candidate for Parliamentary honors was "heckled," as it is
called, at the hustings, or was interrupted continually while speaking,
and questioned by his opponents as to the circumstances of his
candidature, his father's connection with slavery, and his own views of
capital punishment. From his first appearance in Newark, Mr. Gladstone
had been subjected to these examinations and he stood the ordeal well
and answered prudently. An instance of this is given. A Radical elector,
Mr. Gillson, asked the young Tory candidate if he was the Duke of
Newcastle's nominee, and was met by Mr. Gladstone demanding the
questioner's definition of the term "nominee." Mr. Gillson replied that
he meant a person sent by the Duke of Newcastle to be pushed down the
throats of the voters whether they would or not. But Mr. Gladstone was
equal to the occasion, and said according to that definition he was not
the nominee of the Duke, but came to Newark by the invitation of the Red
Club, than whom none were more respectable and intelligent.

This same Red Club was Conservative, and promised to Mr. Gladstone, the
thorough Conservative candidate, 650 votes, the whole number within its
ranks. He also received the promise of 240 votes of other electors. This
was known before the election, so that the result was confidently
predicted. On the 11th of December, 1832, the "nomination" was held and
the polling or election was held on the two following days, and Mr.
Gladstone was chosen by a considerable majority, the votes being,
Gladstone, 882; Handley, 793; Wilde, 719. Sergeant Wilde was defeated.

During the public discussions before the election Mr. Gladstone was
placed at a great disadvantage. There were three candidates to be heard
from and his speech was to be the last in order. Sergeant Wilde made a
very lengthy speech, which exhausted the patience of his hearers, who
had already stood for nearly seven hours, and showed disinclination to
listen to another three hours' address, which, from Mr. Gladstone's
talents, they were far from thinking impossible. The Sergeant was
condemned for occupying the attention of the electors for such an
inordinate length of time, but this did not prevent a scene of
outrageous noise and uproar when the Tory candidate rose to speak. The
important topic was slavery, but Mr. Gladstone had not proceeded far
when the hooting and hissing drowned his voice so that he found it
impossible to proceed. When a show of hands was demanded it was declared
in favor of Mr. Handley and Sergeant Wilde, but when the election came,
it was Mr. Gladstone who triumphed, as has been seen, and who was sent
to Parliament as the member from Newark.

In speaking of the manner in which the Parliamentary elections are
conducted, an English writer says: "Since 1832, few of those scenes of
violence, and even of bloodshed, which formerly distinguished
Parliamentary elections in many English boroughs, have been witnessed.
Some of these lawless outbreaks were doubtless due to the unpopularity
of the candidates forced upon the electors; but even in the largest
towns--where territorial influence had little sway--riots occurred upon
which we look back with doubtful amazement. Men holding strong political
views have ceased to enforce those views by the aid of brickbats and
other dangerous missiles. Yet at the beginning of the present century
such arguments were very popular. And to the violence which prevailed
was added the most unblushing bribery. Several boroughs, long notorious
for extensive bribery, have since been disfranchised. The practice,
however, extended to most towns in the kingdom, though it was not always
carried on in the same open manner. By a long established custom, a
voter at Hull received a donation of two guineas, or four for a
plumper. In Liverpool men were openly paid for their votes; and Lord
Cochrane stated in the House of Commons that, after his return for
Honiton, he sent the town-crier round the borough to tell the voters to
go to the chief banker for £10 10s. each. The great enlargement of the
constituencies, secured by the Reform Bill of 1832, did much to put an
end to this disgraceful condition of things; but to a wider political
enlightenment also, some portion of the credit for such a result must be
attributed."

What the friends and foes of the new Tory member for Newark thought of
his successful canvass and election, it is interesting to learn. When
Mr. Gladstone entered upon the contest the question was frequently put,
"Who is Mr. Gladstone?" And it was answered, "He is the son of the
friend of Mr. Canning, the great Liverpool merchant. He is, we
understand, not more than four or five and twenty, but he has won golden
opinions from all sorts of people, and promises to be an ornament to the
House of Commons." And a few days after his election he addressed a
meeting of the Constitutional Club, at Nottingham, when a Conservative
journal made the first prophecy as to his future great political fame,
saying: "He will one day be classed amongst the most able statesmen in
the British Senate." The impression his successful contest made upon the
late friends of his school-days may be learned from the following: A
short time before the election Arthur Hallam, writing of his friend,
"the old _W.E.G._," says: "I shall be very glad if he gets in.... We
want such a man as that. In some things he is likely to be obstinate and
prejudiced; but he has a fine fund of high, chivalrous Tory sentiment,
and a tongue, moreover, to let it loose with." And after the election he
exclaims: "And Gladstone has turned out the Sergeant!... What a triumph
for him. He has made his reputation by it; all that remains is to keep
up to it."

That one of Mr. Gladstone's Liberal opponents was impressed by his
talent and character is shown by the following lines of "descriptive
prophecy, perhaps more remarkable for good feeling than for
good poetry:"

     "Yet on one form, whose ear can ne'er refuse
      The Muses' tribute, for he lov'd the Muse,
     (And when the soul the gen'rous virtues raise,
      A friendly Whig may chant a Tory's praise,)
      Full many a fond expectant eye is bent
      Where Newark's towers are mirror'd in the Trent.
      Perchance ere long to shine in senates first,
      If manhood echo what his youth rehears'd,
      Soon Gladstone's brows will bloom with greener bays
      Than twine the chaplet of the minstrel's lays;
      Nor heed, while poring o'er each graver line,
      The far, faint music of a flute like mine.
      His was no head contentedly which press'd
      The downy pillow in obedient rest,
      Where lazy pilots, with their canvas furl'd,
      Let up the Gades of their mental world;
      His was no tongue which meanly stoop'd to wear
      The guise of virtue, while his heart was bare;
      But all he thought through ev'ry action ran;
      God's noblest work--I've known one honest man."

Mr. Gladstone spoke at Newark in company with his friend, the Earl of
Lincoln, shortly after his election, when another favorable testimony
was given, and his address spoken of as "a manly, eloquent speech,
replete with sound constitutional sentiments, high moral feeling, and
ability of the most distinguished order."

In commenting upon the result of the election a representative of the
press of Newark wrote: "We have been told there was no reaction against
the Ministry, no reaction in favor of Conservative principles. The
delusion has now vanished, and made room for sober reason and
reflection. The shadow satisfies no longer, and the return of Mr.
Gladstone, to the discomfiture of the learned Sergeant and his friends,
has restored the town of Newark to the high rank which it formerly held
in the estimation of the friends of order and good government. We
venture to predict that the losing candidate in this contest has
suffered so severely that he will never show his face in Newark on a
similar occasion."

But Mr. Gladstone had made bitter political enemies already, who were
not at all reconciled to his election, nor pleased with him. That they
were not at all slow to express unbecomingly their bitterness against
him, because of their unexpected defeat, the following shows from the
_Reflector_: "Mr. Gladstone is the son of Gladstone of Liverpool, a
person who (we are speaking of the father) had amassed a large fortune
by West India dealings. In other words, a great part of his gold has
sprung from the blood of black slaves. Respecting the youth himself--a
person fresh from college, and whose mind is as much like a sheet of
white foolscap as possible--he was utterly unknown. He came recommended
by no claim in the world _except the will of the Duke_. The Duke nodded
unto Newark, and Newark sent back the man, or rather the boy of his
choice. What! Is this to be, now that the Reform Bill has done its work?
Are sixteen hundred men still to bow down to a wooden-headed lord, as
the people of Egypt used to do to their beasts, to their reptiles, and
their ropes of onions? There must be something wrong--something
imperfect. What is it? What is wanting? Why, the Ballot! If there be a
doubt of this (and we believe there is a doubt even amongst intelligent
men) the tale of Newark must set the question at rest. Sergeant Wilde
was met on his entry into the town by almost the whole population. He
was greeted everywhere, cheered everywhere. He was received with delight
by his friends and with good and earnest wishes for his success by his
nominal foes. The voters for Gladstone went up to that candidate's booth
(the slave-driver, as they called him) with Wilde's colors. People who
had before voted for Wilde, on being asked to give their suffrage said,
'We cannot, we dare not. We have lost half our business, and shall lose
the rest if we go against the Duke. We would do anything in our power
for Sergeant Wilde and for the cause, but we cannot starve!' Now what
say ye, our merry men, touching the Ballot?"

However Mr. Gladstone had won as we have seen the golden opinions of
many, and the dreams of his more youthful days were realized when he was
sent to represent the people in the House of Commons.

On the 29th of January, 1833, the first Reformed Parliament met, and
William E. Gladstone, as the member from Newark, took his seat for the
first time in "an assembly which he was destined to adorn, delight and
astonish for more than half a century, and over which for a great
portion of that period, he was to wield an unequalled and a paramount
authority." There were more than three hundred new members in the House
of Commons. Lord Althorp led the Whigs, who were largely in the majority
and the Tories constituted a compact minority under the skillful
leadership of Sir Robert Peel, while the Irish members who were hostile
to the ministry followed O'Connell. On the 5th of February the king
attended and delivered the speech from the throne in person. This
Parliamentary session was destined to become one of the most memorable
in history for the importance of the subjects discussed and disposed of,
among them the social condition of Ireland, the position of the Irish
church, the discontent and misery of the poor in England, and slavery in
the British colonies; and for the fact that it was the first Parliament
in which William E. Gladstone sat and took part.

There was no reference made to the subject of slavery in the speech from
the throne, but the ministry resolved to consider it. Mr. Stanley, the
Colonial Secretary, afterwards fourteenth Earl of Derby and Prime
Minister, brought forth, May 14th, 1833, a series of resolutions in
favor of the extinction of slavery in the British colonies. "All
children of slaves, born after the passage of the Act, and all children
of six years old and under, were declared free. But the rest of the
slaves were to serve a sort of apprenticeship--three-fourths of their
time was for a certain number of years to remain at the disposal of the
masters; the other fourth was their own, to be paid for at a fixed rate
of wages." The planters were to be duly compensated out of the national
treasury.

It was during the discussion of these resolutions that Mr. Gladstone
made his maiden speech in Parliament. It was made in answer to what
seemed a personal challenge by Lord Howick, Ex-Under Secretary for the
colonies, who, opposing gradual emancipation, referred to an estate in
Demerara, owned by Mr. Gladstone's father, for the purpose of showing
that great destruction of life had taken place in the West Indies owing
to the manner in which the slaves were worked. In reply to this Mr.
Gladstone said that he would meet some of Lord Howick's statements with
denials and others with explanations. He admitted that he had a
pecuniary interest in it as a question of justice, of humanity, and of
religion. The real cause of the decrease, he said, was owing, not to the
increased cultivation of sugar, but to the very large proportion of
Africans upon the estate. When it came into his father's possession it
was so weak, owing to the large number of negroes upon it, that he was
obliged to add two hundred more people to the gang. It was well known
that negroes were imported into Demarara and Trinidad up to a later
period than into any of the colonies; and he should at a proper time, be
able to prove that the decrease on his father's plantation, Vreeden
Hoop, was among the old Africans, and that there was an increase going
on in the Creole population, which would be a sufficient answer to the
charges preferred. The quantity of sugar produced was small compared to
that produced on other estates. The cultivation of cotton in Demarara
had been abandoned, and that of coffee much diminished, and the people
engaged in these sources of production had been employed in the
cultivation of sugar. Besides in Demarara the labor of the same number
of negroes, distributed over the year, would produce in that colony a
certain quantity of sugar with less injury to the people, than negroes
could produce in other colonies, working only at the stated periods
of crops.

He was ready to concede that the cultivation was of a more injurious
character than others; and he would ask, Were there not certain
employments in other countries more destructive of life than others? He
would only instance those of painting and working in lead mines, both of
which were well known to have that tendency. The noble lord attempted to
impugn the character of the gentleman acting as manager of his father's
estates; and in making the selection he had surely been most
unfortunate; for there was not a person in the colony more remarkable
for humanity and the kind treatment of his slaves than Mr. Maclean. Mr.
Gladstone, in concluding this able defense of his father, said, that he
held in his hand two letters from Mr. Maclean, in which he spoke in the
kindest terms of the negroes under his charge; described their state of
happiness, content and healthiness--their good conduct and the
infrequency of severe punishment--and recommended certain additional
comforts, which he said the slaves well deserved.

On the 3d of June, on the resumption of the debate on the abolition of
slavery, Mr. Gladstone again addressed the House. He now entered more
fully into the charges which Lord Howick had brought against the
management of his father's estates in Demarara, and showed their
groundlessness. When he had discussed the existing aspect of slavery in
Trinidad, Jamaica and other places, he proceeded to deal with the
general question. He confessed with shame and pain that cases of wanton
cruelty had occurred in the colonies, but added that they would always
exist, particularly under the system of slavery; and this was
unquestionably a substantial reason why the British Legislature and
public should set themselves in good earnest to provide for its
extinction; but he maintained that these instances of cruelty could
easily be explained by the West Indians, who represented them as rare
and isolated cases, and who maintained that the ordinary relation of
master and slave was one of kindliness and not of hostility. He
deprecated cruelty, and he deprecated slavery, both of which were
abhorrent to the nature of Englishmen; but, conceding these things, he
asked, "Were not Englishmen to retain a right to their own honestly and
legally-acquired property?" But the cruelty did not exist, and he saw no
reason for the attack which had recently been made upon the West India
interest. He hoped the House would make a point to adopt the principle
of compensation, and to stimulate the slave to genuine and spontaneous
industry. If this were not done, and moral instruction were not imparted
to the slaves, liberty would prove a curse instead of a blessing to
them. Touching upon the property question, and the proposed plans for
emancipation, Mr. Gladstone said that the House might consume its time
and exert its wisdom in devising these plans, but without the
concurrence of the Colonial Legislatures success would be hopeless. He
thought there was excessive wickedness in any violent interference under
the present circumstances. They were still in the midst of unconcluded
inquiries, and to pursue the measure then under discussion, at that
moment, was to commit an act of great and unnecessary hostility toward
the island of Jamaica. "It was the duty of the House to place as broad a
distinction as possible between the idle and the industrious slaves, and
nothing could be too strong to secure the freedom of the latter; but,
with respect to the idle slaves, no period of emancipation could hasten
their improvement. If the labors of the House should be conducted to a
satisfactory issue, it would redound to the honor of the nation, and to
the reputation of his Majesty's Ministers, whilst it would be delightful
to the West India planters themselves--for they must feel that to hold
in bondage their fellow-men must always involve the greatest
responsibility. But let not any man think of carrying this measure by
force. England rested her power not upon physical force, but upon her
principles, her intellect and virtue; and if this great measure were not
placed on a fair basis, or were conducted by violence, he should lament
it, as a signal for the ruin of the Colonies and the downfall of the
Empire." The attitude of Mr. Gladstone, as borne out by the tenor of his
speech, was not one of hostility to emancipation, though he was
undoubtedly unfavorable to an immediate and indiscriminate
enfranchisement. He demanded, moreover, that the interests of the
planters should be duly regarded.

The result of the consideration of these resolutions in the House of
Commons was that human slavery in the British Colonies was abolished,
and the sum of twenty million pounds, or one hundred million dollars was
voted to compensate the slave-owners for their losses. Thus was the
work begun by Wilberforce finally crowned with success.

It is an interesting question how Mr. Gladstone's first efforts in
Parliament were received. Among his friends his speech was anticipated
with lively interest. That morning he was riding in Hyde Park, on his
gray Arabian mare, "his hat, narrow-brimmed, high up on the centre of
his head, sustained by a crop of thick curly hair." He was pointed out
to Lord Charles Russell by a passer-by who said, "That is Gladstone. He
is to make his maiden speech to-night. It will be worth hearing."

From the first he appears to have favorably impressed the members of the
House. Modest in demeanor, earnest in manner, and fluent in speech, he
at once commanded the respect and attention of his fellow-members.

And here is a later testimony as to the early impression made upon his
colleagues and contemporaries, when he was twenty-nine years of age,
erroneously stated as thirty-five: "Mr. Gladstone, the member for
Newark, is one of the most rising young men on the Tory side of the
House. His party expect great things from him; and certainly, when it is
remembered that his age is only thirty-five, the success of the
Parliamentary efforts he has already made justifies their expectations.
He is well informed on most of the subjects which usually occupy the
attention of the Legislature; and he is happy in turning his
information to good account. He is ready on all occasions, which he
deems fitting ones, with a speech in favor of the policy advocated by
the party with whom he acts. His extempore resources are ample. Few men
in the House can improvise better. It does not appear to cost him an
effort to speak.... He is a man of very considerable talent, but has
nothing approaching to genius. His abilities are much more the result of
an excellent education and of mature study than of any prodigality of
nature in the distribution of her mental gifts. _I have no idea that he
will ever acquire the reputation of a great statesman. His views are not
sufficiently profound or enlarged for that; his celebrity in the House
of Commons will chiefly depend on his readiness and dexterity as a
debater, in conjunction with the excellence of his elocution, and the
gracefulness of his manner when speaking_.... His style is polished, but
has no appearance of the effect of previous preparation. He displays
considerable acuteness in replying to an opponent; he is quick in his
perception of anything vulnerable in the speech to which he replies, and
happy in laying the weak point bare to the gaze of the House. He now and
then indulges in sarcasm, which is, in most cases, very felicitous. He
is plausible even when most in error. When it suits himself or his party
he can apply himself with the strictest closeness to the real point at
issue; when to evade the point is deemed most politic, no man can wander
from it more widely."

How far these estimates were true we leave to the reader to determine,
after the perusal of his life, and in the light of subsequent events.

Mr. Gladstone, after his maiden speech, took an active part in the
business of the House during the remainder of the session of 1833. He
spoke upon the question of bribery and corruption at Liverpool, and July
8th made an elaborate speech on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. The
condition of Ireland was then, as now, one of the most urgent questions
confronting the Ministry. Macaulay "solemnly declared that he would
rather live in the midst of many civil wars that he had read of than in
some parts of Ireland at this moment." Sydney Smith humorously described
"those Irish Protestants whose shutters are bullet-proof; whose
dinner-table is regularly spread out with knife, fork, and cocked
pistol; salt-cellar and powder-flask; who sleep in sheet-iron nightcaps;
who have fought so often and so nobly before their scullery-door, and
defended the parlor passage as bravely as Leonidas defended the pass of
Thermopylae." Crime was rife and to remedy the serious state of affairs
a stringent Coercion Bill was introduced by the government. Mr.
Gladstone voted silently for the bill which became a law.

The other bill introduced was that upon the Irish Church, and proposed
the reduction of the number of Protestant Episcopal Bishops in Ireland
and the curtailment of the income of the Church. This bill Mr. Gladstone
opposed in a speech, and he voted against it, but it was passed.

It was in the following session that Mr. Hume introduced his
"'Universities Admission Bill,' designed to enable Nonconformists of all
kinds to enter the universities, by removing the necessity of
subscribing to the thirty-nine articles at matriculation." In the debate
that followed Mr. Gladstone soon gave evidence that he knew more about
the subject than did the author of the bill. In speaking against the
bill, he said in part, "The whole system of the university and of its
colleges, both in study and in discipline, aimed at the formation of a
moral character, and that aim could not be attained if every student
were at liberty to exclude himself from the religious training of the
place." And in reply to a remark made by Lord Palmerston in reference to
the students going "from wine to prayers, and from prayers to wine," Mr.
Gladstone replied, he did not believe that in their most convivial
moments they were unfit to enter the house of prayer. This bill was
also passed.

It might have been expected that Mr. Gladstone's active participation in
the debates in the House of Commons, and the practical ability and
debating power he manifested would not escape the attention of the
leaders of his party. But the recognition of his merit came sooner than
could have been expected. It became evident, towards the close of 1834
that the downfall of the Liberal Ministry was near at hand. Lord
Althorp, who had kept the Liberals together, was transferred to the
House of Lords, and the growing unpopularity of the Whigs did the rest.
The Ministry under Lord Melbourne was dismissed by the king, and a new
Cabinet formed by Sir Robert Peel. The new Premier offered Mr. Gladstone
the office of Junior Lord of the Treasury, which was accepted.

Truly has an eminent writer said: "When a Prime Minister in
difficulties, looking about for men to fill the minor offices of his
administration, sees among his supporters a clever and comely young man,
eloquent in speech, ready in debate, with a safe seat, an ample fortune,
a high reputation at the university, and a father who wields political
influence in an important constituency, he sees a Junior Lord of the
Treasury made ready to his hand."

Appealing to his constituents at Newark, who, two years before, had sent
him to Parliament, he was re-elected. Mr. Handley having retired,
Sergeant Wilde was elected with Mr. Gladstone without opposition. Mr.
Gladstone was "chaired," or drawn by horses through the town, seated on
a chair, after the election, and then addressed the assembled people to
the number of 6,000, his speech being received with "deafening cheers."

Shortly after Parliament assembled, Mr. Gladstone was promoted to the
office of Under-Secretary for the Colonies. His official chief was Lord
Aberdeen, afterwards Prime Minister; and thus began a relation which was
destined to greatly affect the destinies of both statesmen.

Mr. Gladstone gave ample proof in his new office of his great abilities
and untiring energies.

In March he presented to the House his first bill, which was for the
better regulation of the transportation of passengers in merchant
vessels to the continent and to the Islands of North America. This bill,
which contained many humane provisions, was very favorably received. The
new Parliament, which met February 10, 1835, contained a considerable
Liberal majority. The old House of Commons had been destroyed by fire
during the recess, and the new Commons reassembled in the chamber which
had been the House of Lords, and for the first time there was a gallery
for reporters in the House.

"A standing order still existed, which forbade the publication of the
debates, but the reporters' gallery was a formal and visible recognition
of the people's right to know what their representatives were doing in
their name." However, the new Ministry was but short-lived, for Sir
Robert Peel resigned April 8th, and Mr. Gladstone retired with
his chief.

Mr. Gladstone spent the days of his retirement from ministerial office
partly in study, and partly in recreation. Being free to follow the bent
of his own inclinations, he ordered his life according to his own
ideals. He lived in chambers at the Albany, pursued the same steady
course of work, proper recreation and systematic devotion, which he had
marked out at Oxford. He freely went into society, dined out frequently,
and took part in musical parties, much to the edification of his friends
who were charmed with the beauty and cultivation of his rich baritone.
His friend Monckton Milnes had established himself in London and
collected around him a society of young men, interested in politics and
religion, and whom he entertained Sunday evenings. But this arrangement
"unfortunately," as Mr. Milnes said, excluded from these gatherings the
more serious members, such as Acland and Gladstone. Mr. Milnes expressed
his opinion of such self-exclusion in these words: "I really think when
people keep Friday as a fast, they might make a feast of Sunday." But
Mr. Gladstone evidently was not of this opinion, and remained away from
these Lord's Day parties. However at other times he met his friends, and
received them at his own rooms in the Albany, and on one memorable
occasion entertained Wordsworth at breakfast and a few admirers of this
distinguished guest.

Mr. Gladstone's relaxations were occasional, and the most of his time
was devoted to his Parliamentary duties and study. His constant
companions were Homer and Dante, and he at this time, it is recorded,
read the whole of St. Augustine, in twenty-two octavo volumes. He was a
constant attendant upon public worship at St. James', Piccadilly, and
Margaret Chapel, and a careful critic of sermons. At the same time he
diligently applied himself to the work of a private member of the House
of Commons, working on committees and taking constant part in debate.

In 1836 the question of slavery again came up before Parliament. This
time the question was as to the working of the system of negro
apprenticeship, which had taken the place of slavery. It was asserted
that the system was only slavery under another name. He warmly and ably
defended again the West Indian planters. He pleaded that many of the
planters were humane men, and defended also the honor of his relatives
connected with the traffic so much denounced, when it was assailed. He
contended that while the evils of the system had been exaggerated, all
mention of its advantages had been carefully withheld. The condition of
the negroes was improving. He deprecated the attempt made to renew and
perpetuate the system of agitation at the expense of candor and truth.
He also at this time spoke on support of authority and order in the
government of Canada, and on Church Rates, dwelling upon the necessity
of national religion to the security of a state. Mr. Gladstone was not
only a Tory but a High Churchman.

King William IV died June 20, 1837, and was succeeded by Queen Victoria.
A general election ensued. The Parliament, which had been prorogued by
the young queen in person, was dissolved on the 17th of July. Mr.
Gladstone, without his consent, was nominated to represent Manchester in
the House, but was re-elected for Newark without opposition. He then
turned his steps towards Scotland, "to see what grouse he could persuade
into his bag." The new Parliament met October 20th, but no business of
importance came before it until after the Christmas holidays.

In 1838 a bill was presented in both Houses of Parliament for the
immediate abolition of negro apprenticeship. Many harrowing details of
the cruelties practiced were cited. Mr. Gladstone returned to the
championship of the planters with increased power and success. His long,
eloquent and powerful speech of March 30th, although on the unpopular
side of the question, is regarded as having so greatly enhanced his
reputation as to bring him to the front rank among Parliamentary
debaters. Having impassionately defended the planters from the
exaggerated charges made against them, he further said: "You consumed
forty-five millions of pounds of cotton in 1837 which proceeded from
free labor; and, proceeding from slave labor, three hundred and eighteen
millions of pounds! And this, while the vast regions of India afford the
means of obtaining at a cheaper rate, and by a slight original outlay,
to facilitate transport, all that you can require. If, Sir, the
complaints against the general body of the West Indians had been
substantiated, I should have deemed it an unworthy artifice to attempt
diverting the attention of the House from the question immediately at
issue, by merely proving that delinquencies existed in other quarters;
but feeling as I do that those charges have been overthrown in debate, I
think myself entitled and bound to show how capricious are the honorable
gentlemen in the distribution of their sympathies among those different
objects which call for their application."

Mr. Gladstone, "having turned the tables upon his opponents," concluded
by demanding justice, and the motion before the House was rejected.

About one month later Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, afterwards Bishop of
Oxford, and of Winchester, wrote to Mr. Gladstone: "It would be an
affectation in you, which you are above, not to know that few young men
have the weight you have in the House of Commons, and are gaining
rapidly throughout the country. Now I do not wish to urge you to
consider this as a talent for the use of which you must render an
account, for so I know you do esteem it, but what I want to urge upon
you is that you should calmly look far before you; see the degree of
weight and influence to which you may fairly, if God spares your life
and powers, look forward in future years, and thus act _now_ with a view
to _then_. There is no height to which you may not fairly rise in this
country. If it pleases God to spare us violent convulsions and the loss
of our liberties, you may at a future day wield the whole government of
this land; and if this should be so, of what extreme moment will your
_past steps_ then be to the real usefulness of your high station....
Almost all our public men act from the merest expediency.... I would
have you view yourself as one who may become the head of all the better
feelings of this country, the maintainer of its Church and of its
liberties, and who must now be fitting himself for this high
vocation.... I think my father's life so beautifully shows that a deep
and increasing personal religion must be the root of that firm and
unwearied consistency in right, which I have ventured thus to press
upon you."

Mr. Gladstone began his Parliamentary life as a Tory. Later he developed
into a Liberal, a Radical, and yet there is not one who conscientiously
doubts his utter honesty. His life has been that of his
century--progressive, liberal, humanitarian in its trend.

[Illustration: Grattan]




CHAPTER IV


BOOK ON CHURCH AND STATE

We have now followed Mr. Gladstone in his course until well on the way
in his political career, and yet he is but twenty-eight years of age.
His personal appearance in the House of Commons at this early stage of
his Parliamentary life is thus described: "Mr. Gladstone's appearance
and manners are much in his favor. He is a fine looking man. He is about
the usual height and of good figure. His countenance is mild and
pleasant, and has a highly intellectual expression. His eyes are clear
and quick. His eyebrows are dark and rather prominent. There is not a
dandy in the House but envies what Truefit would call his 'fine head of
jet-black hair.' It is always carefully parted from the crown downwards
to his brow, where it is tastefully shaded. His features are small and
regular, and his complexion must be a very unworthy witness if he does
not possess an abundant stock of health.

"Mr. Gladstone's gesture is varied, but not violent. When he rises he
generally puts both his hands behind his back, and having there suffered
them to embrace each other for a short time, he unclasps them and allows
them to drop on either side. They are not permitted to remain long in
that locality before you see them, again closed together and hanging
down before him. Their reunion is not suffered to last for any length of
time, Again a separation takes place, and now the right hand is seen
moving up and down before him. Having thus exercised it a little, he
thrusts it into the pocket of his coat, and then orders the left hand to
follow its example. Having granted them a momentary repose there, they
are again put into gentle motion, and in a few seconds they are seen
reposing _vis-a-vis_ on his breast. He moves his face and body from one
direction to another, not forgetting to bestow a liberal share of his
attention on his own party. He is always listened to with much attention
by the House, and appears to be highly respected by men of all parties.
He is a man of good business habits; of this he furnished abundant proof
when Under-Secretary for the Colonies, during the short-lived
administration of Robert Peel."

From this pen picture and other like notices of Mr. Gladstone he must,
at that time, have attained great distinction and attracted a good deal
of attention for one so young, and from that day to this he has
commanded the attention not only of the British Senate and people, but
of the world at large. And why? may we ask, unless because of his modest
manner and distinguished services, his exalted ability and moral worth.

"The House of Commons was his ground," writes Justin McCarthy. "There he
was always seen to the best advantage."

Nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone wrote with the same earnestness and ability
with which he spoke. It was early in life that he distinguished himself
as an author, as well as an orator and debater in the House of Commons.
And it was most natural for him to write upon the subject of the Church,
for not only his education led him to the consideration of such themes,
but it was within his sphere as an English statesman, for the law of the
land provided for the union of the Church and State. It was in 1838,
when he was not thirty years of age, that he wrote his first book and
stepped at once to the front rank as an author. He had ever been a
staunch defender of the Established Church and his first appearance in
literature was by a remarkable work in defense of the State Church
entitled, "The State in its Relations with the Church." The treatise is
thus dedicated: "Inscribed to the University of Oxford, tried and not
found wanting through the vicissitudes of a thousand years; in the
belief that she is providentially designed to be a fountain of
blessings, spiritual, social and intellectual, to this and other
countries, to present and future times; and in the hope that the temper
of these pages may be found not alien from her own."

This first published book of Mr. Gladstone's was due to the perception
that the _status_ of the Church, in its connection with the secular
power, was about to undergo the severe assaults of the opponents of the
Union. There was growing opposition to the recognition of the Episcopal
Church as the Church of the State and to taxation of people of other
religious beliefs for its support; and this objection was to the
recognition and support of any Church by the State. What is called the
"American idea"--the entire separation of the Church and State--or as
enunciated first by Roger Williams in 1636, in Rhode Island, that the
magistrate should have authority in civil affairs only, was becoming
more and more the doctrine of dissenters. Preparations were already
being made for attacking the national establishment of religion, and
with all the fervor springing from conviction and a deep-seated
enthusiasm, he came forward to take part in the controversy on Church
and State, and as a defender of the Established or Episcopal Church
of England.

Some of the positions assumed in this work have since been renounced as
untenable, but its ability as a whole, its breadth and its learning
could not be denied. It then created a great sensation, and has since
been widely discussed. After an examination and a defense of the theory
of the connection between Church and State, Mr. Gladstone thus
summarizes his principal reasons for the maintenance of the Church
establishment:

"Because the Government stands with us in a paternal relation to the
people, and is bound in all things not merely to consider their existing
tastes, but the capabilities and ways of their improvement; because it
has both an intrinsic competency and external means to amend and assist
their choice; because to be in accordance with God's mind and will, it
must have a religion, and because to be in accordance with its
conscience, that religion must be the truth, as held by it under the
most solemn and accumulated responsibilities; because this is the only
sanctifying and preserving principle of society, as well as to the
individual, that particular benefit, without which all others are worse
than valueless; we must, therefore, disregard the din of political
contention and the pressure of novelty and momentary motives, and in
behalf of our regard to man, as well as of our allegiance to God,
maintain among ourselves, where happily it still exists, the union
between the Church and the State."

Dr. Russell in the following quotation not only accounts for this
production from the pen, of Mr. Gladstone, but gives also an outline of
the argument:

"Naturally and profoundly religious ... Mr. Gladstone conceived that
those who professed the warmest regard for the Church of England and
posed as her most strenuous defenders, were inclined to base their
championship on mistaken grounds and to direct their efforts towards
even mischievous ends. To supply a more reasonable basis for action and
to lead this energy into more profitable channels were the objects which
he proposed to himself in his treatise of 1838. The distinctive
principle of the book was that the State had a conscience. This being
admitted, the issue was this: whether the State in its best condition,
has such a conscience as can take cognizance of religious truth and
error, and in particular whether the State of the United Kingdom at that
time was, or was not, so far in that condition as to be under an
obligation to give an active and an exclusive support to the established
religion of the country.

"The work attempted to survey the actual state of the relations between
the State and the Church; to show from history the ground which had been
defined for the National Church at the Reformation; and to inquire and
determine whether the existing state of things was worth preserving and
defending against encroachment from whatever quarter. This question it
decided emphatically in the affirmative. Faithful to logic and to its
theory, the book did not shrink from applying them to the external case
of the Irish Church. It did not disguise the difficulties of the case,
for the author was alive to the paradox which it involved. But the one
master idea of the system, that the State as it then stood was capable
in this age, as it had been in ages long gone by, of assuming
beneficially a responsibility for the inculcation of a particular
religion, carried him through all. His doctrine was that the Church, as
established by law, was to be maintained for its truth; that this was
the only principle in which it could be properly and permanently upheld;
that this principle, if good in England, was good also for Ireland; that
truth is of all possessions the most precious to the soul of man; and
that to remove this priceless treasure from the view and the reach of
the Irish people would be meanly to purchase their momentary favor at
the expense of their permanent interests, and would be a high offense
against our own sacred obligations."

We quote also from the opening chapter of the second volume of this
work, which treats of the connection subsisting between the State of the
United Kingdom and the Church of England and Ireland, and shows Mr.
Gladstone's views at that period of his life upon the relations of the
Church as affecting Ireland in particular. The passage also indicates
the changes that have taken place in his mind since the time when he
defended these principles. It also shows the style in which this
remarkable book was written and enables us to compare, not only his
opinions now and then, but his style in writing then with his style now.

"The Protestant legislature of the British Empire maintains in the
possession of the Church property of Ireland the ministers of a creed
professed, according to the parliamentary enumeration, of 1835, by
one-ninth of its population, regarded with partial favor by scarcely
another ninth, and disowned by the remaining seven. And not only does
this anomaly meet us full in view, but we have also to consider and
digest the fact, that the maintenance of this Church for near three
centuries in Ireland has been contemporaneous with a system of partial
and abusive government, varying in degree of culpability, but rarely,
until of later years, when we have been forced to look at the subject
and to feel it, to be exempted in common fairness from the reproach of
gross inattention (to say the very least) to the interests of a noble
but neglected people.

"But, however formidable at first sight the admissions, which I have no
desire to narrow or to qualify, may appear, they in no way shake the
foregoing arguments. They do not change the nature of truth and her
capability and destiny to benefit mankind. They do not relieve
Government of its responsibility, if they show that that responsibility
was once unfelt and unsatisfied. They place the legislature of the
country in the condition, as it were, of one called to do penance for
past offences; but duty remains unaltered and imperative, and abates
nothing of her demand on our services. It is undoubtedly competent, in a
constitutional view, to the Government of this country to continue the
present disposition of Church property in Ireland. It appears not too
much to assume that our imperial legislature has been qualified to take,
and has taken in point of fact, a sounder view of religious truth than
the majority of the people of Ireland in their destitute and
uninstructed state. We believe, accordingly, that that which we place
before them is, whether they know it or not, calculated to be beneficial
to them; and that if they know it not now, they will know it when it is
presented to them fairly. Shall we, then, purchase their applause at the
expense of their substantial, nay, their spiritual interests?

"It does, indeed, so happen that there are powerful motives on the other
side concurring with that which has here been represented as paramount.
In the first instance we are not called upon to establish a creed, but
only to maintain an existing legal settlement, when our constitutional
right is undoubted. In the second, political considerations tend
strongly to recommend that maintenance. A common form of faith binds the
Irish Protestants to ourselves, while they, upon the other hand, are
fast linked to Ireland; and thus they supply the most natural bond of
connection between the countries. But if England, by overthrowing their
Church, should weaken their moral position, they would be no longer
able, perhaps no longer willing, to counteract the desires of the
majority tending, under the direction of their leaders (however, by a
wise policy, revocable from that fatal course) to what is termed
national independence. Pride and fear, on the one hand, are therefore
bearing up against more immediate apprehension and difficulty on the
other. And with some men these may be the fundamental considerations;
but it may be doubted whether such men will not flinch in some stage of
the contest, should its aspect at any moment become unfavorable."

Of course the opponents of Mr. Gladstone's views, as set forth in his
book, strongly combated his theories. They replied that "the taxation of
the State is equal upon all persons, and has for its object their
individual, social and political welfare and safety; but that the
taxation of one man for the support of his neighbor's religion does not
come within the limits of such taxation, and is, in fact, unjust and
inequitable."

It was no easy task for Mr. Gladstone, with all his parliamentary
duties, to aspire to authorship, and carry his book through the press.
In preparing for publication he passed through all the agonies of the
author, but was nobly helped by his friend, James R. Hope, who
afterwards became Mr. Hope-Scott, Q.C., who read and criticised his
manuscript and saw the sheets through the press. Some of the letters
from the young Defender of the Faith to his friend contain much that is
worth preserving. We give some extracts.

He writes: "If you let them lie just as they are, turning the leaves one
by one, I think you will not find the manuscript very hard to make out,
though it is strangely cut in pieces and patched.

"I hope its general tendency will meet with your approval; but a point
about which I am in doubt, and to which I request your particular
attention, is, whether the work or some of the chapters are not so
deficient in clearness and arrangement as to require being absolutely
rewritten before they can with propriety be published.... Between my
eyes and my business I fear it would be hard for me to re-write, but if
I could put it into the hands of any other person who could, and who
would extract from my papers anything worth having, that might do.

"As regards myself, if I go on and publish, I shall be quite prepared to
find some persons surprised, but this, if it should prove so, cannot be
helped. I shall not knowingly exaggerate anything; and when a man
expects to be washed overboard he must tie himself with a rope to
the mast.

"I shall trust to your friendship for frankness in the discharge of your
irksome task. Pray make verbal corrections without scruple where they
are needed."

Again: "I thank you most cordially for your remarks, and I rejoice to
find you act so entirely in the spirit I had anticipated. I trust you
will continue to speak with freedom, which is the best compliment as
well as the best service you can render me.

"I think it very probable that you may find that V and VI require quite
as rigorous treatment as II, and I am very desirous to set both my mind
and eyes at liberty before I go to the Continent, which I can now hardly
expect to do before the first week in September. This interval I trust
would suffice unless you find that the other chapters stand in
equal need.

"I entirely concur with your view regarding the necessity of care and of
not grudging labor in a matter so important and so responsible as an
endeavor to raise one of the most momentous controversies which has
ever agitated human opinion,"

Again: "Thanks for your letter. I have been pretty hard at work, and
have done a good deal, especially on V. Something yet remains. I must
make inquiry about the law of excommunication.... I have made a very
stupid classification, and have now amended it; instead of faith,
discipline and practice, what I meant was the rule of faith, discipline,
and the bearing of particular doctrines upon practice.

"I send back also I and II that you may see what I have done."

The work was successfully issued in the autumn of 1838, and passed
rapidly through three editions. How it was received it would be
interesting to inquire. While his friends applauded, even his opponents
testified to the ability it displayed. On the authority of Lord
Houghton, it is said that Sir Robert Peel, the young author's political
leader, on receiving a copy as a gift from his follower, read it with
scornful curiosity, and, throwing it on the floor, exclaimed with truly
official horror: "With such a career before him, why should he write
books? That young man will ruin his fine political career if he persists
in writing trash like this." However, others gave the book a heartier
reception. Crabb Robinson writes in his diary: "I went to Wordsworth
this forenoon. He was ill in bed. I read Gladstone's book to him."

December 13, 1838, Baron Bunsen wrote: "Last night at eleven, when I
came from the Duke, Gladstone's book was lying on my table, having come
out at seven o'clock. It is a book of the time, a great event--the first
book since Burke that goes to the bottom of the vital question; far
above his party and his time. I sat up till after midnight, and this
morning I continued until I had read the whole. Gladstone is the first
man in England as to intellectual power, and he has heard higher tones
than any one else in the land." And again to Dr. Arnold he writes in
high praise of the book, but lamenting its author's entanglement in
Tractarian traditions, adds: "His genius will soon free itself entirely
and fly towards Heaven with its own wings."

Sir Henry Taylor wrote to the Poet Southey: "I am reading Gladstone's
book, which I shall send you if he has not.... His party begin to think
of him as the man who will one day be at their head and at the head of
the government, and certainly no man of his standing has yet appeared
who seems likely to stand in his way. Two wants, however, may lie across
his political career--want of robust health and want of flexibility."

Cardinal Newman wrote: "Gladstone's book, as you see, is making a
sensation." And again: "The _Times_ is again at poor Gladstone. Really I
feel as if I could do anything for him. I have not read his book, but
its consequences speak for it. Poor fellow! it is so noble a thing."

Lord Macaulay, in the _Edinburgh Review_, April, 1839, in his well-known
searching criticism, while paying high tribute to the author's talents
and character, said: "We believe that we do him no more than justice
when we say that his abilities and demeanor have obtained for him the
respect and good will of all parties.... That a young politician should,
in the intervals afforded by his Parliamentary avocations, have
constructed and propounded, with much study and mental toil, an original
theory, on a great problem in politics, is a circumstance which,
abstracted from all considerations of the soundness or unsoundness of
his opinions, must be considered as highly creditable to him. We
certainly cannot wish that Mr. Gladstone's doctrine may become
fashionable among public men. But we heartily wish that his laudable
desire to penetrate beneath the surface of questions, and to arrive, by
long and intent meditation, at the knowledge of great general laws, were
much more fashionable than we at all expect it to become."

It was in this article, by Lord Macaulay, that the mow famous words
occurred which former Conservative friends of Mr. Gladstone delight to
recall in view of his change of political opinions: "The writer of this
volume is a young man of unblemished character and of distinguished
parliamentary talents; the rising hope of those stern and unbending
Tories who follow, reluctantly and cautiously, a leader whose experience
and eloquence are indispensable to them, but whose cautious temper and
moderate opinions they abhor. It would not be strange if Mr. Gladstone
were one of the most unpopular men in England."

Higginson writes: "The hope of the stern and unbending Tories has for
years been the unquestioned leader of English Liberals, and though he
may have been at times as unpopular as Macaulay could have predicted,
the hostility has come mainly from the ranks of those who were thus
early named as his friends. But whatever may have been Mr. Gladstone's
opinions or affiliations, whoever may have been his friends or foes, the
credit of surpassing ability has always been his."

It was remarked by Lord Macaulay that the entire theory of Mr.
Gladstone's book rested upon one great fundamental proposition, namely,
that the propagation of religious truth is one of the chief ends of
government _as_ government; and he proceeded to combat this doctrine. He
granted that government was designed to protect our persons and our
property, but declined to receive the doctrine of paternal government,
until a government be shown that loved its subjects, as a father loves
his child, and was as superior in intelligence to its subjects as a
father was to his children. Lord Macaulay then demonstrated, by
appropriate illustrations, the fallacy of the theory that every society
of individuals with any power whatever, is under obligation as such
society to profess a religion; and that there could be unity of action
in large bodies without unity of religious views. Persecutions would
naturally follow, or be justifiable in an association where Mr.
Gladstone's views were paramount. It would be impossible to conceive of
the circumstances in which it would be right to establish by law, as the
one exclusive religion of the State, the religion of the minority. The
religious teaching which the sovereign ought officially to countenance
and maintain is that from which he, in his conscience, believes that the
people will receive the most benefit with the smallest mixture of evil.
It is not necessarily his own religious belief that he will select. He
may prefer the doctrines of the Church of England to those of the Church
of Scotland, but he would not force the former upon the inhabitants of
Scotland. The critic raised no objections, though he goes on to state
the conditions under which an established Church might be retained with
advantage. There are many institutions which, being set up, ought not
to be rudely pulled down. On the 14th of June, 1839, the question of
National Education was introduced in the House of Commons by the
Ministry of the day. Lord Stanley opposed the proposal of the government
in a powerful speech, and offered an amendment to this effect: "That an
address be presented to her Majesty to rescind the order in council for
constituting the proposed Board of Privy Council." The position of the
government was defended by Lord Morpeth, who, while he held his own
views respecting the doctrines of the Roman Catholics and also
respecting Unitarian tenets, he maintained that as long as the State
thought it proper to employ Roman Catholic sinews, and to finger
Unitarian gold, it could not refuse to extend to those by whom it so
profited the blessings of education. Speeches were also made by Lord
Ashley, Mr. Buller, Mr. O'Connell and others, and in the course of
debate reference was freely made to Mr. Gladstone's book on Church and
State. Finally Mr. Gladstone rose and remarked, that he would not flinch
from a word he had uttered or written upon religious subjects, and
claimed the right to contrast his principles, and to try results, in
comparison with those professed by Lord John Russell, and to ascertain
the effects of both upon the institutions of the country, so far as they
operated upon the Established Church in England, in Scotland and in
Ireland. It was at this time that a very remarkable scene was witnessed
in the House. Turning upon Mr. O'Connell, who had expressed his great
fondness for statistics, Mr. Gladstone said the use he had made of them
reminded him of an observation of Mr. Canning's, "He had a great
aversion to hear of a fact in debate, but what he most distrusted was a
figure." He then proceeded to show the inadequacy of the figures
presented by Mr. O'Connell. In reply to Lord Morpeth's declaration
concerning the duty of the State to provide education for Dissenters so
long as it fingered their gold, Mr. Gladstone said that if the State was
to be regarded as having no other functions than that of representing
the mere will of the people as to religious tenets, he admitted the
truth of his principle, but not that the State could have a conscience.
It was not his habit to revile religion in any form, but he asked what
ground there was for restricting his lordship's reasoning to
Christianity. He referred to the position held by the Jews upon this
educational question, and read to the House an extract from a recent
petition as follows: "Your petitioners feel the deepest gratitude for
the expression of her Majesty's most gracious wish that the youth of the
country should be religiously brought up, and the rights of conscience
respected, while they earnestly hope that the education of the people,
Jewish and Christian, will be sedulously connected with a due regard to
the Holy Scriptures."

Mr. Gladstone very pertinently asked how the education of the Jewish
people, who considered the New Testament an imposture, was "to be
sedulously connected with a due regard to the Holy Scriptures," which
consisted of the Old and New Testaments? To oblige the Jewish children
to read the latter would be directly contrary to the views of the
gentlemen on the other side of the House. He would have no child forced
to do so, but he protested against paying money from the treasury of the
State to men whose business it was to inculcate erroneous doctrines. The
debate was concluded, and the government carried its motion by a very
small majority. Two years later, when the Jews' Civil Disabilities Bill
was before Parliament, Mr. Gladstone again took the unpopular side in
the debate and opposed the Bill, which was carried in the House of
Commons but defeated in the House of Lords.

Mr. Gladstone published, in 1840, another work, entitled "Church
Principles Considered in their Results." It was supplementary to his
former book in defense of Church and State, and was written "beneath the
shades of Hagley," the house of Lord and Lady Lyttelton, and dedicated
"in token of sincere affection" to the author's life-long friend and
relative, Lord Lyttelton. He dwelt upon the leading moral
characteristics of the English Episcopal Church, their intrinsic value
and their adaptation to the circumstances of the times, and defined
these characteristics to be the doctrine of the visibility of the
Church, the apostolic succession in the ministry, the authority of the
Church in matters of faith and the truths symbolized in the sacraments.

In one chapter he strongly attacks Rationalism as a reference of the
gospel to the depraved standard of the actual human natures and by no
means to its understanding properly so called, as its measure and
criterion. He says: "That therefore to rely upon the understanding,
misinformed as it is by depraved affections, as our adequate instructor
in matters of religion, is most highly irrational." Nevertheless, "the
understanding has a great function in religion and is a medium to the
affections, and may even correct their particular impulses."

In reference to the question of the reconversion of England to
Catholicism, earnestly desired by some, Mr. Gladstone forcibly remarked:
"England, which with ill grace and ceaseless efforts at remonstrance,
endured the yoke when Rome was in her zenith, and when her powers were
but here and there evoked; will the same England, afraid of the truth
which she has vindicated, or even with the license which has mingled
like a weed with its growth, recur to that system in its decrepitude
which she repudiated in its vigor?" If the Church of England ever lost
her power, it would never be by submission to Rome, "but by that
principle of religions insubordination and self-dependence which, if it
refuse her tempered rule and succeed in its overthrow, will much more
surely refuse and much more easily succeed in resisting the
unequivocally arbitrary impositions of the Roman scheme." Here is the
key-note of many of Mr. Gladstone's utterances in after years against
the pretentious and aspirations of Rome. The defense of the English
Church and its principles and opposition to the Church of Rome have been
unchanging features in Mr. Gladstone's religious course. But, in the
light of these early utterances, some have criticised severely that
legislative act, carried through by him in later years, by which the
Disestablishment of the Irish Church was effected. How could the author
of "The State in its Relations with the Church" become the destroyer of
the fabric of the Irish Church?

To meet these charges of inconsistency Mr. Gladstone issued, in 1868, "A
Chapter of Autobiography." The author's motives in putting forth this
chapter of autobiography were two--first, there was "the great and
glaring change" in his course of action with respect to the Established
Church of Ireland, which was not due to the eccentricity or perversion
of an individual mind, but to the silent changes going on at the very
basis of modern society. Secondly, there was danger that a great cause
then in progress might suffer in point of credit, if not of energy and
rapidity, from the real or supposed delinquencies of the author.

He stated that "The author had upheld the doctrine that the Church was
to be maintained for its truth, and that if the principle was good for
England it was good for Ireland too. But he denied that he had ever
propounded the maxim _simpliciter_ that we were to maintain the
establishment. He admitted that his opinion of the Church of Ireland was
the exact opposite of what it had been; but if the propositions of his
work were in conflict with an assault upon the existence of the Irish
Establishment, they were even more hostile to the grounds upon which it
was now sought to maintain it. He did not wish to maintain the Church
upon the basis usually advanced, but for the benefit of the whole people
of Ireland, and if it could not be maintained as the truth it could not
be maintained at all."

Mr. Gladstone contended that the Irish Episcopal Church had fallen out
of harmony with the spirit and use of the time, and must be judged by a
practical rather than a theoretic test. In concluding the author puts
antithetically the case for and against the maintenance of the Church of
Ireland: "An establishment that does its work in much and has the hope
and likelihood of doing it in more; that has a broad and living way open
to it into the hearts of the people; that can command the services of
the present by the recollections and traditions of the past; able to
appeal to the active zeal of the greater portion of the people, and to
the respect or scruples of living work and service, and whose
adversaries, if she has them, are in the main content to believe that
there will be a future for them and their opinions; such an
establishment should surely be maintained.

"But an establishment that neither does nor has her hope of doing work,
except for a few, and those few the portion of the community whose
claims to public aid is the smallest of all; an establishment severed
from the mass of the people by an impassable gulf and a wall of brass;
an establishment whose good offices, could she offer them, would be
intercepted by a long, unbroken chain of painful and shameful
recollections; an establishment leaning for support upon the extraneous
aid of a State, which becomes discredited with the people by the very
act of leading it; such an establishment will do well for its own sake,
and for the sake of its creed, to divest itself, as soon as may be, of
gauds and trappings, and to commence a new career, in which renouncing
at once the credit and the discredit of the civil sanction, and shall
seek its strength from within and put a fearless trust in the message
that it bears."

Such, then, were the reasons that led the defender of the Irish Church
to become its assailant, "That a man should change his opinions is no
reproach to him; it is only inferior minds that are never open to
conviction."

Mr. Gladstone is a firm Anglican, as we have seen, but the following
extract from his address made at the Liverpool College, in December,
1872, gives a fine insight as to the breadth of his Christian
sentiments:

"Not less forcibly than justly, you hear much to the effect that the
divisions among Christians render it impossible to say what Christianity
is, and so destroy all certainty as to the true religion. But if the
divisions among Christians are remarkable, not less so is their unity in
the greatest doctrines that they hold. Well-nigh fifteen hundred years
have passed away since the great controversies concerning the Deity and
the person of the Redeemer were, after a long agony, determined. As
before that time, in a manner less defined but adequate for their day,
so, even since that time, amid all chance and change, more--aye, many
more--than ninety-nine in every hundred Christians have, with one
voice, confessed the Deity and incarnation of our Lord as the cardinal
and central truth of our religion. Surely there is some comfort here,
some sense of brotherhood; some glory due to the past, some hope for the
times that are to come."

Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister of England, during his several
administrations, has had a large Church patronage to dispense, in other
words, has been called upon, by virtue of his office, to till many
vacancies in the Established Church, but it has been truly testified
that there has probably never been so laboriously conscientious a
distributor of ecclesiastical crown patronage as Mr. Gladstone. In his
ecclesiastical appointments he never took politics into consideration. A
conspicuous instance of this may be mentioned. When it was rumored that
he intended to recommend Dr. Benson, the present Archbishop, for the
vacant See of Canterbury, a political supporter called to remonstrate
with him. Mr. Gladstone begged to know the ground of his objection. "The
Bishop of Truro is a strong Tory," was the answer; "but that is not all.
He has joined Mr. Raikes's election committee at Cambridge; and it was
only last week that Raikes made a violent personal attack upon
yourself." "Do you know," replied Mr. Gladstone, "that you have just
supplied me with a strong argument in Dr. Benson's favor? for, if he
had been a worldly man or self-seeker he would not have done anything so
imprudent."

Mr. Gladstone sympathized more or less with the Nonconformists
struggling against the application of university tests and other
disabilities from which the Dissenters suffered, but it was not until
1876 that he really discovered the true religions work of the English
Nonconformists. The manner in which the Congregationalists, Baptists,
Quakers and others rallied to the standard raised in the cause of
Bulgarian nationality effected a great change in his attitude towards
his Dissenting fellow countrymen. He entertained many of the
representative Nonconformist ministers at breakfast, and the fidelity
and devotion of Nonconformists generally to the Bulgarian cause left on
his mind an impression which has only deepened with the lapse of time.
The extent to which this influences him may be gathered from the reply
which he made to Dr. Döllinger whilst that learned divine was discussing
with him the question of Church and State. Dr. Döllinger was expressing
his surprise that Mr. Gladstone could possibly coquette in any way with
the party that demanded the severance of Church and State in either
Wales or Scotland. It was to him quite incomprehensible that a statesman
who held so profoundly the idea of the importance of religion could make
his own a cause whose avowed object was to cut asunder the Church from
the State. Mr. Gladstone listened attentively to Dr. Döllinger's
remarks, and then, in an absent kind of way, said, "But you forget how
nobly the Nonconformists supported me at the time of the Eastern
Question." The blank look of amazement on Dr. Döllinger's face showed
the wide difference between the standpoint of the politician and the
ecclesiastic. But Mr. Gladstone knew upon whom to rely in the hour of
need, when great moral issues were at stake. The Bishops of the House of
Lords had not always done their duty. Lord Shaftesbury, himself a very
ardent Churchman, wrote, June 16, 1855, in reference to the Religious
Worship Bill: "The Bishops have exhibited great ignorance, bigotry and
opposition to evangelical life and action, and have seriously injured
their character, influence and position."

Mr. Gladstone never displayed more marked respect for the "Nonconformist
conscience" than when, in deference to their earnest appeal, he risked
the great split in the Home Rule ranks that followed his repudiation of
Mr. Parnell. Mr. Gladstone never hesitated or made the slightest
pretense about the matter. If the Nonconformists had been as indifferent
as the Churchmen, his famous letter about the Irish leadership would not
have been written. "He merely acted, as he himself stated, as the
registrar of the moral temperature which made Mr. Parnell impossible.
He knew the men who are the Ironsides of his party too well not to
understand that if he had remained silent the English Home Rulers would
have practically ceased to exist. He saw the need, rose to the occasion
and cleared the obstacle which would otherwise have been a fatal
impediment to the success of his course. Mr. Gladstone is a practical
statesman, and with some instinct divined the inevitable."

Mr. Gladstone's religious belief, as well as his opinion of the Bible
and the plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel, are manifest as
expressed in the following words from his pen:

"If asked what is the remedy for the deeper sorrows of the human
heart--what a man should chiefly look to in his progress through life as
the power that is to sustain him under trials and enable him manfully to
confront his afflictions--I must point him to something which, in a
well-known hymn is called 'the old, old story,' told of in an old, old
book, and taught with an old, old teaching, which is the greatest and
best gift ever given to mankind."

Another may read the lessons on the Lord's day in Hawarden Church and
write and speak in defense of the Established Church of England, but Mr.
Gladstone did more--he put his trust in his Lord and Saviour, and
believed in his word. Mr. Gladstone was denominationally a member of
the Episcopal Church, but religiously he held to views commonly held by
all Evangelical Christians, from which the temptations of wealth at
home, of college and of politics never turned him.

[Illustration: Kilmainham Jail, where the Irish M.P.'s were confined in
1883]




CHAPTER V


TRAVELS AND MARRIAGE

Mr. Gladstone spent the winter of 1838-9 in Rome. The physicians had
recommended travel in the south of Europe for his health and
particularly for his eyes, the sight of which had become impaired by
hard reading in the preparation of his book. He had given up lamps and
read entirely by candle-light with injurious results. He was joined at
Rome by his friend, Henry Manning, afterwards Cardinal, and in company
they visited Monsignor, afterwards Cardinal, Wiseman, at the English
College, on the feast of St. Thomas of Canterbury. They attended solemn
mass in honor of that Saint, and the places in the missal were found for
them by a young student of the college, named Grant, who afterwards
became Bishop of Southwark.

Besides visiting Italy he explored Sicily, and kept a journal of his
tour. Sicily is a beautiful and fertile island in the Mediterranean
Sea, and is the granary of Rome. His recorded observations show the
keenness of his perceptions and the intensity with which he enjoyed the
beautiful and wonderful in nature.

Mount Etna, the greatest volcano of Europe, and which rises 10,000 feet
above the sea, stirred his soul greatly, and he made an ascent of the
mountain at the beginning of the great eruption of 1838. Etna has many
points of interest for all classes of scientific men, and not least for
the student of arboriculture. It bears at the height of 4000 feet above
the level of the sea a wonderful growth--a very large tree--which is
claimed by some to be the oldest tree in the world. It is a venerable
chestnut, and known as "the father of the forest." It is certainly one
of the most remarkable as well as celebrated of trees. It consists not
of one vast trunk, but of a cluster of smaller decayed trees or portions
of trees growing in a circle, each with a hollow trunk of great
antiquity, covered with ferns or ivy, and stretching out a few gnarled
branches with scanty foliage. That it is one tree seems to be evident
from the growth of the bark only on the outside. It is said that
excavations about the roots of the tree showed these various stems to be
united at a very small depth below the surface of the ground. It still
bears rich foliage and much small fruit, though the heart of the trunk
is decayed, and a public road leads through it wide enough for two
coaches to drive abreast. Travelers have differed in their measurements
of this stupendous growth. Admiral Smyth, who takes the lowest estimate,
giving 163 feet, and Brydone giving, as the highest, 204 feet. In the
middle of the cavity a hut is built, for the accommodation of those who
collect and preserve the chestnuts. One of the Queens of Arragon is
reported to have taken shelter in this tree, with her mounted suite of
one hundred persons; but, "we may, perhaps, gather from this that
mythology is not confined to the lower latitudes."

Further up the mountain is another venerable chestnut, which, with more
reason, probably, may be described without fear of contradiction as the
largest chestnut tree in the world. It rises from one solid stem to a
remarkable height before it branches. At an elevation of two feet from
the earth its circumference was found by Brydone to be seventy-six feet.
These trees are reputed to have flourished for much more than a thousand
years. Their luxuriant growth is attributed in part to the humid
atmosphere of the Bosco, elevated above the scorching, arid region of
the coast, and in part to the great richness of the soil. The luxuriance
of the vegetation on the slopes of Etna attracts the attention of every
traveler; and Mr. Gladstone remarked upon this point: "It seems as
though the finest of all soils were produced from the most agonizing
throes of nature, as the hardiest characters are often reared amidst
the severest circumstances. The aspect of this side of Sicily is
infinitely more active and the country is cultivated as well as most
parts of Italy."

He and his party started on the 30th of October, and found the path
nearly uniform from Catania, but the country bore a volcanic aspect at
every step. At Nicolosi their rest was disturbed by the distant booming
of the mountain. From this point to the Bosco the scenery is described
as a dreary region, but the tract of the wood showed some beautiful
places resembling an English park, with old oaks and abundant fern.
"Here we found flocks browsing; they are much exposed to sheep-stealers,
who do not touch travelers, calculating with justice that men do not
carry much money to the summit of Etna." The party passed the Casa degli
Inglesi, which registered a temperature of 31°, and then continued the
ascent on foot for the crater. A magnificent view of sunrise was
here obtained.

"Just before we reached the lip of the crater the guide exultingly
pointed out what he declared to be ordinarily the greatest sight of the
mountain, namely, the shadow of the cone of Etna, drawn with the utmost
delicacy by the newly-risen sun, but of gigantic extent; its point at
this moment rested on the mountains of Palermo, probably one hundred
miles off, and the entire figure was visible, the atmosphere over the
mountains having become and continuing perfectly and beautifully
transparent, although in the hundreds of valleys which were beneath us,
from the east to the west of Sicily, and from the mountains of Messina
down to Cape Passaro, there were still abundant vapors waiting for a
higher sun to disperse them; but we enjoyed in its perfection this view
of the earliest and finest work of the greater light of heaven, in the
passage of his beams over this portion of the earth's surface. During
the hour we spent on the summit, the vision of the shadow was speedily
contracting, and taught us how rapid is the real rise of the sun in the
heavens, although its effect is diminished to the eye by a kind of
foreshortening."

The writer next describes in vivid and powerful language the scene
presented to the view at the very mouth of the crater. A large space,
one mile in circumference, which a few days before had been one
fathomless pit, from which issued masses of smoke, was now absolutely
filled up to within a few feet of the brim all round. A great mass of
lava, a portion of the contents of this immense pit, was seen to detach
itself by degrees from one behind. "It opened like an orange, and we saw
the red-hot fibres stretch in a broader and still broader vein, until
the mass had found a support on the new ground it occupied in front; as
we came back on our way down this had grown black." A stick put to it
took fire immediately. Within a few yards of this lava bed were found
pieces of ice, formed on the outside of the stones by Frost, "which here
disputes every inch of ground with his fierce rival Fire."

Mr. Gladstone and his fellow-travelers were the first spectators of the
great volcanic action of this year. From the highest peak attainable the
company gazed upon the splendid prospect to the east spread out before
them, embracing the Messina Mountains and the fine kindred outline of
the Calabrian coast, described by Virgil in the third book of the
Aeneid. Mr. Gladstone graphically describes the eruption which took
place and of which he was the enraptured witness. Lava masses of 150 to
200 pounds weight were thrown to a distance of probably a mile and a
half; smaller ones to a distance even more remote. The showers were
abundant and continuous, and the writer was impressed by the closeness
of the descriptions in Virgil with the actual reality of the eruption
witnessed by himself. On this point he observes:

"Now how faithfully has Virgil (Ae. iii, 571, et seq.) comprised these
particulars, doubtless without exaggeration, in his fine description!
First, the thunder-clap, or crack--

     'Horrificis juxta tonat Aetna ruinis.'

Secondly, the vibration of the ground to the report--

     'Et, fessum quoties mutet latus, intremere omnem
      Murmure Trinacriam.'

Thirdly, the sheet of flame--

     'Attolitque globos flarmmarum, et sidera lambit.'

Fourthly, the smoke--

     'Et coelum subtexere fumo.'

Fifthly, the fire shower--

     'Scopulos avulsaque viscera montis
      Erigit erucatans, liquefactaque saxa sub auras
      Cum gemitu glomerat, fundoque exae tuat imo.'

Sixthly the column of ash--

     'Atram prorumpit ad aethera nubem
      Turbine fumantem piceo et candente favilla.'

And this is within the limits of twelve lines. Modern poetry has its own
merits, but the conveyance of information is not, generally speaking,
one of them. What would Virgil have thought of authors publishing poems
with explanatory notes (to illustrate is a different matter), as if they
were so many books of conundrums? Indeed this vice is of very
late years."

The entire description, of which this is but an extract, is very
effective and animated, and gives with great vividness the first
impressions of a mind susceptible to the grand and imposing aspects
of nature.

"After Etna," says Mr. Gladstone in his diary, "the temples are
certainly the great charm and attraction of Sicily. I do not know
whether there is any one among them which, taken alone, exceeds in
beauty that of Neptune, at Paestum; but they have the advantage of
number and variety, as well as of highly interesting positions. At
Segesta the temple is enthroned in a perfect mountain solitude, and it
is like a beautiful tomb of its religion, so stately, so entire; while
around, but for one solitary house of the keeper, there is nothing,
absolutely nothing, to disturb the apparent reign of Silence and of
Death.... The temples enshrine a most pure and salutary principle of
art, that which connects grandeur of effect with simplicity of detail;
and, retaining their beauty and their dignity in their decay, they
represent the great man when fallen, as types of that almost highest of
human qualities--silent yet not sullen, endurance."

While sojourning at Rome Mr. Gladstone met Lord Macaulay. Writing home
from Rome in the same year, Lord Macaulay says: "On Christmas Eve I
found Gladstone in the throng, and I accosted him, as we had met, though
we had never been introduced to each other. He received my advances with
very great _empressement_ indeed, and we had a good deal of pleasant
talk." And again he writes: "I enjoyed Italy immensely; far more than I
had expected. By-the-by, I met Gladstone at Rome. We talked and walked
together in St. Peter's during the best part of an afternoon. He is
both a clever and an amiable man."

Among the visitors at Rome the winter that Mr. Gladstone spent in the
eternal city were the widow and daughters of Sir Stephen Richard Glynne,
of Hawarden Castle, Flintshire, Wales. He had already made the
acquaintance of these ladies, having been a friend of Lady Glynne's
eldest son at Oxford, and having visited him at Hawarden in 1835. He was
thrown much into their society while at Rome, and became engaged to the
elder of Lady Glynne's daughters, Catharine Glynne. It is strange to
relate that some time before this when Miss Glynne met her future
husband at a dinner-party, an English minister sitting next to her had
thus drawn her attention to Mr. Gladstone: "Mark that young man; he will
yet be Prime Minister of England." Miss Glynne and her sister were known
as "the handsome Miss Glynnes."

William E. Gladstone and Catharine Glynne were married July 25, 1839, at
Hawarden Castle. At the same time and place Miss Mary Glynne was married
to George William, fourth Lord Lyttleton, with whom Mr. Gladstone was on
the most intimate terms of friendship until his lordship's untoward and
lamented death. The brother of these ladies was Sir Stephen Glynne, the
then owner of Hawarden. Mrs. Gladstone was "in her issue heir" of Sir
Stephen Glynne, who was ninth and last baronet of that name.

The marriage ceremony has been thus described by an eye-witness:

"For some time past the little town of Hawarden has been in a state of
excitement in consequence of the anticipated nuptials of the two sisters
of Sir Stephen Glynne, Bart., M.P., who have been engaged for some time
past to Lord Lyttelton and to Mr. W. Ewart Gladstone. Thursday last
(July 25th) was fixed upon for the ceremony to take place; but in
consequence of the Chartists having attacked Lord Lyttelton's mansion in
Worcestershire, it was feared that the marriage would be delayed. All
anxieties on this subject were put an end to by orders being issued to
make ready for the ceremony, and the Hawarden folks lost no time in
making due preparations accordingly. The church was elegantly and
profusely decorated with laurels, while extremely handsome garlands,
composed of the finest flowers, were suspended from the venerable roof.
About half-past ten a simultaneous rising of the assembled multitude and
the burst of melody from the organ announced that the fair brides had
arrived, and all eyes were turned towards the door to witness the bridal
_cortege_. In a few minutes more the party arrived at the communion
table and the imposing ceremony commenced. At this period the _coup
d'oeil_ was extremely interesting. The bridal party exhibited every
elegance of costume; while the dresses of the multitude, lit up by the
rays of a brilliant sunlight, filled up the picture. The Rev. the Hon.
G. Neville performed the ceremony. At its conclusion the brides visited
the rectory, whence they soon afterwards set out--Lord and Lady
Lyttelton to their seat in Worcestershire, and Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone on
a visit to Sir Richard Brooke, Norton Priory Mansion, in Cheshire. The
bridal party having returned to the castle, the good folks of Hawarden
filled up the day with rambling over Sir Stephen Glynne's delightful
park, to which free access was given to all comers; and towards evening
a dance on the green was got up."

It is to be remarked that by his marriage Mr. Gladstone became allied
with the house of Grenville, a family of statesmen, which, directly or
in its ramifications, had already supplied England with four Prime
Ministers. Baron Bunsen, who made his acquaintance that year, writes
that he "was delighted with the man who is some day to govern England if
his book is not in the way."

Mrs. Gladstone is widely and deservedly known for her many philanthropic
enterprises, but even better, perhaps, has proved herself to be a noble
and devoted wife and mother. She has cheered by her sympathy her
illustrious husband in his defeats as well as in his triumphs, in the
many great undertakings of his political career, and been to him all the
late Viscountess Beaconsfield was to Mr. Gladstone's Parliamentary
rival. As a mother, she nursed and reared all her children, and ever
kept them in the maternal eye, carefully watching over and tending them.
One of the most interesting buildings at Hawarden is Mrs. Gladstone's
orphanage, which stands close to the castle. Here desolate orphans are
well cared for, and find, until they are prepared to enter on the
conflict and to encounter the cares of life, a happy home.

Mrs. Gladstone, although in many respects an ideal wife, was never able
to approach her husband in the methodical and business-like arrangement
of her affairs. Shortly after their wedding, the story runs, Mr.
Gladstone seriously took in hand the tuition of his handsome young wife
in book-keeping, and Mrs. Gladstone applied herself with diligence to
the unwelcome task. Some time after she came down in triumph to her
husband to display her domestic accounts and her correspondence, all
docketed in a fashion which she supposed would excite the admiration of
her husband. Mr. Gladstone cast his eye over the results of his wife's
labor and exclaimed in despair: "You have done them all wrong, from
beginning to end!" His wife, however, has been so invaluable a helpmeet
in other ways that it seems somewhat invidious to recall that little
incident. She had other work to do, and she wisely left the accounts to
her husband and his private secretaries.

The union of Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone has been blessed by eight children,
all of whom save two still survive. There were four sons, the eldest,
William Henry, was a member of the Legislature, and the second, the Rev.
Stephen Edward Gladstone, is rector of Hawarden. The third son is named
Henry Neville and the fourth Herbert John Gladstone. The former is
engaged in commerce and the latter is the popular member for Leeds. The
eldest daughter, Anne, is married to Rev. E.C. Wickham, A.M., headmaster
of Wellington College; and the second, Catharine Jessy Gladstone, died
in 1850; the third daughter, Mary, is married to Rev. W. Drew, and the
fourth, Helen Gladstone, is principal of Newnham College. As Sir John
Gladstone had the pleasure of seeing his son William Ewart become a
distinguished member of Parliament, so Mr. Gladstone in his turn was
able to witness his eldest son take his seat in the British Senate.

It was a sad bereavement when the Gladstones were called upon to part
with their little daughter, Catharine Jessy, April 9, 1850, between four
and five years old. Her illness was long and painful, and Mr. Gladstone
bore his part in the nursing and watching. He was tenderly fond of his
little children and the sorrow had therefore a peculiar bitterness. But
Mr. Gladstone has since had another sad experience of death entering the
family circle. July 4, 1891, the eldest son, William Henry Gladstone,
died. The effect upon the aged father was greatly feared, and the world
sympathized with the great statesman and father in his sad trial, and
with the afflicted family. In a letter dated July 9, the day after the
interment, Mr. Gladstone wrote:

"We, in our affliction are deeply sensible of the mercies of God. He
gave us for fifty years a most precious son. He has now only hidden him
for a very brief space from the sight of our eyes. It seems a violent
transition from such thoughts to the arena of political contention, but
the transition may be softened by the conviction we profoundly hold that
we, in the first and greatest of our present controversies, work for the
honor, well-being and future peace of our opponents not less than
for our own."

When away from the trammels of office, Mr. Gladstone taught his elder
children Italian. All the sons went to Eton and Oxford, and the
daughters were educated at home by English, French and German
governesses. A close union of affection and sentiment has always been a
marked characteristic of this model English family. Marriage and
domestic cares, however, made little difference in Mr. Gladstone's
mode of life. He was still the diligent student, the constant debater
and the copious writer that he had been at Eton, at Oxford and in
the Albany.

[Illustration: THE OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE BRITISH PREMIER, No. 10
DOWNING STREET, LONDON.]

In the early days of their married life, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone lived in
London with Lady Glynne, at 13 Carlton House Terrace. Later they lived
at 6 Carlton Gardens, which was made over to them by Sir John Gladstone;
then again at 13 Carlton House Terrace; and when Mr. Gladstone was in
office, at the official residence of the Prime Minister, Downing Street.
In 1850 Mr. Gladstone succeeded to his patrimony, and in 1856 he bought
11 Carlton House Terrace, which was his London house for twenty years;
and he subsequently lived for four years at 73 Harley Street. During the
parliamentary recess Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone divided their time between
Fasque, Sir John Gladstone's seat in Kincardineshire, and Hawarden
Castle, which they shared with Mrs. Gladstone's brother, Sir Stephen
Glynne, till in his death in 1874, when it passed into their sole
possession. In 1854 Mrs. Gladstone's brother added to the castle a new
wing, which he especially dedicated to his illustrious brother-in-law,
and which is fondly known as "The Gladstone Wing." And Mr. Gladstone,
having only one country house, probably spent as much time at Hawarden
as any other minister finds it possible to devote to residence out
of London.

Hawarden, usually pronounced Harden, is the name of a large market-town,
far removed from the centre and seat of trade and empire, in Flintshire,
North Wales, six miles southwest from the singular and ancient city of
Chester, of which it may be called a suburb. It is not pretty, but a
clean and tolerably well-built place, with some good houses and the
usual characteristics of a Welsh village. The public road from Chester
to Hawarden, which passes by the magnificent seat of the Duke of
Westminster, is not, except for this, interesting to the stranger. There
is a pedestrian route along the banks of the river Dee, over the lower
ferry and across the meadows. But for the most part the way lies along
dreary wastes, unadorned by any of the beautiful landscape scenery so
common in Wales. Broughton Hall, its pleasant church and quiet
churchyard, belonging to the Hawarden estate, are passed on the way. The
village lies at the foot of the Castle, and outside of the gates of
Hawarden Park. The parish contains 13,000 acres, and of these the estate
of Mr. Gladstone consists of nearly 7000. The road from the village for
the most part is dreary, but within the gates the park is as beautiful
as it is extensive. Richly wooded, on both sides of its fine drive are
charming vistas opening amongst the oaks, limes and elms. On the height
to the left of the drive is the ancient Hawarden Castle, for there are
two--the old and the new--the latter being the more modern home of the
proprietor.

[Illustration: THE PARK GATE, HAWARDEN.]

The ancient Castle of Hawarden, situated on an eminence commanding an
extensive prospect, is now in ruins. What, however, was left of the old
Castle at the beginning of the century stands to-day a monument of the
massive work of the early masons. The remnant, which ages of time and
the Parliamentary wars and the strange zeal of its first owner under
Cromwell for its destruction, allowed to remain, is in a marvelous state
of preservation, and the masonry in some places fifteen feet thick.
There is a grandeur in the ruin to be enjoyed, as well as a scene of
beauty from its towers. The old Castle, like the park itself, is open to
the public without restriction. Only two requests are made in the
interests of good order. One is that visitors entering the park kindly
keep to the gravel walks, while the other is that they do not inscribe
their names on the stone-work of the ancient ruin, which request has
been unheeded.

This ancient Castle was doubtless a stronghold of the Saxons in very
early times, for it was found in the possession of Edwin of Mercia at
the Norman Conquest, and was granted by William the Conqueror to his
nephew, Hugh Lupus. In later times Prince Llewelyn was Lord of Hawarden,
of which he was dispossessed by his brother, David. It was only after
Wales was conquered that Hawarden became an English stronghold, held
against the Welsh.

[Illustration: OLD HAWARDEN CASTLE.]

The Castle had its vicissitudes, both as to its condition and
proprietorship, for many years, even generations. Somewhere between 1267
and 1280 the Castle had been destroyed and rebuilt. It was rebuilt in
the time of Edward I or Edward II, and formed one link in the chain by
which the Edwards held the Welsh to their loyalty. Its name appears in
the doomsday-book, where it is spelled Haordine. It was presented by
King Edward to the House of Salisbury. Then the Earls of Derby came
into possession, and they entertained within its walls Henry VII in the
latter part of the fifteenth century. During the Parliamentary wars it
was held at first for the Parliament, and was taken by siege in 1643.
The royalists were in possession two years later, and at Christmas time,
in 1645, Parliament ordered that the Castle be dismantled, which was
effectively done. The latest proprietor of those times was James, Earl
of Derby. He was executed and the estates were sold. They were purchased
by Sergeant Glynne, Lord Chief Justice of England under Cromwell, from
whom in a long line of descent they were inherited, upon the death of
the last baronet, Sir Stephen Glynne, in 1874, by the wife of William E.
Gladstone. Sergeant Glynne's son, Sir William, the first baronet, when
he came into possession, was seized with the unaccountable notion of
further destroying the old Castle, and by the end of the seventeenth
century very little remained beyond what stands to-day.

[Illustration: A GLIMPSE OF THE CASTLE FROM THE PARK.]

Hawarden is supposed to be synonymous with the word Burg-Ardden, Ardin,
a fortified mound or hill. It is usually supposed to be an English word,
but of Welsh derivation, and is no doubt related to dinas, in Welsh the
exact equivalent to the Saxon _burg_. The Welsh still call it Penarlas,
a word the etymology of which points to a period when the lowlands of
Saltney were under water, and the Castle looked over a lake. The
earlier history of the Castle goes back to the time when it was held by
the ancient Britons, and stood firm against Saxon, Dane, or whatever
invading foe sought to deprive the people of their heritage in the
soil. On the invasion of William, as we have seen, it was in the
possession of Edwin, sovereign of Deira. "We find it afterwards," says
another account, "in the possession of Roger Fitzvalarine, a son of one
of the adventurers who came over with the Conqueror. Then it was held,
subordinately, by the Monthault, or Montalt, family, the stewards of the
palatinate of Chester. It is remarkable, as we noticed in our story of
Hughenden Manor, that as the traditions of that ancient place touched
the memory of Simon de Montfort, the great Earl of Leicester, so do they
also in the story of the old Castle of Hawarden. Here Llewelyn, the last
native prince of Wales, held a memorable conference with the Earl. With
in the walls of Hawarden was signed the treaty of peace between Wales
and Cheshire, not long to last; here Llewelyn saw the beautiful daughter
of De Montfort, whose memory haunted him so tenderly and so long. Again
we find the Castle in the possession of the Montalt family, from whom it
descended to the Stanleys, the Earl of Derby.... Here the last native
princes of Wales, Llewelyn and David, attempted to grasp their crumbling
sceptre, Here no doubt halted Edward I, 'girt with many a baron bold;'
here the Tudor prince, Henry VII, of Welsh birth, visited in the later
years of the fifteenth century; and this was the occasion upon which it
passed into the family whose representatives had proclaimed him monarch
on Bosworth field. But when James, Earl of Derby, was beheaded, after
the battle of Worcester, in 1651, the estate was purchased under the
Sequestration Act by Sergeant Glynne, whose portrait hangs over the
mantleshelf of the drawing-room; 'but,' says Mrs. Gladstone, in calling
our attention to it, 'he is an ancestor of whom we have no occasion to
be and are not proud.'"

This remark of Mrs. Gladstone's may be explained by the following from
the pen of a reputable author: "Sergeant Glynne, who flourished
(literally flourished) during the seventeenth century, was a most
unscrupulous man in those troubled times. He was at first a supporter of
Charles I, then got office and preferment under Cromwell, and yet again,
like a veritable Vicar of Bray, became a Royalist on the return of
Charles II. The Earl of Derby, who was taken prisoner at the battle of
Worcester, in 1661, was executed, and his estates forfeited. Of these
estates Sergeant Glynne managed to get possession of Hawarden; and
though on the Restoration all Royalists' forfeited estates were ordered
to be restored, Glynne managed somehow to remain in possession of the
property."

[Illustration: WATERFALL IN HAWARDEN PARK.]

It is very probable that Hawarden Castle was no exception to those cruel
haunts of feudal tyranny and oppression belonging to the days of its
power. Many years ago, when the rubbish was cleared away beneath the
Castle ruin, a flight of steps was found, at the foot of which was a
door, and a draw-bridge, which crossed a long, deep chasm, neatly faced
with freestone; then another door leading to several small rooms, all,
probably, places of confinement; and those hollows, now fringed with
timber trees, in those days constituted a broad, deep fosse.

The old Hawarden Castle, a curious ruin covered with moss and ivy, like
many other ancient piles of stone in historic England, is a reminder of
a past and warlike age, when an Englishman's home had to be a castle to
protect him and his family from his enemies. But times have changed for
the better, and long immunity from internal foes and invading armies has
had its peaceful effects upon the lands and the homes of men. As the
grounds of Hawarden show the remarkable cultivation produced by long
periods of peaceful toil, so the ancient castle has given way for the
modern dwelling, a peaceful abode whose only protecting wall is that
with which the law surrounds it.

Modern Hawarden Castle is a castle only in name. The new "Castle" has
been the home of the Glynns' for generations, and ever since the
marriage of Mr. Gladstone and Miss Glynn has been the dwelling of the
Gladstones. Mr. Gladstone has greatly improved the Hawarden estate and
the castle has not been overlooked. Among the improvements to the castle
may be named the additions to the library and the Golden Wedding Porch.

The new Castle was begun in 1752, by Sir John Glynne, who "created a
stout, honest, square, red-brick mansion;" which was added to and
altered in the Gothic style in 1814. The Glynnes lived in Oxfordshire
till early in the eighteenth century, when they built themselves a small
house, which was on the site of the present Castle. The new Hawarden
Castle stands in front of the massive ruin of the old Castle, which has
looked down on the surrounding country for six centuries. A recent
writer speaking of the new structure as a sham Castle, with its plaster
and stucco, and imitation turrets, says: "It would not have been
surprising if the old Castle had, after the manner of Jewish chivalry,
torn its hair of thickly entwined ivy, rent its garments of moss and
lichen, and fallen down prostrate, determined forever to shut out the
sight of the modern monstrosity."

However, the author somewhat relents and thus describes the modern
edifice:

"The aspect of the house is very impressive and imposing, as it first
suddenly seems to start upon the view after a long carriage-drive
through the noble trees, if not immediately near, but breaking and
brightening the view on either hand; yet, within and without, the house
seems like its mighty master--not pensive but rural; it does not even
breathe the spirit of quiet. Its rooms look active and power-compelling,
and we could not but feel that they were not indebted to any of the
aesthetic inventions and elegancies of furniture for their charm. Thus
we have heard of one visitor pathetically exclaiming, 'Not one _dado_
adorns the walls!' Hawarden is called a Castle, but it has not, either
in its exterior or interior, the aspect of a Castle. It is a home; it
has a noble appearance as it rises on the elevated ground, near the old
feudal ruin which it has superseded, and looks over the grand and
forest-like park, the grand pieces of broken ground, dells and hollows,
and charming woodlands."

[Illustration: COURT YARD, HAWARDEN CASTLE.]

The traditional history of Hawarden Church, as well as that of the
Castle, travels back to a very remote antiquity, and is the central
point of interest to many a tragedy, and some of a very grotesque
character. For instance, for many ages the inhabitants of Hawarden were
called "Harden Jews," and for this designation we have the following
legendary account. In the year 946, during the reign of Cynan ap Elisap
Anarawd, King of Gwynedd North, there was a Christian temple at Harden,
and a rood-loft, in which was placed an image of the Virgin Mary, with a
very large cross in her hands, which was called "holy rood." During a
very hot and dry summer the inhabitants prayed much and ardently for
rain, but without any effect. Among the rest, Lady Trowst, wife of
Sytsyllt, governor of Harden Castle, went also to pray, when, during
this exercise, the holy rood fell upon her head and killed her. Such
behavior upon the part of this wooden Virgin could be tolerated no
longer. A great tumult ensued in consequence, and it was concluded to
try the said Virgin for murder, and the jury not only found her guilty
of wilful murder, but of inattention in not answering the prayers of
innumerable petitioners. The sentence was hanging, but Span, of Mancot,
who was one of the jury, opposed this act saying it was best to drown,
since it was rain they prayed for. This was fiercely opposed by Corbin,
of the gate, who advised that she should be laid on the sands by the
river. So, this being done, the tide carried the lady, floating gently,
like another lady, Elaine, upon its soft bosom, and placed her near the
walls of Caerleon (now Chester), where she was found next day, says the
legend, drowned and dead. Here the inhabitants of Caerleon buried her.
Upon this occasion, it is said, the river, which had until then been
called the Usk, was changed to Rood Die, or Rood Dee. We need not stay
here to analyze some things belonging to locality and etymology, which
appear to us somewhat anachronistic and contradictory in this ancient
and queer legend.

Hawarden Church is a fairly large structure, externally a plain old
brick building with a low tower and a dwarf spire, standing in the midst
of a large population of graves. There is preserved in the annals of
the Church a list of the rectors of Hawarden as far back as 1180.

About forty years ago a fire broke out in the Church, and when all was
over, very little was left of the original structure except the walls.
It was restored with great expedition, and was re-opened within the same
year. The present building is a restoration to the memory of the
immediate ancestor, from whom the estate is derived by the present
family. It is the centre of hard, earnest work, done for an
exceptionally large parish. But the Church population is occasionally
recruited from all the ends of the earth.

It is here that the Gladstone family worship on the plain, uncushioned
pew, near the lectern and opposite the pulpit. When the estates came
into the hands of the Glynnes the living was bestowed upon a member of
the family. The Rector is Rev. Stephen Gladstone, second son of the
Premier. He is not a great preacher, but he is quietly earnest and
instructive. Mr. Gladstone was up early on Sunday mornings and seldom
failed to be in his pew at Church. Crowds filled the Church Sunday,
morning and evening, week after week, many of them strangers, to see the
Prime Minister of England, and behold him leave his pew and, standing at
the reading-desk, go through his part of the service--that of reading
the lessons for the day, in this obscure village Church. After church
Mr. Gladstone went to the rectory with his family, with his cloak only
over his shoulders, when the weather required, and as he walked along
the path through the churchyard would bow to the crowds that stood on
either side uncovered to greet him as he passed by. The two brothers,
until recently, lived at the rectory, and the whole family seemed to
live in the most beautiful harmony together.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone attribute much of his health to the fact
that he will have his Sabbath to himself and his family, undisturbed by
any of the agitations of business, the cares of State, or even the
recreations of literature and scholastic study. This profound public
regard for the day of rest, whether in London or at Hawarden, awakens a
feeling of admiration and puts us in mind of his great predecessor in
statesmanship, Cecil, Lord Burleigh, who, when he arrived at Theobalds
on a Saturday evening would throw off his cloak or chain of office and
exclaim, "Lie there and rest, my good lord treasurer."

[Illustration: THE REV. H. DREW, WARDEN OF ST. DENIOL'S.]

One of the main points of interest at the home of Mr. Gladstone is the
library. There is not a room in Hawarden Castle in which there is not an
abundance of books, which are not all collected in the library, but
distributed all over the house. Where other people have cabinets for
curiosities, china, etc., there are here shelves and cases full of
books. In ante-room and bed-room dressing-room and nursery they are
found, not by single volumes, but in serried ranks; well-known and
useful books. But it is in the library where Mr. Gladstone has collected
by years of careful selection, a most valuable and large array of
books, from all parts of the world, upon every subject. These books are
classified and so arranged as to be of immediate use. All those on one
particular subject are grouped together.

[Illustration: DOROTHY'S DOVECOTE]

Mr. Gladstone was a familiar figure in the book stores, and especially
where rare, old books were to be found, and he seldom failed to return
home with some book in his pocket. Mrs. Gladstone is said to have gone
through his pockets often upon his return home, and sent back many a
volume to the book-seller, that had found its way to the pocket of her
husband, after a hasty glance at its title. He kept himself informed of
all that was going on in the literary, scientific and artistic worlds,
receiving each week a parcel of the newest books for his private
readings. Every day he looked over several book-sellers's catalogues,
and certain subjects were sure of getting an order.

Hawarden library gave every evidence of being for use, and not show. Mr.
Gladstone knew what books he had and was familiar with their contents.
Some books were in frequent use, but others were not forgotten. He could
put his hand on any one he wanted to refer to. At the end of a volume
read he would construct an index of his own by which he could find
passages to which he wished to refer.

There are few stories that Mr. Gladstone told with greater relish than
one concerning Sir Antonio Panizzi, who many years ago visited the
library at Hawarden. Looking round the room and at its closely packed
shelves, he observed in a patronizing tone, "I see you have got some
books here." Nettled at this seemingly slighting allusion to the paucity
of his library, Mr. Gladstone asked Panizzi how many volumes he thought
were on the shelves. Panizzi replied: "From five to six thousand." Then
a loud and exulting laugh rang round the room as Mr. Gladstone answered:
"You are wrong by at least two thousand, as there are eight thousand
volumes and more before you now." Since then the library has
grown rapidly.

[Illustration: DINING ROOM IN THE ORPHANAGE, HAWARDEN.]

The fate of this large library was naturally a matter of much
consideration to Mr. Gladstone. It was particularly rich in classical
and theological works, so it occured to its owner to form a public
library under a trusteeship, for the benefit of students, under the care
of the Rector of Hawarden, or some other clergyman. So he caused to be
erected at a cost to him of about $5,000, a corrugated iron building on
a knoll just outside Hawarden Church. The name of this parish library is
"The St. Deiniol's Theological and General Library of Hawarden." In
1891, Mr. Gladstone had deposited about 20,000 volumes upon the shelves
in this new building, with his own hands, which books were carried in
hand-carts from the castle. Since that time thousands have been added to
this valuable collection.

[Illustration: STAIRCASE IN THE ORPHANAGE, HAWARDEN.]

It was a happy thought of Mr. Gladstone to found a theological library
in the immediate vicinity of Hawarden; also to have connected with it a
hostel where students could be boarded and lodged for six dollars a week
and thus be enabled to use the library in the pursuit of their studies.
Mr. Gladstone has endowed the institution with $150,000. Rev. H. Drew,
the son-in-law of Mr. Gladstone, is warden and librarian.

[Illustration: HAWARDEN CHURCH.]




CHAPTER VI


ENTERS THE CABINET

We come now to another memorable period in the life of William E.
Gladstone. This period, beginning with 1840, has been styled "a
memorable decade" in the history of Parliament. His marriage and the
publication of his first book were great events in his eventful life,
but the young and brilliant statesman was soon to enter the British
Cabinet. He was before long to demonstrate that he not only possessed
the arts of the fluent and vigorous Parliamentary debater, but the more
solid qualities pertaining to the practical statesman and financier. In
following his course we will be led to observe the early stages of his
changing opinions on great questions of State, and to trace the causes
which led to his present advanced views as well as to his exalted
position. The estimation in which he was then held may be indicated by
the following, from one of his contemporaries, Sir Stafford Northcote,
afterwards Lord Iddesleigh, and who subsequently succeeded him as
leader of the House of Commons: "There is but one statesman of the
present day in whom I feel entire confidence, and with whom I cordially
agree, and that statesman is Mr. Gladstone. I look upon him as the
representative of the party, scarcely developed as yet, though secretly
forming and strengthening, which will stand by all that is dear and
sacred in my estimation, in the struggle which I believe will come ere
_very_ long between good and evil, order and disorder, the Church and
the world, and I see a very small band collecting round him, and ready
to fight manfully under his leading."

In 1840 Mr. Gladstone crossed swords with the distinguished historian
and Parliamentary debater, Lord Macaulay, in debate in the House of
Commons on the relations of England with China. The speech of Mr.
Gladstone was remarkable for its eloquent expression of anxiety that the
arms of England should never be employed in unrighteous enterprises. Sir
James Graham moved a vote of censure of the ministry for "want of
foresight and precaution," and "especially their neglect to furnish the
superintendent at Canton with powers and instructions calculated to
provide against the growing evils connected with the contraband traffic
in opium, and adapted to the novel and difficult situation in which the
superintendent was placed." Mr. Gladstone, on the 8th of April, spoke
strongly in favor of the motion, and said if it failed to involve the
ministry in condemnation they would still be called upon to show cause
for their intention of making war upon China. Answering the speech of
Lord Macaulay of the previous evening, Mr. Gladstone said: "The right
honorable gentleman opposite spoke last night in eloquent terms of the
British flag waving in glory at Canton, and of the animating effects
produced on the minds of our sailors by the knowledge that in no country
under heaven was it permitted to be insulted. But how comes it to pass
that the sight of that flag always raises the spirit of Englishmen? It
is because it has always been associated with the cause of justice, with
opposition to oppression, with respect to national rights, with
honorable commercial enterprises; but now, under the auspices of the
noble lord, that flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband
traffic, and if it were never to be hoisted except as it is now hoisted
on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror, and
should never again feel our hearts thrill, as they now thrill with
emotion, when it floats proudly and magnificently on the breeze." The
ministry escaped censure when the vote was taken by a bare majority.

In the summer of 1840 Mr. Gladstone, accompanied by Lord Lyttleton, went
to Eton to examine candidates of the Newcastle Scholarship, founded by
his political friend, the Duke of Newcastle. Mr. Gladstone had the
pleasure in this examination of awarding the Newcastle medal to Henry
Fitzmaurice Hallam, the youngest brother of his own beloved friend and
son of the historian Hallam. One of the scholars he examined writes: "I
have a vivid and delightful impression of Mr. Gladstone sitting in what
was then called the library, on an _estrade_ on which the head master
habitually sate, above which was placed, about 1840, the bust of the
Duke of Newcastle and the names of the Newcastle scholars.... When he
gave me a Virgil and asked me to translate Georg. ii, 475, _seq_., I was
pleasantly surprised by the beautiful eye turning on me with the
question, 'What is the meaning of _sacra fero_?' and his look of
approval when I said, 'Carry the sacred vessels in the procession.'"

"I wish you to understand that Mr. Gladstone appeared not to me only,
but to others, as a gentleman wholly unlike other examiners or school
people. It was not as _a politician_ that we admired him, but as a
refined Churchman, deep also in political philosophy (so we conjectured
from his quoting Burke on the Continual State retaining its identity
though made up of passing individuals), deep also in lofty poetry, as we
guessed from his giving us, as a theme for original Latin verse, 'the
poet's eye in a fine frenzy,' etc. When he spoke to us in 'Pop' as an
honorary member, we were charmed and affected emotionally: his voice was
low and sweet, his manner was that of an elder cousin: he seemed to
treat us with unaffected respect; and to be treated with respect by a
man is the greatest delight for a boy. It was the golden time of
'retrograding transcendentalism,' as the hard-heads called the
Anglo-Catholic symphony. He seemed to me then an apostle of unworldly
ardor, bridling his life."

The Whig administration, which for some time had been growing very
unpopular, was defeated and went out of power in 1841. From the very
beginning of the session their overthrow was imminent. Among the causes
which rendered the ministry obnoxious to the country, and led to their
downfall, may be named the disappointment of both their dissenting
English supporters and Irish allies; their financial policy had proved a
complete failure and dissatisfied the nation; and the deficit in the
revenue this year amounted to no less a sum than two millions and a half
pounds. Every effort to remedy the financial difficulties offered by the
ministry to the House was rejected, Hence it was felt on all sides that
the government of the country must be committed to stronger hands.
Accordingly, in May, Sir Robert Peel proposed a resolution in the House
of Commons to the effect that the ministry did not possess sufficiently
the confidence of the House to carry through measures deemed essential
for the public welfare; and that their continuance in office was, under
the circumstances, at variance with the Constitution, For five days this
resolution was discussed, but Mr. Gladstone took no part in the debate.
The motion of Sir Robert Peel passed by a majority vote of one, and on
the 7th of June Lord John Russell announced that the ministry would at
once dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country. Parliament was
prorogued by the Queen in person June 22d, and the country was soon in
the turmoil of a general election. By the end of July it was found that
the ministry had been defeated and with greater loss than the Tories
even had expected. The Tories had a great majority of the new members
returned. The Liberal seats gained by the Tories were seventy-eight,
while the Tory seats gained by Liberals were only thirty-eight, thus
making a Tory majority of eighty. Mr. Gladstone was again elected at
Newark, and was at the head of the poll; with Lord John Manners,
afterwards Duke of Rutland, as his colleague.

The new Parliament met in August, and the ministers were defeated, in
both Houses, on the Address and resigned. Sir Robert Peel was called
upon by the Queen to form a new ministry, and Mr. Gladstone was
included by his leader in the administration. In appearing on the
hustings at Newark Mr. Gladstone said that there were two points upon
which the British farmer might rely--the first being that adequate
protection would be given him, and, second, that protection would be
given him through the means of the sliding scale. The duties were to be
reduced and the system improved, but the principle was to be maintained.
"There was no English statesman who could foresee at this period the
results of that extraordinary agitation which, in the course of the next
five years, was destined to secure the abrogation of the Corn Laws."

There is a tradition that, having already conceived a lively interest in
the ecclesiastical and agrarian problems of Ireland, Mr. Gladstone had
set his affections on the Chief Secretaryship. But Sir Robert Peel, a
consummate judge of administrative capacity, had discerned his young
friend's financial aptitude, and the member for Newark became
vice-president of the Board of Trade and master of the Mint.

Although in the midst of engrossing cares of office as vice-president of
the Board of Trade, yet Mr. Gladstone found time to renew his old
interest in ecclesiastical concerns. In the fall of 1841 an English
Episcopal Bishopric was established at Jerusalem, Mr. Gladstone dined
with Baron Bunsen on the birthday of the King of Prussia, when, as
reported by Lord Shaftesbury, he "stripped himself of a part of his
Puseyite garments, spoke like a pious man, rejoiced in the bishopric of
Jerusalem, and proposed the health of Alexander, the new Bishop of that
see. This is delightful, for he is a good man, a clever man and an
industrious man." And Baron Bunsen, speaking of the same occasion, said,
"Never was heard a more exquisite speech, It flowed like a gentle,
translucent stream. We drove back to town in the clearest starlight;
Gladstone continuing with unabated animation to pour forth his
harmonious thoughts in melodious tone." And Mr. Gladstone himself writes
later; "Amidst public business, quite sufficient for a man of my
compass, I have, during the whole of the week, perforce, been carrying
on with the Bishop of London and with Bunsen a correspondence on, and
inquisition into, the Jerusalem design, until I almost reel and stagger
under it."

And still later he writes: "I am ready individually to brave
misconstruction for the sake of union with any Christian men, provided
the terms of the union be not contrary to sound principle; and perhaps
in this respect might go further, at least in one of the possible
directions, than you. But to declare the living constitution of a
Christian Church to be of secondary moment is of course in my view
equivalent to a denial of a portion of the faith--and I think you will
say it is a construction which can not fairly be put upon the design,
as far as it exists in fixed rules and articles. It is one thing to
attribute this in the way of unfavorable surmise, or as an apprehension
of ultimate developments--it is another to publish it to the world as a
character ostentatiously assumed."

We have evidence also that at this time he was not permitted to forget
that he was an author, for he thus writes, April 6, 1842, to his
publisher: "Amidst the pressure of more urgent affairs, I have held no
consultation with you regarding my books and the sale or no sale of
them. As to the third edition of the 'State in its Relations,' I should
think that the remaining copies had better be got rid of in whatever
summary or ignominious mode you may deem best. They must be dead beyond
recall. As to the others, I do not know whether the season of the year
has at all revived the demand; and would suggest to you whether it would
be well to advertise them a little. I do not think they find their way
much into the second-hand shops. With regard to the fourth edition, I do
not know whether it would be well to procure any review or notice of it,
and I am not a fair judge of its merits, even in comparison with the
original form of the work; but my idea is that it is less defective,
both in the theoretical and in the historical development, and ought to
be worth the notice of those who deemed the earlier editions worth
their notice and purchase; that it would really put a reader in
possession of the view it was intended to convey, which I fear is more
than can with any truth be said of its predecessors. I am not, however,
in any state of anxiety or impatience; and I am chiefly moved to refer
these suggestions to your judgment from perceiving that the fourth
edition is as yet far from having cleared itself."

It was from this time that a marked change was observable in the
subjects of Mr. Gladstone's Parliamentary addresses. "Instead of
speaking on the corporate conscience of the State and the endowments of
the Church, the importance of Christian education and the theological
unfitness of the Jews to sit in Parliament, he was solving business-like
problems about foreign tariffs and the exportation of machinery; waxing
eloquent over the regulation of railways and a graduated tax on corn;
subtle on the momentary merits of half-farthings and great in the
mysterious lore of quassia and cocculus indicus."

In the short session of Parliament, in 1841, that which followed the
accession of Sir Robert Peel to the office of Prime Minister, he was
questioned by his opponents as to his future policy. The Premier
declined to state the nature of the measures he intended to present, or
which he contemplated making, in the intervening months of the recess
of Parliament so near at hand. He wanted time for the arrangement of his
plans and the construction of his political programme. An effort was
made to embarrass the administration by refusing to vote the necessary
supplies, until inquiry should be made into the existing distress, but
it was defeated. Three weeks later Parliament was dissolved by Royal
commission. In the following sitting of Parliament several measures of
high practical character were presented.

Sir Robert Peel acceded to office in very critical times. The condition
of the country was truly lamentable. Distress and discontent were
widespread and the difficulties of the government were greatly enhanced
by popular tumults. The Free Trade agitation was already making great
headway in the land, and when the Premier brought forward his new
sliding scale of duties in the House of Commons it was denounced by Mr.
Cobden as an insult to a suffering people. The Premier said that he
considered the present not an unfavorable time for discussing the corn
laws; that there was no great stock on hand of foreign growth to alarm
the farmers; that the recess had been marked by universal calm; that
there was no popular violence to interrupt legislation; and that there
was a disposition to view any proposal for the adjustment of the
question with calmness and moderation.

The Premier's view of the situation did not seem to be wholly in accord
with the well-known facts, for the Queen even, on her appearance at the
London theatres, had been hooted, and the Prime Minister himself was
burnt in effigy during a riot at Northampton; great excitement prevailed
throughout the country, and Lord John Russell moved as an amendment
"That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the
present corn laws and especially by the fluctuation of the graduated or
sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's
government, which is founded on the same principles and is likely to be
attended by similar results."

It was incumbent upon Mr. Gladstone to lead the opposition to this
motion. He showed that the proposed plan was not founded on the same
principle of the existing one, except that both involved a sliding
scale; that the present distress was caused by fluctuation of the
seasons and not by the laws; that high prices of food were chargeable to
successive failures of the crops; that these unavoidable fluctuations
were not aggravated by the corn laws; that Sir Robert Peel's plan of
working was far superior to that of Lord John Russell; that the drains
upon the currency, caused by bad harvests, were not to be prevented by a
fixed duty; that a uniform protection could not be given to corn, as to
other articles, because at high prices of corn no duty could be
maintained, and that, therefore, at low prices, it was but just to give
a duty which would be an effectual protection. The debate which followed
was characterized by vigorous speeches from Mr. Roebuck and Lord
Palmerston. Lord John Russell's amendment was lost by a large majority.
A motion presented by Mr. Villiers, the Free Trade advocate, for the
immediate repeal of the corn laws was also lost by a majority of over
three hundred.

On the 11th of March Sir Robert Peel introduced his budget. The budget
for 1842 was produced under depressing circumstances. There was a
deficit of £2,750,000, or about $15,000,000, and taxation upon articles
of consumption had been pushed to its utmost limit. Peel was a great
financier, but the fiscal difficulties by which he was now surrounded
were enough to appall the most ingenious of financial ministers.

Mr. Gladstone rendered the Premier invaluable service in the preparation
both of his budget and of his tariff scheme. The merit of the budget was
its taxation of wealth and the relief of the manufacturing industry. The
second branch of the financial plan, the revised tariff--a customs
duties scheme--was very important, and it was understood to be mainly
the work of Mr. Gladstone. Out of nearly 1200 duty-paying articles, a
total abolition, or a considerable reduction, was made in no fewer than
750. This was certainly a great step towards the freedom of
manufacturers, Sir Robert Peel's boast that he had endeavored to relieve
manufacturing industries was more than justified by this great and
comprehensive measure. The very best means for relieving the
manufacturing industries had been devised.

But while this great relief to industry was welcomed the Opposition did
not relax their efforts for the abolition of the corn laws, which were
continued into the session of 1843. Sir Robert Peel acknowledged, amidst
loud cheers from the Opposition, that all were agreed in the general
rule that we should purchase in the cheapest market and sell in the
dearest; but he added, "If I propose a greater change in the corn laws
than that which I submit to the consideration of the House I should only
aggravate the distress of the country, and only increase the alarm which
prevails among important interests." Mr. Hume hailed with joy the
appearance of the Premier and his colleagues as converts to the
principles of Free Trade; Mr. Gladstone replied, that, whoever were the
authors of the principles on which the government measures rested, he
must protest against the statement that the ministry came forward as
converts to principles which they had formerly opposed.

During the progress of the debate of 1842, on the revised Tariff Bill,
Mr. Gladstone's labors were very great. He was called upon to explain or
defend the details of the scheme, and had something to say about every
article of consumption included in, or excluded from, the list. He spoke
one hundred and twenty-nine times, chiefly on themes connected with the
new fiscal legislature. He demonstrated his capacity for grasping all
the most complicated details of finance, and also the power of
comprehending the scope and necessities of the commercial interests of
the country. No measure with which his name has since been connected has
done him more credit. He spoke incessantly, and amazed the House by his
mastery of details, his intimate acquaintance with the commercial needs
of the country, and his inexhaustible power of exposition. On March 14th
Greville wrote, "Gladstone has already displayed a capacity which makes
his admission into the Cabinet indispensable." A commercial minister had
appeared on the scene, and the shade of Hoskisson had revived.

Though engrossed in schemes of practical legislation, and in all the
excitements and interests of office, he could, as he has ever done
during his long career, turn aside for the discourse on social and
educational questions with much earnestness and eloquence, as if they,
and only they, possessed his mind. In January, 1843, he spoke at the
opening of the Collegiate Institute of Liverpool, and delivered a
powerful plea for the better education of the middle classes, which was
one of the most forcible speeches he ever delivered. He said:

"We believe that if you could erect a system which should present to
mankind all branches of knowledge save the one that is essential, you
would only be building up a Tower of Babel, which, when you had
completed it, would be the more signal in its fall, and which would bury
those who had raised it in its ruins. We believe that if you can take a
human being in his youth, and if you can make him an accomplished man in
natural philosophy, in mathematics, or in the knowledge necessary for
the profession of a merchant, a lawyer, or a physician; that if in any
or all of these endowments you could form his mind--yes, if you could
endow him with the science and power of a Newton, and so send him
forth--and if you had concealed from him, or, rather, had not given him
a knowledge and love of the Christian faith--he would go forth into the
world, able indeed with reference to those purposes of science,
successful with the accumulation of wealth for the multiplication of
more, but 'poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked' with reference to
everything that constitutes the true and sovereign purposes of our
existence--nay, worse, worse--with respect to the sovereign purpose--
than if he had still remained in the ignorance which we all commiserate,
and which it is the object of this institution to assist in removing."

It was admitted on all hands that great fiscal reforms had been
conceived and executed; and speaking of the session of 1842, a writer,
not favorable to the Tories, wrote: "The nation saw and felt that its
business was understood and accomplished, and the House of Commons was
no longer like a sleeper under a nightmare. The long session was a busy
one. The Queen wore a cheerful air when she thanked Parliament for their
effectual labors. The Opposition was such as could no longer impede the
operations of the next session. The condition of the country was fearful
enough, but something was done for its future improvement, and the way
was now shown to be open for further beneficent legislation."

The corn law reformers renewed their efforts, led by Lord Howick, as
soon as the parliamentary session of 1843 opened. An inquiry by the
whole House was demanded into the causes of the long continued
manufacturing depression referred to in the Queen's speech. Mr.
Gladstone replied that while the Opposition proposed to repeal the corn
laws, they offered no measure of relief in their place. The corn laws
were at the root of the distress in the country, but the difficulty was
to unite the ranks of the Opposition in opinion as to what ought to
follow the repeal of the corn laws. The question between the government
and the Opposition was not really so great as the latter wished to make
out. It was simply as to the amount of relaxation the country could bear
in the duties. It was the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to
attain his object "by increasing the employment of the people, by
cheapening the prices of the articles of consumption, as also the
articles of industry, by encouraging the means of exchange with foreign
nations, and thereby encouraging in return an extension of the export
trade; but besides all this, if he understood the measure of the
government last year, it was proposed that the relaxation should be
practically so limited as to cause no violent shock to existing
interests, such as would have the tendency of displacing that labor
which should be employed, and which, if displaced, would be unable to
find another field." The measure of the previous year had nothing but a
beneficial effect, but the repeal of the corn laws would displace a vast
mass of labor. Lord Howick's motion was defeated and so were others
offered by Mr. Villiers and Lord John Russell, by diminishing
majorities, and Mr. Gladstone protested against the constant renewal of
uneasiness in the country by successive motions of this kind in
Parliament.

The year 1843 was one destined to witness a great advance in Mr.
Gladstone's progress towards the front rank among statesmen. June 10th,
Lord Ripon, who was President of the Board of Trade, left this place for
the Board of Control, and Mr. Gladstone was appointed to the position,
and thus became a member of the Cabinet at the age of thirty-three Mr.
Gladstone now became in name what he had been already in fact--the
President of the Board of Trade. He states that "the very first opinion
which he was ever called upon to give in Cabinet" was an opinion in
favor of withdrawing the bill providing education for children in
factories; to which vehement opposition was offered by the Dissenters,
on the ground that it was too favorable to the Established Church. It
seemed that his position was assured and yet in October he wrote to a
friend: "Uneasy, in my opinion, must be the position of every member of
Parliament who thinks independently in these times, or in any that are
likely to succeed them; and in proportion as a man's course of thought
deviates from the ordinary lines his seat must less and less resemble a
bed of roses." Mr. Gladstone possibly felt when he penned these lines
that the time was at hand when his convictions would force him to take a
position that would array against him some of his most ardent friends.

During the session of 1844 Mr. Gladstone addressed the House on a
variety of subjects, including rail ways, the law of partnership, the
agricultural interest, the abolition of the corn laws, the Dissenters'
Chapel Bill and the sugar duties. One very valuable bill he had carried
was a measure for the abolition of restrictions on the exportation of
machinery. Another was the railway bill, to improve the railway system,
by which the Board of Trade had conditional power to purchase railways
which had not adopted a revised scale of tolls. The bill also
compulsorily provided for at least one third-class train per week-day
upon every line of railway, to charge but one penny a mile, regulated
the speed of traveling, compelled such trains to stop at every station,
and arranged for the carrying of children under three years of age for
nothing and those under twelve at reduced fares. This measure, conceived
so distinctly in the interests of the poorer classes, met with
considerable opposition at first from the various railway companies, but
it was ultimately passed into law. These were measures passed in the
spirit of reform, though by a Conservative government.

There was another matter legislated upon which shows how Mr. Gladstone's
mind was undergoing changes in the direction of religious toleration.
Lady Hewley had originally founded and given to Calvinistic Independents
certain charities which had gradually passed to Unitarians, who were
ousted from their benefits. A bill was proposed to vest property left to
Dissenting bodies in the hands of that religions body with whom it had
remained for the preceding twenty years. The measure was passed, but
when it was discussed in the House of Commons Mr. Gladstone said that it
was a bill which it was incumbent upon the House to endorse; that there
was no contrariety between his principles of religious belief and those
on which legislation in this case ought to proceed; that there was a
great question of justice, viz., whether those who were called
Presbyterian Dissenters, and who were a century and a half ago of
Trinitarian opinions, ought not to be protected at the present moment in
possession of the chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of
those chapels? On the question of substantial justice he pronounced the
strongest affirmative opinion. "After this speech there were those who
thought, and expressed their hope and belief in words, that the
'champion of Free Trade' would ere long become the advocate of the most
unrestricted liberty in matters of religion. Their hope, if sanguine as
to its immediate fulfillment, was far from groundless."

However, in December of the same year Mr. Gladstone wrote to his friend
Archdeacon, afterwards Bishop Wilberforce, about the prospects of the
Church of England: "I rejoice to see that your views on the whole are
hopeful. For my part I heartily go along with you. The fabric
consolidates itself more and more, even while the earthquake rocks it;
for, with a thousand drawbacks and deductions, love grows larger, zeal
warmer, truth firmer among us. It makes the mind sad to speculate upon
the question how much better all might have been; but our mourning
should be turned into joy and thankfulness when we think also how much
worse it _was_."

The next event in the life of Mr. Gladstone is marked by a momentous
change in his political position. Scarcely had Parliament met in
January, 1845, when it was announced to the astonishment of everyone
that Mr. Gladstone had resigned his place as President of the Board of
Trade in the Cabinet. He set a good deal of speculation at rest by the
announcement made in his speech on the address of the Queen, that his
resignation was due solely to the government intentions with regard to
Maynooth College. Before, however, he had resigned, Mr. Gladstone had
completed a second and revised tariff, carrying further the principles
of the revision of 1842.

In the session of 1844 Sir Robert Peel, in response to the requests of
Irish members, had promised that the Government would take up the
question of academical education in Ireland, with the view of bringing
it more nearly to the standard of England and Scotland, increasing its
amount and improving its quality. In fulfillment of this pledge the
government, at the beginning of the session of 1845, proposed to
establish non-sectarian colleges in Ireland, and to increase the
appropriation to Maynooth. The College of Maynooth, which was
established for the education of Roman Catholic priests and laymen, had
fallen into poverty and decay. In order to gratify the Irish, the
government offered to increase the grant already made from $45,000 to
$150,000 a year. This appropriation was not to be subject to any annual
vote, and the affairs of the College were to be executed by the Board of
Works. These proposals placed Mr. Gladstone in a position of great
difficulty. He must either support Sir Robert Peel's measure, or retire
from the Cabinet into isolation, if not subject to the imputation of
eccentricity. He took council with his friends, Archdeacon Manning and
Mr. Hope, who advised him to remain, and with Lord Stanley who warned
him that his resignation must be followed by resistance of the proposals
of the government, which would involve him in a storm of religious
agitation. But Mr. Gladstone persisted in his intention, in what seemed
like giving up his brilliant prospects, but said it would not
necessarily be followed by resistance to the proposal about Maynooth.

Mr. Gladstone said that the proposed increase in the Maynooth endowment
and the establishment of non-sectarian colleges were at variance with
views he had written and uttered upon the relations of the Church and
State. "I am sensible how fallible my judgment is," said Mr. Gladstone,
"and how easily I might have erred; but still it has been my conviction
that although I was not to fetter my judgment as a member of Parliament
by a reference to abstract theories, yet, on the other hand, it was
absolutely due to the public and due to myself that I should, so far as
in me lay, place myself in a position to form an opinion upon a matter
of so great importance, that should not only be actually free from all
bias or leaning with respect to any consideration whatsoever, but an
opinion that should be unsuspected. On that account I have taken a
course most painful to myself in respect to personal feelings, and have
separated myself from men with whom and under whom I have long acted in
public life, and of whom I am bound to say, although I have now no
longer the honor of serving my most gracious Sovereign, that I continue
to regard them with unaltered sentiments both of public regard and
private attachment."

Then again he said: "My whole purpose was to place myself in a position
in which I should be free to consider any course without being liable
to any just suspicion on the ground of personal interest. It is not
profane if I now say, '_with a great price obtained I this freedom_.'
The political association in which I stood was to me at the time the
_alpha_ and _omega_ of public life. The government of Sir Robert Peel
was believed to be of immovable strength. My place, as President of the
Board of Trade, was at the very kernel of its most interesting
operations; for it was in progress from year to year, with continually
waxing courage, towards the emancipation of industry, and therein
towards the accomplishment of another great and blessed work of public
justice. Giving up what I highly prized, aware that

                            male sarta
     Gratia nequicquam coit, et rescinditur.

I felt myself open to the charge of being opinionated and wanting in
deference to really great authorities, and I could not but know that I
should inevitably be regarded as fastidious and fanciful, fitter for a
dreamer, or possibly a schoolman, than for the active purposes of public
life in a busy and moving age."

There were some of his party angry and others who thought that there was
something almost Quixotic in Mr. Gladstone's honorable resignation,
because so soon as he felt himself free he gave his support to the
Maynooth Bill and also to the scheme for the extension of academical
education in Ireland, which latter was described by Sir R. Inglis as a
"gigantic scheme of godless education." In Greville's "Memoirs" we find:
"Gladstone's explanation is ludicrous. Everybody said that he had only
succeeded in showing that his resignation was unnecessary. He was
criticised as the possessor of a kind of supernatural virtue that could
scarcely be popular with the slaves of party, and he was considered
whimsical, fantastic, impracticable, a man whose 'conscience was so
tender that he could not go straight,' a visionary not to be relied
on--in fact, a character and intellect useless to the political
manager." "I am greatly alarmed at Gladstone's resignation. I fear it
foretells measures opposed to the Church truth," wrote Wilberforce; and
Peel told Gladstone beforehand that his reasons for his resignation
would be considered insufficient. But Mr. Gladstone's resignation, when
understood, elicited the liveliest expressions of regret from friend and
foe, as well as the most flattering testimonies as to his ability and
character. His chief, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord John Russell, the leader
of the Opposition, were alike complimentary in their remarks.

Dr. Russell, the biographer of Mr. Gladstone, says: "Mr. Gladstone's
retirement, by impairing his reputation for common sense, threatened
serious and lasting injury to his political career, But the whirligig
of time brought its revenges even more swiftly than usual. A conjunction
of events arose in which he was destined to repair the mischief which
the speculative side had wrought; but for the moment the speculative
side was uppermost."

Mr. Gladstone was fast leaving his Toryism behind. To show how far his
views had changed in the course of seven years, it may be said that in
his speech on these measures he observed how that exclusive support to
the Established Church was a doctrine that was being more and more
abandoned. Mr. Burke considered it contrary to wise policy to give
exclusive privileges to a negative creed like that of Protestantism.
They could not prove their religious scruples for denying this grant to
Roman Catholics, because they gave their votes of money to almost every
Dissenting seat. He hoped the concession now made--which was a great and
liberal gift, because unrestricted and given in a spirit of
confidence--would not lead to the renewal of agitation in Ireland by Mr.
O'Connell. It might be well for him to reflect that agitation was a
two-edged sword. Being conformable to justice and not contrary to
principle, he hoped the measure proposed would pass into a law.

W.T. Stead, in a recent article, said, in relation to Mr. Gladstone's
retirement from the Cabinet, that "It is ridiculous to pretend, with
Mr. Gladstone's career before us, that his course has been swayed by
calculating self-interest. He has been the very madman of politics from
the point of view of Mr. Worldly Wiseman. 'No man,' said he, the other
day, 'has ever committed suicide so often as I,' and that witness is
true. The first and perhaps the most typical of all his many suicides
was his resignation of his seat in Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, not
because he disapproved of the Maynooth Grant, but because, as he had at
one time written against it, he was determined that his advocacy of it
should be purged of the last taint of self-interest. As Mr. George
Russell rightly remarks, 'This was an act of Parliamentary Quixotism too
eccentric to be intelligible. It argued a fastidious sensitiveness of
conscience, and a nice sense of political propriety so opposed to the
sordid selfishness and unblushing tergiversation of the ordinary
place-hunter as to be almost offensive.' But as Mr. Gladstone was then,
so he has been all his life--the very Quixote of conscience. Judged by
every standard of human probability, he has ruined himself over and over
and over again. He is always ruining himself, and always rising, like
the Phoenix, in renewed youth from the ashes of his funeral pyre. As was
said in homely phrase some years ago, he 'always keeps bobbing up
again.' What is the secret of this wonderful capacity of revival? How
is it that Mr. Gladstone seems to find even his blunders help him, and
the affirmation of principles that seem to be destructive to all chance
of the success of his policy absolutely helps him to its realization?"

From a merely human standpoint it is inexplicable. But

     'If right or wrong in this God's world of ours
      Be leagued with higher powers,'

then the mystery is not so insolvable. He believed in the higher powers.
He never shrank from putting his faith to the test; and on the whole,
who can deny that for his country and for himself he has reason to
rejoice in the verification of his working hypothesis?

'We walk by faith and not by sight,' he said once; 'and by no one so
much as by those who are in politics is this necessary.' It is the
evidence of things not seen, the eternal principles, the great invisible
moral sanctions that men are wont to call the laws of God, which alone
supply a safe guide through this mortal wilderness.

     'Men of a thousand shifts and wiles, look here!
        See one straightforward conscience put in pawn
      To win a world; see the obedient sphere
        By bravery's simple gravitation drawn!
      Shall we not heed the lesson taught of old,
        And by the Present's lips repeated still?
      In our own single manhood to be bold,
        Fortressed in conscience and impregnable.'

"Mr. Gladstone has never hesitated to counter at sharp right angles the
passion and the fury of the day. Those who represent him as ever strong
upon the strong side, wilfully shut their eyes to half his history. He
challenged Lord Palmerston over the Don Pacifico question, and was
believed to have wrecked himself almost as completely as when in 1876 he
countered even more resolutely the fantastic Jingoism of Lord
Beaconsfield. It is easy for those who come after and enter into the
spoils gained by sacrifices of which they themselves were incapable to
describe the Bulgarian agitation as an astute party move. The party did
not think so. Its leaders did not think so. Some of those who now halloo
loud enough behind Mr. Gladstone were then bitter enough in their
complaint that he had wrecked his party. One at least, who was
constrained to say the other thing in public, made up for it by bitter
and contemptuous cavilings in private. Now it is easy to see that Lord
Beaconsfield was mistaken and that Mr. Gladstone held the winning card
all along. But no one knew it at the time when the card had to be
played, certainly not Mr. Gladstone himself. He simply saw his duty a
dead sure thing, and, like Jim Bludsoe on the burning boat, 'He went for
it there and then.' It turned up trumps, but no one knew how heavy were
the odds against it save those who went through the stress and the
strain of that testing and trying time by his side."

In the summer of 1845 Mr. Gladstone proposed to his intimate friend, Mr.
J.R. Hope, that they should spend the month of September in a working
tour in Ireland, giving evidence of his characteristic desire always to
come in personal contact with any question that he had to discuss. He
suggests "their eschewing all grandeur, and taking little account even
of scenery, compared with the purpose of looking, from close quarters,
at the institutions for religion and education of the country, and at
the character of the people. It seems ridiculous to talk of supplying
the defects of second-hand information by so short a trip; but although
a longer time would be much better, yet even a very contracted one does
much when it is added to an habitual, though indirect, knowledge." The
projected trip, however, had to be abandoned.

Towards the close of the year 1845 Mr. Gladstone issued a pamphlet
entitled "Remarks upon recent Commercial Legislation," in which he not
only discussed the salutary effects of the late commercial policy, but
used arguments clearly showing that he was advancing to the position of
a free-trader. His general conclusion was that English statesmen should
use every effort to disburden of all charges, so far as the law was
concerned, the materials of industry, and thus enable the workman to
approach his work at home on better terms, as the terms in which he
entered foreign markets were altered for the worse against him.

While Mr. Gladstone was so willing to deal generously more than ever
before with the Irish Roman Catholics, his confidence in the Established
Episcopal Church of Ireland was growing less. "I am sorry," he wrote to
Bishop Wilberforce, "to express my apprehension that the Irish Church is
not in a large sense efficient; the working results of the last ten
years have disappointed me. I may be answered, Have faith in the
ordinance of God; but then I must see the seal and signature, and these,
how can I separate from ecclesiastical descent? The title, in short, is
questioned, and vehemently, not only by the Radicalism of the day, but
by the Roman Bishops, who claim to hold succession of St. Patrick, and
this claim has been alive all along from the Reformation, so that lapse
of years does nothing against it."

The name of Dr. Döllinger, the distinguished reformed Roman Catholic,
has been mentioned already in connection with that of Mr. Gladstone. In
the fall of 1845 Mr. Gladstone went to Munich and paid his first visit
to Dr. Döllinger. For a week he remained in daily intercourse with this
eminent divine, and the foundation was laid of a friendship which was
sustained by repeated visits and correspondence, and which lasted until
the doctor's death in 1890.

In the winter of 1845 Mr. Gladstone met with a painful accident that
resulted in a permanent injury to his hand. He was by no means what is
termed a sportsman, yet he was somewhat fond of shooting. His gun was
prematurely discharged while he was loading it, and shattered the first
finger of his left hand, so that amputation was necessary.

[Illustration: Loyal Ulster]




CHAPTER VII


MEMBER FOR OXFORD

"Mr. Gladstone's career," says his biographer, G.W.E. Russell,
"naturally divides itself into three parts. The first of them ends with
his retirement from the representation of Newark. The central part
ranges from 1847 to 1868. Happily the third is still incomplete." The
first division, according to Dr. Russell, of this remarkable life, we
have considered, and we now pass on to the development of the second
period. The causes which led up to Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the
representation for Newark to that of Oxford we will now proceed
to trace.

The agitation by the ablest orators against the corn laws had been going
on for ten years, when an announcement was made in the "Times" of
December 4, 1845, that Parliament would be convened the first week in
January, and that the Queen's address would recommend the immediate
consideration of the corn laws, preparatory to their total abolition.
This startling news took the other daily papers by surprise, for there
had been recently a lull in the agitation, and several of them
contradicted it positively. Yet the newspapers had noticed the unusual
occurrence of four cabinet meetings in one week. The original statement
was confirmed. The ministry was pledged to support the measure. The hour
had come, the doom of the corn laws was sealed. Mr. Gladstone's thoughts
and labors for some years past had been leading him away from
Protection, in which he had been brought up, in the direction of Free
Trade; and although he was unable to participate in the last part of the
struggle in Parliament, because he was not a member of the House, he was
yet in harmony with Sir Robert Peel, and indeed is said to have
converted the Premier to Free Trade views. Such a change of views was
not the sudden impulse of an hour. The next step was to announce his
changed convictions. And so upon other occasions in his life, his
attitude on the question of the corn laws led to his separation from
some old and greatly cherished political and personal friends, and among
the first to disapprove of his new departure must have been his own
father, who would think his son was going to ruin the country.

The Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley informed Sir Robert Peel that
they could not support a measure for the repeal of the corn laws, and
Sir Robert Peel, being doubtful whether he could carry through the
proposed measure in the face of such opposition, tendered his
resignation as premier to the Queen. Lord John Russell was called upon
to form a new ministry, but, having failed in this, the Queen desired
Sir Robert Peel to withdraw his resignation, and resume the head of the
government again.

It was found when the list of the new Peel Cabinet was published, that
Mr. Gladstone was a member of it; having accepted the office of Colonial
Secretary, in the place of Lord Stanley, who had resigned because not in
sympathy with the proposed movement and of repeal. Accepting office in a
ministry pledged to repeal the corn laws led to the retirement of Mr.
Gladstone from the House of Commons as the representative for Newark.
The Duke of New Castle, the patron and friend of Mr. Gladstone, was an
ardent Protectionist, and could not sanction the candidature of a
supporter of Free Trade principles. His patronage was therefore
necessarily withdrawn from Mr. Gladstone. Indeed, the Duke had turned
his own son, Lord Lincoln, out of the representation of Nottinghamshire
for accepting office under Sir Robert Peel, and he naturally showed no
mercy to the brilliant but wayward politician, whom his favor had made
member for Newark. Besides, Mr. Gladstone felt he held opposite
principles from those he held when elected, and that unless the
constituency had changed with him, he could no longer honorably continue
to represent them, even if the influence and friendship of the Duke
permitted it.

Accordingly he did not offer himself for re-election, but retired and
issued an address to the electors of Newark, dated January 5, 1846, of
which the following is an extract: "By accepting the office of Secretary
of State for the Colonies, I have ceased to be your representative in
Parliament. On several accounts I should have been peculiarly desirous
at the present time of giving you an opportunity to pronounce your
constitutional judgment on my public conduct, by soliciting at your
hands a renewal of the trust which I have already received from you on
five successive occasions, and held during a period of thirteen years.
But as I have good reason to believe that a candidate recommended to
your favor through local connections may ask your suffrages, it becomes
my very painful duty to announce to you on that ground alone my
retirement from a position which has afforded me so much of honor and of
satisfaction." Mr. Gladstone further goes on to explain that he accepted
office because he held that "it was for those who believed the
Government was acting according to the demands of public duty to testify
that belief, however limited their sphere might be, by their
co-operation." He had acted "in obedience to the clear and imperious
call of public obligation."

It was in this way that Mr. Gladstone became a voluntary exile from the
House of Commons during this important season, and took no part in the
debates, his personal powerful advocacy being lost in the consideration
of the great measure before the House. He was a member of the Cabinet,
but not of the House of Commons. It was no secret, however, that he was
the most advanced Free Trader in the Peel Cabinet, and that the policy
of the government in regard to this great measure of 1846 was to a large
extent moulded by him.

It is also known that his representations of the effects of Free Trade
on the industry of the country and the general well-being of the people
strengthened the Premier in his resolve to sweep away the obnoxious corn
laws. His pamphlet on recent commercial legislation had prepared the way
for the later momentous changes; and to Mr. Gladstone is due much of the
credit for the speedy consummation of the Free Trade policy of the Peel
Ministry. Mr. Gladstone may be regarded as the pioneer of the movement.

Just at this time a calamity occurred in Ireland which furnished Sir
Robert Peel an additional argument for the prompt repeal of the corn
laws; namely, a prospective famine, owing to the failure of the potato
crop. With threatened famine in Ireland, such as had never been
experienced, the Prime Minister saw clearly that corn must be admitted
into the country free of duty. The Anti-Corn Law League was growing
powerful and even irresistible, while both in England and Ireland many
landlords of influence, who did not belong to the League, were in
sympathy with the movement started by the Premier and ready to extend to
him a hearty support.

But the friends of Protection did not leave the Premier without
opposition. Knowing that Sir Robert Peel's personal influence was
greater than that of any minister who had "virtually governed the
empire," they used every means at their command, fair and unfair, to
defeat the bill. However, their efforts were destined to failure. Some
contended that the presentation and passage of the corn law repeal bill
ought to be left to the Liberals. But Free Trade had not received the
support of every member of the Liberal party, and Sir Robert Peel was in
a position to carry out the measure, and it was not in accordance with
the wisdom of practical politics to halt. Indeed, at this very juncture,
Mr. Cobden wrote to the Premier that he had the power, and that it would
be disastrous to the country for him to hesitate. Writing from
Edinburgh, Lord John Russell announced his conversion to total and
immediate repeal of the corn laws. Sir Robert Peel hesitated no longer,
but, feeling that the crisis had arrived, determined to grapple with it.
It was duty to country before and above fancied loyalty to party to be
considered. It is strange what remedies some men deem sensible,
suggested to prevent famine in Ireland.

"Obviously the Government was in difficulties. What those difficulties
were it was not hard to guess. In the previous autumn it had become
known that, after a long season of sunless wet, the potatoes had
everywhere been attacked by an obscure disease. The failure of this crop
meant an Irish famine. The steps suggested to meet this impending
calamity were strange enough. The head of the English peerage
recommended the poor to rely on curry-powder as a nutritious and
satisfying food. Another duke thought that the government could show no
favor to a population almost in a state of rebellion, but that
individuals might get up a subscription. A noble lord, harmonizing
materialism and faith, urged the government to encourage the provision
of salt fish, and at the same time to appoint a day of public
acknowledgment of our dependence on Divine goodness. The council of the
Royal Agricultural Society, numbering some of the wealthiest noblemen
and squires in England, were not ashamed to lecture the laborers on the
sustaining properties of thrice-boiled bones."

When Parliament assembled the Premier entered into an explanation of the
late ministerial crisis, and unfolded his projected plans. He said that
the failure of the potato crop had led to the dissolution of the late
government, that matters now could brook no further delay; that prompt
action must now be taken on the Corn Laws; that the progress of reason
and truth demanded it; that his opinions on the subject of Protection
had undergone a great change; that the experience of the past three
years confirmed him in his new views; that he could not conceal the
knowledge of his convictions, however much it might lay him open to the
charge of inconsistency; that, though accused of apathy and neglect, he
and his colleagues were even then engaged in the most extensive and
arduous inquiries into the true state of Ireland; and that, as these
inquiries progressed, he has been forced to the conclusion that the
protection policy was unsound and consequently untenable.

It is worthy of note that Mr. Disraeli, the future Parliamentary rival
of Mr. Gladstone, took part, as a member of the House of Commons, in the
discussion of the question under consideration. The following words show
his attitude: "To the opinions which I have expressed in this House in
favor of Protection I adhere. They sent to this House, and if I had
relinquished them I should have relinquished my seat also." "It would be
an unprofitable talk," writes Barnett Smith, "to unravel the many
inconsistencies of Lord Beaconsfield's career; but with regard to this
deliverance upon Protection, the curious in such matters may turn back
to the records of 1842, when they will discover that at that time he was
quite prepared to advocate measures of a Free Trade character. But we
must pass on from this important question of the Corn Laws, with the
angry controversy to which it gave rise. Sir Robert Peel brought forward
his measure, and after lengthened debate in both Houses, it became law,
and grain was admitted into English ports under the new tariff."

After all their success in carrying through the important Corn Law
Repeal scheme, the ministry of Sir Robert Peel was doomed to fall upon
an Irish question. The very day that brought their victory in the
passage of the Corn Law Repeal Act in the House of Lords saw the defeat
of the ministry in the House of Commons on their bill for the
suppression of outrage in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel found himself in a
minority of 73 and therefore tendered his resignation. It was accepted
and Sir Robert Peel went out of office forever. Lord John Russell was
sent for by the Queen, and he succeeded in forming a Whig Ministry.

Mr. Gladstone's return to the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel, as we have
seen, cost him his seat in the House of Commons. It was not until the
brief session of 1847, that he appeared again in Parliament. The Queen
dissolved Parliament in person, July, 23d. The election succeeding
turned in many instances upon ecclesiastical questions, and especially
upon the Maynooth grant.

It was announced early in 1847 that one of the two members of the House
of Commons for the University of Oxford intended to retire at the next
general election. Mr. Canning had pronounced the representation of the
university as the most coveted prize of public life, and Mr. Gladstone
himself confessed that he "desired it with an almost passionate
fondness." Mr. Gladstone, as a graduate of Oxford, was looked upon not
only by his contemporaries, but by his seniors and those who came after
him, with feelings of enthusiastic admiration. The feeling then was
reciprocal, and he was proposed for the vacant seat. Sir R.N. Inglis was
secure in his seat, and so the contest lay between Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Round, who was of the ultra-Protestant and Tory school. The contest
excited the keenest interest and was expected on all hands to be
very close.

Mr. Gladstone in his address to the electors of his _Alma Mater_
confessed that in the earlier part of his public life he had been an
advocate for the exclusive support of the national religion of the
state, but it had been in vain; the time was against him. He said: "I
found that scarcely a year passed without the adoption of some fresh
measure involving the national recognition and the national support of
various forms of religion, and, in particular, that a recent and fresh
provision had been made for the propagation from a public chair of Arian
or Socinian doctrines. The question remaining for me was whether, aware
of the opposition of the English people, I should set down as equal to
nothing, in a matter primarily connected not with our own but with their
priesthood, the wishes of the people of Ireland; and whether I should
avail myself of the popular feeling in regard to the Roman Catholics for
the purpose of enforcing against them a system which we had ceased by
common consent to enforce against Arians--a system, above all, of which
I must say that it never can be conformable to policy, to justice or
even to decency, when it has become avowedly partial and one-sided in
its application."

This address intensified the determination of those opposed to Mr.
Gladstone to defeat him. A great portion of the press was, however, in
his favor. Some of the journals that were enthusiastic for Mr. Gladstone
were very bitter against Mr. Round. Mr. Gladstone's distinguished talent
and industry were lauded, as well as his earnest attachment to the
Church of England. He had, however, renounced the exclusiveness of his
politico-ecclesiastical principles, and no longer importuned Parliament
to ignore all forms of religion but those established by law, or which
were exactly coincident with his own belief. "His election," declared
one journal, "unlike that of Mr. Round, while it sends an important
member to the House of Commons, will certainly be creditable, and may be
valuable to the university; and we heartily hope that no negligence or
hesitation among his supporters may impede his success." Even outside of
church circles the election was regarded with great interest.

The nomination took place July 29th. After the usual ceremony, the
voting commenced in convocation-house, which was densely crowded. So
great was the pressure of the throng that men fainted and had to be
carried out. Mr. Coleridge, afterward Lord Coleridge, was the secretary
of Mr. Gladstone's committee. Distinguished men, among them Sir Robert
Peel, his colleague in the Cabinet, came from a great distance to
"plump" for Mr. Gladstone. The venerable Dr. Routh, then nearly
ninety-two years old, came forth from his retirement at Magdalen College
to vote for him. Mrs. Gladstone, according to Mr. Hope-Scott, was an
indefatigable canvasser for her husband. At the close of the poll the
vote stood: Inglis, 1700; Gladstone, 997; Round, 824. Of course Sir
Robert Inglis, with his "prehistoric Toryism," stood at the head. To the
supporters of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Round must be added 154 who were
paired. Mr. Gladstone received a majority of 173 over his
ultra-Protestant opponent. The total number of those polled exceeded
that registered at any previous election, showing the intense and
general interest in the result.

This period of Mr. Gladstone's life has been very properly styled by one
of his biographers, as the transition period. "On one side the
Conservative Free-trader clings fondly and tenaciously to the Toryism of
his youth, on another, he is reaching out toward new realms of Liberal
thought and action. He opposes marriage with a deceased wife's sister on
theological and social grounds, asserting roundly that such marriage is
'contrary to the law of God, declared for three thousand years and
upwards.' He deprecates the appointment of a Commission to enquire into
the Universities, because it will deter intending benefactors from
effecting their munificent intentions. He argues for a second chamber in
Australian legislatures, citing, perhaps a little unfortunately, the
constitutional example of contemporary France. In all these utterances
it is not hard to read the influence of the traditions in which he was
reared, or of the ecclesiastical community which he represents in
Parliament.

"Yet even in the theological domain a tendency towards Liberalism shows
itself. His hatred of Erastianism is evinced by his gallant but
unsuccessful attempt to secure for the clergy and laity of each colonial
diocese the power of self-government. Amid the indignant protests of his
Tory allies, and in opposition to his own previous speech and vote, he
vindicates the policy of admitting the Jews to Parliament. He defends
the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; he
supports the alteration of the parliamentary oath; and, though he will
not abet an abstract attack on Church Rates, he contends that their
maintainance involves a corresponding duty to provide accommodation in
the church for the very poorest of the congregation.

"On the commercial side his Liberalism is rampant. With even fanatical
faith he clings to Free Trade as the best guarantee for our national
stability amid the crash of the dynasties and constitutions which went
down in '48. He thunders against the insidious dangers of reciprocity.
He desires, by reforming the laws which govern navigation, to make the
ocean, 'that great highway of nations, as free to the ships that
traverse its bosom as to the winds that sweep it.'

"And so the three years--1847, 1848, 1849--rolled by, full of stirring
events in Europe and in England, in Church and in State, but marked by
no special incidents in the life of Mr. Gladstone. For him these years
were a period of mental growth, of transition, of development. A change
was silently proceeding, which was not completed for twenty years, if,
indeed, it has been completed yet. 'There have been,' he wrote in later
days to Bishop Wilberforce, 'two great deaths, or transmigrations of
spirit, in my political existence--one, very slow, the breaking of ties
with my original party.' This was now in progress. The other will be
narrated in due course."

One of the features of the general election of 1847 that excited the
wildest popular comment was the election of Baron Rothschild for the
City of London. There was nothing illegal in the election of a Jew, but
he was virtually precluded from taking his seat in the House of Commons,
because the law required every member to subscribe not only to the
Christian religion, but to the Protestant Episcopal faith. To obviate
this difficulty, Lord John Russell, soon after Parliament assembled,
offered a resolution affirming the eligibility of Jews to all functions
and offices to which Roman Catholics were admissible by law. Sir R.H.
Inglis opposed the resolution and Mr. Gladstone, his colleague,
supported it.

Mr. Gladstone inquired whether there were any grounds for the
disqualification of the Jews which distinguished them from any other
classes in the community. They contended for a "Christian Parliament,
but the present measure did not make severance between politics and
religion, it only amounted to a declaration that there was no necessity
for excluding a Jew, as such, from an assembly in which every man felt
sure that a vast and overwhelming majority of its members would always
be Christian. It was said that by admitting a few Jews they would
un-Christianize Parliament; that was true in word, but not in
substance." He had no doubt that the majority of the members who
composed it would always perform their obligations on the true faith of
a Christian. It was too late to say that the measure was un-Christian,
and that it would call down the vengeance of heaven. When he opposed the
last law of the removal of Jewish disabilities, he foresaw that if he
gave the Jew municipal, magisterial and executive functions, we could
not refuse him legislative functions any longer. "The Jew was refused
entrance into the House because he would then be a maker of the law; but
who made the maker of the law? The constituencies; and into these
constituencies had been admitted the Jews. Now were the constituencies
Christian constituencies? If they were, was it probable that the
Parliament would cease to be a Christian Parliament?"

Mr. Gladstone admitted the force of the prayer in Bishop Wilberforce's
petition, that in view of this concession measures should be taken to
give greater vigor to the Church, and thus operate to the prevention of
an organic change in the relations between Church and State. In
concluding his defence of Lord John Russell's resolution Mr. Gladstone
expressed the opinion that if they admitted Jews into Parliament,
prejudice might be awakened for awhile, but the good sense of the people
would soon allay it, and members would have the consolation of knowing
that in case of difficulty they had yielded to a sense of justice, and
by so doing had not disparaged religion or lowered Christianity, but
rather had elevated both in all reflecting and well-regulated minds. The
logic of this speech could not be controverted, though Mr. Newdegate
declared that Mr. Gladstone would never have gained his election for the
University of Oxford had his sentiments on the Jewish question been then
known. The resolution of Lord John Russell was carried by a large
majority, whereupon he announced first a resolution, and then a bill, in
accordance with its terms.

The year 1848 was a year of excitement and revolution. All Europe was in
a state of agitation, and France by a new revolution presented another
one of her national surprises. The news of a revolution in France caused
the greatest perturbation throughout England, and disturbances in the
capital of the country. Great demonstrations were made at Trafalgar
Square and Charing Cross, March 6th, but the meetings assumed more of a
burlesque than of a serious character. In Glasgow and other parts of the
country there were serious riots. Shops were sacked, and the military
was called out to quell the disturbance, which was not effected until
the soldiers fired with fatal results upon the rioters. There were
uprisings and mob violence also at Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, but
they were of a less formidable character. A Chartist meeting was held on
Kennington Common, March 13th, but, though the meeting had been looked
forward to with great apprehensions by all lovers of law and order, yet
it passed off without the serious results anticipated.

Though great preparations were made in view of the demonstration, yet,
fortunately it passed off without loss of life. The meeting however had
furnished a pretext for the gathering of a lawless mob, although but few
were politically concerned in it. It was deemed necessary, to provide
against every emergency, so special constables in great numbers were
sworn in previous to the meetings, and it is interesting to observe that
amongst the citizens who came forward in London to enroll themselves as
preservers of the peace of society were William Ewart Gladstone, the
Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Derby, and Prince Louis Napoleon,
afterwards Emperor of France.

The people were becoming dissatisfied with the government of the
country, particularly with its financial measures. A deficiency of two
million pounds appeared, and additional taxation would be necessary
owing to the Caffre War. It was therefore proposed to continue the
income tax for five years and increase it slightly. Owing to the
distress in Ireland it was not proposed to extend the operation of this
measure to that country. The property tax was defended on the same
principles laid down by Mr. Pitt, and in 1842, by Sir Robert Peel. But
this scheme was bitterly opposed and many attributed the depressed
condition of the finances to free trade. Sir Robert Peel decided to
support the proposed tax for three years. Mr. Disraeli desired the
success of Sir Robert Peel's policy, and described himself as a
"free-trader, but not a free-booter of the Manchester school;" and he
dubbed the blue-book of the Import Duties Committee "the greatest work
of imagination that the nineteenth century has produced." He said that
the government, by acting upon it, and taking it for a guide, resembled
a man smoking a cigar on a barrel of gunpowder.

This epigrammatic speech of Mr. Disraeli brought Mr. Gladstone to his
feet. He said, by way of introduction, that he could not hope to sustain
the lively interest created by the remarkable speech of his
predecessor--a display to which he felt himself unequal--he would pass
over the matters of a personal description touched upon by the
honorable gentleman, and confine himself to defending the policy which
had been assailed. Mr. Gladstone then demonstrated, by a series of
elaborate statistics, the complete success of Sir Robert Peel's policy.
He also said, that the confidence of the public would be greatly shaken
by an adverse vote, and he alluded to the unsettled condition of affairs
in the Cabinet. "I am sure," said Mr. Gladstone, "that this House of
Commons will prove itself to be worthy of the Parliaments which preceded
it, worthy of the Sovereign which it has been called to advise, and
worthy of the people which it has been chosen to represent, by
sustaining this nation, and enabling it to stand firm in the midst of
the convulsions that shake European society; by doing all that pertains
to us for the purpose of maintaining social order, the stability of
trade, and the means of public employment; and by discharging our
consciences, on our own part, under the difficult circumstances of the
crisis, in the perfect trust that if we set a good example to the
nations--for whose interests we are appointed to consult--they, too,
will stand firm as they have in other times of almost desperate
emergency; and that through their good sense, their moderation, and
their attachment to the institutions of the country, we shall see these
institutions still exist, a blessing and a benefit to prosperity,
whatever alarms and whatever misfortunes may unfortunately befall other
portions of civilized Europe."

"It was fortunate for the future interests of the country," says Dr.
Smith, his biographer, "that the proposals of the government were at
this juncture supported by a great majority of the House of Commons. In
a moment of unreasoning panic there was some danger of the adoption of a
reactionary policy--a step that would have lost to the country those
blessings which it subsequently enjoyed as the outcome of Free Trade."

May 15, Mr. Labouchere, President of the Board of Trade, proposed a plan
for the modification of the navigation laws. Reserving the coasting
trade and fisheries of Great Britain and the Colonies, it was proposed
"to throw open the whole navigation of the country, of every sort and
description." But the Queen claimed the right of putting such
restrictions as she saw fit upon the navigation of foreign countries, if
those countries did not meet England on equal terms; and that each
colony should be allowed to throw open its coasting trade to foreign
countries. Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy speech, examining closely the
operation of existing laws, and showing the necessity for their repeal.
With regard to the power claimed by the Queen in Council, with a view to
enforcing reciprocity, Mr. Gladstone said, "I confess it appears to me
there is a great objection to conferring such a power as that which is
proposed to be given to the Queen in Council." He contended also for a
gradual change in the laws. The policy of excluding the coasting trade
from the measure he also condemned. "It would have been much more frank
to have offered to admit the Americans to our coasting trade if they
would admit us to theirs." If England and America concurred in setting
an example to the world, he hoped we should "live to see the ocean, that
great highway of nations, as free to the ships that traverse its bosom
as the winds that sweep it. England would then have achieved another
triumph, and have made another powerful contribution to the prosperity
of mankind." The bill was postponed until the following year.

During the session of 1848 Mr. Gladstone spoke upon the proposed grant
of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company; and upon the Sugar
Duties Bill; but the most important speech delivered by him at that time
was upon a measure to legalize diplomatic relations with the Court of
Rome. It was objected that thus recognizing the spiritual governor of
Rome and of all the Roman Catholic population of the world, would
neither conciliate the affections of the Protestants, nor satisfy the
wishes of the Roman Catholics, who had denounced it strongly to
the Pope.

Mr. Gladstone took broad and comprehensive views of the question. To
some features of the Bill he was opposed, but was in favor of its
principle. It was unfortunate as to time, owing to the condition of
affairs in Italy. England must take one of two positions. If she
declined political communication with the See of Rome, she had no right
to complain of any steps which the Pope might take with respect to the
administration of his own ecclesiastical affairs; but an act so directly
in contravention of the laws of the land as the partitioning of the
country into archbishoprics and bishoprics was a most unfortunate
proceeding; wrong because it was generally and justly offensive to the
feelings of the people of England, and totally unnecessary, as he
believed, for Roman Catholic purposes, but also because it ill assorted
with the grounds on which the Parliament was invited by the present bill
to establish definite relations with the See of Rome. For one hundred
years after the Reformation the Pope was actually in arms for the
purpose of recovering by force his lost dominions in this country. It
was only natural, therefore, that we should have prohibited relations
with the See of Rome when it attacked the title of the Sovereign of
these realms, but there was no such reason for continuing the
prohibition at the present moment.

Those who have studied Mr. Gladstone's career carefully attest that this
speech would have been impossible from his lips ten years before the
time it was delivered; and early in the next session of Parliament he
delivered another speech which furnishes us an example of the growth of
his liberal views in matters of conscience. Lord John Russell proposes
further relief upon the matter of oaths to be taken by members of
Parliament. Mr. Gladstone said that the civil political claims of the
Jew should not be barred, and he deprecated the tendency to degenerate
formalism in oaths, but he was glad that the words, "on the true faith
of a Christian" in respect to all Christian members of the House of
Commons had been retained. He also, later in the session, favored
correcting the enormous evils growing out of the Church rate system,
with taxation of all the further support of the State Church. He did not
believe in imposing an uncompensated burden upon any man. Every man
contributing his quota was entitled to demand a free place in the house
of his Maker. "But the centre and best parts of the Church were occupied
by pews exclusively for the middle classes, while the laboring classes
were jealously excluded from almost every part of light and hearing in
the Churches, and were treated in a manner most painful to
reflect upon."

When Mr. Labouchere re-introduced the ministerial bill for the repeal of
the Navigation Laws, in the session of 1849, Mr. Gladstone supported
generally the measure in a full and exhaustive speech. He favored the
bill with certain modifications. The Marquis of Granby expressed fears
at the consequences of the change proposed, and Mr. Gladstone answered
him: "The noble Marquis," he observed, "desired to expel the vapours and
exhalations that had been raised with regard to the principle of
political economy, and which vapours and exhalations I find for the most
part in the fears with which those changes are regarded. The noble
Marquis consequently hoped that the Trojan horse would not be allowed to
come within the walls of Parliament. But however applicable the figures
may be to other plans, it does not, I submit, apply to the mode of
proceeding I venture to recommend to the House, because we follow the
precedent of what Mr. Huskisson did before us. Therefore more than one
moiety of the Trojan horse has already got within the citadel--it has
been there for twenty-five years, and yet what has proceeded from its
bowels has only tended to augment the rate of increase in the progress
of your shipping. Therefore, let us not be alarmed by vague and dreamy
ratiocinations of evil, which had never been wanting on any occasion,
and which never will be wanting so long as this is a free State, wherein
every man can find full vent and scope for the expression, not only of
his principles, but of his prejudices and his fears. Let us not be
deterred by those apprehensions from giving a calm and serious
examination to this question, connected as it is with the welfare of our
country. Let us follow steadily the light of experience, and be
convinced that He who preserved us during the past will also be
sufficient to sustain us during all the dangers of the future."

Mr. Disraeli seized the opportunity to make a caustic speech, in which
he fiercely attacked both Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Gladstone, and alluded
sarcastically to their "great sacrifices," and said that the latter was
about to give up that good development of the principle of reciprocity
which the House had waited for with so much suspense. Mr. Gladstone
replied, "I am perfectly satisfied to bear his sarcasm, good humoured
and brilliant as it is, while I can appeal to his judgment as to whether
the step I have taken was unbecoming in one who conscientiously differs
with him on the freedom of trade, and has endeavoured to realize it;
because, so far from its being the cause of the distress of the country,
it has been, under the mercy of God, the most signal and effectual means
of mitigating this distress, and accelerating the dawn of the day of
returning prosperity."

Mr. Gladstone spoke also during the session upon the subject of Colonial
Reform which came before the House on several occasions, and especially
in connection with riots in Canada; and on a bill for the removal of
legal restrictions against marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He
opposed the latter measure upon theological, social, and moral grounds,
and begged the House to repeat the almost entire sentiment of the
country respecting the bill. To do otherwise would be to inflict upon
the Church the misfortune of having anarchy introduced among its
ministers. He hoped they would do all that in them lay to maintain the
strictness of the obligations of marriage, and the purity of the
hallowed sphere of domestic life. The bill was rejected.

In the Parliamentary session of 1850 one of the chief topics of
discussion was the great depression of the agricultural interests of the
country. The country was at peace, the revenues were in a good
condition, foreign trade had increased, but the farmers still made loud
complaints of the disastrous condition, which they attributed to
free-trade measures, which they contended had affected the whole of the
agricultural interests. Consequently, February 19th, Mr. Disraeli moved
for a committee of the whole House to consider such a revision of the
Poor Laws of the United Kingdom as might mitigate the distress of the
agricultural classes. Some thought that this was a movement against
free-trade, but Mr. Gladstone courted the fullest investigation, and
seeing no danger in the motion, voted for it. However, the motion of
Mr. Disraeli was lost.

Mr. Gladstone likewise favored the extension of the benefits of
Constitutional government to certain of the colonies,--for example as
set forth in the Australian Colonies Government Bill; and twice during
the session he addressed the House on questions connected with slavery,
and upon motion of Mr. Haywood for an inquiry into the state of the
English and Irish universities, and the government unexpectedly gave
their consent to the issuing of a Royal Commission for the purpose. Mr.
Gladstone said that any person who might be deliberating with himself
whether he would devote a portion of his substance for prosecuting the
objects of learning, civilization and religion, would be checked by the
prospect that at any given time, and under any given circumstances, a
minister, who was the creature of a political majority, might institute
a state inquiry into the mode in which the funds he might devise were
administered. It was not wise to discourage eleemosynary establishments.
It would be better for the Crown to see what could be done to improve
the colleges by administering existing laws.

In reviewing the past ten years we exclaim, truly has the period from
1841 to 1850, in the political life of Mr. Gladstone, been called a
memorable decade.

It was in the year 1850, as we have seen, that the Gladstones were
plunged into domestic sorrow by the death of their little daughter,
Catharine Jessy; and it was this same year that brought to Mr. Gladstone
another grief from a very different source. This second bereavement was
caused by the withdrawal of two of his oldest and most intimate friends,
the Archdeacon of Chichester and Mr. J.R. Hope, from the Protestant
Episcopal Church of England and their union with the Roman Catholic
Church. Mr. Hope, who became Hope-Scott on succeeding to the estate of
Abbotsford, was the gentleman who helped Mr. Gladstone in getting
through the press his book on Church and State, revising, correcting and
reading proof. The Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal Manning, had, from
his undergraduate days, exercised a powerful influence over his
contemporaries. He was gifted with maturity of intellect and character,
had great shrewdness, much tenacity of will, a cogent, attractive style,
combined with an impressive air of authority, to which the natural
advantages of person and bearing added force. Besides having these
qualifications for leadership, he had fervid devotion, enlarged
acquaintance with life and men, and an "unequalled gift of
administration;" though a priest, he was essentially a statesman, and
had at one time contemplated a political career. He was Mr. Gladstone's
most trusted counsellor and most intimate friend.

The cause, or rather occasion for these secessions from the Church of
England to the Church of Rome, is thus related: "An Evangelical
clergyman, the Rev. G.C. Gorham, had been presented to a living in the
diocese of Exeter; and that truly formidable prelate, Bishop Phillpotts,
refused to institute him, alleging that he held heterodox views on the
subject of Holy Baptism. After complicated litigation, the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council decided, on March 8, 1850, that the
doctrine held by the incriminated clergyman was not such as to bar him
from preferment in the Church of England. This decision naturally
created great commotion in the Church. Men's minds were rudely shaken.
The orthodoxy of the Church of England seemed to be jeopardized, and the
supremacy of the Privy Council was in a matter touching religious
doctrine felt to be an intolerable burden."

Mr. Gladstone, as well as others, was profoundly agitated by these
events, and June 4th he expressed his views in a letter to Dr.
Blomfield, Bishop of London. The theme of his letter was, "The Royal
Supremacy, viewed in the light of Reason, History and the Constitution."
He contended that the Royal Supremacy, as settled at the Reformation,
was not inconsistent with the spiritual life and inherent jurisdiction
of the Church, but the recent establishment of the Privy Council as the
ultimate court of appeal in religious causes was "an injurious and even
dangerous departure from the Reformation settlement."

In this letter Mr. Gladstone said, in summing up: "I find it no part of
my duty, my lord, to idolize the Bishops of England and Wales, or to
place my conscience in their keeping. I do not presume or dare to
speculate upon their particular decisions; but I say that, acting
jointly, publicly, solemnly, responsibly, they are the best and most
natural organs of the judicial office of the Church in matters of
heresy, and, according to reason, history and the constitution, in that
subject-matter the fittest and safest counsellors of the Crown."

But this view regarding the Church of England did not suit some minds,
and among them the two friends with whom Mr. Gladstone had, up to this
time, acted in religious matters. These troubles in the Church so
powerfully affected them that they withdrew.

The following quotation shows Mr. Gladstone's firmness in regard to his
own choice of the Protestant Christianity over and above Catholicism, In
a letter, written in 1873, to Mrs. Maxwell-Scott, of Abbotsford, the
daughter of his friend Hope, he thus writes of an interview had with
her father: "It must have been about this time that I had another
conversation with him about religion, of which, again, I exactly
recollect the spot. Regarding (forgive me) the adoption of the Roman
religion by members of the Church of England as nearly the greatest
calamity that could befall Christian faith in this country, I rapidly
became alarmed when these changes began; and very long before the great
luminary, Dr. Newman, drew after him, it may well be said, 'the third
part of the stars of Heaven.' This alarm I naturally and freely
expressed to the man upon whom I most relied, your father."

[Illustration: Gladstone in Wales; addressing a meeting at the foot of
Snowden]




CHAPTER VIII


THE NEAPOLITAN PRISONS

In considering Mr. Gladstone's exposure of the cruelties practiced in
the prisons of Naples, we are confronted with his attitude in the House
of Commons just before, in a case where the same principles seemed to be
involved, and in which Mr. Gladstone took the directly opposite course.
We refer to the Don Pacifico case. Both were at first merely personal
questions, but finally became international. Mr. Gladstone to many
appeared to take an inconsistent course in these seemingly similar
cases, in that while opposing national intervention in the affairs of
Don Pacifico, he tried to stir up all Europe for the relief of the
sufferers in the Neapolitan prisons. "It is not a little remarkable that
the statesman who had so lately and so vigorously denounced the 'vain
conception that we, forsooth, have a mission to be the censors of vice
and folly, of abuse and imperfection, among the other countries of the
world,' should now have found himself irresistibly impelled by
conscience and humanity to undertake a signal and effective crusade
against the domestic administration of a friendly power."

The most memorable debate in the new chamber of the House of Commons,
which was first occupied in 1850, was that associated with the name of
Don Pacifico. It is however conceded that the circumstances from which
it all proceeded were comparatively trivial in the extreme. Don Pacifico
was a Maltese Jew and a British subject, dwelling at Athens. He had made
himself distasteful to the people of Athens, and consequently his house
was destroyed and robbed by a mob, April 4, 1847. He appealed to the
government at Athens for redress, demanding over $150,000 indemnity for
the loss of his property, among which "a peculiarly sumptuous bedstead
figured largely." Don Pacifico's claim was unheeded, probably because it
was exorbitant and the Greek government was poor. Lord Palmerston was
then the Foreign Secretary of the English Government. He was rash and
independent in his Foreign policy, and often acted, as the Queen
complained, without consultation and without the authority of the
Sovereign.

The Foreign Secretary had had other quarrels with the Government at
Athens. Land belonging to an English resident in Athens had been seized
without sufficient compensation; Ionian subjects of the English Crown
had suffered hardships at the hands of the Greek authorities, and an
English Midshipman had been arrested by mistake. Lord Palmerston looked
upon these incidents, slight as they were in themselves, as indicative
of a plot on the part of the French Minister against the English, and
especially as the Greek Government was so dilatory in satisfying the
English claims. "This was enough. The outrage on Don Pacifico's bedstead
remained the head and front of Greek offending, but Lord Palmerston
included all the other slight blunders and delays of justice in one
sweeping indictment; made the private claims into a national demand, and
peremptorily informed the Greek Government that they must pay what was
demanded of them within a given time. The Government hesitated, and the
British fleet was ordered to the Piraeus, and seized all the Greek
vessels which were found in the waters. Russia and France took umbrage
at this high-handed proceeding and championed Greece. Lord Palmerston
informed them it was none of their business and stood firm. The French
Ambassador was withdrawn from London, and for awhile the peace of Europe
was menaced." The execution of the orders of Lord Palmerston was left
with Admiral Sir William Parker, who was first to proceed to Athens with
the English fleet, and failing to obtain satisfaction was to blockade
the Piraeus, which instructions he faithfully obeyed.

The debate began in Parliament June 24, 1850. The stability of the Whig
administration, then in power, depended upon the results. In the House
of Lords, Lord Stanley moved a resolution, which was carried, expressing
regret that "various claims against the Greek Government, doubtful in
point of justice and exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by
coercive measures, directed against the commerce and people of Greece,
and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly relations
with foreign powers." A counter-resolution was necessary in the House of
Commons to offset the action of the Lords, so a Radical, Mr. Roebuck,
much to the surprise of many, came to the defense of the Government and
offered the following motion, which was carried: "That the principles
which have hitherto regulated the foreign policy of Her Majesty's
Government are such as were required to preserve untarnished the honor
and dignity of this country, and, in times of unexampled difficulty, the
best calculated to maintain peace between England and the various
nations of the world."

The debate which followed, and which was prolonged over four nights, was
marked on both sides by speeches of unusual oratorical power and
brilliancy. The speeches of Lord Palmerston, Sir Robert Peel, Mr.
Cockburn, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone were pronounced as
remarkable orations. Sir Robert Peel made a powerful speech against the
Ministers, which was made memorable not only for its eloquence, but
because it was his last. Lord Palmerston defended himself vigorously in
a speech of five hours' duration. "He spoke," said Mr. Gladstone, "from
the dusk of one day to the dawn of the next." He defended his policy at
every point. In every step taken he had been influenced by the sole
desire that the meanest, the poorest, even the most disreputable subject
of the English Crown should be defended by the whole might of England
against foreign oppression. He reminded them of all that was implied in
the Roman boast, _Civis Romanus sum_, and urged the House to make it
clear that a British subject, in whatever land he might be, should feel
confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England could
protect him. This could not be resisted. _Civis Romanus sum_ settled
the question.

Mr. Gladstone's reply was a masterpiece. It was exhaustive and
trenchant, and produced a great effect. He first spoke upon the position
of the Government and the constitutional doctrines which they had laid
down in regard to it, and then severely condemned the conduct of the
Premier for being so heedless of the censure of the House of Lords and
in trying to shield himself behind the precedents which are in reality
no precedents at all. With reference to the Greek question, he
repudiated precedents which involved the conduct of strong countries
against weak ones. The Greek Government had put no impediment in the way
of arbitration. Instead of trusting and trying the tribunals of the
country and employing diplomatic agency simply as a supplemental
resource, Lord Palmerston had interspersed authority of foreign power,
in contravention both of the particular stipulations of the treaty in
force between Greece and England and of the general principles of the
law of nations. He had thus set the mischievous example of abandoning
the methods of law and order, and resorted to those of force.
Non-interference had been laid down as the basis of our conduct towards
other nations, but the policy of Lord Palmerston had been characterized
by a spirit of active interference.

Mr. Gladstone's words were in part as follows: "Does he [Lord
Palmerston] make the claim for us [the English] that we are to be lifted
upon a platform high above the standing-ground of all other nations?...
It is indeed too clear ... that he adopts, in part, the vain conception
that we, forsooth, have a mission to be the censors of vice and folly,
of abuse and imperfection among the other countries of the world; that
we are to be the universal schoolmasters, and that all those who
hesitate to recognize our office can be governed only by prejudice or
personal animosity, and shall have the blind war of diplomacy forthwith
declared against them."

Again: "Let us recognize, and recognize with frankness, the equality of
the weak with the strong; the principles of brotherhood among nations,
and of their sacred independence. When we are asking for the maintenance
of the rights which belong to our fellow-subjects, resident in Greece,
let us do as we would be done by, and let us pay all respect to a feeble
State and to the infancy of free institutions.... Let us refrain from
all gratuitous and arbitrary meddling in the internal concerns of other
States, even as we should resent the same interference if it were
attempted to be practiced toward ourselves."

In this address Mr. Gladstone evinces his inclination to appeal to the
higher and nobler nature of man, to the principles of brotherhood among
nations, to the law of God and nature, and to ask as a test of the
foreign policy of the government, not whether it is striking, or
brilliant, or successful, but whether it is right.

This speech of Mr. Gladstone's was recognized as the finest he had
delivered in Parliament, and its power was acknowledged by both sides of
the House, by political opponent and friend. Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn, then a member of the House, referring in a speech the
following evening to Mr. Gladstone and his remarkable speech, uttered
these words: "I suppose we are now to consider him as the representative
of Lord Stanley in the House--Gladstone _Vice_ Disraeli, am I to say,
resigned or superseded?" The government was sustained.

We have already stated that it was during this memorable debate that Sir
Robert Peel made his last speech.--On the following day, 29th of June,
1850, Sir Robert called at Buckingham Palace for the purpose of leaving
his card. On proceeding up Constitution Hill on horse back he met one of
Lady Dover's daughters, and exchanged salutations. Immediately
afterwards his horse became restive and shying towards the rails of the
Green Park, threw Sir Robert sideways on his left shoulder. Medical aid
was at hand and was at once administered. Sir Robert groaned when lifted
and when asked whether he was much hurt replied, "Yes, very much." He
was conveyed home where the meeting with his family was very affecting,
and he swooned in the arms of his physician. He was placed upon a sofa
in the dining-room from which he never moved. His sufferings were so
acute that a minute examination of his injuries could not be made. For
two or three days he lingered and then died, July 2d. An examination
made after death revealed the fact that the fifth rib on the left side
was fractured, the broken rib pressing on the lung, producing effusion
and pulmonary engorgement. This was probably the seat of the mortal
injury, and was where Sir Robert complained of the greatest pain.

The news of Sir Robert's death produced a profound sensation throughout
the land. Great and universal were the tokens of respect and grief.
There was but one feeling,--that England had lost one of her most
illustrious statesmen. Even those who had been in opposition to his
views, alluded to the great loss the nation had sustained and paid a
fitting tribute to his memory. The House of Commons, on motion of Mr.
Hume July 3d, at once adjourned. In the House of Lords the Duke of
Wellington and Lord Brougham spoke in appreciative words of the departed
statesman. "Such was the leader whom Mr. Gladstone had faithfully
followed for many years."

Supporting Mr. Hume's motion, Mr. Gladstone said: "I am quite sure that
every heart is much too full to allow us, at a period so early, to enter
upon a consideration of the amount of that calamity with which the
country has been visited in his, I must even now say, premature death;
for though he has died full of years and full of honors, yet it is a
death which our human eyes will regard as premature; because we had
fondly hoped that, in whatever position he was placed, by the weight of
his character, by the splendor of his talents, by the purity of his
virtues, he would still have been spared to render to his countrymen the
most essential services. I will only, sir, quote those most touching and
feeling lines which were applied by one of the greatest poets of this
country to the memory of a man great indeed, but yet not greater than
Sir Robert Peel:"

     'Now is the stately column broke,
      The beacon light is quenched in smoke;
      The trumpet's silver voice is still;
      The warder silent on the hill.'

"Sir, I will add no more--in saying this I have, perhaps, said too much.
It might have been better had I confined myself to seconding the motion.
I am sure the tribute of respect which we now offer will be all the more
valuable from the silence with which the motion is received, and which I
well know has not arisen from the want, but from the excess of feeling
on the part of members of this House."

Upon the death of Sir Robert Peel began the disintegration of the party
distinguished by his name--Peelites. Some of its members united with the
Conservatives, and others, such as Sir James Graham, Sidney Herbert, and
Mr. Gladstone held themselves aloof from both Whigs and Tories.
Conservative traditions still exercised considerable influence over
them, but they could not join them, because they were already
surrendering to strong liberal tendencies. It is said that Mr. Gladstone
at this time, and for a decade thereafter, until the death of Sir James
Graham, was greatly indebted to this statesman, not only for the growth
of his liberal principles, but for his development as a practical
statesman. Sir James wielded great influence over his contemporaries
generally, because of his great knowledge of Parliamentary tactics, and
the fact that he was the best educated and most thoroughly accomplished
statesman of his age. "If he could be prevailed upon to speak in the
course of a great debate, his speech was worth fifty votes," so great
was his influence and power. "However great may have been the
indebtedness of Mr. Gladstone to Sir James Graham, if the former had not
been possessed of far wider sympathies--to say nothing of superior
special intellectual qualities--than his political mentor, he never
could have conceived and executed those important legislative acts for
which his name will now chiefly be remembered."

The other case occupying the attention of Parliament, to which we have
alluded, we must now consider--Mr. Gladstone and the prisons of Naples.
Owing to the illness of one of his children, for whom a southern climate
was recommended, Mr. Gladstone spent several months of the Winter of
1850-1 in Naples. His brief visit to this city on a purely domestic
mission was destined to assume an international importance. It came to
his knowledge that a large number of the citizens of Naples, who had
been members of the Chamber of Deputies, an actual majority of the
representatives of the people, had been exiled or imprisoned by King
Ferdinand, because they formed the opposition party to the government,
and that between twenty and thirty thousand of that monarch's subjects
had been cast into prison on the charge of political disaffection. The
sympathies of Mr. Gladstone were at once enlisted in behalf of the
oppressed Neapolitans. At first Mr. Gladstone looked at the matter only
from a humanitarian and not from a political aspect, and it was only
upon the former ground that he felt called and impelled to attempt the
redress of the wrongs which were a scandal to the name of civilisation
in Europe. And it was not long before England and the Continent were
aroused by his denunciations of the Neapolitan system of government. Mr.
Gladstone first carefully ascertained the truth of the statements made
to him in order to attest their accuracy, and then published two letters
on the subject addressed to the Earl of Aberdeen. These letters were
soon followed by a third. In the first of these letters, dated April 7,
1851, he brings an elaborate, detailed and horrible indictment against
the rulers of Naples, especially as regards their prisons and the
treatment of persons confined in them for political offenses. He
disclaimed any thought of having gone to Naples for the purpose of
political criticism or censorship, to look for defects in the
administration of the government, or to hear the grievances of the
people, or to propagate ideas belonging to another country. But after a
residence of three or four months in their city he had returned home
with a deep feeling of the duty upon him to make some endeavor to
mitigate the horrors in the midst of which the government of Naples was
carried on.

There were chiefly three reasons that led him to adopt the present
course: "First, that the present practices of the Government of Naples,
in reference to real or supposed political offenders, are an outrage
upon religion, upon civilization, upon humanity and upon decency.
Secondly, that these practices are certainly, and even rapidly, doing
the work of Republicanism in that country--a political creed which has
little natural or habitual root in the character of the people. Thirdly,
that as a member of the Conservative party in one of the great family of
European nations, I am compelled to remember that party stands in
virtual and real, though perhaps unconscious alliance with all the
established Governments of Europe as such; and that, according to the
measure of its influence, they suffer more or less of moral detriment
from its reverses, and derive strength and encouragement from its
successes."

He passed over the consideration of the all important question whether
the actual Government of the Two Sicilies was one with or without a
title, one of law or one of force, and came to the real question at
issue. His charge against the Neapolitan Government was not one of mere
imperfection, not corruption in low quarters, not occasional severity,
but that of incessant, systematic, deliberate violation of the law by
the power appointed to watch over and maintain it.

Mr. Gladstone, with impassionate language, thus formulates his fearful
indictment: "It is such violation of human and written law as this,
carried on for the purpose of violating every other law, unwritten and
eternal, human and divine; it is the wholesale persecution of virtue,
when united with intelligence, operating upon such a scale that entire
classes may with truth be said to be its object, so that the Government
is in bitter and cruel, as well as utterly illegal hostility to whatever
in the nation really lives and moves, and forms the mainspring of
practical progress and improvement; it is the awful profanation of
public religion, by its notorious alliance in the governing powers with
the violation of every moral rule under the stimulants of fear and
vengeance; it is the perfect prostitution of the judicial office which
has made it, under veils only too threadbare and transparent, the
degraded recipient of the vilest and clumsiest forgeries, got up
wilfully and deliberately, by the immediate advisers of the Crown, for
the purpose of destroying the peace, the freedom, aye, and even, if not
by capital sentences, the life of men among the most virtuous, upright,
intelligent, distinguished and refined of the whole community; it is the
savage and cowardly system of moral as well as in a lower degree of
physical torture, through which the sentences obtained from the debased
courts of justice are carried into effect.

"The effect of all this is a total inversion of all the moral and social
ideas. Law, instead of being respected, is odious. Force and not
affection is the foundation of government. There is no association, but
a violent antagonism between the idea of freedom and that of order. The
governing power, which teaches of itself that it is the image of God
upon earth, is clothed in the view of the overwhelming majority of the
thinking public with all the vices for its attributes. I have seen and
heard the strong expression used, 'This is the negation of God erected
into a system of Government.'"

It was not merely the large numbers imprisoned unjustly, to which public
attention was directed, that called for righteous indignation and made
Mr. Gladstone's words create such a sensation in Europe, but the mode of
procedure was arbitrary in the extreme. The law of Naples required that
personal liberty should be inviolable, except under warrant from a court
of justice. Yet in utter disregard of this law the authorities watched
the people, paid domiciliary visits, ransacked houses, seized papers and
effects, and tore up floors at pleasure under pretense of searching for
arms, imprisoned men by the score, by the hundred, by the thousand
without any warrant whatever, sometimes without even any written
authority whatever, or anything beyond the word of a policeman,
constantly without any statement whatever of the nature of the offense.
Charges were fabricated to get rid of inconvenient persons. Perjury and
forgery were resorted to in order to establish charges, and the whole
mode of conducting trials was a burlesque of justice.

He thus describes the dungeons of Naples, in which some of the prisoners
were confined for their political opinions: "The prisons of Naples, as
is well known, are another name for the extreme of filth and horror. I
have really seen something of them, but not the worst. This I have seen,
my Lord: the official doctors not going to the sick prisoners, but the
sick prisoners, men almost with death on their faces, toiling up stairs
to them at that charnel-house of the Vicaria, because the lower regions
of such a palace of darkness are too foul and loathsome to allow it to
be expected that professional men should consent to earn bread by
entering them." Of some of those sufferers Mr. Gladstone speaks
particularly. He names Pironte, formerly a judge, Baron Porcari, and
Carlo Poerio, a distinguished patriot. The latter he specially speaks of
as a refined and accomplished gentleman, a copious and elegant speaker,
a respected and blameless character, yet he had been arrested and
condemned for treason. Mr. Gladstone says: "The condemnation of such a
man for treason is a proceeding just as conformable to the laws of
truth, justice, decency, and fair play, and to the common sense of the
community--in fact, just as great and gross an outrage on them all--as
would be a like condemnation in this country of any of our best known
public men--Lord John Russell, or Lord Lansdowne, or Sir James Graham,
or yourself."

There was no name dearer to Englishmen than that of Poerio to his
Neapolitan fellow-countrymen. Poerio was tried and condemned on the sole
accusation of a worthless character named Jerrolino. He would have been
acquitted nevertheless, by a division of four to five of his judges, had
not Navarro (who sat as a judge while directly concerned in the charge
against the prisoner), by the distinct use of intimidation, procured
the number necessary for a sentence. A statement is furnished on the
authority of an eye-witness, as to the inhumanity with which invalid
prisoners were treated by the Grand Criminal Court of Naples; and Mr.
Gladstone minutely describes the manner of the imprisonment of Poerio
and six of his incarcerated associates. Each prisoner bore a weight of
chain amounting to thirty-two pounds and for no purpose whatever were
these chains undone. All the prisoners were confined, night and day, in
a small room, which may be described as amongst the closest of dungeons;
but Poerio was after this condemned to a still lower depth of calamity
and suffering. "Never before have I conversed," says Mr. Gladstone,
speaking of Poerio, "and never probably shall I converse again, with a
cultivated and accomplished gentleman, of whose innocence, obedience to
law, and love of his country, I was as firmly and as rationally assured
as your lordship's or that of any other man of the very highest
character, whilst he stood before me, amidst surrounding felons, and
clad in the vile uniform of guilt and shame." But he is now gone where
he will scarcely have the opportunity even of such conversation. I
cannot honestly suppress my conviction that the object in the case of
Poerio, as a man of mental power sufficient to be feared, is to obtain
the scaffold's aim by means more cruel than the scaffold, and without
the outcry which the scaffold would create.

Mr. Gladstone said that it was time for the veil to be lifted from
scenes more fit for hell than earth, or that some considerable
mitigation should be voluntarily adopted. This letter was published in
1851--the year of the great Exposition in London--and a copy was sent to
the representative of the Queen in every court of Europe. Its
publication caused a wide-spread indignation in England, a great
sensation abroad, and profoundly agitated the court of Naples.

In the English Parliament Sir De Lacy Evans put the following question
to the Foreign Secretary: "If the British Minister at the court of
Naples had been instructed to employ his good offices in the cause of
humanity, for the diminution of these lamentable severities, and with
what result?" In reply to this question Lord Palmerston accepted and
adopted Mr. Gladstone's statement, which had been confirmed from other
quarters, expressing keen sympathy and humanitarian feeling with the
cause which he had espoused, but Lord Palmerston pointed out that it was
impossible to do anything in a matter which related entirely to the
domestic affairs of the Government at Naples. He said: "Instead of
confining himself to those amusements that abound in Naples, instead of
diving into volcanoes, and exploring excavated cities, we see him going
into courts of justice, visiting prisons, descending into dungeons, and
examining great numbers of the cases of unfortunate victims of
illegality and injustice, with the view afterwards to enlist public
opinion in the endeavor to remedy those abuses." This announcement by
the Foreign Secretary was warmly applauded by the House. "A few days
afterwards Lord Palmerston was requested by Prince Castelcicala to
forward the reply of the Neapolitan Government to the different European
courts to which Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet had been sent. His lordship,
with his wonted courage and independent spirit, replied that he 'must
decline being accessory to the circulation of a pamphlet which, in my
opinion, does no credit to its writer, or the Government which he
defends, or to the political party of which he professes to be the
champion.' He also informed the Prince that information received from
other sources led him to the conclusion that Mr. Gladstone had by no
means overstated the various evils which he had described; and he [Lord
Palmerston] regretted that the Neapolitan Government had not set to work
earnestly and effectually to correct the manifold and grave abuses which
clearly existed."

The second paper of Mr. Gladstone upon the same subject was a sequel to
the first. His wish was that everything possible should be done first
in the way of private representation and remonstrance, and he did not
regret the course he had taken, though it entailed devious delays. In
answer to the natural inquiry why he should simply appear in his
personal capacity through the press, instead of inviting to the grave
and painful question the attention of the House of Commons, of which he
was a member, he said, that he had advisedly abstained from mixing up
his statements with any British agency or influences which were
official, diplomatic, or political. The claims and interests which he
had in view were either wholly null and valueless, or they were broad as
the extension of the human race and long-lived as its duration.

As to his general charges he had nothing to retract. His representations
had not been too strongly stated, for the most disgraceful circumstances
were those which rested upon public notoriety, or upon his own personal
knowledge. It had been stated that he had overestimated the number of
prisoners, and he would give the Neapolitan Government the full benefit
of any correction. But the number of political prisoners _in itself_,
was a secondary feature of the case, for "if they were fairly and
legally arrested, fairly and legally treated before trial--fairly and
legally tried, that was the main matter. For the honor of human nature
men would at first receive some statements with incredulity. Men ought
to be slow to believe that such things could happen, and happen in a
Christian country, the seat of almost the oldest European civilization."
But those thus disposed in the beginning he hoped would not close their
minds to the reception of the truth, however painful to believe. The
general probability of his statements could not, unfortunately
be gainsaid.

Many replies were made to Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet that were violent and
abusive. They appeared not only in Naples, Turin, and Paris, but even
in London.

All these answers, were in truth no replies at all, for they did not
disprove the facts. These professed corrections of Mr. Gladstone's
statements did not touch the real basis of the question. It was
necessary to say something if possible by way of defense, or justice,
which had as yet not been done.

There was one reply that was put forth that Mr. Gladstone felt demanded
some attention, namely, the official answer of the Neapolitan Government
to his charges. To this he replied in a letter, in 1852. In his reply he
placed, point by point, the answers in the scales along with his own
accusations. There was in the Neapolitan answers to the letters really a
tacit admission of the accuracy of nine-tenths of Mr. Gladstone's
statements, Mr. Gladstone enumerated the few retractions which he had
to make, which were five in number. That the prisoner, Settembrine, had
not been tortured and confined to double chains for life, as was
currently reported and believed; that six judges had been dismissed at
Reggio upon presuming to acquit a batch of political prisoners, required
modifying to three; that seventeen invalids had not been massacred in
the prison of Procida during a revolt, as stated; and that certain
prisoners alleged to have been still incarcerated after acquittal had
been released after the lapse of two days. These were all the
modifications he had to make in his previous statements. And as to the
long list of his grave accusations, not one of them rested upon hearsay.
He pointed out how small and insignificant a fraction of error had found
its way into his papers. He fearlessly reasserted that agonizing
corporal punishment was inflicted by the officials in Neapolitan
prisons, and that without judicial authority. As to Settembrine, the
political prisoner named, he was incarcerated in a small room with eight
other prisoners, one of whom boasted that he had murdered, at various
times, thirty-five persons. Several of his victims had been his prison
companions, and "the murders of this Ergastolo" had exceeded fifty in a
single year. It was true that at the massacre at Procida the sick had
not been slain in the prisons, yet prisoners who hid under beds were
dragged forth and shot in cold blood by the soldiery after order had
been restored. The work of slaughter had been twice renewed, and two
officers received promotion or honors for that abominable enormity.

Mr. Gladstone found in the reply of the Government of Naples no reason
to retract his damaging statements in reference to Neapolitan
inhumanity, on the other hand he discovered grounds for emphasizing his
accusations. And as to his statement regarding the number of the
sufferers from Neapolitan injustice and cruelty, he defended at length
his statement as to the enormous number of the prisoners.

It was clear to all candid minds that all the replies had failed to
prove him wrong in any of his substantial changes, which retained their
full force. "The arrow has shot deep into the mark," observed Mr.
Gladstone, "and cannot be dislodged. But I have sought, in once more
entering the field, not only to sum up the state of the facts in the
manner nearest to exactitude, but likewise to close the case as I began
it, presenting it from first to last in the light of a matter which is
not primarily or mainly political, which is better kept apart from
Parliamentary discussion, which has no connection whatever with any
peculiar idea or separate object or interest of England, but which
appertains to the sphere of humanity at large, and well deserves the
consideration of every man who feels a concern for the well-being of
his race, in its bearings on that well-being; on the elementary demands
of individual domestic happiness; on the permanent maintenance of public
order; on the stability of thrones; on the solution of that great
problem, which, day and night, in its innumerable forms must haunt the
reflections of every statesman, both here and elsewhere, how to
harmonize the old with the new conditions of society, and to mitigate
the increasing stress of time and change upon what remains of this
ancient and venerable fabric of the traditional civilization of Europe."

Mr. Gladstone also said, that the question had been asked, whether a
government "could be induced to change its policy, because some
individual or other had by lying accusations held it up to the hatred of
mankind," yet he had the satisfaction of knowing that upon the challenge
of a mere individual, the government of Naples had been compelled to
plead before the tribunal of general opinion, and to admit the
jurisdiction of that tribunal. It was to public sentiment that the
Neapolitan Government was paying deference when it resolved on the manly
course of a judicial reply; and he hoped that further deference would be
paid to that public sentiment in the complete reform of its departments
and the whole future management of its affairs.

After a consideration of the political position of the throne of the
Two Sicilies, in connection with its dominions on the mainland, Mr.
Gladstone thus concluded his examination of the official reply of the
Neapolitan Government: "These pages have been written in the hope that,
by thus making, through the press, rather than in another mode, that
rejoinder to the Neapolitan reply which was doubtless due from me, I
might still, as far as depended on me, keep the question on its true
ground, as one not of politics but of morality, and not of England but
of Christendom and of mankind. Again I express the hope that this may be
my closing word. I express the hope that it may not become a hard
necessity to keep this controversy alive until it reaches its one only
possible issue, which no power of man can permanently intercept. I
express the hope that while there is time, while there is quiet, while
dignity may yet be saved in showing mercy, and in the blessed work of
restoring Justice to her seat, the Government of Naples may set its hand
in earnest to the work of real and searching, however quiet and
unostentatious, reform; that it may not become unavoidable to reiterate
these appeals from the hand of power to the one common heart of mankind;
to produce these painful documents, those harrowing descriptions, which
might be supplied in rank abundance, of which I have scarcely given the
faintest idea or sketch, and which, if laid from time to time before the
world, would bear down like a deluge every effort at apology or
palliation, and would cause all that has recently been made known to be
forgotten and eclipsed in deeper horrors yet; lest the strength of
offended and indignant humanity should rise up as a giant refreshed with
wine, and, while sweeping away these abominations from the eye of
Heaven, should sweep away along with them things pure and honest,
ancient, venerable, salutary to mankind, crowned with the glories of the
past and still capable of bearing future fruit."

The original purpose of these letters, though at first not gained, was
unmistakable in the subsequent revolution which created a regenerated,
free and united Italy. The moral influence of such an exposure was
incalculable and eventually irresistible. The great Italian patriot and
liberator of Italy, General Garibaldi, was known to say that Mr.
Gladstone's protest "sounded the first trumpet call of Italian liberty."
If France and England had unitedly protested against the Neapolitan
abuse of power and violation of law, such a protest would have been
heard and redress granted, but such joint action was not taken. The
letters reached the fourteenth edition and in this edition Mr. Gladstone
said that by a royal decree, issued December 27, 1858, ninety-one
political prisoners had their punishment commuted into perpetual exile
from the kingdom of the two Sicilies, but that a Ministerial order of
January 9, 1859, directed that they should be conveyed to America; that
of these ninety-one persons no less than fourteen had died long before
in dungeons, and that only sixty-six of them embarked January 16, 1859,
and were taken to Cadiz, where they were shipped on board an American
sailing vessel, which was to have carried them to New York, but
eventually landed them at Cork. "Eleven men were kept behind, either
because it was afterwards thought advisable not to release them, as in
the case of Longo and Delli Franci, two artillery officers, who were
still in the dungeons of Gaeta. Whenever the prisoners were too sick to
be moved, as was the case with Pironti, who was paralytic; or because
they were in some provincial dungeons too remote from Naples." Such was
the fate of some of the patriots officially liberated by Ferdinand's
successor, Francis II.

The charges of Mr. Gladstone against the Neapolitan Government met with
confirmation from another source nearer home. In 1851 Mr. Gladstone
translated and published Farini's important and bulky work, entitled,
"The Roman State, from 1815 to 1850." The author, Farini, addressed a
note to his translator, in which he said that he had dedicated the
concluding volume of his work to Mr. Gladstone, who, by his love of
Italian letters, and by his deeds of Italian charity, had established a
relationship with Italy in the spirit of those great Italian writers who
had been their masters in eloquence, in civil philosophy and in national
virtue, from Dante and Macchivelli down to Alfieri and Gioberti. Signor
Farini endorsed the charges made by Mr. Gladstone against the Neapolitan
Government. He wrote: "The scandalous trials for high treason still
continue at Naples; accusers, examiners, judges, false witnesses, all
are bought; the prisons, those tombs of the living, are full; two
thousand citizens of all ranks and conditions are already condemned to
the dungeons, as many to confinement, double that number to exile; the
majority guilty of no crime but that of having believed in the oaths
made by Ferdinand II. But, in truth, nothing more was needed to press
home the indictment."

At the period of Mr. Gladstone's visit to Naples there was a growing
sentiment throughout Italy for Italian independence and union. The
infamous measures adopted by the King of Naples to repress in his own
dominions every aspiration after freedom, only succeeded in making the
people more determined and the liberty for which they sighed surer in
the end. His system of misgovernment went on for a few years longer and
was the promoting cause of the revolutionary movements which continually
disturbed the whole Italian peninsula. A conference was held in Paris
upon the Italian question, which failed to accomplish anything, against
which failure Count Cavour addressed a protest to the French and British
Governments in April, 1856. Afterwards the King of Naples and his
Ministers were remonstrated with, but this was of no avail, only drawing
forth an assertion that the sovereign had the right to deal with his own
subjects as he pleased. France and England finally withdrew their
representatives from Naples, and the storm soon afterwards broke. The
brilliant success of Garibaldi in 1860 filled Francis II with terror. He
was now, like all evil men, ready to make the most lavish promises of
liberal reform to escape the consequences of his misdeeds. However, his
repentance came too late. The victorious Garibaldi issued a decree
ultimately, stating that the Two Sicilies, which had been redeemed by
Italian blood, and which had freely elected him their dictator, formed
an integral part of one and indivisable Italy, under the constitutional
King Victor Emmanuel and his descendants. Francis II was dethroned and
expelled from his kingdom by the legitimate fruits of his own hateful
policy and that of his predecessor. "Count Cavour was the brain as
Garibaldi was the hand of that mighty movement which resulted in the
unity of Italy," says an English writer, "but as Englishmen we may take
pride in the fact that not the least among the precipitating causes of
this movement was the fearless exposure by Mr. Gladstone of the
cruelties and tyrannies of the Neapolitan Government."

[Illustration: GLADSTONE VISITING NEAPOLITAN PRISONS.]




CHAPTER IX


THE FIRST BUDGET

The precise date at which Mr. Gladstone became a Liberal cannot be
determined, but during the Parliamentary sessions of 1851 and 1852 he
became finally alienated from the Conservative party, although he did
not enter the ranks of the Liberals for some years afterward. He himself
stated that so late as 1851 he had not formally left the Tory party,
nevertheless his advance towards Liberalism is very pronounced at this
period. It is well for us to trace the important events of these two
sessions, for they also lead up to the brilliant financial measures of
1853, which caused Mr. Gladstone's name to be classed with those of Pitt
and Peel. Mr. Gladstone's trusted leader was dead, and he was gradually
coming forward to take the place in debate of the fallen statesman.

When Mr. Gladstone returned home from Italy he found England convulsed
over renewed papal aggressions. The Pope had, in the preceding
September, issued Letters Apostolic, establishing a Roman Catholic
Hierarchy in England, and in which he had mapped out the whole country
into papal dioceses. This act of aggression produced a storm of public
indignation. It was regarded by the people generally as an attempt to
wrest from them their liberties and enslave them. It was looked upon by
the Protestants indignantly as an attack upon the Reformed Faith.
Anglicans resented it as an act which practically denied the
jurisdiction and authority of the Church of England, established already
by law. Englishmen, faithfully devoted to the British Constitution,
which guaranteed the Protestant Religion, were incensed by this
interference with the prerogative of the Crown; while all ardent
patriots were influenced by the unwarranted and unsolicited interference
of a foreign potentate. Every element of combustion being present,
meetings were held everywhere, inflammatory speeches were made on every
public occasion, and patriotic resolutions were passed. Pulpit and
platform rang with repeated cries of "No Popery," and echoed at the Lord
Mayor's banquet, at the Guildhall, and even at Covent Garden Theatre in
Shakesperian strains. The Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, published
his famous Durham letter, addressed to the Bishop of Durham, rebuking
and defying the Pope, and charging the whole High Church Party of the
Church of England with being the secret allies and fellow-workers
of Rome.

In the beginning of the Parliamentary session of 1851 Lord John Russell
moved for permission to bring in a bill to counteract the aggressive
policy of the Church of Rome, on account of which aggression of the Pope
the whole country was well-nigh in a condition of panic. The measure was
debated for four days, and was entitled the Ecclesiastical Faiths Bill.
It was designed to prevent the assumption by Roman Catholic prelates of
titles taken from any territory or place in England. Severe penalties
were attached to the use of such titles, and all acts done by, and
requests made to, persons under them were to be void. The bill was not
well received by some, being thought, on one side too mild and on the
other as too stringent. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone both opposed it;
the latter because the change was wanted by English Catholics rather
than by the Vatican. He condemned the vanity and boastful spirit of the
papal documents, but contended that his fellow Catholic countrymen
should not suffer for that. The difficulty of applying it to Ireland,
where the system objected to already existed, was pointed out. However
the preliminary motion was passed by 395 votes against 63, "this
enormous majority," says an English author, "attesting the wide-spread
fear of Romish machinations." The measure became a law, but it was a
dead letter, and was quietly repealed twenty years afterwards at Mr.
Gladstone's request.

Before, however, the bill was passed a ministerial crisis had
intervened. During this session other difficulties were encountered by
the Ministry. The financial as well as this ecclesiastical question was
a problem. The Conservatives were strong and compact, and enjoyed the
adhesion of the Peelites, while the Ministerial party was to a great
extent demoralized. Mr. Disraeli, owing to the deep distress that
prevailed in the agricultural districts, renewed his motion upon the
burdens on land and the inequalities of taxation, and consequently he
presented a resolution that it was the duty of the government to
introduce measures for the alleviation of the distress without delay.
The government admitted the distress, but denied that it was increasing.
They attempted to prove that pauperism had decreased in all parts of the
kingdom--England, Ireland and Scotland. Commerce was in a most
prosperous condition, while the revenues had reached the unexampled
amount of $350,000,000. "Sir James Graham stigmatized the motion as an
attempt to turn out the administration, to dissolve Parliament, and to
return to Protection." The Ministry was sustained by a small majority,
and was successful in some measures, but soon suffered several minor
defeats and finally was forced to retire.

One of the successful measures was that introduced by Mr. Loche King,
and opposed by Lord John Russell, for assimilating the country franchise
to that of the boroughs. The budget of the government introduced January
17th was unpopular. It demanded a renewed lease for three years of the
obnoxious income-tax, but promised a partial remission of the window
duties, which was a tax upon every window in a house, together with some
relief to the agriculturists. The first budget having been rejected a
second financial statement was offered later in the session. It imposed
a house-tax, withdrew the bonus to agriculturists, repealed the
window-tax, but re-demanded the income-tax for three years. The main
features of the budget were acceptable to the House, but the Government
suffered defeat on minor financial questions, which tendered still
further to diminish the popularity of the ministry.

Upon the resignation of Lord John Russell and his Cabinet, in February,
1851, Lord Stanley was called upon to form a new administration, and Mr.
Gladstone was invited to become a member of the Cabinet. Lord Stanley
having failed, Lord Aberdeen was invited to form a new Cabinet, by the
Queen, with like results. Both these gentlemen having declined the task
of forming a new administration, Lord John Russell and his colleagues
resumed office, but the reconstructed ministry was soon to receive a
fatal blow through Lord Palmerston, the foreign Secretary.

On the 2d of December, 1851, Louis Napoleon, Prince President of the
French Republic, by a single act of lawless violence, abolished the
constitution, and made himself Dictator. The details of this monstrous
deed, and of the bloodshed that accompanied it, created a profound
sensation in England. The Queen was very anxious that no step should be
taken and no word said by her ministry which could be construed into an
approval by the English government of what had been done. Indeed the
Queen who knew the failing of her Foreign Secretary to act hastily in
important matters of State without the consent or advice of Queen or
Cabinet, questioned the Premier and was assured that nothing had been
done in recognition of the new government in Paris. Indeed the Cabinet
had passed a resolution to abstain from the expression of opinions in
approval or disapproval of the recent _coup d'état_ in France. But it
soon leaked out that Lord Palmerston who thought he understood full well
the foreign relations of England, and what her policy should be, had
both in public dispatches and private conversation spoken favorably of
the policy adopted by Louis Napoleon. He had even expressed to Count
Walewski, the French Ambassador in London, his entire approval of the
Prince President's act. This was too much for the Queen, who had as
early as the August before, in a memorandum sent to the Premier,
imperatively protested against the crown's being ignored by the Foreign
Secretary, so Lord Palmerston was dismissed from office by Lord John
Russell, Christmas Eve, 1851. He bore his discharge with meekness, and
even omitted in Parliament to defend himself in points where he was
wronged. But Justin McCarthy says: "Lord Palmerston was in the wrong in
many if not most of the controversies which had preceded it; that is to
say, he was wrong in committing England as he so often did to measures
which had not the approval of the sovereign or his colleagues."

In February following, 1852, Lord Palmerston enjoyed, as he expressed
it, his "tit-for-tat with Johnny Russell" and helped the Tories to
defeat his late chief in a measure for reorganizing the militia as a
precaution against possible aggression from France. The ministry had not
saved itself by the overthrow of Lord Palmerston.

Upon the retirement of Lord John Russell from office, in 1852, the Earl
of Derby, formerly Lord Stanley, succeeded him as Prime Minister. Mr.
Gladstone was invited to become a member of the new Tory Cabinet, but
declined, whereupon Lord Malmesbury dubiously remarked, November 28th:
"I cannot make out Gladstone, who seems to me a dark horse." Mr.
Disraeli was chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer, and became Leader in
the House of Commons, entering the Cabinet for the first time. "There
was a scarcely disguised intention to revive protection." It was Free
Trade or Protection, and the Peelites defended their fallen leader,
Peel. "A makeshift budget" was introduced by Mr. Disraeli and passed. It
was destined, it seems, that the Derby Administration was not to be
supported, but to be driven out of power by Mr. Gladstone, who was to
cross swords before the nation with his future parliamentary
rival, Disraeli.

Mr. Disraeli seemed now bent upon declaring the Free Trade Policy of Sir
Robert Peel a failure. Mr. Disraeli's power of forgetfulness of the past
is one of the most fortunate ever conferred upon a statesman. During the
debate he declared that the main reason why his party had opposed Free
Trade was not that it would injure the landlord, nor the farmer, but
that "it would prove injurious to the cause of labor." "He also said,
though interrupted by cries of astonishment and of 'Oh, oh!' that not a
single attempt had been made in the House of Commons to abrogate the
measure of 1846." Mr. Sidney Herbert, who was wounded to the quick by
the assaults on Sir Robert Peel, rose to defend the great Conservative
statesman. His speech contained one passage of scathing invective
addressed to Mr. Disraeli.

Mr. Herbert said: "The memory of Sir Robert Peel requires no
vindication--his memory is embalmed in the grateful recollection of the
people of this country; and I say, if ever retribution is wanted--for it
is not words that humiliate, but deeds--if a man wants to see
humiliation, which God knows is always a painful sight, he need but look
there!"--and upon this Mr. Herbert pointed with his finger to Mr.
Disraeli sitting on the Treasury Bench. The sting of invective is truth,
and Mr. Herbert certainly spoke daggers if he used none; yet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer sat impassive as a Sphinx.

Parliament was dissolved soon after the formation of the new government,
July 1, 1852, and during the recess, September 14, 1852, the Duke of
Wellington passed away and a public funeral was given the victor
of Waterloo.

On the assembling of Parliament Mr. Gladstone delivered a eulogy on the
Duke, drawing special lessons from his illustrious career, which had
been prolonged to a green old age. Mr. Gladstone said: "While many of
the actions of his life, while many of the qualities he possessed, are
unattainable by others, there are lessons which we may all derive from
the life and actions of that illustrious man. It may never be given to
another subject of the British Crown to perform services so brilliant as
he performed; it may never be given to another man to hold the sword
which was to gain the independence of Europe, to rally the nations
around it, and while England saved herself by her constancy, to save
Europe by her example; it may never be given to another man, after
having attained such eminence, after such an unexampled series of
victories, to show equal moderation in peace as he has shown greatness
in war, and to devote the remainder of his life to the cause of internal
and external peace for that country which he has so well served; it may
never be given to another man to have equal authority, both with the
Sovereign he served and with the Senate of which he was to the end a
venerated member; it may never be given to another man after such a
career to preserve, even to the last, the full possession of those great
faculties with which he was endowed, and to carry on the services of one
of the most important departments of the State with unexampled
regularity and success, even to the latest day of his life. These are
circumstances, these are qualities, which may never occur again in the
history of this country. But these are qualities which the Duke of
Wellington displayed, of which we may all act in humble imitation: that
sincere and unceasing devotion to our country; that honest and upright
determination to act for the benefit of the country on every occasion;
that devoted loyalty, which, while it made him ever anxious to serve the
Crown, never induced him to conceal from the Sovereign that which he
believed to be the truth; that devotedness in the constant performance
of duty; that temperance of his life, which enabled him at all times to
give his mind and his faculties to the services which he was called on
to perform; that regular, consistent, and unceasing piety by which he
was distinguished at all times of his life; these are qualities that are
attainable by others, and these are qualities which should not be lost
as an example."

At this session of Parliament Mr. Disraeli brought forward his second
budget in a five hour speech. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed to remit a portion of the taxes upon malt, tea, and sugar, but
to counterbalance these losses he also proposed to extend the income-tax
and house-tax. The debate, which was very personal, was prolonged
several days, and Mr. Disraeli, towards its close, bitterly attacked
several members, among them Sir James Graham, whom Mr. Gladstone not
only defended, but in so doing administered a scathing rebuke to the
Chancellor for his bitter invective and personal abuse. Mr. Gladstone's
speech at the close of Mr. Disraeli's presentation was crushing, and was
generally regarded as giving the death-blow to this financial scheme.

Mr. Gladstone told Mr. Disraeli that he was not entitled to charge with
insolence men of as high position and of as high character in the House
as himself, and when the cheers which had interrupted him had subsided,
concluded: "I must tell the right honorable gentleman that he is not
entitled to say to my right honorable friend, the member for Carlisle,
that he regards but does not respect him. And I must tell him that
whatever else he has learnt--and he has learnt much--he has not learnt
to keep within those limits of discretion, of moderation, and of
forbearance that ought to restrain the conduct and language of every
member in this House, the disregard of which, while it is an offence in
the meanest amongst us, is an offence of tenfold weight when committed
by the leader of the House of Commons."

The thrilling scene enacted in the House of Commons on that memorable
night is thus described: "In the following month the Chancellor of the
Exchequer produced his second budget. It was an ambitious and a skillful
attempt to reconcile conflicting interests, and to please all while
offending none. The government had come into office pledged to do
something for the relief of the agricultural interests. They redeemed
their pledge by reducing the duty on malt. This reduction created a
deficit; and they repaired the deficit by doubling the duty on inhabited
houses. Unluckily, the agricultural interests proved, as usual,
ungrateful to its benefactors, and made light of the reduction on malt;
while those who were to pay for it in double taxation were naturally
indignant. The voices of criticism, 'angry, loud, discordant voices,'
were heard simultaneously on every side. The debate waxed fast and
furious. In defending his hopeless proposals, Mr. Disraeli gave full
scope to his most characteristic gift; he pelted his opponents right and
left with sarcasms, taunts, and epigrams, and went as near personal
insult as the forms of Parliament permit. He sat down late at night, and
Mr. Gladstone rose in a crowded and excited House to deliver an
unpremeditated reply which has ever since been celebrated. Even the cold
and colorless pages of 'Hansard' show signs of the excitement under
which he labored, and of the tumultuous applause and dissent by which
his opening sentences were interrupted. 'The speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer,' he said, 'must be answered on the moment. It must be
tried by the laws of decency and propriety.'" He indignantly rebuked his
rival's language and demeanor. He reminded him of the discretion and
decorum due from every member, but pre-eminently due from the leader of
the House. He tore his financial scheme to ribbons. It was the beginning
of a duel which lasted till death removed one of the combatants from the
political arena. 'Those who had thought it impossible that any
impression could be made upon the House after the speech of Mr.
Disraeli had to acknowledge that a yet greater impression was produced
by the unprepared reply of Mr. Gladstone.' The House divided and the
government were left in a minority of nineteen. This happened in the
early morning of December 17, 1852. Within an hour of the division Lord
Derby wrote to the Queen a letter announcing his defeat and the
consequences which it must entail, and that evening at Osborne he placed
his formal resignation in her majesty's hands.

It is related as an evidence of the intense excitement, if not frenzy,
that prevailed at the time, that Mr. Gladstone met with indignity at his
Club. Greville, in his "Memoirs," says that, "twenty ruffians of the
Carleton Club" had given a dinner to Major Beresford, who had been
charged with bribery at the Derby election and had escaped with only a
censure, and that "after dinner, when they were drunk, they went up
stairs and finding Mr. Gladstone alone in the drawing-room, some of them
proposed to throw him out of the window. This they did not quite dare to
do, but contented themselves with giving some insulting message or order
to the waiter and then went away." Mr. Gladstone, however, remained a
member of the Club until he joined the Whig administration in 1859.

Mr. Gladstone's crushing _exposé_ of the blunders of Mr. Disraeli's
budget was almost ludicrous in its completeness, and it was universally
felt that the scheme could not survive his brilliant attack. The effect
that the merciless criticism of Disraeli's budget was not only the
discomfiture of Mr. Disraeli and the overthrow of the Russell
administration, but the elevation of Mr. Gladstone to the place vacated
by Chancellor Disraeli.

The Earl of Aberdeen became Prime Minister. The new government was a
coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with a representative of the Radicals
in the person of Sir William Molesworth. Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of
Newcastle, Sir James Graham and Mr. Sidney Herbert were the Peelites in
the Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone was chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We may refer here to a letter of Mr. Gladstone, written Christmas, 1851,
in order to show his growing Liberalism. The letter was to Dr. Skinner,
Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus, on the positions and functions of the
laity in the Church. This letter is remarkable, because, as Dr. Charles
Wordsworth, Bishop of St. Andrew's, said at the time, "it contained the
germ of liberation and the political equality of all religions." The
Bishop published a controversial rejoinder, which drew from Dr.
Gaisford, Dean of Christ Church, these emphatic words: "You have proved
to my satisfaction that this gentleman is unfit to represent the
University," meaning the representation for Oxford in Parliament.

This feeling was growing, for when the Russell Ministry fell and it
became necessary for Mr. Gladstone, because he accepted a place in the
Cabinet, to appeal for re-election to his constituents at Oxford, he met
with much opposition, because of his Liberalism. Appealing to his
university to return him, and endorse his acceptance of office in the
new Ministry of the Earl of Aberdeen, Mr. Gladstone soon discovered that
he had made many enemies by his manifest tendencies toward
Liberal-Conservatism. He had given unmistakable evidence that he held
less firmly the old traditions of that unbending Toryism of which he was
once the most promising representative. Lord Derby, whom he had deposed,
had been elected Chancellor of the University to succeed the Duke of
Wellington, deceased. Consequently his return to the House was ardently
contested. His opponents looked around for a candidate of strong
Conservative principles. The Marquis of Chandos, who was first elected,
declined to run in opposition to Mr. Gladstone; but at length a suitable
opponent was found in Mr. Dudley Perceval, of Christ Church, son of the
Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, who was nominated January 4th.

Dr. Hawkins, Provost of Oriel, one of the twenty colleges of Oxford,
proposed Mr. Gladstone, and Archdeacon Denison, leader of the High
Church party, proposed Mr. Dudley Perceval. According to the custom at
university elections, neither candidate was present. It was objected to
Mr. Gladstone that he had voted improperly on ecclesiastical questions,
and had accepted office in "a hybrid ministry." The "Times" described
Mr. Perceval as "a very near relative of our old friend Mrs. Harris. To
remove any doubt on this point, let him be exhibited at Exeter Hall with
the documentary evidence of his name, existence and history; his
first-class, his defeat at Finsbury, his talents, his principles. If we
must go to Oxford to record our votes it would at least be something to
know that we were voting against a real man and not a mere name." The
"Morning Chronicle," on the other hand, affirmed that a section of the
Carleton Club were "making a tool of the Oxford Convocation for the
purpose of the meanest and smallest political rancor against Mr.
Gladstone."

Mr. Gladstone, who fought the battle on ecclesiastical lines, wrote,
after the nomination, to the chairman of his election committee,
as follows:

"Unless I had a full and clear conviction that the interests of the
Church, whether as relates to the legislative functions of Parliament,
or the impartial and wise recommendation of fit persons to her majesty
for high ecclesiastical offices, were at least as safe in the hands of
Lord Aberdeen as in those of Lord Derby (though I would on no account
disparage Lord Derby's personal sentiments towards the Church), I should
not have accepted office under Lord Aberdeen. As regards the second, if
it be thought that during twenty years of public life, or that during
the latter part of them, I have failed to give guarantees of attachment
to the interests of the Church--to such as so think I can offer neither
apology nor pledge. To those who think otherwise, I tender the assurance
that I have not by my recent assumption of office made any change
whatever in that particular, or in any principles relating to it."

Mr. Gladstone was again elected by a fair majority and returned to
Parliament. Seventy-four of the professors voted for Mr. Gladstone and
fifteen for Mr. Perceval.

When Parliament assembled the Earl of Aberdeen announced in the House of
Lords that the measures of the Government would be both Conservative and
Liberal,--at home to maintain Free Trade principles and to pursue the
commercial and financial system of the late Sir Robert Peel, and abroad
to secure the general peace of Europe without relaxing defensive
measures.

Mr. Gladstone had already proved himself to have a wonderful mastery of
figures, and the confused technicalities of finance. He did not
disappoint the hopes of his friends in regard to his fiscal abilities.
On the contrary, he speedily inaugurated a new and brilliant era in
finance. Previous to presenting his first budget, in 1853, Mr. Gladstone
brought forward a scheme for the reduction of the national debt, which
was approved by Radicals as well as Conservatives, and adopted by the
House. The scheme worked most successfully until the breaking out of the
Crimean war. During this very short period of two years the public debt
was reduced by more than $57,500,000.

In consequence of his general reputation and also of this brilliant
financial scheme, the first budget of Mr. Gladstone was waited for with
intense interest. His first budget was introduced April 18, 1853. It was
one of his greatest budgets, and for statesmanlike breadth of conception
it has never been surpassed. In bringing it forward Mr. Gladstone spoke
five hours, and during that length of time held the House spellbound.
The speech was delivered with the greatest ease, and was perspicuity
itself throughout. Even when dealing with the most abstruse financial
detail his language flowed on without interruption, and he never paused
for a word. "Here was an orator who could apply all the resources of a
burnished rhetoric to the elucidation of figures; who could make pippins
and cheese interesting and tea serious; who could sweep the widest
horizon of the financial future and yet stoop to bestow the minutest
attention on the microcosm of penny stamps and post-horses. The members
on the floor and ladies in the gallery of the House listened attentively
and showed no signs of weariness throughout." A contemporary awarded to
him the palm for unsurpassed fluency and choice of diction, and says:

"The impression produced upon the minds of the crowded and brilliant
assembly by Mr. Gladstone's evident mastery and grasp of the subject,
was, that England had at length found a skillful financier, upon whom
the mantle of Peel had descended. The cheering when the right honorable
gentleman sat down was of the most enthusiastic and prolonged character,
and his friends and colleagues hastened to tender him their warm
congratulations upon the distinguished success he had achieved in his
first budget."

The budget provided for the gradual reduction of the income tax to
expire in 1860; for an increase in the duty on spirits; for the
abolition of the soap duties; the reduction of the tax on cabs and
hackney coaches; the introduction of the penny receipt stamp and the
equalization of the assessed taxes on property. By these provisions it
was proposed to make life easier and cheaper for large and numerous
classes. The duty on 123 articles was abolished and the duty on 133
others reduced, the total relief amounting to $25,000,000. Mr. Gladstone
gave a clear exposition of the income tax, which he declared was never
intended to be permanent. It had been the last resort in times of
national danger, and he could not consent to retain it as a part of the
permanent and ordinary finances of the country. It was objectionable on
account of its unequal incidence, of the harassing investigation into
private affairs which it entailed and of the frauds to which it
inevitably led.

The value of the reduction in the necessities of life proposed by Mr.
Gladstone is seen from the following from a contemporary writer:

"The present budget, more than any other budget within our recollection,
is a cupboard budget; otherwise, a poor man's budget. With certain very
ugly features, the thing has altogether a good, hopeful aspect, together
with very fair proportions. It is not given to any Chancellor of the
Exchequer to make a budget fascinating as a fairy tale. Nevertheless,
there are visions of wealth and comfort in the present budget that
mightily recommend it to us. It seems to add color and fatness to the
poor man's beef; to give flavor and richness to the poor man's
plum-pudding. The budget is essentially a cupboard budget; and let the
name of Gladstone be, for the time at least, musical at the poor man's
fireside."

It unquestionably established Gladstone as the foremost financier of
his day. Greville, in his "Memoirs," says of him: "He spoke for five
hours; and by universal consent it was one of the grandest displays and
most able financial statements that ever was heard in the House of
Commons; a great scheme, boldly and skillfully and honestly devised,
disdaining popular clamor and pressure from without, and the execution
of its absolute perfection."

We reproduce some extracts from this important speech: "Depend upon it,
when you come to close quarters with this subject, when you come to
measure and test the respective relations of intelligence and labor and
property in all their myriad and complex forms, and when you come to
represent those relations in arithmetical results, you are undertaking
an operation of which I should say it was beyond the power of man to
conduct it with satisfaction, but which, at any rate, is an operation to
which you ought not constantly to recur; for if, as my noble friend once
said with universal applause, this country could not bear a revolution
once a year, I will venture to say that it cannot bear a reconstruction
of the income tax once a year.

"Whatever you do in regard to the income tax, you must be bold, you must
be intelligible, you must be decisive. You must not palter with it. If
you do, I have striven at least to point out as well as my feeble
powers will permit, the almost desecration I would say, certainly the
gross breach of duty to your country, of which you will be found guilty,
in thus putting to hazard one of the most potent and effective among all
its material resources. I believe it to be of vital importance, whether
you keep this tax or whether you part with it, that you should either
keep it or should leave it in a state in which it will be fit for
service on an emergency, and that it will be impossible to do if you
break up the basis of your income tax.

"If the Committee have followed me, they will understand that we found
ourselves on the principle that the income-tax ought to be marked as a
temporary measure; that the public feeling that relief should be given
to intelligence and skill as compared with property ought to be met, and
may be met with justice and with safety, in the manner we have pointed
out; that the income tax in its operation ought to be mitigated by every
rational means, compatible with its integrity; and, above all, that it
should be associated in the last term of its existence, as it was in the
first, with those remissions of indirect taxation which have so greatly
redoubled to the profit of this country and have set so admirable an
example--an example that has already in some quarters proved contagious
to the other nations of the earth, These are the principles on which we
stand, and these the figures. I have shown you that if you grant us the
taxes which we ask, to the moderate amount of £2,500,000 in the whole,
much less than that sum for the present year, you, or the Parliament
which may be in existence in 1860, will be in the condition, if it shall
so think fit, to part with the income tax."

Sir, I scarcely dare to look at the clock, shamefully reminding me, as
it must, how long, how shamelessly, I have trespassed on the time of the
committee. All I can say in apology is that I have endeavored to keep
closely to the topics which I had before me--

          --immensum spatiis confecimus aequor,
     Et jam tempus equum fumantia solvere colla.

"These are the proposals of the Government. They may be approved or they
may be condemned, but I have at least this full and undoubting
confidence, that it will on all hands be admitted that we have not
sought to evade the difficulties of our position; that we have not
concealed those difficulties, either from ourselves or from others; that
we have not attempted to counteract them by narrow or flimsy expedients;
that we have prepared plans which, if you will adopt them, will go some
way to close up many vexed financial questions--questions such as, if
not now settled, may be attended with public inconvenience, and even
with public danger, in future years and under less favorable
circumstances; that we have endeavored, in the plans we have now
submitted to you, to make the path of our successors in future years not
more arduous but more easy; and I may be permitted to add that, while we
have sought to do justice, by the changes we propose in taxation, to
intelligence and skill as compared with property--while we have sought
to do justice to the great laboring community of England by furthering
their relief from indirect taxation, we have not been guided by any
desire to put one class against another. We have felt we should best
maintain our own honor, that we should best meet the views of
Parliament, and best promote the interests of the country, by declining
to draw any invidious distinctions between class and class, by adapting
it to ourselves as a sacred aim to differ and distribute--burden if we
must, benefit if we may--with equal and impartial hand; and we have the
consolation of believing that by proposals such as these we contribute,
as far as in us lies, not only to develop the material resources of the
country, but to knit the hearts of the various classes of this great
nation yet more closely than heretofore to that throne and to those
institutions under which it is their happiness to live."

It is seldom that a venture of such magnitude as Mr. Gladstone's first
budget meets with universal success. But from the outset the plan was
received with universal favor. Besides the plaudits with which the
orator was greeted at the conclusion of his speech, his proposals were
received favorably by the whole nation. Being constructed upon Free
Trade principles, it was welcomed by the press and the country. It added
greatly, not only to the growing reputation of the new Chancellor of the
Exchequer as a financier, but also to his popularity.

The following anecdote of Mr. Gladstone is told by Walter Jerrold and is
appropriate as well as timely here:

"During Mr. Gladstone's first tenure of office as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, a curious adventure occurred to him in the London offices of
the late Mr. W. Lindsay, merchant, shipowner and M.P. There one day
entered a brusque and wealthy shipowner of Sunderland, inquiring for Mr.
Lindsay. As Mr. Lindsay was out, the visitor was requested to wait in an
adjacent room, where he found a person busily engaged in copying some
figures. The Sunderland shipowner paced the room several times and took
careful note of the writer's doings, and at length said to him, 'Thou
writes a bonny hand, thou dost.'

"'I am glad you think so,' was the reply.

"'Ah, thou dost. Thou makes thy figures weel. Thou'rt just the chap I
want.'

"'Indeed!' said the Londoner.

"'Yes, indeed,' said the Sunderland man. 'I'm a man of few words. Noo,
if thou'lt come over to canny ould Sunderland thou seest I'll give thee
a hundred and twenty pounds a year, and that's a plum thou dost not meet
with every day in thy life, I reckon. Noo then.'

"The Londoner replied that he was much obliged for the offer, and would
wait till Mr. Lindsay returned, whom he would consult upon the subject.
Accordingly, on the return of the latter, he was informed of the
shipowner's tempting offer.

"'Very well,' said Mr. Lindsay, 'I should be sorry to stand in your way.
One hundred and twenty pounds is more than I can afford to pay you in
the department in which you are at present placed. You will find my
friend a good and kind master, and, under the circumstances, the sooner
you know each other the better. Allow me, therefore, Mr.----, to
introduce you to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, Chancellor of the
Exchequer.' The Sunderland shipowner was a little taken aback at first,
but he soon recovered his self-possession, and enjoyed the joke quite as
much as Mr. Gladstone did."




CHAPTER X


THE CRIMEAN WAR

The Crimean War, the great event with which the Aberdeen Cabinet was
associated, was a contest between Russia and Turkey, England and France.
A dispute which arose between Russia and Turkey as to the possession of
the Holy Places of Jerusalem was the precipitating cause. For a long
time the Greek and the Latin Churches had contended for the possession
of the Holy Land. Russia supported the claim of the Greek Church, and
France that of the Papal Church. The Czar claimed a Protectorate over
all the Greek subjects of the Porte. Russia sought to extend her
conquests south and to seize upon Turkey. France and England sustained
Turkey. Sardinia afterwards joined the Anglo-French alliance.

The people of England generally favored the war, and evinced much
enthusiasm at the prospect of it. Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Gladstone wished
England to stand aloof. The Peelite members of the cabinet were
generally less inclined to war than the Whigs. Lord Palmerston and Lord
John Russell favored England's support of Turkey. Some thought that
England could have averted the war by pursuing persistently either of
two courses: to inform Turkey that England would give her no aid; or to
warn Russia that if she went to war, England would fight for Turkey. But
with a ministry halting between two opinions, and the people demanding
it, England "drifted into war" with Russia.

July 2, 1853, the Russian troops crossed the Pruth and occupied the
Danubian Principalities which had been by treaty, in 1849, evacuated by
Turkey and Russia, and declared by both powers neutral territory between
them. London was startled, October 4, 1853, by a telegram announcing
that the Sultan had declared war against Russia. England and France
jointly sent an _ultimatum_ to the Czar, to which no answer was
returned. March 28, 1854, England declared war.

On the 12th of March, while great excitement prevailed and public
meetings were held throughout England, declaring for and against war,
Mr. Gladstone made an address on the occasion of the inauguration of the
statue of Sir Robert Peel, at Manchester. He spoke of the designs of
Russia, and described her as a power which threatened to override all
other powers, and as a source of danger to the peace of the world.
Against such designs, seen in Russia's attempt to overthrow the Ottoman
Empire, England had determined to set herself at whatever cost. War was
a calamity that the government did not desire to bring upon the country,
"a calamity which stained the face of nature with human gore, gave loose
rein to crime, and took bread from the people. No doubt negotiation is
repugnant to the national impatience at the sight of injustice and
oppression; it is beset with delay, intrigue, and chicane; but these are
not so horrible as war, if negotiation can be made to result in saving
this country from a calamity which deprives the nation of subsistence
and arrests the operations of industry. To attain that result ... Her
Majesty's Ministers have persevered in exercising that self-command and
that self-restraint which impatience may mistake for indifference,
feebleness or cowardice, but which are truly the crowning greatness of a
great people, and which do not evince the want of readiness to
vindicate, when the time comes, the honor of this country."

In November a conference of some of the European powers was held at
Vienna to avert the war by mediating between Russia and Turkey, but was
unsuccessful. Mr. Gladstone said: "Austria urged the two leading
states, England and France, to send in their _ultimatum_ to Russia, and
promised it her decided support.... Prussia at the critical moment, to
speak in homely language, bolted.... In fact, she broke up the European
concert, by which France and England had hoped to pull down the
stubbornness of the Czar."

Mr. Gladstone had opposed the war, not only on humanitarian and
Christian grounds, but also because the preparation of a war budget
overthrew all his financial schemes and hopes; a new budget was
necessary, and he as Chancellor of the Exchequer must prepare it.
Knowing that the struggle was inevitable, he therefore bent his energies
to the task and conceived a scheme for discharging the expenses of the
war out of the current revenue, provided it required no more than ten
million pounds extra, so that the country should not be permanently
burdened. It would require to do this the imposition of fresh taxes.

"It thus fell to the lot of the most pacific of Ministers, the devotee
of retrenchment, and the anxious cultivator of all industrial arts, to
prepare a war budget, and to meet as well as he might the exigencies of
a conflict which had so cruelly dislocated all the ingenious devices of
financial optimism."

Mr. Gladstone afterwards moved for over six and a half millions of
pounds more than already granted, and proposed a further increase in the
taxes. Mr. Disraeli opposed Mr. Gladstone's budget. He devised a scheme
to borrow and thus increase the debt. He opposed the imposition of new
taxes. Mr. Gladstone said: "Every good motive and every bad motive,
combated only by the desire of the approval of honorable men and by
conscientious rectitude--every motive of ease, comfort, and of certainty
spring forward to induce a Chancellor of the Exchequer to become the
first man to recommend a loan." Mr. Gladstone was sustained.

The war had begun in earnest. The Duke of Newcastle received a telegram
on the 21st of September announcing that 25,000 English troops, 25,000
French and 8000 Turks had landed safely at Eupatoria "without meeting
with any resistance, and had already begun to march upon Sebastopol."

The war was popular with the English people, but the ministry of Lord
Aberdeen, which inaugurated it, was becoming unpopular. This became
apparent in the autumn of 1854. There were not actual dissensions in the
Cabinet, but there was great want of harmony as to the conduct of the
war. The Queen knew with what reluctance Lord Aberdeen had entered upon
the war, but she had the utmost confidence in him as a man and a
statesman. She was most desirous that the war be prosecuted with vigor,
and trusted the Premier for the realization of her hopes and those of
the nation, but unity in the Cabinet was necessary for the successful
prosecution of the war.

Parliament assembled December 12, 1854, "under circumstances more
stirring and momentous than any which had occurred since the year of
Waterloo." The management of the war was the main subject under
discussion. The English troops had covered themselves with glory in the
battles of Alma, Balaclava and Inkermann. But the sacrifice was great.
Thousands were slain and homes made desolate, while the British army was
suffering greatly, and the sick and wounded were needing attention. Half
a million pounds were subscribed in three months, and Miss Florence
Nightingale with thirty-seven lady nurses, soon to be reinforced by
fifty more, set out at once for the seat of war to nurse the sick and
wounded soldiers. It is recorded that "they reached Scutari on the 5th
of November, in time to receive the soldiers who had been wounded at the
battle of Balaclava. On the arrival of Miss Nightingale the great
hospital at Scutari, in which up to this time all had been chaos and
discomfort, was reduced to order, and those tender lenitives which only
woman's thought and woman's sympathy can bring to the sick man's couch,
were applied to solace and alleviate the agonies of pain or the torture
of fever and prostration."

It was natural to attribute the want of proper management to the
ministry, and hence the Government found itself under fire. In the House
of Lords the Earl of Derby condemned the inefficient manner in which the
war had been carried on, the whole conduct of the ministry in the war,
and the insufficiency of the number of troops sent out to check the
power of Russia. The Duke of Newcastle replied, and while not defending
all the actions of the ministry during the war, yet contended that the
government were prepared to prosecute it with resolve and unflinching
firmness. While not standing ready to reject overtures of peace, they
would not accept any but an honorable termination of the war. The
ministry relied upon the army, the people, and upon their allies with
the full confidence of ultimate success.

Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, attacked the policy of the
ministry from beginning to end. Everything was a blunder or a mishap of
some description or other; the government had invaded Russia with 25,000
troops without providing any provision for their support.

When the House of Commons assembled, in January, 1855, it became
apparent that there was a determination to sift to the bottom the
charges that had been made against the ministry regarding their manner
of carrying on the war. The Queen expressed her sympathy for Lord
Aberdeen, who was in a most unenviable position. Motions hostile to the
government were introduced in the House of Lords, while in the House of
Commons Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee "to inquire into the
condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those
departments of the government whose duty it has been to minister to the
wants of the army."

Lord John Russell resigned his office and left his colleagues to face
the vote. He could not see how Mr. Roebuck's motion could be resisted.
This seemed to portend the downfall of the ministry. The Duke of
Newcastle, Secretary of War, offered to retire to save the government.
Lord Palmerston believed that the breaking up of the ministry would be a
calamity to the country, but he doubted the expediency of the retirement
of the Duke of Newcastle, and his own fitness for the place of Minister
of War, if vacated. Finally the Cabinet resolved to hold together,
except Lord John Russell.

In the debate it was declared that the condition of things at the seat
of war was exaggerated; but the speech of Mr. Stafford caused a great
sensation. He described the sufferings which he declared he had himself
witnessed. He summed up by quoting the language of a French officer, who
said: "You seem, sir, to carry on war according to the system of the
Middle Ages." The situation of the ministry was critical before, but
this speech seemed to make sure the passage of the resolutions.

It was under all these depressing circumstances that Mr. Gladstone rose
to defend himself and his colleagues. In a fine passage he thus
described what the position of the Cabinet would have been if they had
shrunk from their duty: "What sort of epitaph would have been written
over their remains? He himself would have written it thus: Here lie the
dishonored ashes of a ministry which found England at peace and left it
in war, which was content to enjoy the emoluments of office and to wield
the sceptre of power so long as no man had the courage to question their
existence. They saw the storm gathering over the country; they heard the
agonizing accounts which were almost daily received of the state of the
sick and wounded in the East. These things did not move them. But as
soon as the Honorable Member for Sheffield raised his hand to point the
thunderbolt, they became conscience-stricken with a sense of guilt, and,
hoping to escape punishment, they ran away from duty."

This eloquent passage was received with tumultuous cheers. Mr.
Gladstone claimed that there had been many exaggerations as to the state
of the army and there were then more than 30,000 British troops under
arms before Sebastopol. The administration of the War Department at home
was no doubt defective, but he declined to admit that it had not
improved, or that it was as bad as to deserve formal censure, and the
Duke of Newcastle did not merit the condemnation sought to be cast on
him as the head of the War Department.

Mr. Disraeli was eagerly heard when he rose to speak. He said that the
government admitted that they needed reconstruction, and that now the
House was called upon to vote confidence in the administration. It was
not the Duke of Newcastle nor the military system, but the policy of the
whole Cabinet which he characterized as a "deplorable administration."

The result of the vote was a strange surprise to all parties, and one of
the greatest ever experienced in Parliamentary history. The vote for Mr.
Roebuck's committee was 205; and against it, 148; a majority against the
ministry of 157. "The scene was a peculiar and probably an unparalleled
one. The cheers which are usually heard from one side or the other of
the House on the numbers of a division being announced, were not
forthcoming. The members were for a moment spellbound with
astonishment, then there came a murmur of amazement and finally a burst
of general laughter." The resignation of the Aberdeen ministry was
announced February 1st, the Duke of Newcastle stating that it had been
his intention to give up the office of Secretary of War whether Mr.
Roebuck's resolution had passed or not.

Thus was overthrown the famous coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen--one
of the most brilliant ever seen--a Cabinet distinguished for its
oratorical strength, and for the conspicuous abilities of its chief
members. Mr. Gladstone, who was the most distinguished Peelite in the
Cabinet, certainly could not, up to this period, be suspected of
lukewarmness in the prosecution of the war. Lord Palmerston formed a
reconstructed rather than a new Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone and his friends
at first declined to serve in the new Cabinet, out of regard for the
Duke of Newcastle and Lord Aberdeen, the real victims of the adverse
vote. But these noblemen besought Mr. Gladstone not to let his personal
feelings stand in the way of his own interests, and not to deprive the
country of his great services, so he resumed office as Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Lord Palmerston had been regarded as the coming man, and his
name carried weight upon the Continent and at home. But the new
ministry was surrounded by serious difficulties, and did not pull
together very long. The War Minister, Lord Panmure, entered upon his
duties with energy, and proposed, February 16th, his remedy for existing
evils; but on the 19th of February Mr. Layard in the House of Commons
said, "the country stood on the brink of ruin--it had fallen into the
abyss of disgrace and become the laughing-stock of Europe." He declared
that the new ministry differed little from the last.

Lord Palmerston, in answer to inquiries, lamented the sufferings of the
army and confessed that mishaps had been made, but the present ministry
had come forward in an emergency and from a sense of public duty, and he
believed would obtain the confidence of the country. But another strange
turn in events was at hand. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of the appointment
of his committee. Hostility to the ministry was disclaimed, but Mr.
Gladstone, Sir James Graham and Mr. Sidney Herbert took the same view of
the question they had previously taken. They were opposed to the
investigation as a dangerous breach of a great constitutional principle,
and if the committee was granted, it would be a precedent from whose
repetition the Executive could never again escape, however unreasonable
might be the nature of the demand. They therefore retired from office.

The report of the committee, when presented, practically advised a vote
of censure upon the Aberdeen Cabinet for the sufferings of the British
army, hence the house declined to entertain it by a large majority of
107. As the appointment of the committee, however, was the only way to
allay the popular excitement, there were many who thought that the
Peelites would have done well to recognize the urgency of the crisis and
not to have abandoned the Government.

The resignation of Mr. Gladstone made him very unpopular. However, "the
wave of unpopularity lasted perhaps for a couple of years, and was
afterwards replaced by a long-sustained popularity, which has not been
exceeded by any statesman of the country. Greville referred to Gladstone
about this time as 'the most unpopular man in the country.'"

March 2d the Emperor Nicholas died suddenly, and there were momentary
hopes of peace; but his successor, Alexander, resolved to prosecute the
struggle rather than yield the positions taken by the late Czar. He
issued a warlike proclamation, and though he agreed to take part in the
Vienna Conference of European powers, to be held March 15th, there were
no signs that he intended to recede from the Russian claims.

Lord John Russell was sent to Vienna as English Plenipotentiary. The
English aimed to secure the limitation of the preponderance of Russia in
the Black Sea, and the acknowledgment of Turkey as one of the great
European powers. To gain these points would, it was thought, end the
war. Russia "would not consent to limit the number of her ships--if she
did so she forfeited her honor, she would be no longer Russia. They did
not want Turkey, they would be glad to maintain the Sultan, but they
knew it was impossible; he must perish; they were resolved not to let
any other power have Constantinople--they must not have that door to
their dominions in the Black Sea shut against them." The Conference
failed, and Lord John Russell was held responsible for its failure, and
was eventually forced out of the Cabinet on that account. The failure of
the Vienna negotiations produced great excitement, and the ministry were
attacked and defeated in both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Disraeli offered
a resolution of dissatisfaction in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone
spoke during the debate on the failure of the Vienna Conference, and
defended the war of the Crimea. He did not consider it a failure, for
Russia now agreed to most of the points raised by the allies, and the
only matter to be adjusted, was the proposition to limit the power of
Russia in the Black Sea. Personally, he had formerly favored the
curtailment of Russia's power there, but he now thought that such a
proposal implied a great indignity to Russia. He believed that the
proposal of Russia to give to Turkey the power of opening and shutting
the straits was one calculated to bring about a peaceful settlement. The
time was favorable to make peace. Lord John Russell replied vigorously
to Mr. Gladstone. The House decided by a majority of 100 to support the
ministry in the further prosecution of the war until a safe and
honorable peace could be secured.

But on the 10th of July Sir E. Bulwer Lytton offered the following
resolution: "That the conduct of our Ministry, in the recent
negotiations at Vienna, has, in the opinion of this House, shaken the
confidence of this country in those to whom its affairs are entrusted."
Lord John Russell again declined to face discussion and resigned. During
the debate on the motion Mr. Disraeli bitterly attacked Lord John
Russell and the Premier, Lord Palmerston. But Mr. Gladstone said that so
far from blaming the Ministry for hesitating about the offers of peace
at Vienna, he blamed them for not giving the propositions that
consideration which their gravity demanded, and for abruptly
terminating the Conference and closing the hope of an honorable peace.

Mr. Gladstone, on the 3d of August, made another powerful appeal for the
cessation of the war. He held that there was now no definite object for
continuing the struggle; defended the Austrian proposals; defied the
Western powers to control the future destinies of Russia, save for a
moment; and he placed "the individual responsibility of the continuance
of the war on the head of the Ministry."

But while Sebastopol held out there was no prospect of peace with
Russia. Finally, in September, that fortress was taken and destroyed,
and the Peace of Paris was concluded, March, 1856.

[Illustration: HOUSE OF COMMONS.]




CHAPTER XI


IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT

It was in February, 1855, that Mr. Gladstone resigned his seat in the
Cabinet. After the Treaty of Paris, March, 1856, which put an end to the
Crimean War, Mr. Gladstone found himself in opposition to the Ministry
of Lord Palmerston. He had assumed a position of independence,
associating politically with neither party. The political parties
dreaded criticism and attack from him, for he was not properly
constructed for the defense of either. He had himself declared his
"sympathies" were "with the Conservatives, and his opinions with the
Liberals," and that he and his Peelite colleagues, during this period of
political isolation, were like roving icebergs on which men could not
land with safety, but with which ships might come into perilous
collision. Their weight was too great not to count, but it counted first
this way and then that. Mr. Gladstone was conscientious in his
opposition. He said: "I greatly felt being turned out of office. I saw
great things to do. I longed to do them. I am losing the best years of
my life out of my natural service. Yet I have never ceased to rejoice
that I am not in office with Palmerston, when I have seen the tricks,
the shufflings, the frauds he daily has recourse to as to his business.
I rejoice not to sit on the Treasury Bench with him."

In August, 1855, Lord Aberdeen said; "Gladstone intends to be Prime
Minister. He has great qualifications, but some serious defects. He is
supreme in the House of Commons. He is too obstinate; if a man can be
too honest, he is too honest. I have told Gladstone that when he is
Prime Minister, I will have a seat in his Cabinet, if he desires it,
without an office."

During 1856, several measures came before Parliament which Mr. Gladstone
opposed. He vindicated the freedom of the Belgian press, whose liberty
some of the powers would curtail, and opposed resolutions to consider
the state of education in England and Wales, as tending to create a
central controlling power, involving secular instruction and endless
religious quarrels. He also opposed the budget of Sir G.C. Lewis, which
imposed more duties upon the tea and sugar of the working-man, and was
said to be generally at variance with the policy pursued by every
enlightened minister of finance. Besides, he condemned the continuance
of the war duties in times of peace. "He was a particularly acute thorn
in the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and criticised the
budget with unsparing vigor. 'Gladstone seems bent on leading Sir George
Lewis a weary life,' wrote Mr. Greville. But finance was by no means the
only subject of this terrible free-lance."

A resolution was offered in the House of Commons expressing
disapprobation with the English Cabinet for sanctioning, in 1855 and
'56, the violation of international law, by secretly enlisting the
subjects of the United States as recruits for the British army, by the
intervention of the English Ambassador. Mr. Gladstone said: "It appears
to me that the two cardinal aims that we ought to keep in view in the
discussion of this question are peace and a thoroughly cordial
understanding with America for one, the honor and fame of England for
the other. I am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points
am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with the conduct of
Her Majesty's Government. A cordial understanding with America has not
been preserved, and the honor of this country has been compromised."

Lord Palmerston, though very popular with the people, had greatly
offended a large portion of the House of Commons by his interference in
China. A lorcha, called the _Arrow_, flying the British flag, had been
seized by the Chinese, and the question arose as to the right of the
vessel to the protection of England. The opponents of the government
contended that the vessel was built in China, was captured by pirates,
and recaptured by the Chinese, and hence had no claim to British
protection. To bring the matter to an issue Mr. Cobden introduced a
resolution of inquiry and censure. For five nights the debate was
protracted, and many able speeches were made on both sides, but Mr.
Gladstone made one of the most effective speeches, against the ministry.
He said: "Every man, I trust, will give his vote with the consciousness
that it may depend upon his single vote whether the miseries, the
crimes, the atrocities that I fear are now proceeding in China are to be
discountenanced or not. We have now come to the crisis of the case.
England is not yet committed. With you, then, with us, with every one of
us, it rests to show that this House, which is the first, the most
ancient, and the noblest temple of freedom in the world, is also the
temple of that everlasting justice without which freedom itself would
only be a name or only a curse to mankind."

The Premier ably defended himself, but the resolution of Mr. Cobden was
passed. Parliament was dissolved March 21, 1857, and Lord Palmerston
appealed to the country. He was victorious at the polls. Among the
prominent Liberals who lost their seats were Cobden, Bright, and Milner
Gibson. The Peelites suffered loss too, but Mr. Gladstone was again
elected for Oxford University. However, Mr. Greville writes, under date
of June 3d: "Gladstone hardly ever goes near the House of Commons, and
never opens his lips." But his indifference and silence were not to
last long.

When the Divorce Bill, which originated in the Lords, came up in the
Commons, Mr. Gladstone made an impassioned speech against the measure,
contending for the equality of woman with man in all the rights
pertaining to marriage. He dealt with the question on theological, legal
and social grounds. He contended that marriage was not only or chiefly a
civil contract, but a "mystery" of the Christian religion. By the law of
God it could not be so annulled as to permit of the re-marriage of the
parties. "Our Lord," he says, "has emphatically told us that, at and
from the beginning, marriage was perpetual, and was on both sides
single." He dwelt with pathetic force on the injustice between man and
woman of the proposed legislation, which would entitle the husband to
divorce from an unfaithful wife, but would give no corresponding
protection to the woman; and predicted the gloomiest consequences to the
conjugal morality of the country from the erection of this new and
odious tribunal. Nevertheless the bill became a law.

In 1858 a bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Lord
Palmerston, to make conspiracy to murder a felony. It grew out of the
attempt of Orsini upon the life of Napoleon III. The bill at first was
carried by an immense majority, but the conviction spread that the
measure was introduced solely at the dictation of the French Emperor,
and hence the proposal was strongly opposed. Mr. Gladstone said: "These
times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk
of progress; we believe we are advancing, but can any man of observation
who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe have failed
to perceive that there is a movement indeed, but a downward and backward
movement? There are few spots in which institutions that claim our
sympathy still exist and flourish.... But in these times more than ever
does responsibility centre upon the institutions of England, and if it
does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws and upon
her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of
Commons--the chief hope of freedom--which attempts to establish a moral
complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures,
will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every
country in the world."

The bill was defeated by a majority of nineteen, and Lord Palmerston
again resigned. He was succeeded by Lord Derby, who once more came into
power. Mr. Disraeli again became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader
of the House of Commons. The new ministry, which existed largely on
sufferance, passed some good measures.

The one hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassey was celebrated in
England June 23, 1857, to obtain funds for a monument to Lord Clive, who
secured India to England. The English then felt secure in the government
of that land, yet at that very time one of the most wide-spread,
destructive and cruel rebellions was raging, and shaking to its very
foundations the English rule in Hindostan. Suddenly the news came of the
terrible Indian mutiny and of the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women
and children, filling all hearts with horror, and then of the crushing
out of the rebellion. Lord Canning, Governor-General, issued a
proclamation to the chiefs of Oudh, looking to the confiscation of the
possessions of mutineers who failed to return to the allegiance of
England. It was meant as clemency. But Lord Ellenborough, the officer in
charge of affairs in India, dispatched "a rattling condemnation of the
whole proceeding." Says Justin McCarthy: "It was absurd language for a
man like Lord Ellenborough to address to a statesman like Lord Canning,
who had just succeeded in keeping the fabric of English government in
India together during the most terrible trial ever imposed on it by
fate." The matter was taken up by Parliament. Lord Shaftesbury moved
that the Lords disprove the sending of the dispatch. In the Commons the
ministry were arraigned. But Lord Ellenborough took upon himself the
sole responsibility of the dispatch, and resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
invited to the vacant place, but declined.

The most important among the bills passed by Parliament was the India
Bill, by which the government of India was transferred from the East
India Company to the Crown and the Home government. Mr. Gladstone, who
opposed the bill, proposed a clause providing that the Indian troops
should not be employed in military operations beyond the frontiers
of India.

In November, 1858, Mr. Gladstone accepted from the Premier the post of
Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian Islands. The people
of the Ionian Islands, which in 1800 was formed into the Republic of the
Seven Islands, and was under the protection of Great Britain from 1815,
were desirous of adding themselves to Greece. But the British government
objected to the separation and their union with Greece. Mr. Gladstone
was to repair to Corfu for the purpose of reconciling the people to the
British protectorate. The Ionians regarded his appointment as a virtual
abandonment of the protectorate of Great Britain. Mr. Gladstone,
December 3d, addressed the Senate at Corfu in Italian. He had the
reputation of being a Greek student, and the inhabitants of the Islands
persisted in regarding him not as a Commissioner of a Conservative
English Government, but as "Gladstone the Phil-Hellene!" He made a tour
of the Islands, holding levees, receiving deputations and delivering
harangues, and was received wherever he went with the honors due to a
liberator. His path everywhere was made to seem like a triumphal
progress. It was in vain he repeated his assurance that he came to
reconcile them to the protectorate and not to deliver them from it. But
the popular instinct insisted upon regarding him as at least the
precursor of their union with the Kingdom of Greece. The legislative
assembly met January 27, 1859, and proposed annexation to Greece.
Finding that this was their firm wish and determination, Mr. Gladstone
despatched to the Queen a copy of the vote, in which the representatives
declared that "the single and unanimous will of the Ionian people has
been and is for their union with the Kingdom of Greece." Mr. Gladstone
returned home in February, 1859. The Ionians continued their agitation,
and in 1864 were formally given over to the government of Greece.

Parliament was opened February 3, 1859, by the Queen, who in her speech
from the throne said that the attention of Parliament would be called
to the state of the law regulating the representation of the people. The
plan of the government was presented by Mr. Disraeli. "It was a fanciful
performance," says an English writer. The ministry proposed not to alter
the limits of the franchise, but to introduce into boroughs a new kind
of franchise founded on personal property. Mr. Disraeli characterized
the government measure as "wise, prudent, adequate, conservative, and
framed by men who reverence the past, are proud of the present, and
confident of the future." Two members of the Cabinet promptly resigned
rather than be parties to these proposals. Mr. Bright objected because
the working classes were excluded. An amendment was moved by Lord John
Russell condemning interference with the franchise which enabled
freeholders in boroughs to vote in counties, and demanding a wider
extension of the suffrage in boroughs.

Mr. Gladstone, though agreeing with these views, declined to support the
amendment, because, if carried, it would upset the government and bring
in a weaker administration. He did not propose to support the
government, but he desired to see a settlement of the question of
reform, and he thought the present opportunity advantageous for such
settlement. He pleaded eloquently for the retention of the
small boroughs.

The bill was lost by a majority of thirty-nine. Lord Derby having
advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament, this was done April 3d. The
general elections which resulted from the defeat of the Conservatives in
the House of Commons on the Reform Bill, resulted in returning the
Liberals with a considerable majority. Mr. Gladstone was again returned
unopposed for the University of Oxford. The Queen opened the new
Parliament June 7th. In reply to the speech from the throne an amendment
to the address was moved by Lord Hartington, proposing a vote of want of
confidence in the ministers. After three nights debate it was carried on
June 10th, by a majority of thirteen, Mr. Gladstone voting with the
government. Lord Derby and his colleagues immediately resigned. The
Queen being averse to choosing between Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston, turned to Lord Granville, leader of the Liberal party in the
House of Lords. He failed to form a Cabinet, and Lord Palmerston again
became Prime Minister.

The revolution of the political wheel once more brought Mr. Gladstone
into office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It became necessary in
accepting a Cabinet position to again appeal to his constituents at
Oxford for re-election. He voted as he did to sustain Lord Derby's
administration and to settle the Reform question, yet he was
misunderstood and some of his constituents alienated. He was strongly
opposed by the Conservative Marquis of Chandos. The Conservatives
claimed that he should not be returned, because, as Professor Mansel
said, by his "acceptance of office he must now be considered as giving
his definite adhesion to the Liberal party, as at present reconstructed,
and as approving of the policy of those who overthrew Lord Derby's
government." It was found on the conclusion of the poll, which continued
for five days, that Mr. Gladstone was returned with a majority of nearly
two hundred over his opponent. It is worthy of note that this same year
Cambridge conferred upon Mr. Gladstone the honorary degree of D.C.L.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER XII


HOMERIC STUDIES

"The plenitude and variety of Mr. Gladstone's intellectual powers," says
G. Barnett Smith, "have been the subject of such frequent comment that
it would be superfluous to insist upon them here. On the political side
of his career his life has been as unresting and active as that of any
other great party leader, and if we regard him in the literary aspect we
are equally astonished at his energy and versatility. Putting out of
view his various works upon Homer, his miscellaneous writings of
themselves, with the reading they involve, would entitle their author to
take high rank on the score of industry.... We stand amazed at the
infinity of topics which have received Mr. Gladstone's attention."

To solve the problems associated with Homer has been the chief
intellectual recreation, the close and earnest study of Mr. Gladstone's
literary life. "The blind old man of Scio's rocky isle" possessed for
him an irresistible and a perennial charm. Nor can this occasion
surprise, for all who have given themselves up to the consideration and
attempted solution of the Homeric poems have found the fascination of
the occupation gather in intensity. It is not alone from the poetic
point of view that the first great epic of the world attracts students
of all ages and of all countries. Homer presents, in addition, and
beyond every other writer, a vast field for ethnological, geographical,
and historical speculation and research. The ancient world stands
revealed in the Homeric poems. Besides, almost numberless volumes have
been written based upon the equally debatable questions of the Homeric
text and the Homeric unity.

Some literary works of Mr. Gladstone have been already noticed. "Studies
on Homer and Homeric Age" shows Mr. Gladstone's classic tastes and
knowledge as well as his great industry and ability. This work was
published in three volumes, in 1858. It is his _magnum opus_ in
literature, and exhibits wide and laborious research. "It discusses the
Homeric controversy in its broad aspects, the relation of Homer to the
Sacred Writings, his place in education, his historic aims, the probable
period of the poet's life, the Homeric text, the ethnology of the Greek
races, and the politics and poetry of Homer. Among subsequent Greek
studies by Mr. Gladstone were his 'Juventus Mundi' and the 'Homeric
Synchronism.' There is probably no greater living authority on the text
of Homer than Mr. Gladstone, and the Ancient Greek race and literature
have exercised over him a perennial fascination."

Mr. Gladstone dwells much on the relation of Homer to Christianity. "The
standard of humanity of the Greek poet is different, yet many of his
ideas almost carry us back to the early morning of our race; the hours
of its greater simplicity and purity, and more free intercourse with
God.... How is it possible to overvalue this primitive representation of
the human race in a form complete, distinct and separate, with its own
religion, stories, policy, history, arts, manners, fresh and true to the
standard of its nature, like the form of an infant from the hand of the
Creator, yet mature, full, and finished, in its own sense, after its own
laws, like some masterpiece of the sculptor's art?" The Homeric scene of
action is not Paradise, but it is just as far removed from the vices of
a later heathenism.

Mr. Gladstone compares the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," which he believed
to be the poems of one poet, Homer, with the Old Testament writings, and
observes that "Homer can never be put into competition with the
Scriptures as touching the great fundamental, invaluable code of truth
and hope;" but he shows how one may in a sense be supplementary to the
other. As regards the history of the Greek race, it is Homer that
furnishes "the point of origin from which all distances are to be
measured." He says: "The Mosaic books, and the other historical books of
the Old Testament, are not intended to present, and do not present, a
picture of human society or of our nature drawn at large. The poems of
Homer may be viewed as the complement of the earliest portion of the
sacred records."

Again: "The Holy Scriptures are like a thin stream, beginning from the
very fountain-head of our race, and gradually, but continuously, finding
their way through an extended solitude into times otherwise known, and
into the general current of the fortunes of mankind. The Homeric poems
are like a broad lake, outstretched in the distance, which provides us
with a mirror of one particular age and people, alike full and
marvelous, but which is entirely disassociated by a period of many
generations from any other records, except such as are of the most
partial and fragmentary kind. In respect of the influence which they
have respectively exercised upon mankind, it might appear almost profane
to compare them. In this point of view the Scriptures stand so far apart
from every other production, on account of their great offices in
relation to the coming of the Redeemer and to the spiritual training of
mankind, that there can be nothing either like or second to them."

Mr. Gladstone thinks that "the poems of Homer possess extrinsic worth as
a faithful and vivid picture of early Grecian life and measures; they
have also an intrinsic value which has given their author the first
place in that marvelous trinity of genius--Homer, Dante, and
Shakespeare."

As to the historic aims of Homer, Mr. Gladstone says: "Where other poets
sketch, Homer draws; and where they draw he carves. He alone of all the
now famous epic writers, moves (in the 'Iliad' especially) subject to
the stricter laws of time and place; he alone, while producing an
unsurpassed work of the imagination, is also the greatest chronicler
that ever lived, and presents to us, from his own single hand, a
representation of life, manners, history, of morals, theology, and
politics, so vivid and comprehensive, that it may be hard to say whether
any of the more refined ages of Greece or Rome, with their clouds of
authors and their multiplied forms of historical record, are either more
faithfully or more completely conveyed to us."

Mr. Gladstone fixes the probable date of Homer within a generation or
two of the Trojan war, assigning as his principal reason for so doing
the poet's visible identity with the age, the altering but not yet
vanishing age of which he sings, and the broad interval in tone and
feeling between himself and the very nearest of all that follow him. He
presents several arguments to prove the trustworthiness of the text
of Homer.

In 1877, Mr. Gladstone wrote an article on the "Dominions of the
Odysseus," and also wrote a preface to Dr. Henry Schliemann's "Mycenae."

One of his most remarkable productions bore the title of, "The Vatican
Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance; a Political
Expostulation." This book was an amplification of an article from his
own pen, which appeared October, 1874, in the _Contemporary Review_. It
created great public excitement and many replies. One hundred and twenty
thousand copies were sold. Mr. Higginson says: "The vigor of the style,
the learning exhibited, and the source whence it came, all contributed
to give it an extraordinary influence.... It was boldly proclaimed in
this pamphlet that, since 1870, Rome has substituted for the proud boast
of _semper eadem_, a policy of violence and change of faith;... 'that
she had equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history;' ... 'that
she has reburnished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was thought to
have disused,' and 'that Rome requires a convert who now joins her to
forfeit his moral and mental freedom, and to place his loyalty and
civil duty at the mercy of another.'"

Mr. Gladstone issued another pamphlet, entitled "Vaticanism; and Answers
to Reproofs and Replies," He reiterated his original charges, saying:
"The Vatican decrees do, in the strictest sense, establish for the Pope
a supreme command over loyalty and civil duty.... Even in those parts of
Christendom where the decrees and the present attitude of the Papal See
do not produce or aggravate open broils with the civil power, by
undermining moral liberty, they impair moral responsibility, and
silently, in the succession of generations, if not in the lifetime of
individuals, tend to emasculate the vigor of the mind."

Mr. Gladstone published in seven volumes, in 1879, "Gleanings of Past
Years." The essay entitled "Kin Beyond the Sea" at first created much
excitement. "The Kin Beyond the Sea" was America, of which he says: "She
will probably become what we are now, the head servant in the great
household of the world, the employer of all employed; because her
services will be the most and ablest." Again: "The England and the
America of the present are probably the two strongest nations in the
world. But there can hardly be a doubt, as between the America and the
England of the future, that the daughter, at some no very distant time,
will, whether fairer or less fair, be unquestionably yet stronger than
the mother." Mr. Gladstone argues in support of this position from the
concentrated continuous empire which America possesses, and the enormous
progress she has made within a century.

In an address at the opening of the Art Loan Exhibition of Chester,
August 11, 1879, Mr. Gladstone said: "With the English those two things
are quite distinct; but in the oldest times of human industry--that is
to say amongst the Greeks--there was no separation whatever, no gap at
all, between the idea of beauty and the idea of utility. Whatever the
ancient Greek produced he made as useful as he could; and at the same
time, reward for work with him was to make it as beautiful as he could.
In the industrial productions of America there is very little idea of
beauty; for example, an American's axe is not intended to cut away a
tree neatly, but quickly. We want a workman to understand that if he can
learn to appreciate beauty in industrial productions, he is thereby
doing good to himself, first of all in the improvement of his mind, and
in the pleasure he derives from his work, and likewise that literally he
is increasing his own capital, which is his labor."

In his articles on "Ecce Homo" he expresses the hope "that the present
tendency to treat the old belief of man with a precipitate, shallow,
and unexamining disparagement, is simply a distemper, that inflicts for
a time the moral atmosphere, that is due, like plagues and fevers, to
our own previous folly and neglect; and that when it has served its work
of admonition and reform, will be allowed to pass away."

The "Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture" is the title of a book by Mr.
Gladstone, the articles of which were originally published in _The
Sunday School Times_, Philadelphia.

[Illustration: MR. GLADSTONE'S AXE]




CHAPTER XIII


GREAT BUDGETS

The year 1860 marked the beginning of the second half of Mr. Gladstone's
life as a statesman, in which he stood prominently forward as a
Reformer. July 18, 1859, as Chancellor in the Liberal government of Lord
Palmerston, he brought forward his budget. The budget of 1860 was the
greatest of all his financial measures, for a new departure was taken in
British commerce and manufactures. Mr. Cobden, in behalf of the English
Government, had negotiated with France a treaty based on free trade
principles--"a treaty which gave an impetus to the trade of this
country, whose far-reaching effects are felt even to our day."

The Chancellor explained the various propositions of his financial
statements. Speaking of discontent with the income tax he observed: "I
speak on general terms. Indeed, I now remember that I myself had, about
a fortnight ago, a letter addressed to me complaining of the monstrous
injustice and iniquity of the income tax, and proposing that, in
consideration thereof, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be
publicly hanged."

Mr. Gladstone said that the total reduction of duties would be over
£1,000,000, requiring a slight extension of taxation; that by this means
nearly £1,000,000 would be returned to the general revenue; that the
loss to the revenue by the French Treaty, which was based upon free
trade principles, and the reduction of duties, would be half made up by
the imposts specified; that the abolition of the paper duty would
produce the happiest results from the spread of cheap literature. The
reductions proposed would give a total relief to the consumer of nearly
£4,000,000, and cause a net loss of the revenue of over £2,000,000, a
sum about equivalent to the amount coming in from the cessation of
government annuities that year. The total revenue was £70,564,000, and
as the total expenses of government was £70,000,000, there remained an
estimated surplus of £464,000.

Mr. Gladstone concluded; "There were times, now long by, when sovereigns
made progress through the land, and when at the proclamation of their
heralds, they caused to be scattered whole showers of coin among the
people who thronged upon their steps.... Our Sovereign is enabled,
through the wisdom of her great council, assembled in Parliament around
her, again to scatter blessings among her subjects by means of wise and
prudent laws; of laws which do not sap in any respect the foundations of
duty or of manhood, but which strike away the shackles from the arm of
industry."

"It was one of the peculiarities of Mr. Gladstone's budget addresses
that they roused curiosity in the outset, and, being delivered in a
musical, sonorous, and perfectly modulated voice, kept the listeners
interested to the very close. This financial statement of 1860 was
admirably arranged for the purpose of awakening and keeping attention,
piquing and teasing curiosity, and sustaining desire to hear from the
first sentence to the last. It was not a speech, it was an oration, in
the form of a great State paper, made eloquent, in which there was a
proper restraint over the crowding ideas, the most exact accuracy in the
sentences, and even in the very words chosen; the most perfect balancing
of parts, and, more than all, there were no errors or omissions; nothing
was put wrongly and nothing was overlooked. With a House crowded in
every corner, with the strain upon his own mental faculties, and the
great physical tax implied in the management of his voice, and the
necessity for remaining upon his feet during this long period, 'the
observed of all observers,' Mr. Gladstone took all as quietly, we are
told, as if he had just risen to address a few observations to Mr.
Speaker. Indeed, it was laughingly said that he could address a House
for a whole week, and on the Friday evening have taken a new departure,
beginning with the observation, 'After these preliminary remarks, I will
now proceed to deal with the subject matter of my financial plan.'"

The ministry was supported by large majorities, and carried their
measures, but when the bill for the repeal of the duty on paper at home,
as well as coming into the country, came before the House of Lords, it
was rejected. Mr. Gladstone appeared to be confronted by the greatest
constitutional crisis of his life. He gave vent to his indignation, and
declared that the action of the Lords was a gigantic innovation, and
that the House of Commons had the undoubted right of selecting the
manner in which the people should be taxed. This speech was pronounced
by Lord John Russell "magnificently mad," and Lord Granville said that
"it was a toss-up whether Gladstone resigned or not, and that if he did
it would break up the Liberal party." Quiet was finally restored, and
the following year Mr. Gladstone adroitly brought the same feature
before the Lords in a way that compelled acceptance.

The budget of 1861 showed a surplus of £2,000,000 over the estimated
surplus, and proposed to remit the penny on the income tax, and to
repeal the paper duty. Instead of being divided into several bills as in
the previous year, the budget was presented as a whole--all included in
one. By this device the Lords were forced to acquiesce in the repeal of
the paper duty, or take the responsibility of rejecting the whole bill.
The Peers grumbled, and some of them were enraged. Lord Robert Cecil,
now Marquis of Salisbury, rudely declared that Mr. Gladstone's conduct
was only worthy of an attorney. He begged to apologize to the attorneys.
They were honorable men and would have scorned the course pursued by the
ministers. Another member of the House of Lords protested that the
budget gave a mortal stab to the Constitution. Mr. Gladstone retorted:
"I want to know, to what Constitution does it give a mortal stab? In my
opinion it gives no mortal stab, and no stab at all, to any Constitution
that we are bound to care for. But, on the contrary, so far as it alters
anything in the most recent course of practice, it alters in the
direction of restoring that good old Constitution which took its root in
Saxon times, which grew from the Plantagenets, which endured the iron
repression of the Tudors, which resisted the aggressions of the Stuarts,
and which has come to its full maturity under the House of Brunswick. I
think that is the Constitution, if I may presume to say so, which it is
our duty to guard, and which--if, indeed, the proceedings of this year
can be said to affect it at all--will be all the better for the
operation. But the Constitution which my right honorable friend worships
is a very different affair."

In 1860, Mr. Gladstone was elected Lord Rector of Edinburgh University,
and the degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him.

Mr. Gladstone, in 1861, introduced one of his most beneficial
measures--a bill creating the Post Office Savings Bank. The success of
the scheme has gone beyond all expectation. At the close of 1891, the
amount deposited was £71,608,002, and growing at the average rate of
over £4,000,000 annually.

Mr. Gladstone's financial measures for 1862, while not involving such
momentous issues as those of the preceding year, nevertheless
encountered considerable opposition. The budget was a stationary one,
with no surplus, no new taxes, no remission of taxes, no
heavier burdens.

In October, 1862, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone made a journey down the Tyne,
which is thus described: "It was not possible to show to royal visitors
more demonstrations of honor than were showered on the illustrious
Commoner and his wife.... At every point, at every bank and hill and
factory, in every opening where people could stand or climb, expectant
crowds awaited Mr. Gladstone's arrival. Women and children, in all
costumes and of all conditions, lined the shores ... as Mr. and Mrs.
Gladstone passed. Cannon boomed from every point;... such a succession
of cannonading never before greeted a triumphant conqueror on
the march."

It was during this journey that Mr. Gladstone made the memorable speech,
at New Castle, upon the American Civil War, which had broken out the
same year. There had been much speculation as to whether the English
government would recognize the Confederacy as a separate and independent
power, and the utterance of a member of the Cabinet under the
circumstances was regarded as entirely unwarranted. Mr. Gladstone
himself frankly acknowledged his error in 1867: "I must confess that I
was wrong; that I took too much upon myself in expressing such an
opinion. Yet the motive was not bad. My sympathies were then--where they
had long before been, where they are now--with the whole
American people."

The session of 1863 was barren of important subjects of debate, and
hence unusual interest was centered in the Chancellor's statement, which
was another masterly financial presentation, and its leading
propositions were cordially received. The whole reduction of taxation
for the year was £3,340,000, or counting the total reductions, present
and prospective, of £4,601,000. This still left a surplus of £400,000.

In four years £8,000,000 had been paid for war with China out of the
ordinary revenues. A proposition to subject charities to the income tax,
although endorsed by the whole cabinet, led to such powerful opposition
throughout the country that it was finally withdrawn. The arguments of
the Chancellor were endorsed by many who were opposed to the
indiscriminate and mistaken beneficence which was so prevalent on
death-beds.

A bill was introduced at this session by Sir Morton Peto, entitled the
"Dissenters' Burial Bill," the object of which was to enable
Nonconformists to have their own religious rites and services, and by
their own ministers, in the graveyards of the Established Church. The
bill was strongly opposed by Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Disraeli. Mr.
Gladstone favored the measure. The bill was rejected, and Mr. Gladstone
at a later period discovered that his progress in ecclesiastical and
political opinions was creating a breach between himself and his
constituents at Oxford.

Mr. Gladstone's financial scheme for 1864 was received with undiminished
interest. It was characterized as "a policy of which peace, progress and
retrenchment were the watchwords." An available surplus of £2,260,000
enabled him to propose reductions.

The subject of reform, which had been coming up in the House of Commons
in one way or another and agitating the House and the country since
1859, when the Conservative party was beaten on the question, reappeared
in 1864. The question of lowering the borough franchise came up, and Mr.
Gladstone startled the House and the country by his declaration upon the
subject of reform, which showed the rapid development of his views upon
the subject. The Conservative party was filled with alarm, and the hopes
of the Reform party correspondingly elated. "The eyes of all Radical
Reformers turned to Mr. Gladstone as the future Minister of Reform in
Church and State. He became from the same moment an object of distrust,
and something approaching to detestation in the eyes of all steady-going
Conservatives."

Mr. Gladstone said: "I say that every man who is not presentably
incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or political
danger, is morally entitled to come within the pale of the
constitution." This declaration was the first note sounded in a conflict
which, twelve months later, was to cost Mr. Gladstone his seat for
Oxford University, and finally to culminate in the disruption of the
Liberal Government. The general feeling in regard to this speech was
that if the Liberal party had failed in its duty on the subject of
reform in the existing Parliament after Mr. Gladstone's utterances,
that the condition of things must undergo a change, so great was the
effect of his speech in the country. The bill, which was presented by a
private member and lost, was made memorable by the speech of the
Chancellor. The eyes of careful political leaders were again turned
towards Mr. Gladstone, and strong predictions made of his coming
exaltation to the Premiership. Mr. Speaker Denison said, in October,
1864: "I now anticipate that Mr. Gladstone will be Premier. Neither
party has any leader. I hope Mr. Gladstone may get support from the
Conservatives who now support Palmerston." And these expectations were
known to Mr. Gladstone himself, for Bishop Wilberforce had a
conversation with him and writes: "Long talk with Gladstone as to
Premiership: he is for acting under John Russell." Again to Mr.
Gladstone: "Anything which breaks up, or tends to break up, Palmerston's
supremacy, must bring you nearer to the post in which I long to see you,
and, if I live, shall see you." Lord Palmerston himself said: "Gladstone
will soon have it all his own way; and whenever he gets my place we
shall have strange things."

The hostile feeling towards the Palmerston government, which had been
growing in intensity, chiefly on the ground of its foreign policy,
reached its full height in a fierce battle between the Ministry and the
Opposition. July 4, 1864, Mr. Disraeli brought forward his motion of
"no confidence." Mr. Gladstone replied for the government, and sought to
rebut the accusations made by the leader of the Opposition. He said that
it was the very first time in which the House of Commons had been called
upon to record the degradation of the country, simply for the sake of
displacing a ministry.

An amusing episode which occurred during this debate is worthy of record
here; Mr. Bernard Osborne "grew amusingly sarcastic at the expense of
the government, though he paid at the same time a great compliment to
Mr. Gladstone. He likened the Cabinet to a museum of curiosities, in
which there were some birds of rare and noble plumage, both alive and
stuffed. There had been a difficulty, unfortunately, in keeping up the
breed, and it was found necessary to cross it with the famous Peelites.
'I will do them the justice to say that they have a very great and noble
Minister among them in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is to his
measures alone that they owe the little popularity and the little
support they get from this Liberal party.' Describing Mr. Milner Gibson,
the honorable gentleman said he was like some 'fly in amber,' and the
wonder was 'how the devil he got there.' Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright must
have been disappointed in this 'young man from the country.' He had
become insolent and almost quarrelsome under the guidance of the noble
lord. Should that Parliament decide on terminating its own and their
existence, they would find consolation that the funeral oration would be
pronounced by Mr. Newdegate, and that some friendly hand would inscribe
on their mausoleum, 'Rest and be thankful.'" Mr. Disraeli's motion was
lost, and the ministry was sustained.

The budget of 1865 represented the country as in a prosperous financial
condition. The total reduction was over £5,000,000. Such a financial
showing gained the warm approval of the people, and excited but little
opposition in the House. It was evident that a master-hand was guiding
the national finances, and fortunately the Chancellor's calculations
were verified by the continued prosperity of the country. At a later
period, in commenting upon the policy of the two parties--Conservative
and Liberal--Mr. Gladstone said: "From thence it follows that the policy
of the Liberal party has been to reduce the public charges and to keep
the expenditure within the estimates, and, as a result, to diminish the
taxation of the country and the national debt; that the policy of the
Tory government, since they took office in 1866, has been to increase
the public charges, and to allow the departments to spend more than
their estimates, and, as a result, to create deficits and to render the
reduction of taxation impossible. Which policy will the country prefer?"




CHAPTER XIV


LIBERAL REFORMER AND PRIME MINISTER

July, 1865, Parliament having run its allotted course, according to the
constitution, was dissolved, and a general election took place, which
resulted in the Liberal party being returned again with a majority. Mr.
Gladstone's relations with many of his constituents were not harmonious,
owing to his pronounced Liberal views, and his seat for Oxford was
seriously imperilled. Mr. Gathorne Hardy was nominated to run against
him. The High Tory party resolved to defeat him, and he was defeated by
a majority of 180. "The electors preferred the uncompromising defender
of the Church and Toryism to the brilliant statesman and financier."
Almost all of the distinguished residents of Oxford and three-fourths of
the tutors and lecturers of the University voted for Mr. Gladstone, and
his rejection was entirely owing to the opposing vote of non-residents
and the bigotry of the hostile country clergymen of the Church of
England. From the Bishop of Oxford Mr. Gladstone received the following
indignant protest:

"I cannot forbear expressing to you my grief and indignation at the
result. It is needless for me to say that everything I could with
propriety do I did heartily to save our University this great loss and
dishonor, as well from a loving honor of you. You were too great
for them."

"The enemies of the University," observed the _Times_, "will make the
most of her disgrace. It has hitherto been supposed that a learned
constituency was to some extent exempt from the vulgar motives of party
spirit, and capable of forming a higher estimate of statesmanship than
common tradesmen or tenant-farmers."

His valedictory address to his former constituents was short: "After
an arduous connection of eighteen years, I bid you, respectfully,
farewell.... It is one imperative duty, and one alone, which induces me
to trouble you with these few parting words, the duty of expressing my
profound and lasting gratitude for indulgence as generous, and for
support as warm and enthusiastic in itself, and as honorable from the
character and distinctions of those who have given it, as has, in my
belief, ever been accorded by any constituency to any representative."

One event in Parliament, in 1865, contributed much to Mr. Gladstone's
defeat: In March, 1865, Mr. Dillwyn, the Radical member for Swansea,
moved "that the present position of the Irish Church Establishment is
unsatisfactory, and calls for the early attention of her Majesty's
Government."

Sir Stafford Northcote wrote: "Gladstone made a terribly long stride in
his downward progress last night, and denounced the Irish Church in a
way which shows how, by and by, he will deal not only with it, but with
the Church of England too.... He laid down the doctrines that the tithe
was national property, and ought to be dealt with by the State in a
manner most advantageous to the people; and that the Church of England
was only national because the majority of the people still belong
to her."

"It was now felt that henceforth Mr. Gladstone must belong to the
country, and not to the University." He realized this himself, for
driven from Oxford, he went down to South Lancashire, seeking to be
returned from there to Parliament, and in the Free Trade Hall,
Manchester, said: "At last, my friends, I am come among you, and I am
come among you unmuzzled." These words were greeted with loud and
prolonged applause. The advanced Liberals seemed to take the same view,
and regarded Mr. Gladstone's defeat at Oxford by the Conservatives as
his political enfranchisement. His defeat was not wholly unexpected to
himself. In 1860 he said: "Without having to complain, I am entirely
sick and weary of the terms upon which I hold the seat."

Mr. Gladstone felt keenly the separation, for he wrote to the Bishop of
Oxford: "There have been two great deaths, or transmigrations of spirit,
in my political existence--one, very slow, the breaking of ties with my
original party, the other, very short and sharp, the breaking of the tie
with Oxford. There will probably be a third, and no more." And in a
speech at Liverpool, there was something of pathos in his reference to
Oxford, when he said that if he had clung to the representation of the
University with desperate fondness, it was because he would not desert a
post to which he seemed to have been called. But he had now been
dismissed from it, not by academical, but by political agencies.

Mr. Gladstone was elected to represent his native district in
Parliament, and he was at the head of the poll in Manchester, Liverpool,
and all the large towns. The result of the general elections was a
considerable gain to the Liberal party, but that party sustained a
severe loss by the death of Lord Palmerston, October 18, 1865.

A new cabinet was constructed, with Earl Russell as Premier, and Mr.
Gladstone as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Gladstone became for
the first time the recognized leader in the House of Commons, which
then meant virtually Prime Minister, for with the aged Premier in the
House of Lords, and the youthful Chancellor in the Commons, it meant
nothing else. But Earl Russell and his younger colleague were calculated
to work in harmonious action, for they were both Reformers. The ardent
temperament and the severe conscientiousness of the leader was the cause
of much speculation and anxiety as to his management. His first
appearance as leader of the House was therefore waited for with much
curiosity. The new Parliament was opened February 6, 1866, by the Queen
in person, for the first time since the death of Prince Albert. In the
speech from the throne it was announced that Parliament would be
directed to consider such improvements in the laws which regulate the
right of voting in the election of the members of the House of Commons
as may tend to strengthen our free institutions, and conduce to the
public welfare. Bishop Wilberforce wrote: "Gladstone has risen entirely
to his position, and done all his most sanguine friends hoped for as
leader.... There is a general feeling of insecurity of the ministry, and
the Reform Bill to be launched to-night is thought a bad rock."

May 3, 1866, Mr. Gladstone brought forward what was destined to be his
last budget for some years. There was a surplus of over a million and a
quarter of pounds, which allowed a further and considerable reduction
of taxation.

The condition of Ireland was very grave at this time, and as
apprehensions were felt in regard to the Fenians, a bill suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland was passed. Mr. Gladstone, in explaining
the necessity for the measure, said that the government were ready at
any time to consider any measure for the benefit of Ireland, but it was
the single duty of the House at the moment to strengthen the hands of
the Executive in the preservation of law and order. The bill was renewed
by the Derby government, and passed as before, as the result of an
anticipated great Fenian uprising under "Head-Centre" Stephens.

During a debate on the bill for the abolition of Church rates, Mr.
Gladstone said that the law requiring Church rates was _prima facie_
open to great objection, but he could not vote for total abolition. He
offered a compromise and proposed that Dissenters be exempted from
paying Church rates, and at the same time be disqualified from
interfering with funds to which they had not contributed. The compromise
was accepted, but failed to become a law.

On the subject of reform, mentioned in the address, there were great
debates, during the session of 1866. The new Cabinet, known as the
Russell-Gladstone Ministry, set themselves to work in earnest upon a
question that had baffled all the skill of various administrations. As a
part of the reform scheme, Mr. Gladstone brought forward a Franchise
Bill in the House of Commons, March 12th.

The bill satisfied most of the Liberal party. Mr. Robert Lowe, a
Liberal, became one of its most powerful assailants. His enmity to the
working classes made him extremely unpopular. Mr. Horseman also joined
the Conservatives in opposing the bill. Mr. Bright, in a crushing
retort, fastened upon the small party of Liberals, led by these two
members in opposition to the bill, the epithet of "Adullamites." Mr.
Horseman, Mr. Bright said, had "retired into what may be called his
political Cave of Adullam, to which he invited every one who was in
distress, and every one who was discontented. He had long been anxious
to found a party in this house, and there is scarcely a member at this
end of the House who is able to address us with effect or to take much
part, whom he has not tried to bring over to his party and his cabal. At
last he has succeeded in hooking ... Mr. Lowe. I know it was the opinion
many years ago of a member of the Cabinet that two men could make a
party. When a party is formed of two men so amiable and so disinterested
as the two gentlemen, we may hope to see for the first time in
Parliament a party perfectly harmonious and distinguished by mutual and
unbroken trust. But there is one difficulty which it is impossible to
remove. This party of two is like the Scotch terrier that is so covered
with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the
tail." This sally, which excited immoderate laughter, remains one of the
happiest examples of Parliamentary retort and badinage.

During this session the Conservative party met at the residence of the
Marquis of Salisbury, and decided upon strongly opposing the measure
proposed by the Liberal government. Mr. Bright characterized it as "a
dirty conspiracy." On the other hand, the country supported the bill,
and great meetings were held in its interest. Mr. Gladstone spoke at a
great meeting at Liverpool. He said: "Having produced this measure,
founded in a spirit of moderation, we hope to support it with
decision.... We have passed the Rubicon, we have broken the bridge and
burned the boats behind us. We have advisedly cut off the means of
retreat, and having done this, we hope that, as far as time is yet
permitted, we have done our duty to the Crown and to the nation." This
was regarded as the bugle-call to the Liberal party for the
coming battle.

The debate began April 12th, and continued for eight nights. "On no
occasion since, and seldom before, has such a flow of eloquence been
heard within the walls of the House of Commons." Mr. Disraeli spoke for
three hours against the bill, and in his speech accused Mr. Gladstone of
introducing American ideas of Government, and of having once assailed
the very principles he now advocated, when in the Oxford Union he spoke
against the Reform Bill of 1832. Mr. Gladstone's reply was one of the
most noteworthy parts of this famous debate. He rose at one o'clock in
the morning to conclude a legislative battle which had begun two weeks
before. "At last," Mr. Gladstone said, "we have obtained a declaration
from an authoritative source that a bill which, in a country with five
millions of adult males, proposes to add to a limited constituency
200,000 of the middle class and 200,000 of the working class, is, in the
judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a bill to reconstruct the
constitution upon American principles.

"The right honorable gentleman, secure in the recollection of his own
consistency, has taunted me with the errors of my boyhood. When he
addressed the honorable member of Westminster, he showed his magnanimity
by declaring that he would not take the philosopher to task for what he
wrote twenty-five years ago; but when he caught one who, thirty-six
years ago, just emerged from boyhood, and still an undergraduate at
Oxford, had expressed an opinion adverse to the Reform Bill of 1832, of
which he had so long and bitterly repented, then the right honorable
gentleman could not resist the temptation."

The bill was put upon its passage. The greatest excitement prevailed.
"The house seemed charged with electricity, like a vast thunder-cloud;
and now a spark was about to be applied. Strangers rose in their seats,
the crowd at the bar pushed half-way up the House, the Royal Princes
leaned forward in their standing places, and all was confusion."
Presently order was restored, and breathless excitement prevailed while
the tellers announced that the bill had been carried by a majority of
only five.

"Hardly had the words left the teller's lips than there arose a wild,
raging, mad-brained shout from floor and gallery, such as has never been
heard in the present House of Commons. Dozens of half-frantic Tories
stood up in their seats, madly waved their hats and hurrahed at the top
of their voices. Strangers in both galleries clapped their hands. The
Adullamites on the Ministerial benches, carried away by the delirium of
the moment, waved their hats in sympathy with the Opposition, and
cheered as loudly as any. Mr. Lowe, the leader, instigator, and prime
mover of the conspiracy, stood up in the excitement of the
moment--flushed, triumphant, and avenged.... He took off his hat, waved
it in wide and triumphant circles over the heads of the very men who had
just gone into the lobby against him.... But see, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer lifts up his hand to bespeak silence, as if he had something
to say in regard to the result of the division. But the more the great
orator lifts his hand beseechingly, the more the cheers are renewed and
the hats waved. At length the noise comes to an end by the process of
exhaustion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises. Then there is a
universal hush, and you might hear a pin drop."

"Few, if any, could anticipate at this time, that in the course of one
short year a Conservative Government would find itself compelled to take
up that very question of Reform, whose virtual defeat its opponents now
hailed with such intoxicating expressions of delight." However, the bill
was unexpectedly wrecked June 18th, by an amendment substituting a ratal
instead of a rental basis for the borough franchise. The ministry
regarding this as a vital point, could not agree to it, and consequently
threw up their measure and resigned office. The Queen was unwilling to
accept their resignation. But the ministry felt that they had lost the
confidence of the House, so their resignation was announced June 26th.

The apathy of the people about reform that Earl Russell thought he
perceived, as far as London was concerned, at once disappeared. A great
demonstration was made at Trafalgar Square, where some ten thousand
people assembled and passed resolutions in favor of reform. A serious
riot occurred at Hyde Park in consequence of the prohibition by the
Government of the meeting of the Reform League. The Reformers then
marched to Carleton House Terrace, the residence of Mr. Gladstone,
singing songs in his honor. He was away from home, but Mrs. Gladstone
and her family came out on the balcony to acknowledge the tribute paid
by the people. It is said that Mr. Gladstone, now for the first time,
became a popular hero. Great meetings were held in the interest of
reform in the large towns of the North and the Midlands, where his name
was received with tumultuous applause. Mr. Gladstone was hailed
everywhere as the leader of the Liberal party. Reform demonstrations
continued during the whole of the recess. A meeting was held at
Brookfields, near Birmingham, which was attended by nearly 250,000
people. The language of some of the ardent friends of reform was not
always discreet, but Mr. Gladstone appears to have preserved a calm and
dignified attitude.

In the summer of 1866, Lord Derby had announced his acceptance of office
as Premier, and the formation of a Conservative Cabinet. The
demonstrations of the people compelled the Conservatives to introduce
measures in Liberal Reform. Accordingly, in 1867, Mr. Disraeli and his
colleagues passed a Reform Bill, which, after various modifications, was
far more extreme than that presented by the Liberals and defeated.

Owing to a division in the ranks of the Liberal members on the pending
bill, Mr. Gladstone withdrew from the active leadership of the House,
but soon resumed it. Mr. Bright said, at Birmingham, that since 1832,
there had been no man of Mr. Gladstone's rank as a statesman who had
imported into the Reform question so much of conviction, of earnestness,
and of zeal.

Not long after this deputations from various parts of the country,
accompanied by their representatives in Parliament, called on Mr.
Gladstone to present addresses expressive of confidence in him as
Liberal leader.

Lord Cranborne expressed his astonishment at hearing the bill described
as a Conservative triumph. It was right that its real parentage should
be established. The bill had been modified by Mr. Gladstone. All his
points were conceded. If the adoption on the principles of Mr. Bright
could be described as a triumph, then indeed the Conservative party, in
the whole history of its previous annals, had won no triumphs so simple
as this. In the House of Lords the Duke of Buccleuch declared that the
only word in the bill that remained unaltered was the first word,
"whereas."

"The work of reform was completed in the session of 1868, by the passing
of the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, a Boundary Bill for England and
Wales, an Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill, and
the Registration of Voters Bill. The object of the last-named measure
was to accelerate the elections, and to enable Parliament to meet before
the end of 1868."

In the autumn of 1866, Mr. Gladstone and his family again visited Italy,
and at Rome had an audience with Pope Pio Nono. It became necessary two
years later, owing to this interview, for Mr. Gladstone formally to
explain his visit.

In February, 1868, Lord Derby, owing to failing health, resigned. The
Derby Ministry retired from office, and Mr. Disraeli became Prime
Minister. An English author writes: "There was, of course, but one
possible Conservative Premier--Mr. Disraeli--he who had served the
Conservative party for more than thirty years, who had led it to
victory, and who had long been the ruling spirit of the Cabinet."

The elevation of Mr. Disraeli to the Premiership before Mr. Gladstone,
produced, in some quarters, profound regret and even indignation. But
Mr. Disraeli, though in office, was not in power. He was nominally the
leader of a House that contained a large majority of his political
opponents, now united among themselves. The schism in the Liberal party
had been healed by the question of Reform, and they could now defeat the
government whenever they chose to do so; consequently Mr. Gladstone took
the initiative. His compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill was
introduced and accepted. By this measure all legal proceedings for the
recovery of church rates were abolished. The question that overshadowed
all others, however, was that of the Irish Church.

On the 16th of March Mr. Gladstone struck the first blow in the struggle
that was to end in the disestablishment of the Irish Church. Mr. Maguire
moved that the House consider the condition of Ireland. Mr. Gladstone
said that Ireland had a controversy with England and a long account
against England. It was a debt of justice, and he enumerated six
particulars, one of which was the Established Episcopal Church.
Religious Equality, he contended, must be conceded. He said, in
referring to his speech made on the motion of Mr. Dillwyn in 1865: "The
opinion I held then and hold now--namely, that in order to the
settlement of this question of the Irish Church, that Church, as a State
Church must cease to exist."

This speech excited feelings of consternation amongst the
Ministerialists. Mr. Disraeli bewailed his own unhappy fate at the
commencement of his career as Prime Minister, at finding himself face
to face with the necessity of settling an account of seven centuries
old. He complained that all the elements of the Irish crisis had existed
while Mr. Gladstone was in office, but no attempt had been made to deal
with them.

March 23d Mr. Gladstone proposed resolutions affirming that the Irish
Episcopal Church should cease to exist as an establishment, and asking
the Queen to place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the
temporalities of the Irish Church.

Mr. Gladstone's resolution was carried by a majority of 65, and the
Queen replied that she would not suffer her interests to stand in the
way of any measures contemplated by Parliament. Consequently Mr.
Gladstone brought in his Irish Church Suspensory Bill, which was adopted
by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords. During the discussion,
ministerial explanations followed; Mr. Disraeli described, in his most
pompous vein, his audiences with the Queen. His statement amounted to
this--that, in spite of adverse votes, the Ministers intended to hold on
till the autumn, and then to appeal to the new electorate created by the
Reform Act.

Lord Houghton wrote: "Gladstone is the great triumph, but as he owns
that he has to drive a four-in-hand, consisting of English Liberals,
English Dissenters, Scotch Presbyterians, and Irish Catholics, he
requires all his courage to look the difficulties in the face and trust
to surmount them."

An appeal was now made to the country. The general election that
followed, in November, was fought out mainly upon this question. A great
Liberal majority was returned to Parliament, which was placed at 115.
But there were several individual defeats, among them Mr. Gladstone
himself, who was rejected by South Lancaster. This was in part owing to
the readjustment of seats according to the Reform Bill. But Mr.
Gladstone received an invitation from Greenwich, in the southwestern
division, where he was warmly received by the electors. "He spoke
everywhere, with all his fiery eloquence, on the monstrous foolishness
of a religious establishment which ministered only to a handful of the
people." Is the Irish Church to be or not to be? was the question. He
was returned for that borough by a large majority over his Conservative
opponents.

Archbishop Wilberforce wrote in November: "The returns to the House of
Commons leave no doubt of the answer of the country to Gladstone's
appeal. In a few weeks he will be in office at the head of a majority of
something like a hundred, elected on the distinct issue of Gladstone and
the Irish Church."

The feeling was so enormously great in its preponderance for Mr.
Gladstone's policy of Liberal Reform, especially for the
disestablishment of the Irish Church, that Mr. Disraeli did not adopt
the usual course of waiting for the endorsement of the new Parliament,
which he felt sure would be given to Mr. Gladstone, but resigned, and
the first Disraeli Cabinet went out of office, December 2d.

December 4, 1868, the Queen summoned Mr. Gladstone to Windsor to form a
Cabinet. He had now attained the summit of political ambition. He was
the first Commoner in the land--the uncrowned king of the British Empire
--for such is the English Premier. "All the industry and self-denial of
a laborious life, all the anxieties and burdens and battles of five and
thirty years of Parliamentary struggle were crowned by this supreme and
adequate reward. He was Prime Minister of England--had attained to that
goal of the Eton boy's ambition; and, what perhaps was to him of greater
consideration, he was looked up to by vast numbers of the people as
their great leader."

December 9th the new government was completed and the ministers received
their seals from the Queen. Mr. Bright, contrary to all expectation,
became President of the Board of Trade. In offering themselves for
re-election, the members of the new Cabinet found no trouble--all were
returned. Mr. Gladstone was returned by Greenwich.

With the year 1869 Mr. Gladstone entered upon a great period of Reform.
The new Parliament was opened December 10th. On the 11th Mr. and Mrs.
Gladstone paid a visit to Lord and Lady Salisbury, at Hatfield. Bishop
Wilberforce was there and had opportunity to observe his old and honored
friend in the first flush of his new dignity. Here are his comments:
"Gladstone, as ever, great, earnest, and honest; as unlike the tricky
Disraeli as possible." To Dr. Trench the Bishop wrote: "The nation has
decided against our establishment, and we bow to its decision, and on
what tenure and conditions it is to be held, remains confessedly open."
"But his sagacious and statesmanlike counsel was disregarded. The Irish
Bishops ranged themselves in bitter but futile hostility to the change.
A frantic outbreak of Protestant violence began in Ireland and spread to
England." Bishop Wilberforce notes this conversation at Windsor Castle:
"The Queen very affable. 'So sorry Mr. Gladstone started this about the
Irish Church, and he is a great friend of yours.'"

On the 15th of February Parliament assembled. March 1st Mr. Gladstone
introduced his momentous bill in a speech of three hours, his first
speech as Prime Minister, which was characterized as "calm, moderate and
kindly." It was proposed that on January 1, 1871, the Irish Church
should cease to exist as an establishment and should become a
free Church.

Mr. Disraeli, in the Commons, moved the rejection of the bill. In
opposing the measure he objected to disestablishment, because he was in
favor of the union of Church and State.

Mr. Gladstone eloquently concluded as follows: "As the clock points
rapidly towards the dawn, so as rapidly flow out the years, the months,
the days, that remain to the existence of the Irish Established
Church.... Not now are we opening this great question. Opened, perhaps,
it was when the Parliament which expired last year pronounced upon it
that emphatic judgment which can never be recalled. Opened it was,
further, when in the months of autumn the discussions were held in every
quarter of the Irish Church. Prosecuted another stage it was, when the
completed elections discovered to us a manifestation of the national
verdict more emphatic than, with the rarest exceptions, has been
witnessed during the whole of our Parliamentary history. The good cause
was further advanced towards its triumphant issue when the silent
acknowledgment of the late government, that they declined to contest the
question, was given by their retirement from office, and their choosing
a less responsible position from which to carry on a more desultory
warfare against the policy which they had in the previous session
unsuccessfully attempted to resist. Another blow will soon be struck in
the same good cause, and I will not intercept it one single
moment more."

The bill passed by an overwhelming vote--368 against 250--and went up to
the Lords, where stirring debates occurred. But there, as well as in the
House, the Irish Establishment was doomed. The bill, substantially
unaltered, received the Royal assent July 26, 1869.

The Annual Register for 1869 declared that the bill "was carried through
in the face of a united and powerful opposition, mainly by the resolute
will and unflinching energy of the Prime Minister.... Upon the whole,
whatever may be thought of its merits or demerits, it can hardly be
disputed that the Act of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church,
introduced and carried into a law within somewhat less than five months,
was the most remarkable legislative achievement of modern times."

The parliamentary session of 1870 was rendered memorable by the passing
of a scarcely less popular and important measure--the Irish Land Bill.
Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of Ireland, had referred to three branches of
an Upas tree, to the growth of which her present sad condition was
largely owing--the Irish Church, the Irish Land Laws, and the Irish
Universities. The first branch had fallen with the disestablishment of
the Irish Church, and Mr. Gladstone, pressing on in his reform, now
proposed to lop off the second branch by his Irish Land Bill, which was
in itself a revolution. It was claimed for Mr. Gladstone's new bill, or
Land Scheme, that while it insured for the tenant security of holding,
it did not confiscate a single valuable right of the Irish land-owner.
Mr. Gladstone remarked that he believed there was a great fund of
national wealth in the soil of Ireland as yet undeveloped, and said he
trusted that both tenant and landlord would accept the bill because it
was just. The bill passed, and received the approval of the Queen,
August 1, 1870.

[Illustration: The Old Lion]




CHAPTER XV


THE GOLDEN AGE OF LIBERALISM

In what has been denominated the "Golden Age of Liberalism" the Liberal
party was united, enthusiastic, victorious, full of energy, confidence
and hope. "I have not any misgivings about Gladstone personally," says
an English writer, "but as leader of the party to which the folly of the
Conservatives and the selfish treachery of Disraeli, bit by bit, allied
him, he cannot do what he would, and, with all his vast powers, there is
a want of sharp-sighted clearness as to others. But God rules. I do not
see how we are, after Disraeli's Reform Bill, long to avoid fundamental
changes, both in Church and State."

Justin McCarthy has well summed up the aims of Mr. Gladstone and his
party on their accession to power: "Nothing in modern English history is
like the rush of the extraordinary years of reforming energy on which
the new administration had now entered. Mr. Gladstone's government had
to grapple with five or six great questions, any one of which might
have seemed enough to engage the whole attention of an ordinary
administration. The new Prime Minister had pledged himself to abolish
the State Church in Ireland, and to reform the Irish Land Tenure system.
He had made up his mind to put an end to the purchase of commissions in
the army. Recent events and experiences had convinced him that it was
necessary to introduce the system of voting by ballot. He accepted for
his government the responsibility of originating a complete system of
national education."

The first great measure of the new administration had been successfully
pushed through, and, flushed with triumph, the Liberal leaders were now
ready to introduce other important legislation. In 1870, the Elementary
Education Act, providing for the establishment of school boards, and
securing the benefits of education for the poor in England and Wales was
introduced. By it a national and compulsory system of education was
established for the first time. "It is important to note that the
concessions made during its course to the convictions of Tories and
Churchmen, in the matter of religious education, stirred the bitter and
abiding wrath of the political Dissenters." The measure was passed,
while the half-penny postage for newspapers, and the half-penny post
cards were among the benefits secured.

In April, 1870, a party of English travelers in Greece were seized by
brigands. The ladies were released and also Lord Muncaster, who was sent
to Athens to arrange for ransom and a free pardon. But the Greek
Government sending soldiers to release the captives and capture the
captors, the English were murdered. The English Minister at Athens was
in treaty for the release of his countrymen, but the great difficulty
was to procure pardon from the Greek government. This terrible affair
created a profound sensation in England, and it was brought before
Parliament. Mr. Gladstone pleaded for further information before taking
decided steps. But for the arrest and execution of most of the brigands,
and the extirpation of the band, the diabolical deed went unavenged.

In July, war broke out suddenly between France and Germany, which
resulted in the dethronement of Napoleon III. England preserved
neutrality. However, Mr. Gladstone had his opinion regarding the war and
thus represented it: "It is not for me to distribute praise and blame;
but I think the war as a whole, and the state of things out of which it
has grown, deserve a severer condemnation than any which the nineteenth
century has exhibited since the peace of 1815." And later, in an
anonymous article, the only one he ever wrote, and which contained the
famous phrase, "the streak of silver sea," he "distributed blame with
great impartiality between both belligerent powers."

Among the business transacted in the session of 1870 was the following:
All appointments to situations in all Civil Departments of the State,
except the Foreign Office and posts requiring professional knowledge,
should be filled by open competition; and the royal prerogative that
claimed the General Commanding-in-Chief as the agent of the Crown be
abolished, and that distinguished personage was formally declared to be
subordinate to the Minister of War. Mr. Gladstone announced the
intention of the government to release the Fenian prisoners then
undergoing sentences for treason or treason-felony, on condition of
their not remaining in or returning to the United Kingdom. The Premier,
alluding to the enormity of their offenses, said that the same
principles of justice which dictated their sentences would amply
sanction the prolongation of their imprisonment if the public security
demanded it. The press and country generally approved this decision of
the Premier, but some condemned him for the condition he imposed in the
amnesty. The religious test imposed upon all students entering at the
universities was abolished, and all students of all creeds could now
enter the universities on an equal footing. Heretofore special
privileges were accorded to members of the Established Episcopal Church,
and all others were cut off from the full enjoyment of the
universities.

A bill to establish secret voting was rejected by the Lords, but was
passed the next session. The House of Lords, emboldened by their success
in throwing out the voting bill, defeated a bill to abolish the purchase
of commissions in the army, but Mr. Gladstone was not to be turned from
his purpose, and startled the peers by a new departure--he dispensed
with their consent, and accomplished his purpose without the decision of
Parliament. Finding that purchase in the army existed only by royal
sanction, he, with prompt decision, advised the Queen to issue a royal
warrant declaring that on and after November 1, 1871, all regulations
attending the purchase of commissions should be cancelled. The purchase
of official positions in the army was thus abolished. It was regarded as
a high-handed act on the part of the Prime Minister, and a stretch of
executive authority, and was denounced by Lords and Commons, friends and
foes. Tories and Peers especially were enraged, and regarded themselves
as baffled.

The condition of affairs in Ireland was alarming. The spread of an
agrarian conspiracy at Westmeath compelled the government to move for a
committee to inquire into the unlawful combination and confederacy
existing. "Mr. Disraeli was severely sarcastic at the expense of the
government."

The grant proposed by the government to the Princess Louise on her
marriage aroused the opposition of some members of the House, who
claimed to represent the sentiments of a considerable number of people.
It was proposed to grant £30,000 and an annuity of £6,000. The Premier
stated that the Queen in marrying her daughter to one of her own
subjects, had followed her womanly and motherly instincts. He dwelt upon
the political importance of supporting the dignity of the crown in a
suitable manner; upon the value of a stable dynasty; and the unwisdom of
making minute pecuniary calculations upon such occasions. It was carried
by a remarkable majority of 350 votes against 1.

In 1871 the treaty of Washington was concluded. But the Geneva awards
for the damage done to American shipping by the "Alabama," did much to
undermine Mr. Gladstone's popularity with the warlike portion of the
British public and there were various indications that the Ministry were
becoming unpopular. There were other causes tributary to this effect.
His plans of retrenchment had deprived Greenwich of much of its trade,
hence his seat was threatened. Mr. Gladstone resolved to face the
difficulty boldly, and to meet the murmurers on their own ground,
October 28, 1871, he addressed his Greenwich constituents. The air was
heavy with murmurs and threats. Twenty thousand people were gathered at
Blackheath. It was a cold afternoon when he appeared bare-headed, and
defended the whole policy of the administration. "His speech was as
long, as methodical, as argumentative, and in parts as eloquent, as if
he had been speaking at his ease under the friendly and commodious
shelter of the House of Commons." The growing unpopularity of the
Government was evidenced in the first reception given to the Premier by
his constituents. Groans and cheers were mingled, and his voice at first
was drowned by the din. Finally he was heard, and won the day, the
people enthusiastically applauding and waving a forest of hats. One
cause of unpopularity was what is called "the Ewelme Scandal," and
another the elevation of Sir Robert Collin to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council.

Mr. Gladstone said: "I have a shrewd suspicion in my mind that a very
large proportion of the people of England have a sneaking kindness for
the hereditary principle. My observation has not been of a very brief
period, and what I have observed is this, that wherever there is
anything to be, done, or to be given, and there are two candidates for
it who are exactly alike--alike in opinions, alike in character, alike
in possessions, the one being a commoner and the other a lord--the
Englishman is very apt indeed to prefer the lord." He detailed the great
advantage which had accrued from the legislation of the past generation,
including free-trade, the removal of twenty millions of taxation, a
cheap press, and an education bill, Mr. Gladstone thus restored himself
to the confidence of his constituents, but the ministry did not wholly
regain the popularity they once enjoyed. The Gladstone period had passed
its zenith and its decadence had already begun.

During the autumn Mr. Gladstone received the freedom of the city of
Aberdeen, and made a speech, in which occurred a remarkable reference to
"the newly-invented cry of Home Rule." He spoke of the political
illusions to which Ireland was periodically subject, the extremes to
which England had gone in satisfying her demands, and the removal of all
her grievances, except that which related to higher education. He said
that any inequalities resting between England and Ireland were in favor
of Ireland, and as to Home Rule, if Ireland was entitled to it, Scotland
was better entitled, and even more so Wales.

Ireland had proved the glory of Mr. Gladstone's administration. Its name
had been associated with the most brilliant legislative triumphs of
government. But Ireland was also destined to be the government's most
serious stumbling-block, and fated to be the immediate measure of its
overthrow. In the session of 1873 Mr. Gladstone endeavored to further
his plans for Reform, and consequently vigorously attacked the third
branch of the "upas tree," to which he had referred. He labored to put
the universities on a proper basis, that they might be truly educational
centres for the whole of Ireland, and not for a small section of its
inhabitants alone. This step followed legitimately after the
disestablishment of the Irish Church. He introduced to this end a large
and comprehensive measure, but although it was favorably received at the
outset, a hostile feeling soon began and manifested itself. Mr.
Gladstone pleaded powerfully for the measure, and said: "To mete out
justice to Ireland, according to the best view that with human infirmity
we could form, has been the work--I will almost say the sacred work--of
this Parliament. Having put our hands to the plough, let us not turn
back. Let not what we think the fault or perverseness of those whom we
are attempting to assist have the slightest effect in turning us, even
by a hair's-breadth, from the path on which we have entered. As we begun
so let us persevere, even to the end, and with firm and resolute hand
let us efface from the law and practice of the country the last--for I
believe it is the last--of the religious and social grievances of
Ireland." Mr. Disraeli made fun of the bill, stalwart Liberals condemned
it, and the Irish members voted against it, hence the bill was defeated
by a small majority of three votes. Mr. Gladstone consequently resigned,
but Mr. Disraeli positively declined to take office with a majority of
the House of Commons against him, and refused to appeal to the country.
Mr. Gladstone read an extract from a letter he had addressed to the
Queen, in which he contended that Mr. Disraeli's refusal to accept
office was contrary to all precedent. But under the extraordinary
circumstances he and his colleagues consented to resume office, and they
would endeavor to proceed, both with regard to legislation and
administration upon the same principle as those which had heretofore
regulated their conduct. Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
having resigned, Mr. Gladstone assumed the duties of the office himself,
thus serving in the double offices of Premier and Chancellor. During the
recess various speeches were made in defence of the Ministerial policy,
but the government failed to recover its once overwhelming popularity.

On the 19th of July, 1873, Mr. Gladstone lost by sudden death one of his
oldest and most highly esteemed friends--Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of
Winchester. He was riding to Holmbury with Earl Granville, when he was
thrown from his horse and killed instantly.

The end of Mr. Gladstone's first ministry was now drawing near. The
people no longer desired to keep up with the reforming zeal of the
administration. Mr. Disraeli's strongly exaggerated description of the
Premier's policy had the effect of forming the popular discontent;
Liberal members were deserting him. The Bible was in danger of being
left out of the schools, and beer was threatened with taxation. The flag
of "Beer and the Bible"--strange combination--having been hoisted by
clergy and publicans, the cry against the ministry became irresistible.
Deserted by the people and by many of his own party, what was to be done
unless to appeal to the country and decide by a general election what
was wanted and who would be sustained.

January, 1874, Mr. Gladstone issued a manifesto dissolving Parliament.
In this document, entitled to be called a State paper for its political
and historical importance, Mr. Gladstone stated his reasons for what was
regarded by many as a _coup d' tat_. It is impossible to describe the
public excitement and confusion which attended the general election thus
unexpectedly decreed. Mr. Gladstone, recovering from a cold, appealed
with great energy to Greenwich for re-election. The general election
resulted in the defeat of the Liberals, and gave to the Conservatives a
majority of forty-six in the House. Mr. Gladstone was elected, but
Greenwich which returned two members, placed the Premier second on the
poll--below a local distiller. Following the example of his
predecessor, in 1868, Mr. Gladstone resigned. "Thus was overthrown one
of the greatest administrations of the century; indeed, it may be
doubted whether any other English Ministry was ever able to show such a
splendid record of great legislative acts within so short a period.
There was not one measure, but a dozen, which would have shed lustre
upon any government; and the six years of Mr. Gladstone's first
Premiership are well entitled to the epithet which has been accorded to
them of 'the Golden Age of Liberalism.'"

Before the next Parliament met Mr. Gladstone was to give the country
another surprise. He was now sixty-four years old, had been forty years
in active parliamentary labors, and thought himself justified in seeking
rest from the arduous duties of public life, at least the pressing cares
as leader of one of the great political parties. When his contemplated
retirement had before become known to his friends, they induced him for
a while longer to act as leader, but in February, 1875, he finally
retired from the leadership and indeed appeared but rarely in the House
of Commons during that session.

"The retirement of Mr. Gladstone from active leadership naturally
filled his party with dismay. According to the general law of human
life, they only realized their blessings when they had lost them. They
had grumbled at their chief and mutinied against him and helped to
depose him. But, now that this commanding genius was suddenly withdrawn
from their councils they found that they had nothing to put in its
place. Their indignation waxed fast and furious, and was not the less
keen because they had to some extent, brought their trouble on
themselves. They complained with almost a ludicrous pathos that Mr.
Gladstone had led them into a wilderness of opposition and left them
there to perish. They were as sheep without a shepherd and the ravening
wolves of Toryism seemed to have it all their own way."

Between the time of Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the Premiership and
his resignation of leadership in the House, he had quickly reappeared in
the House of Commons and vigorously opposed the Public Worship
Regulation Bill. Mr. Gladstone attacked the bill with a power and
vehemence which astonished the House. The great objection to it was its
interference with liberty, and with the variety of customs which had
grown up in different parts of the country. To enforce strict uniformity
would be oppressive and inconvenient. The bill became law, however,
though it has largely proved inoperative, Mr. Gladstone also opposed the
Endowed Schools Act Amendment Bill, which practically gave to the Church
of England the control of schools that were thrown open to the whole
nation by the policy of the last Parliament. So great a storm was raised
over this reactionary bill that Mr. Disraeli was obliged to modify its
provisions considerably before it could become a law. Mr. Gladstone was
also active at this time in delivering addresses at Liverpool College,
the Buckley Institute and the well-known Nonconformist College at
Mill Hill.

[Illustration: MR. GLADSTONE'S MAIL]




CHAPTER XVI


THE EASTERN QUESTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: MR. GLADSTONE ON HIS WAY HOME]




CHAPTER XVII


MIDLOTHIAN AND THE SECOND PREMIERSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After his return to London Mr. Gladstone received an address from the
Corporation, setting forth the long services he had rendered to the
country. Mr. Gladstone, in his reply, touched upon Irish obstruction,
and announced, incidentally, the arrest of Mr. Parnell. Mr. Parnell, the
leader of the Irish party, having openly defied the law, had been
arrested and imprisoned without trial, under the Coercion Act, passed at
the last session.

On the opening night of the Parliament, of 1882, Mr. Gladstone laid
before the House the proposed new rules of Parliamentary procedure. The
_clôture_, by a bare majority, was to be established, in order to secure
the power of closing debate by a vote of the House.

The House of Lords decided upon the appointment of a Select Committee to
inquire into the working of the Land Act, including the alleged total
collapse of the clauses relating to purchase, emigration, and arrears.
The Prime Minister in the House of Commons introduced a resolution
condemning the proposed inquiry as tending to defeat the operation of
the Land Act and as injurious to the good government of Ireland.

Early in May, 1882, the whole country was startled and terrified by the
news of the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the new chief
secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Burke under-secretary, in the Phoenix
Park, Dublin. A social revolution was raging in Ireland. Outrages and
murders had been fearfully frequent, and such brutal murders as those of
Mrs. Smythe and Mr. Herbert had filled England with terror. In the
first week of May announcement was made that Earl Cowper had resigned
the Viceroyalty. Rather than share the responsibility of releasing Mr.
Parnell, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Forster left the Cabinet. Lord
Spencer was appointed to the Viceroyalty, and Lord Frederick Cavendish
succeeded Mr. Forster, and two days thereafter all England was thrilled
with sorrow and indignation by the terrible news of the assassination in
Phoenix Park. The news shattered the hopes of many concerning Ireland,
and fell with special severity upon Mr. Gladstone, because he and Lord
Cavendish enjoyed the closest friendship. The government presented a
Prevention of Crimes Bill of a very stringent character. In the course
of debate warm discussions arose over an "understanding" called, "The
Kilmainham Compact," but Mr. Gladstone successfully defended the
government in regard to its supposed negotiations with Mr. Parnell. This
bill was directed against secret societies and illegal combinations, and
it was hoped that as the Land League party had expressed its horror at
the Phoenix Park crime, and charged that it was the work of American
conspirators, they would allow the measure speedily to become law. Mr.
Bright declared that the bill would harm no innocent person, and
explained his own doctrine, that "Force is no remedy," was intended to
apply not to outrages, but to grievances. For three weeks Mr. Parnell
and his followers obstructed legislation in every conceivable way, and
were finally suspended for systematic obstruction. The obstructionists
removed, the bill was then passed, after a sitting of twenty-eight
hours. The measure was passed by the Lords July 7th, and the Queen
signed the bill July 12th. A crisis nearly arose between the Lords and
the Commons over the Irish Arrears Bill, but the Lords finally yielded.

[Illustration: GALLERY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.]




CHAPTER XVIII


THIRD ADMINISTRATION AND HOME RULE

It is our purpose next to trace the events that led to the overthrow of
the Second Administration of Mr. Gladstone, and to the formation of his
Third Cabinet. The question that seemed to begin the work of weakening
the foundations of his existing government was their policy in regard to
Egypt, which began with the occupation of Egypt in 1882.

The budget of the session of 1882 was presented by Mr. Gladstone April
24th. It was not expected that anything novel in the way of legislation
would be attempted in it. But its main interest was in this, that it
proposed a vote of credit for the Egyptian Expedition, which was to be
provided for by addition to the income-tax, making it sixpence
half-penny in the pound for the year. The financial proposals were
agreed to. In the course of the session Mr. Bright resigned his place in
the Cabinet on the ground that the intervention in Egypt was a manifest
violation of the moral law, that the Government had interfered by force
of arms in Egypt, and directed the bombardment of Alexandria. Mr.
Gladstone denied that the Ministry were at war with Egypt, and stated
that the measures taken at Alexandria were strictly measures of
self-defence. In justifying his resignation Mr. Bright said there had
been a manifest violation of the moral law; but the Premier, while
agreeing with his late colleague generally on the question of the moral
law differed from him as to this particular application of it.

The Prime Minister attended the Lord Mayor's Banquet at the Mansion
House, August 9, 1882. In replying to the toast to Her Majesty's
Ministers, after some preliminary remarks, Mr. Gladstone alluded to the
campaign in Egypt, which had been so much discussed, and said: "Let it
be well understood for what we go and for what we do not go to Egypt. We
do not go to make war on its people, but to rescue them from the
oppression of a military tyranny which at present extinguishes every
free voice and chains every man of the people of that country. We do not
go to make war on the Mohammedan religion, for it is amongst the
proudest distinctions of Christianity to establish tolerance, and we
know that wherever the British rule exists, the same respect which we
claim for the exercise of our own conscientious convictions is yielded
to the professors of every other faith on the surface of the globe. We
do not, my Lord Mayor, go to repress the growth of Egyptian liberties.
We wish them well; for we have no other interest in Egypt, which cannot
in any other way so well and so effectually attain her own prosperity as
by the enjoyment of a well regulated, and an expanding freedom."

Mr. Gladstone's confidence respecting the early termination of the war
in Egypt was somewhat justified by Sir Garnet Wolseley's victory at
Tel-el-Kebir, but the future relations of England with Egypt were still
left an open subject of discussion and speculation. Again, November 9th,
at the banquet at the Guildhall, to the Cabinet Ministers, Mr. Gladstone
spoke. He called attention to the settlement of the troubles in the East
of Europe, congratulating his hearers on the removal by the naval and
military forces of the Egyptian difficulty, and calling attention to
Ireland, compared its condition with that of the previous March and
October, 1881, showing a diminution of agrarian crime to the extent of
four-fifths. This happy result had been brought about, not by coercive
means alone, but by the exercise of remedial measures. "If the people of
Ireland were willing to walk in the ways of legality, England was
strong, and generous, and free enough to entertain in a friendly and
kindly spirit any demand which they might make."

On the 13th of December, 1882, Mr. Gladstone's political jubilee was
celebrated. Fifty years before, on that day, he had been returned to
Parliament as member for Newark. A large number of congratulatory
addresses, letters, and telegrams complimenting him on the completion of
his fifty years of parliamentary service were received by him. He had
entered the first Reformed Parliament as a conservative, had gone ever
forward in the path of reform, and was yet to lead in greater measures
of reform.

The excellent prospects regarding domestic measures with which the
session of 1883 was opened were dispelled by prolonged and fruitless
debates on measures proposed and on the address from the Queen. But Mr.
Gladstone was absent, the state of his health requiring him to pass
several weeks at Cannes. He returned home in March greatly invigorated,
and at once threw himself with wonted ardour into the parliamentary
conflict. Mr. Parnell offered a bill to amend the Irish Land Act of
1887, which was opposed by the Premier and lost.

An affirmation bill was introduced at this session by the Government,
which provided that members who objected to taking the oath might have
the privilege of affirming. The opposition spoke of the measure as a
"Bradlaugh Relief Bill." Its rejection was moved, and in its defense
Mr. Gladstone made one of his best speeches, which was warmly applauded.
He said: "I must painfully record my opinion, that grave injury has been
done to religion in many minds--not in instructed minds, but in those
which are ill-instructed or partially instructed--in consequence of
things which ought never to have occurred. Great mischief has been done
in many minds by a resistance offered to the man elected by the
constituency of Northampton, which a portion of the people believe to be
unjust. When they see the profession of religion and the interests of
religion, ostensibly associated with what they are deeply convinced is
injustice, it leads to questions about religion itself, which commonly
end in impairing those convictions, and that belief, the loss of which I
believe to be the most inexpressible calamity which can fall either upon
a man or upon a nation." But the measure was lost.

During the session of 1883 the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patents Bill were
both passed, and effected reforms which had long been felt to be
necessary. The Corrupt Practices Act was designed to remove from British
parliamentary and borough elections the stigma which attached to them in
so many parts of the country. The Government was checked, however, in
its policy in the Transvaal, and Mr. Childers' action in regard to the
Suez Canal.

Mr. Gladstone attended, in March, the celebration of the inauguration
of the National Liberal party, predicting for it a useful and brilliant
future, if it remained faithful to its time-honored principles and
traditions.

Sir Stafford Northcote, in the session of 1884, moved a vote of censure,
and vigorously attacked the Egyptian policy of the administration. Mr.
Gladstone defended the ministerial action with spirit and effect. He
declared that the Government had found, and not made, the situation in
Egypt and the Soudan. The Prime Minister "traced all the mischief to
Lord Salisbury's dual control. Though the motive and object had been to
secure a better government for Egypt, a great error had been committed.
The British Government had fulfilled all the obligations imposed upon
them, and they were acting for the benefit of the civilized world.
Reforms had been effected in the judicature, legislature, police, and
military organizations of Egypt; and they were resolved to see all the
vital points recommended carried out by the Khedive's Government. As to
the war in the Soudan, it was hateful to the people of Egypt; and
England declined to have anything to do with the reconquest of the
Soudan.... General Gordon, whom Mr. Gladstone characterized as a hero
and a genius, had been despatched to Khartoum for the purpose of
withdrawing, if possible, in safety the 29,000 soldiers of the Khedive
scattered over the Soudan. The General's mission was not the reconquest
of the Soudan, but its peaceful evacuation, and the reconstruction of
the country, by giving back to the Sultan the ancestral power which had
been suspended during the Egyptian occupation. The Government had to
consider in any steps which they took the danger of thwarting Gordon's
peaceful mission and endangering his life." Mr. Gladstone said that the
policy of the Government was to "rescue and retire." Sir S. Northcote's
resolution was rejected by 311 to 292 votes, showing the growing
strength of the Opposition.

The pacific mission of General Gordon to Khartoum having failed, there
was great solicitude felt for that gallant soldier's welfare and safety.
Sir M. Hicks-Beach offered another vote of censure, complaining of the
dilatory conduct of the Government for not taking steps to secure the
safety of General Gordon. Mr. Gladstone, in reply, admitted the
obligations of the Government to General Gordon, and stated that on
reasonable proof of danger he would be assisted. "The nation would never
grudge adequate efforts for the protection of its agents, but it was the
duty of the Government to consider the treasure, the blood, and the
honor of the country, together with the circumstances of the time, the
season, the climate, and the military difficulties. Conscious of what
their obligations were, they would continue to use their best endeavours
to fulfil them, unmoved by the threats and the captious criticisms of
the Opposition." The proposed censure was defeated.

A conference of European powers was held on Egyptian affairs, but was
abortive; and Mr. Gladstone while announcing that he wished to get out
of Egypt as soon as circumstances would allow, admitted that
institutions, however good, were not likely to survive the withdrawal of
our troops. Lord Northbrook was next despatched by the government on a
mission to Egypt, with the object of rescuing her from her financial
embarrassments, and averting the impending dangers of a national
bankruptcy.

In February, 1884, Mr. Gladstone introduced the Government Franchise
Bill in the House of Commons. It was a great measure and proposed to
complete the work of parliamentary reform by conferring the suffrage
upon every person in the United Kingdom who was the head of a household.
Mr. Gladstone said that the results of the bill would be to add to the
English constituency upwards of 1,300,000 voters; to the Scotch
constituency over 200,000 voters; and to the Irish constituency over
400,000 voters; which would add to the aggregate constituency of the
United Kingdom, which was then 3,000,000 voters, 2,000,000 more, or
nearly twice as many as were added in 1832. The Premier appealed for
union on this great reform, and observed: "Let us hold firmly together,
and success will crown our efforts. You will, as much as any former
Parliament that has conferred great legislative benefits on the nation,
have your reward, and read your history in a nation's eyes; for you will
have deserved all the benefits you will have conferred. You will have
made a strong nation stronger still--stronger in union without, and
stronger against its foes (if and when it has any foes) within; stronger
in union between class and class, and in rallying all classes and
portions of the community in one solid compact mass round the ancient
Throne which it has loved so well, and round the Constitution, now to be
more than ever free and more than ever powerful."

The measure was warmly debated. Besides this opposition there were,
outside of the House, ominous utterances threatening the rejection of
the scheme. Mr. Gladstone, referring to these hostile murmurings, said
that hitherto the attitude of the government had been, in Shakespeare's
words, "Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in, bear it, that
the opposer may beware of thee." He deprecated a quarrel and declared
that the government had done everything to prevent a collision between
the two Houses of Parliament on this question, which would open up a
prospect more serious than any he remembered since the first
Reform Bill.

The House of Lords passed a resolution to the effect that the Lords
would not concur in any measure of reform without having the complete
bill before them, including the redistribution and registration, as well
as an extension of the suffrage. The Premier promised to introduce a
Redistribution Bill in the following session, but Lord Salisbury, since
the death of Lord Beaconsfield, the leader of the Conservative party,
declined to discuss the Redistribution Bill, "with a rope around his
neck," by which he meant a franchise act under which his party must
appeal to the country. Negotiations followed between the Liberal and
Conservative leaders with fruitless results, and the House of Lords
finally passed a resolution that it would be desirable for Parliament to
have an autumn session, to consider the Representation of the People
Bill, in connection with the Redistribution Bill, which the government
had brought before Parliament.

Public meetings were held at various places throughout the country, and
the question of the enlargement of the franchise discussed. The policy
of the Tories was strongly condemned at many large and influential
public gatherings. In August Mr. Gladstone visited Midlothian and
delivered a powerful address in the Edinburgh Corn Exchange. He
explained that the special purpose for which he appeared before his
constituents was to promote, by every legitimate means in his power, the
speedy passage of the Franchise Bill. "The unfortunate rejection of the
measure," he observed, "had already drawn in its train other questions
of the gravest kind, and the vast proportion of the people would soon be
asking whether an organic change was not required in the House of Lords.
He, however, did not believe that the House of Lords had as yet placed
itself in a position of irretrievable error. He believed that it was
possible for it to go back, and to go back with dignity and honor."

With regard to the foreign policy of the Government, which had been
attacked and compared unfavorably with the Midlothian programme of 1879,
Mr. Gladstone defended it with spirit. He expressed his satisfaction
with the expansion of Germany abroad, and reviewed the policy of the
Government in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, India and South Africa. As to
the Transvaal, he contended that "they were strong and could afford to
be merciful," and that it was not possible without the grossest and most
shameful breach of faith to persist in holding the Boers to annexation,
"when we had pledged ourselves beforehand that they should not be
annexed except with their own good will." In reply to the oft-repeated
question, "What took you to Egypt?" the Premier said: "Honor and
plighted faith." The covenants they were keeping were those entered into
by their Tory predecessors, and most unfortunate and most unwise he
considered them to be. The Government had respected the sovereignty of
the Porte and the title of the European Powers to be concerned in all
matters territorially affecting the Turkish Empire; they had discouraged
the spirit of aggression as well as they could, and had contracted no
embarrassing engagements. Great improvements had been introduced in the
administration of Egypt, but he regretted the total failure of the late
Conference of the Powers to solve the problem of Egyptian finance. With
regard to General Gordon the Government were considering the best means
to be adopted for fulfilling their obligations.

Parliament met in October, 1884. The Franchise Bill was introduced and
sent to the House of Lords, and the Redistribution Bill, upon which a
compromise with the Conservatives had been reached, was presented in the
House of Commons. The measure, as altered, proposed to disfranchise all
boroughs with a population under 15,000, to give only one member to
towns with a population between 15,000 and 50,000, and to take one
member each from the counties of Rutland and Hereford. By this
arrangement one hundred and sixty seats would be "extinguished," which,
with the six seats extinguished before, would be revived and distributed
as follows: "Eight new boroughs would be created, the representation of
London, Liverpool, and other large cities and towns would be greatly
increased, while in dealing with the remainder of the seats
unappropriated, the Government would apply equal electoral areas
throughout the country." The Franchise Bill--a truly democratic
bill---was carried through both Houses, and became a law. The
Redistribution Bill was carried, January, 1885, after animated debate.
Registration measures were also passed for England, Scotland and
Ireland, which received the royal assent May 21st.

January, 1885, Mr. Gladstone wrote a kindly, serious, yet courtly letter
of congratulation to Prince Albert Victor, eldest son of the Prince of
Wales and heir presumptive to the Crown, on the attainment of
his majority.

In the hour of triumph the government was doomed to receive a stunning
blow. The news of the fall of Khartoum and the untimely death of General
Gordon sent a thrill of horror and indignation throughout England. The
government was seriously condemned for its procrastination in not
sending timely relief, for the rescue of the imperiled English. But when
the facts became fully known it was found that no blame could be
attached to Mr. Gladstone, who was himself strongly moved by the death
of General Gordon, whose work and character he highly esteemed. The
Prime Minister was, however, equal to the emergency, and announced that
it was necessary to overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations
against Osman Digna, and to construct a railway from Suakin to Berber
with a view to a campaign in the fall. The reserves were called out by
royal proclamation.

However, these measures met with opposition. Sir Stafford Northcote
brought forward a motion affirming that the risks and sacrifices which
the government appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified
by a distinct recognition of England's responsibility for Egypt, and
those portions of the Soudan which were necessary to its security. An
amendment was proposed by Mr. John Morley, but regretting its decision
to continue the conflict with the Mahdi. Mr. Gladstone replied forcibly
to both motion and amendment, and appealed to the Liberal party to
sustain the administration and its policy by an unmistakable vote of
confidence. The government was sustained.

The Great Powers of Europe, in convention for the settlement of the
finances of Egypt, had concluded that it would require a loan of
£9,000,000 to save Egypt from bankruptcy. This loan was to be issued on
an international guarantee, with an international inquiry at the end of
two years into the success of the scheme. This plan of adjustment was
agreed to by the House. A short time after this settlement Mr. Gladstone
announced a vote of credit to provide against any danger from Russian
action, stated that no farther operations would be undertaken either on
the Nile or near Suakin, and that General Graham's campaign would be
abandoned, as well as the construction of the new railway.

Great excitement was created in England by the announcement of the
advance of the Russians on the Indian frontier. March 13th Mr. Gladstone
stated in the House that as the protests formerly made against the
advance of Russia had been allowed to lapse, it had been agreed that
pending the delineation of the frontier there should be no further
advance on either side. In April, however, a conflict occurred between
the Russians and the Afghans, which seemed to indicate that General
Komaroff had committed an act of unprovoked aggression on the Ameer. Mr.
Gladstone moved a vote of credit on the 27th in a speech, whose
eloquence and energy greatly stirred both sides of the House. Happily,
the difficulty with Russia was adjusted by conceding Pendjeh to Russia
in consideration of the surrender of Zulfiker to the Ameer.

The administration of Mr. Gladstone, which had weathered through many
storms, was destined to fall in a wholly unexpected way. When the budget
for 1885 was produced there was a deficit of upwards of a million
pounds, besides the depressed revenue and an estimated expenditure for
the current year of not less than £100,000,000. Mr. Childers, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to make the taxation upon land
proportionate to that on personal property, and to augment the duties on
spirits and beer. But various interests were antagonized, and opposition
was aroused. The country members demanded that no new taxes be put on
the land until the promised relief of local taxation had been granted.
The agricultural and liquor interests were discontented, as well as the
Scotch and Irish members, with the whisky duty. Concessions were made,
but they failed to reconcile the opposition. A hostile motion was
offered by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, and Mr. Gladstone declared that the
Cabinet would resign if defeated. Many Liberals were absent when the
vote was taken, regarding a majority for the Ministry as certain, but
the amendment was carried June 9th by a vote of 264 to 252, and the
Premier and his colleagues resigned. The Liberals were desirous of
passing a vote of confidence in the administration, but Mr. Gladstone
deprecated this, as he felt the situation to be intolerable, and was
desirous of being relieved from the responsibility of office.
Misfortunes, both in reference to affairs at home and abroad, had fallen
heavily upon the Government, for many of which they were not
responsible, and the Cabinet had been held together chiefly by the
masterly personality of the Premier. Hence it was not without a feeling
of personal satisfaction that Mr. Gladstone transferred the seats of
office to his successor, Lord Salisbury. On his retirement from office
the Queen offered an Earldom to Mr. Gladstone, which he declined. Its
acceptance would have meant burial in the House of Lords, and an end to
his progressive action.

The events that led to the third administration of Mr. Gladstone will
next engage our attention.

The first general election under the New Reform Act was held in
November, 1885. Mr. Gladstone again appealed to his constituents, and,
although nearly seventy-six years of age, spoke with an energy and force
far beyond all his contemporaries. His attitude on the question of
Dis-establishment drew back many wavering Scotch votes. He discussed the
Scotch question at Edinburgh, and said there was no fear of change so
long as England dealt liberally, equitably, and prudently with Ireland,
but demands must be subject to the condition that the unity of the
empire, and all the powers of the Imperial Parliament for maintaining
that authority, must be preserved.

In another address he stated his conviction, that the day had not come
when the Dis-establishment of the Church in Scotland should be made a
test question. The question pressing for settlement by the next
Parliament was land reform, local government, parliamentary procedure,
and the imperial relations between Ireland and England; and every
sensible man would admit that it was right to direct attention to them
rather than to a matter impossible of immediate solution.

At West Calder Mr. Gladstone made an address, in which he "approved Lord
Salisbury's action with regard to Servia, complained of the ministerial
condemnation of Lord Ripon's Indian administration, ridiculed the idea
of benefit resulting from a Royal Commission on trade depression, warned
the electors against remedies which were really worse than the disease,
and defended Free-Trade principles. He furthur advocated comprehensive
land reforms, including free transfer, facility of registration, and the
uprooting of mortmain."

[Illustration: GLADSTONE'S STUDY AT EDWARDEN.]

Mr. Gladstone was returned again for Midlothian by an overwhelming
majority. The elections resulted in the return of 333 Liberals, 249
Conservatives, 86 Parnellites, and 2 Independents. The Liberals thus
secured a substantial triumph. The agricultural districts were faithful
to the Liberals, but they lost in the boroughs. The clergy and the
publicans, and the Parnellites were found "arrayed" in "scandalous
alliance" against the Liberal cause. The Liberal party was just short of
the numbers required to defeat the combined forces of Tories and
Parnellites. Lord Salisbury was retained in office, but the
Conservatives were disunited, and the life of his administration hung by
a thread. The Liberals were strong, hopeful, and united. In Mr.
Chamberlain they had a popular champion of great ability and industry.

December 17, 1885 England was astonished by the appearance of an
anonymous paragraph in the _Times_, affirming that, if Mr. Gladstone
returned to power, he would deal with a liberal hand with the demands of
Home Rule. The author of the paragraph has never been clearly
ascertained, but the atmosphere of mystery with which it was surrounded
was not regarded as becoming, either to such an important policy or to
the personal dignity of the illustrious statesman. A storm of questions,
contradictions, explanations, enthusiasms, and jeremiads followed its
appearance. Mr. Gladstone would neither affirm nor deny, but held his
peace. The question, he said, was one for a responsible Ministry alone
to handle. There was great uncertainty. It was, however, plain that if
Mr. Gladstone should favor Home Rule, the Parnellites would support him,
and the Tories must leave office. But only twelve months before Lord
Shaftesbury wrote: "In a year or so we shall have Home Rule disposed of
(at all hazards), to save us from daily and hourly bores."

The Parliament of 1886 had scarcely opened before the Salisbury
government was defeated upon an amendment to the Queen's address,
affirming the necessity for affording facilities to agricultural
laborers to obtain allotments and small holdings. Some of the leading
Liberals opposed the amendment, but Mr. Gladstone earnestly favored it,
as a recognition of the evils arising from the divorce of so large a
proportion of the population from the land. The Irish and the Liberals
coalesced, and the Government was placed in a minority of seventy-nine,
and Lord Salisbury immediately resigned.

Late at night, January 29, 1886, Sir Henry Ponsonby arrived at Mr.
Gladstone's residence with a summons from the Queen for him to repair to
her at Osborne. On the 1st of February Mr. Gladstone "kissed hands," and
became for the third time Prime Minister of England. The new Premier was
forced to face unusual difficulties, but he finally came to the
conclusion that it was impossible to deal with the Irish question upon
the old stereotyped lines. He was resolved to treat this subject upon
large and generous principles. Accordingly, on the 8th of April, Mr.
Gladstone, in the presence of a crowded House, brought forward his Home
Rule Bill--his bill for the government of Ireland. With certain imperial
reservations and safeguards the bill gave to Ireland what she had long
demanded--the right to make her own laws. The interest in the expected
legislation was so great that members began to arrive at half-past five
in the morning, while sixty of them were so eager to secure seats that
they breakfasted at Westminster.

Mr. Gladstone's new measure was not only opposed by the Conservatives,
but it alienated from the Premier some of the most influential of the
Liberal party. Among the Liberals who opposed the measure were those who
had been the colleagues of Mr. Gladstone only the June before in the
Cabinet--Lord Hartington, Lord Shilborne, Lord Northbrook, Lord Derby
and Lord Carlingford. Mr. Gladstone's forces, however, were reinforced
by Mr. Morley, Lord Herschell and others. May 10th, Mr. Gladstone denied
that he had ever declared Home Rule for Ireland incompatible with
Imperial unity. It was a remedy for social disorder. The policy of the
opposition was coercion, while that of the government was autonomy.

On the 18th of April the Premier presented the Irish Land Purchase Bill,
for the buying out of the Irish landlords, which was intended to come
into operation on the same day as the Home Rule Bill. The object of this
measure was to give to all Irish landowners the option of being bought
out on the terms of the Act, and opening towards the exercise of that
option where their rent was from agricultural land. The State authority
was to be the purchaser, and the occupier was to be the proprietor. The
nominal purchase price was fixed at twenty years' purchase of the net
rental, ascertained by deducting law charges, bad debts, and cost of
management from judicial rent. Where there was no judicial rental the
Land Court could, if it chose, make use of Griffiths' valuation for
coming to a fair decision. To meet the demand for the means of purchase
thus established, Mr. Gladstone proposed to create £50,000,000 three per
cents. The repayment of advances would be secured by a Receiver General,
appointed by and acting upon British authority.

The Land Purchase Bill was also opposed. It was the final cause which
led to the retirement from the government of Mr. Chamberlain, "the able
and enterprising exponent of the new Radicalism." He was soon followed
by Sir George Trevelyan, "who combined the most dignified traditions,
social and literary, of the Whig party with a fervent and stable
Liberalism which the vicissitudes of twenty years had constantly tried
and never found wanting." Mr. Bright also arrayed himself in opposition
to the government, and accused Mr. Gladstone of successfully concealing
his thoughts upon the Irish question in November. Mr. Gladstone replied
that the position of Ireland had changed since 1881.

The debate extended over many nights, and the opposition to the Irish
bills of so many Liberal leaders in every constituency, soon led to
disaffection among the people. What was lost in some districts, however,
was to some extent made up, says an English writer, by "the support of
that very broken reed, the Irish vote, which was destined to pierce the
hand of so many a confiding candidate who leaned upon it." While this
debate was in progress a bill directed against the carrying of arms in
Ireland was introduced and pushed forward rapidly through both Houses,
and became a law.

Mr. Gladstone explained the position of the Cabinet on the Home Rule and
Land Bills at a meeting of Liberals held at the Foreign Office, May
27th. He stated that the Government at present only asked for an
endorsement of the leading principles of the two measures; and in
closing the debate afterwards on the second reading of the Home Rule
Bill, in the House of Commons, he made an eloquent appeal for Ireland.
But all parties were preparing for the conflict, and members of opposite
parties were consolidating themselves for opposition. "The Whigs, under
Lord Hartington, coalesced with the Radicals, under Mr. Chamberlain, and
both together made a working alliance with the Tories. This alliance was
admirably organized in London and in the constituencies."

It seems that the Premier was deceived by his official counsellors of
the Liberal party as to the real condition of affairs respecting Home
Rule and the prospects for the passage of his bills. He did not dream of
defeat, but if by some mischance they would suffer defeat, then he could
appeal to the country with the certainty of being sustained by the
popular vote. This was what Mr. Gladstone hoped, and what he thought he
had the assurance of. But hopes of success began to give way to fears of
defeat as the time drew near to take the vote. However, some still
hopeful prophesied a small majority against the bill--only ten votes at
the most. The Cabinet desperately resolved not to resign if beaten by so
small a majority, but would have some adherent move a vote of
confidence. This they argued would be favored by some opposed to Home
Rule, and the question be deferred to another session, leaving the
Liberals still in office. But these hopes were doomed to be blasted.
Early in the morning of June 8th the momentous division took place, and
it was found that the Government, instead of getting a majority, was
defeated by thirty votes. It was found that ninety-three Liberals had
voted with the majority.

The Premier at once advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament, and though
Her Majesty at first demurred at the trouble of another election within
seven months of the last, and begged Mr. Gladstone to reconsider his
counsel, yet he argued that a general election would cause less trouble
than a year of embittered and fanatical agitation against Home Rule.
Besides, as he said to a colleague, "If we did not dissolve we would be
showing the white feather." Mr. Gladstone finally had his way, the Queen
yielded and Parliament was dissolved June 26, 1886. June 14th Mr.
Gladstone issued an address to the electors of Midlothian, and later
paid a visit to Edinburgh and Glasgow, where he made powerful addresses.
He then spoke at Manchester, and, passing on to Liverpool, he advocated
the cause of Ireland, calling upon the people to "ring out the old, ring
in the new," and to make Ireland not an enemy but a friend.

The result of this appeal to the country was the return of a decided
majority of over a hundred against Home Rule, and thus, after a short
term of five months in office, the third administration of Mr. Gladstone
was brought to a close, and he became again the leader of the
Opposition. The dissolution and appeal to the country was a practical
blunder, but Mr. Gladstone's address to the people was skilfully worded.
He freely admitted that the Irish bills were dead, and asked the
constituencies simply to sanction a principle, and that, too, a very
plain and reasonable one in itself. He invited the people to vote aye or
no to this question: "Whether you will or will not have regard to the
prayer of Ireland for the management by herself of the affairs
specifically and exclusively her own?" The separation of the bare
principle of self-government from the practical difficulties presented
by the bills enabled many Liberals who were opposed to the measures to
support Mr. Gladstone, but the majority of voters failed to make this
distinction, and hence came defeat. The decision of the people was not
regarded as final.

In 1887 the Jubilee of the Queen was celebrated. Fifty years before
Queen Victoria had ascended the throne of England. Mr. and Mrs.
Gladstone celebrated the Queen's Jubilee by giving a treat to all the
inhabitants of the estates of Hawarden, who were of the Queen's age,
which was sixty-eight and upwards. The treat took the shape of a dinner
and tea, served in a large tent erected in front of the castle, and the
guests numbered upwards of two hundred and fifty. The principal toast,
proposed by Mr. Gladstone, was the Queen. He contrasted the jubilee then
being celebrated all over the English-speaking world, with that of
George the Third, which was "a jubilee of the great folks, a jubilee of
corporations and of authorities, a jubilee of the upper classes." On the
other hand, he continued, the Victorian Jubilee was one when "the
population are better fed, better clothed, and better housed--and by a
great deal--than they were fifty years ago, and the great mass of these
happy and blessed changes is associated with the name and action of
the Queen."

In the year of the Queen's Jubilee, 1887, Mr. Gladstone addressed many
gatherings, and at Swansea, where he was the guest of Sir Hussey Vivian,
he spoke to a vast concourse of people, estimated at one
hundred thousand.




CHAPTER XIX


PRIME MINISTER THE FOURTH TIME

When Parliament met in 1887 Mr. Gladstone entered upon "a course of
extraordinary physical and intellectual efforts, with voice and pen, in
Parliament and on the platform, on behalf of the cause, defeated but not
abandoned, of self-government for Ireland." The Tory administration
passed a Crimes Prevention Bill for Ireland of great severity. Irish
members of Parliament were thrown into prison, but the Act failed of its
object--the suppression of the Land League.

In December, 1887, Mr. Gladstone visited Italy and made Naples his
headquarters. He was received with joy for the service he had rendered
to the Italian people. The University of Bologna, in celebrating the
eighth century of its existence, conferred upon him the degree of
Doctor of Arts.

In 1888 the House of Commons appointed a Commission to try the "Times"
charges against Mr. Parnell. The charges were found to be false.

Mr. Gladstone visited Birmingham in November, 1888. After paying a
glowing tribute to John Bright, and expressing an earnest desire for his
recovery to health, he condemned the Coercion Act. Mr. Gladstone
received many handsome presents from the workingmen, and Mrs. Gladstone
received from the ladies a medallion cameo portrait of her husband. A
great demonstration was made at Bingley Hall, in which were gathered
over 20,000 persons.

A number of Liberals, who had deserted Mr. Gladstone, returned upon the
promise of certain imperial guarantees which were granted, among them
Sir George Trevelyan. Mr. Chamberlain, who had asked for these
safeguards, did not accept them.

July 25, 1889, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone celebrated their "Golden Wedding."
Among the many to offer congratulations were the Queen by telegram, and
the Prince of Wales by letter. A pleasant surprise met them at home. A
portrait of Mr. Gladstone, by Sir John Millais, was found hanging in the
breakfast-room, "A gift from English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Women."

In 1890 trouble came to the Liberal party through the scandal connecting
the names of Mr. Parnell and Mrs. O'Shea. Mr. Gladstone announced that
the Irish party must choose between himself and Mr. Parnell. In
November, 1890, Mr. Parnell was deposed from the chairmanship of the
United Irish National Party. This led to a division. Mr. Justin McCarthy
was elected leader by the Anti-Parnellites, and the Parnellites
selected Mr. John Redmond.

Parliament would soon terminate by limitation, so Mr. Gladstone devoted
himself to preparing the people for the coming general election.
Besides, in February, 1891, he made an address, at the opening of St.
Martin's Free Public Library, and in March to the boys at Eton College
on Homeric Studies. June 28, 1892, Parliament came to an end. Mr.
Gladstone's journey to Edinburgh, in July, was all along the route "a
triumphal progress." He was re-elected. The question of the day was Home
Rule, and wherever the people had the opportunity of declaring
themselves, they pronounced condemnation upon the policy of Lord
Salisbury's administration, and in favor of Home Rule for Ireland.

The new Parliament met, and, August 12, 1892, a motion was made of "No
Confidence" in the Salisbury government. The division was the largest
ever taken in the House of Commons, the vote being 350 for the motion
and 310 against it--a majority of 40 for Mr. Gladstone. The scene in
the House which attended the overthrow of the Salisbury government was
less dramatic than that which accompanied the defeat of the Gladstone
ministry in 1885, but it was full of exciting episodes. The House was
packed to the doors. The excitement was intense, and the confusion
great. When the figures were announced, another wild scene of disorder
prevailed and there was prolonged cheering. "Ten minutes later the great
forum was empty and the excited assembly had found its way to the quiet
outside under the stars."

Monday, August 15, 1892, Mr. Gladstone repaired to Osborne on the Royal
Yacht, and became for the fourth time Prime Minister. Since 1868 he had
been the undisputed leader of his party. His main supporters in all his
reform measures were the Nonconformists, whose claim for "the absolute
religious equality of all denominations before the law of the land,"
must, in time, it was thought, bring about the disestablishment of the
Episcopal Church.

In September, 1892, Mr. Gladstone went to Sir E. Watkin's _Chalet_ on
Mount Snowdon, Wales, where he made his Boulder Stone speech. To
commemorate his visit a slab of gray Aberdeen granite was "let into the
actual brown rock," on which is the following inscription in Welsh and
in English: "September 13, 1892. Upon this rock the Right Honorable
W.E. Gladstone, M.P., when Prime Minister for the fourth time, and
eighty-three years old, addressed the people of Eryi upon justice to
Wales. The multitude sang Cymric hymns and 'The Land of My Fathers.'"

December 29, 1892, Mr. Gladstone celebrated his eighty-third birthday.
Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone were at Biarritz. Congratulatory telegrams and
messages were received in great numbers, besides many handsome presents.
The event was celebrated all over England. The Midlothian Liberals sent
congratulations upon the return of the Liberal Party to power under his
leadership, and the completion of his sixty years' service in the House.
Resolutions were passed deploring the wickedness of the dynamite outrage
at Dublin, December 24, and yet avowing the justice of granting to
Ireland the right to manage her own affairs.

January 31, 1893, Parliament was opened. In the House of Commons there
was a brilliant gathering, and nearly all the members were present, many
of them standing. Just before noon the Hon. Arthur Wellesley Peel,
Speaker, took his seat, and Archdeacon Farrar, Chaplain, offered prayer.
When Mr. Gladstone entered from behind the Speaker's chair, every
Liberal and Irish Nationalist stood up and greeted him with prolonged
and enthusiastic cheers; and when he took the oath as Prime Minister,
he received another ovation. The members were then summoned to the House
of Lords to hear the Queen's speech, which was read by the Lord High
Chancellor, Baron Herschall. The Prince of Wales and his son, the Duke
of York, occupied seats on the "cross bench."

February 13, the excitement in and about the Parliament Houses was as
great as that which prevailed two weeks before. Enthusiastic crowds
greeted Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone. When the doors of the House of Commons
were opened, there was a "disorderly rush" of the members into the House
to obtain seats, "the members shouting and struggling, several being
thrown to the floor in the excitement." Peers, Commons, and visitors
filled the floor and galleries. The Prince of Wales and other members of
the royal family were present. When Mr. Gladstone arose he was greeted
with applause. He reminded the House that for seven years the voices
which used to plead the cause of Irish government in Irish affairs had
been mute within the walls of the House. He then asked permission to
introduce a "Bill to Amend the Provision for the Government of Ireland,"
which was the title of the Home Rule Bill. Mr. Balfour led the
opposition to the bill. Mr. Chamberlain declared that the bill would not
accomplish its purpose, whereupon Mr. Justin McCarthy, for the
anti-Parnellities, replied that the Irish would accept it as a message
of everlasting peace, and Mr. John Redmond, for the Parnellites,
answered that if disturbances followed in Ireland it would be due to the
Conservatives.

The Ulster Unionists opposed the bill. The Scotch-Irish Protestants of
the north of Ireland declared that they preferred to stand where they
did in 1690, when they defeated James II and his Catholic followers, in
the battle of the Boyne, and fought for William of Orange for the
English throne and liberty and Protestantism. Their opposition to Home
Rule for Ireland grew out of their hostility to Roman Catholicism and
the fear of its supremacy.

After six months of earnest debate in the House of Commons, the Home
Rule Bill for Ireland was passed, with slight amendments, September 1,
1893, by a vote of 301 to 267, a majority of thirty-four, The struggle
was perhaps the most heated in the history of Parliament.

The bill was sent to the House of Lords, where it was defeated,
midnight, September 8, by the surprising majority of 419 to 41, after
only one week's discussion. Members that never attended were drummed up
to vote against the bill. The usual working force of the House of Lords
is from thirty to forty members. The vote was the largest ever taken in
the Lords.

At once the cry, "Down with, the House of Lords!" was heard. The
National Liberal Federation issued a circular, in which were the words:
"The question of mending or ending the House of Lords ... displaces for
awhile all other subjects of reform." Mr. Gladstone was probably aware
of the contents of this manifesto before it was issued, and the
sentiments were in accord with those uttered by him two years before at
New Castle.

September 27th, Mr. Gladstone addressed his constituents at Edinburgh.
He was received with an outburst of enthusiasm. He said that the
People's Chamber had passed the bill. If the nation was determined it
would not be baffled by the Peers. If the Commons should go before the
country, then the Lords should go too, and if defeated, should do what
the Commons would do--clear out.

The Queen wanted Mr. Gladstone to appeal to the country, and there was
an opinion among some that Mr. Gladstone would be defeated at the polls
upon the question; but the Premier intimated to the Queen his intention
not to appeal, and announced the readiness of the Cabinet to be
dismissed by the Queen. However, the Queen would hardly expose the
throne to the danger threatening the Peers.

December 29, 1893, Mr. Gladstone attained the eighty-fourth year of his
age. When he entered the House of Commons that day his political
associates of the Liberal party all rose anta greeted him with cheers.
When the applause had subsided, the Conservatives raised their hats and
their leader, Mr. Balfour, rose and tendered his congratulations. Mr.
Gladstone was much pleased with the demonstrations of his friends, as
well as with the graceful compliments of his political opponents.
Besides about two hundred congratulatory messages, letters and telegrams
were received, those from Queen Victoria, and the Prince and Princess of
Wales, being among the first.

July 6, 1893, Prince George of Wales, Duke of York, and Princess Mary of
Teck were married. The Prince was by inheritance heir, after the Prince
of Wales, to the throne of England. Mr. Gladstone attended the wedding,
arrayed in the blue and gold uniform of a brother of the Trinity House,
with naval epaulettes, and was conducted to the royal pew reserved
for him.

[Illustration:]

Among the great measures proposed at this time by Mr. Gladstone were the
Employers' Liability, and the Parish Councils Bills. The latter was as
evolutionary and as revolutionary as the Home Rule Bill. Its object was
to take the control of 10,000 rural English parishes out of the hands of
the squire and the parson and put it into the hands of the people. With
its amendments regarding woman suffrage, to which Mr. Gladstone was
opposed, it gave to every man and woman in England one vote--and only
one--in local affairs. February 21, 1894, when Mr. Gladstone had
returned from Biarritz, where he had gone for his health, there was
again a notable assemblage in the House of Commons to hear him speak. It
was expected that he would make a bitter attack upon the House of Lords,
which had attempted to defeat both these bills by amendments. But he
calmly spoke of the lamentable divergence between the two branches of
the legislature upon the Employers' Liability Bill, and asked that the
amendment be rejected, which was done by a majority of 225 to 6. The
bill was therefore withdrawn, and the responsibility of its defeat
thrown upon the Lords. The House also rejected all the important
amendments of the Parish Councils Bill, but concurred in the unimportant
changes made by the Lords. It was sent back then to the lords, and
finally passed by them. But Mr. Gladstone greatly disappointed many of
his political friends by his mild manner of dealing with the House of
Lords. The extreme Radicals were angered and condemned severely the
Premier for what they called his "backing down" and his "feeble speech."

Rumors in reference to Mr. Gladstone's resignation, which had been
started by the _Pall Mall Gazette_, while he was yet at Biarritz, were
now renewed. February 28, 1894, Mr. Gladstone informed the Queen of his
contemplated retirement, giving as reasons his failing eyesight,
deafness and age. March 1st, he made an important speech in the House of
Commons. He displayed so much vigor and earnestness in his speech that
it was thought that he had given up the idea of retiring. But this was
his last speech as Premier. March 2d, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone were
summoned to Windsor, where they dined with the Queen, and remained over
night. Saturday, March 3, 1894, Mr. Gladstone tendered his resignation
as Premier to the Queen, who accepted it with many expressions of favor
and regret, and offered him again a peerage, which was declined. On the
way to Windsor and return to London, Mr. Gladstone was greeted by a
large and enthusiastic crowd. Hundreds of letters and telegrams
expressing regret, because of his retirement, were received by the
ex-Premier, On Sunday he attended church as usual and was looking well,
Mr. Balfour in the Commons, and Lord Salisbury in the Lords, vied with
Mr. Gladstone's political friends in speaking his praise, and referring
in the highest terms to his character and labors. The press in all parts
of the world spoke in glowing terms of his natural endowments, great
attainments, invaluable services, pure character and wonderfully
vigorous old age. It was quite evident that Mr. Gladstone's retirement
was not enforced by mental or physical infirmities, or by his unfitness
for the leadership of the House and the Premiership, but that as a wise
precaution, and upon the solicitation of his family, he had laid down
his power while he was yet able to wield it with astonishing vigor. Thus
closed the fourth administration of this remarkable man, the greatest
English statesman of his time. In all history there is no parallel case,
and no official record such as his.

Lord Rosebery was appointed Premier in the place of Mr. Gladstone, and
Sir William V. Harcourt became the leader of the Liberal party in the
House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone wrote congratulating Lord Rosebery, and
promised to aid him whenever his assistance was required. In assuming
office Lord Rosebery eulogized Mr. Gladstone, and announced that there
would be no change in the policy of reform of the Liberal party under
the new administration, and declared for Home Rule for Ireland, the
disestablishment of the church in Wales and Scotland, and the reform of
the House of Lords.

[Illustration:]




CHAPTER XX


IN PRIVATE LIFE

Justin McCarthy, in the closing pages of his Story of Gladstone's Life,
says: "The long political struggle was over and done. The heat of the
opposition this way and that had gone out forever, and Mr. Gladstone had
none left but friends on both sides of the political field. Probably
that ceremonial, that installation of the Prince of Wales as Chancellor
of the Welsh University, was the last occasion on which Mr. Gladstone
would consent to make an appearance on a public platform. It was a
graceful close to such a great career."

The occasion referred to was the ceremonial at Aberystwith, Wales, June
26, 1896, when the Prince of Wales was installed as Chancellor of the
Welsh University, and when the Prince presented to the Princess of Wales
and to Mr. Gladstone honorary degrees conferred upon them by the
University. The appearance of Mr. Gladstone was the signal for great
applause. The Prince in his remarks was very complimentary to Mr.
Gladstone, and spoke of the honor paid the University by the presence of
the aged scholar and statesman, and also said it was truly one of the
proudest moments of his life, when he found himself in the flattering
position of being able to confer an academic honor upon one furnishing
the rare instance of occupying the highest position as a statesman and
who at the same time had attained such distinction in scholarship.

But Mr. McCarthy was mistaken about this being the closing public
service in the life of Mr. Gladstone. It was very far from his last
public appearance. After that event Mr. Gladstone appeared repeatedly.
Though his official life had closed, yet he was to emerge from
retirement many times, and especially when it became necessary for him
to raise his strong voice for humanity. His advocacy of the great causes
of Armenian rescue, of Grecian independence, of Arbitration instead of
War, and the unity and harmony of the two great English-speaking people,
was given with all the old time fire of youth. What Mr. Gladstone did
and said with pen and voice since the occasion mentioned, was enough not
only for another chapter, but a whole volume, and sufficient alone to
immortalize any man.

After the great struggle for Home Rule and during the sultry summer of
1893, Mr. Gladstone repaired to his favorite winter resort, Biarritz, in
the south of France, It was while he was there that rumors of his
resignation were heard, based on the ground of his failing health. Dr.
Granger, of Chester, who was also an oculist, was summoned to examine
Mr. Gladstone's eyes. He told Mr. Gladstone that a cataract had
obliterated the sight of one eye, and that another cataract had begun to
form on the other. In other words Mr. Gladstone was threatened with
total blindness. The Prime Minister reflected a moment, and then
requested--almost ordered--the physician to operate immediately upon his
eye. He said: "I wish you to remove the cataract at once." The physician
replied that it was not far enough advanced for an operation. "You do
not understand me," answered the patient, "it is the old cataract I wish
removed. If that is out of the way, I shall still have one good eye,
when the new cataract impairs the sight of the other." As the physician
still hesitated, Mr. Gladstone continued: "You still seem not to
understand me. I want you to perform the operation here and now while I
am sitting in this chair." "But it might not be successful," said Dr.
Granger. "That is a risk I accept," was the instant reply. However, the
physician dared not then undertake it, and afterwards said that Mr.
Gladstone's eyes were as good as they were a year before, and that his
general health was also good.

In May, 1894, Mr. Gladstone's eye was successfully operated upon for
cataract. He took no anaesthetic, and was conscious during the time.
Every precaution was taken to insure success, and the patient was put to
bed for rest and quiet and kept on low diet. Mr. Gladstone's eyes were
so improved by judicious treatment that before long he could read ten or
twelve hours a day. This could be regarded as complete restoration of
sight, and enabled him, upon his retirement from public life, to devote
himself to the work he so well loved when at home in his study
at Hawarden.

Mr. Gladstone's retirement from public life, from the Premiership, the
Cabinet, the leadership of the Liberal Party, and from Parliament did
not mean his entrance upon a period of inactivity. In the shades of
Hawarden and in the quiet of his study he kept up the industry that had
characterized his whole life heretofore.

It had been the custom for centuries for English statesmen, upon
retiring from official life, to devote themselves to the classics. Mr.
Gladstone, who was pre-eminently a statesman-scholar, found it very
congenial to his mind and habits to follow this old English custom. He
first translated and published "The Odes of Horace." Then he took
Butler's "Analogy" as a text book, and prepared and published "Studies
Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler." The discussion necessarily
takes a wide range, treating, among other matters, of Butler's method,
its application to the Scriptures, the future life, miracles and the
mediation of Christ. Says W.T. Stead: "No one who reads the strenuous
arguments with which Mr. Gladstone summarizes the reasoning of Bishop
Butler on the future life is conscious of any weakening in the vigorous
dialectic which was so often employed with brilliant success in the
House of Commons."

One of Mr. Gladstone's latest productions was his "Personal
Recollections of Arthur H. Hallam," which was written for the "Youth's
Companion." It is a tribute to the memory and worth of one of his early
friends at Eton.

These and other literary works occupied most of his time. But Mr.
Gladstone would not content himself with quiet literary work. He had too
long and too intensely been active in the world's great movements and on
humanity's behalf to stand aloof. Hence it was not long before he was
again in the arena, doing valiant service for the Armenian and
against the Turk.

In 1892 the Sultan, in the execution of a plan devised in 1890, issued
an edict against religious freedom. In 1894, he threw off the mask and
began to execute his deliberate and preconcerted plan to force all
Christian Armenians to become Mohammedans or to die. Robbery, outrage
and murder were the means used by the hands of brutal soldiers.

In a letter to an indignation meeting held in London, December 17th,
1894, Mr. Gladstone wrote denouncing these outrages of the Turks. The
reading of the letter was greeted with prolonged applause.

A deputation of Armenian gentlemen, residing in London and in Paris,
took occasion on Mr. Gladstone's 85th birthday, December 29th, 1894, to
present a silver chalice to Hawarden Church as "a memorial of Mr.
Gladstone's sympathy with and assistance to the Armenian people." Mr.
Gladstone's address to the deputation was regarded as one of the most
peculiar and characteristic acts of his life. He gave himself wholly to
the cause of these oppressed people, and was stirred by the outrages and
murders perpetrated upon them as he was 18 years before. He said that
the Turks should go out as they did go out of Bulgaria "bag and
baggage," and he denounced the government of the Sultan as "a disgrace
to Mahomet, the prophet whom it professed to follow, a disgrace to
civilization at large, and a curse to mankind." He contended that every
nation had ever the right and the authority to act "on behalf of
humanity and of justice."

There were those who condemned Mr. Gladstone's speech, declaring that it
might disrupt the peace of Europe, but there were many others who
thought that the sooner peace secured at such a cost was disturbed the
better. It was but natural for those who wrongfully claimed the
sovereign right to oppress their own subjects, to denounce all
interference in the affairs of the Sultan.

It was reported, March 19, 1895, that Francis Seymour Stevenson, M.P.,
Chairman of the Anglo-Armenian Association, on behalf of the Tiflis
Armenians, would present to Mr. Gladstone, on his return to London, the
ancient copy of the Armenian Gospels, inscribed upon vellum, which was
to accompany the address to the ex-Premier, then being signed by the
Armenians there. In a letter Mr. Gladstone had but recently declared
that he had abandoned all hope that the condition of affairs in Armenia
would change for the better. The Sultan, he declared, was no longer
worthy of the courtesies of diplomatic usage, or of Christian tolerance.
Mr. Gladstone promised that when these Gospels were formally presented
to him he would deliver a "rattling" address on behalf of the Armenians.
When a delegation waited on him, he said, after assuring them of his
sympathy, that the danger in the Armenian situation now was that useful
action might be abandoned, in view of the promises of the Turkish
Government to institute reforms.

In June 1895, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone attended the opening of the Kaiser
Wilhelm Canal as guests of Sir Donald Currie, on his steamship
Tantallon Castle, returning home on the twenty-fifth. During this trip
an effort was made to arrange for an interview between the Ex-Premier
and the Prince Bismarck, but the Prince seemed disinclined and the
project failed.

It was while Mr. Gladstone was at Kiel, that the Rosebery Ministry fell
by an accidental defeat of the Liberal Party in Parliament, and which
again brought Mr. Gladstone to the front in the public mind. Lord
Rosebery telegraphed Mr. Gladstone full particulars of the situation,
and Mr. Gladstone strongly advised against the resignation of the
Government and urged that a vote of confidence be taken. Mr. Gladstone
wrote that the Liberal Party could well afford to stand on its record.
The Ministry with but two exceptions, was the same, as that formed by
Mr. Gladstone in August 1892, and had his confidence.

Nevertheless, the cabinet of Lord Rosebery resigned, and the Marquis of
Salisbury again became Prime Minister,--on the very day of Mr.
Gladstone's arrival home. However Lord Rosebery retained the leadership
of the Liberal Party.

There is no doubt that if the wishes of the Liberal Party had been
gratified, Mr. Gladstone would have taken the leadership and again
become Prime Minister. Subsequent events proved that he would have been
equal, at least for a while, to the task of succeeding Lord Rosebery.
But Mr. Gladstone was not willing. He refused to re-enter Parliament,
and wrote a letter to his old constituents at Midlothian, declining
their kind offer to send him to the House and bade them a kind farewell.
In his letter he said that the Liberal Party is a party of progress and
reform, and urged his constituents to stand by it. He regarded the
changes of the century exceedingly beneficial.

August 6, 1895, Mr. Gladstone made a great speech at Chester. A meeting
was held in the Town Hall to arouse public sentiment against the
slaughter of Armenian Christians within the Empire of the Sultan by
Turkish soldiers, and to devise some means of putting an end to such
crimes, and of punishing the oppressor. The audience was very large,
including many Armenians resident in England, and rose with vociferous
cheering when Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, the Duke of Westminster, the
Bishop of Chester, and the Mayor of Chester entered the hall. The Bishop
of Ripon was already there. The Duke of Westminster presided, and read a
letter from the Marquis of Salisbury, the Premier.

Mr. Gladstone arose amid an outburst of enthusiastic applause, and
addressing the vast audience said:

That the massacres in Armenia resulted from intolerable
government--perhaps the worst in the world. He offered a resolution
pledging the support of the entire nation to the British Government in
its efforts to secure for the Armenians such reforms as would guarantee
the safety of life, honor, religion and property. Mr. Gladstone said
that language failed to describe the horrors of the massacre of Sussoun,
which made the blood run cold. The Sultan was responsible, for these
barbarities were not the act of the criminal class, such as afflicts
every country, the malefactors who usually perpetrate horrible crime,
but were perpetrated by the agents of the Sultan--the soldiers and the
Kurds, tax-gatherers and police of the Turkish Government. And what had
been done, and was daily being done, could be summed up in four awful
words--plunder, murder, rape and torture. Plunder and murder were bad
enough, but these were almost venial by the side of the work of the
ravisher and the torturer. And the victims were defenceless men, women
and children--Armenians, one of the oldest Christian civilized races,
and one of the most pacific, industrious and intelligent races of
the world.

There was no exaggeration in the language used to describe the horrible
outrages visited upon whole communities of innocent and helpless people.
The truth of these terrible charges in their most hideous form, was
established by unbiased American testimony, by Dr, Dillon, an eye
witness, and by the representatives of England, France and Russia.

Nothing but a sense of duty, said Mr. Gladstone, had brought him at his
age to resign the repose, which was the last of many great earthly
blessings remaining to him, to address them.

If the Powers of Europe were to recede before the irrational resistance
of the Sultan, they would be disgraced in the eyes of the world, and the
Christian population of the Turkish Empire would be doomed to
extermination, according to the plan of the Porte. Terrible word, but
true in its application.

As to the remedy the cleanest was to make the Turk march out of Armenia,
as he did out of Bulgaria, "bag and baggage." He cautioned against
trusting the promises of the government at Constantinople, which he knew
from long experience, were worthless; and declared that the Sultan was
bound by no treaty obligation. The word "ought" was not heeded at
Constantinople, but the word "must" was understood fully there. Coercion
was a word perfectly comprehended there--a drastic dose which never
failed. If we have the smallest regard for humanity, he concluded, we
shall, with the help of God, demand that which is just and necessary.
Mr. Gladstone was frequently and loudly applauded during his speech, at
the conclusion of which the resolution was adopted.

The most powerful voice in all Britain had been raised with stirring
and thrilling power for justice and humanity. The testimony of an eye
witness is to the effect, that never did the grand old man seem in finer
form. His undimmed eye flashed as he spoke with withering scorn against
hypocrisy and with hottest hate against wrong. His natural force was not
abated, his health robust, and his conviction unsubdued. His deeply
lined and pale face was transfigured with the glow of righteous
indignation. The aged statesman was in his old House of Commons vigor.
"There was the same facile movement of his body, and the same
penetrating look as though he would pierce the very soul of his
auditors; the same triumphant march of sentence after sentence to their
chosen goal, and yet the same subtle method of introducing qualifying
clauses all along the march without loosing the grip of his theme; the
same ascent to lofty principles and commanding generalizations, blended
with the complete mastery of details; and, above all, the same sublimity
of outlook and ringing emphasis of sincerity in every tone." It was an
occasion never to be forgotten. A distinguished hearer said: "To read
his speech, as thousands will, is much; but to have heard it, to have
felt it-oh! that is simply indescribable, and will mark for many, one of
the most memorable days of this last decade of this closing century.
The sweet cadence of his voice, the fascination of his personality, and,
above all, the consecration of his splendid gifts to the cause of
plundered men and ravished women, raise the occasion into prominence in
the annals of a great people. Chiefly, I feel the triumphs of soul. His
utterance of the words 'wives,' 'women,' lifted them into an atmosphere
of awe and solemnity, and his tone in speaking of 'rape' and 'torture'
gave them an ineffable loathsomeness. It seemed as if so much soul had
never been put into a Saxon speech. Keen satire, rasping rebuke, an
avalanche of indignation, rapier-like thrusts to the vital fibre of the
situation, and withal the invincible cogency of argument against the
Turkish Government, gave the oration a primary place amongst the
master-pieces of human eloquence."

In the course of this famous speech Mr. Gladstone referred to America;
once when welcoming the sympathy of the American people with the
suffering Armenians, and again as he described the testimony of the
United States as a witness that gained enormously in value because it
was entirely free from suspicion.

A large meeting was held in St. James Hall, London, October 19, 1896, in
memory of Christian Martyrs in Turkey. The Bishop of Rochester presided.
The hall was packed with an audience of 2,600, while nearly 7,000
applied for admission. Many prominent persons were present. The large
audience was in sombre funeral attire. About thirty front seats were
occupied by Armenians. It was stated that 60,000 Armenians so far had
been murdered with tortures and indignities indescribable. To this
meeting Mr. Gladstone addressed a letter which was greeted with the
wildest enthusiasm. He said that he hoped the meeting would worthily
crown the Armenian meetings of the past two months, which were without a
parallel during his political life. The great object, he said, was to
strengthen Lord Salisbury's hands and to stop the series of massacres,
which were probably still unfinished, and to provide against their
renewal. As he believed that Lord Salisbury would use his powerful
position for the best, personally he objected in the strongest manner to
abridging Lord Salisbury's discretion by laying down this or that as
things which he ought not to do. It was a wild paradox, without the
support of reason or history, to say that the enforcement of treaty
rights to stop systematic massacre, together with effective security
against Great Britain's abusing them for selfish ends, would provoke the
hostilities of one or more of the powers.

To advertise beforehand in the ears of the Great Assassin that Great
Britain's action would cut down--what the most backward of the six
Powers think to be sufficient--would be the; abandonment of duty and
prudence and would be to doom the national movement to disappointment.
The concert of Europe was valuable and important, but such an
announcement would be certain to be followed by its failure.

One of the immediate effects of Mr. Gladstone's denunciation of the
Sultan for the Armenian massacres was the resignation by Lord Rosebery
of the leadership of the Liberal Party. Mr. Gladstone's return to
politics, the agitation of the Turkish question and the differences
between these two leaders of the Liberal movement as to the best way of
dealing with the Sultan, were assigned as reasons by Lord Rosebery for
his resignation.

It was then again suggested that Mr. Gladstone assume the leadership of
the Liberal Party and accept a peerage and a seat in the House of Lords,
so often tendered him by the Queen. Then Sir William Vernon-Harcourt
could lead in the House of Commons and bear the burden, while Mr.
Gladstone could be at the head of affairs without the worry of the House
of Commons. Besides, Mr. Morgan offered to resign his seat in the House
of Commons in his favor. But Mr. Gladstone would not agree to any of
these plans as far as they pertained to himself.

July 22, 1896, Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone returned to London to attend a
great social function, the marriage of one of the daughters of the
Prince and Princess of Wales to Prince Charles of Denmark. Mr. Gladstone
evinced much interest in everything connected with the important event,
and was himself the object of much attention.

September 23, 1896, Mr. Gladstone wrote a long letter to the Paris
Figaro in response to an appeal from its editor, M. Leudet, to Mr.
Gladstone to arouse the French press in behalf of the Armenians. After
expressing his diffidence in complying with the request, Mr. Gladstone
declared his belief that the population of Great Britain were more
united in sentiment and more thoroughly aroused by the present outrages
in Turkey than they were by the atrocities in Bulgaria in 1876.

He said: "The question whether effect can be given to the national
indignation is now in the balance, and will probably soon be decided. I
have read in some Austrian newspapers an affected scruple against sole
action by any one State in a European crisis, but there are two
first-class Powers who will not make that scruple their own. One of
these is Russia, who in 1878, earned lasting honors by liberating
Bulgaria and, helping onward the freedom and security of other Balkan
States. The other Power is France, who, in 1840, took up the cause of
Egypt and pushed it single handed to the verge of a European war. She
wisely forbore to bring about that horrible, transcendent calamity, but
I gravely doubt whether she was not right and the combined Powers wrong
in their policy of that period."

Mr. Gladstone denounced the Sultan as the "Great Assassin," and
continued: "For more than a year he has triumphed over the diplomacy of
the six Powers, they have been laid prostrate at his feet. There is no
parallel in history to the humiliation they have patiently borne. He has
therefore had every encouragement to continue a course that has been
crowned with such success. The impending question seems to be, not
whether, but when and where he will proceed to his next murderous
exploits. The question for Europe and each Power is whether he shall be
permitted to swell by more myriads the tremendous total of his victims.

"In other years when I possessed power I did my best to promote the
concert of Europe, but I sorrowfully admit that all the good done in
Turkey during the last twenty years was done, not by it, but more nearly
despite it." The letter concludes by expressing the hope that the French
people would pursue a policy worthy of their greatness, their fame and
the high place they have held in European Christian history.

September 24, 1896, a meeting was called by the Reform Club, of
Liverpool, to protest against the recent massacres of 2000 Armenians at
Constantinople at the affair of the Ottoman Bank, and many more
throughout the Turkish Empire. Mr. Gladstone was asked to address the
meeting. When requested by the agent of the Associated Press for an
advanced proof of his speech he declined, but wrote that he would
"recommend giving the warmest support to the Queen's government, and
would contend that England should act alone if necessary for the
fulfillment of the covenants which have been so disgracefully broken."

Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, with their son Herbert, arrived at noon at
Liverpool, and were met at the railroad station by 2,000 enthusiastic
people. The meeting was held in the vast auditorium of the Circus
Building, which was filled. Thousands failed to obtain entrance.

Before the arrival of Mr. Gladstone there was a spontaneous outburst of
applause, everybody present standing and singing "God save the Queen."
When Mr. Gladstone entered, the prolonged roar of applause could be
heard for miles, arising from thousands inside and outside the hall.

The Earl of Derby, Conservative, presided. He was accompanied by the
Countess of Derby, who with many distinguished persons occupied
the platform.

Mr. Gladstone stepped briskly to the front of the platform at 12.30 p.m.
bowing repeatedly in response to the applause. He looked strong and
well for a man of his age and labors, and was easily heard. After a few
preliminary remarks, he moved the following resolution:

"That this meeting trusts that Her Majesty's ministers, realizing to the
fullest extent the terrible condition in which their fellow Christians
are placed, will do everything possible to obtain for them full security
and protection; and this meeting assures Her Majesty's ministers that
they may rely upon the cordial support of the citizens of Liverpool in
whatever steps they may feel it necessary to take for that purpose."

The resolution was received with great cheering.

Mr. Gladstone resumed: "We have a just title to threaten Turkey with
coercion, but that does not in itself mean war; and I think that the
first step should be the recall of our Ambassador, and it should be
followed by the dismissal of the Turkish Ambassador from London. Such a
course is frequent and would not give the right of complaint to anybody.
When diplomatic relations are suspended, England should inform the
Sultan that she should consider the means of enforcing her just and
humane demands. I do not believe that Europe will make war to insure the
continuance of massacres more terrible than ever recorded in the dismal,
deplorable history of crime.

"Now, as in 1876, to the guilt of massacre is added the impudence of
denial, which will continue just as long as Europe is content to listen.
I doubt if it is an exaggeration to say that it was in the Sultan's
palace, and there only, that the inspiration has been supplied, and the
policy devised of the whole series of massacres. When the Sultan carries
massacre into his own capital under the eyes of the Ambassadors, he
appears to have gained the very acme of what it is possible for him to
do. But the weakness of diplomacy, I trust, is about to be strengthened
by the echo of this nation's voice."

Mr. Gladstone then referred to the supineness of the Ambassadors of the
Powers at Constantinople, and continued: "The concert of Europe is an
august and useful instrument, but it has not usually succeeded in
dealing with the Eastern question, which has arrived at a period when it
is necessary to strengthen the hands of the Government by an expression
of national opinion. I believe that the continued presence of the
Ambassadors at Constantinople has operated as a distinct countenance to
the Sultan, who is thus their recognized ally.

"But, while urging the Government to act, it does not follow that, even
for the sake of the great object in view, Great Britain should
transplant Europe into a state of war. On the other hand, however, I
deny that England must abandon her own right to independent judgment
and allow herself to be domineered over by the other powers."

Mr. Gladstone expressed the opinion that the purpose of the meeting was
defensive and prospective, saying that no one can hold out the hope that
the massacres are ended, although he ventured to anticipate that the
words spoken at the meeting would find their way to the palace at
Constantinople. "The present movement," he said, "is based on broad
grounds of humanity, and is not directed against the Mohammedans, but
against the Turkish officials, evidence of whose barbarities rests in
credible official reports." Mr. Gladstone declared his adhesion to the
principles contained in the resolution, and said he came to the meeting
not claiming any authority for sentiments expressed except that of a
citizen of Liverpool.

"But," he remarked, "the national platform upon which the meeting is
based gives greater authority for sentiments universally entertained
throughout the length and breadth of the land, and I urge that in this
matter party sympathy be renounced. I entertain the lively hope and
strong belief that the present deplorable situation is not due to the
act or default of the Government of this great country."

Mr. Gladstone spoke about twenty minutes and was repeatedly interrupted
by applause. He was in good voice, and did not seem fatigued when he
had finished.

The next day the Turkish Embassy at London telegraphed Mr. Gladstone's
speech at Liverpool verbatim to the Sultan.

The London Times in an editorial said: "The spectacle of the veteran
statesman quitting his retirement to plead the cause of the oppressed is
well calculated to move the sympathy and admiration of the nation. The
ardor of Mr. Gladstone's feelings on this subject is notorious. All the
more striking and significant is the comparative restraint and
moderation of the speech."

Other questions besides those mentioned were claiming the attention of
English statesmen. In the Spring, prior to the great Liverpool meeting,
the Venezuela boundary question was agitating the two great English
speaking nations to the very verge of war. A large Peace Meeting was
held in London, March 3, 1896, to favor arbitration. Mr. Gladstone
wrote: "I am glad that the discussion of arbitration is to be separated
from the Venezuela question, upon which I do not feel myself in final
and full possession of the facts that I should wish. My views on
arbitration in place of war were gathered from the part I took in the
matter of the Alabama claims. I will only add that my conviction and
sentiment on the subject grow in strength from year to year in
proportion to the growth of that monstrous and barbarous militarism, in
regard to which I consider England has to bear no small responsibility."

The meeting favored permanent international arbitration, and an
Anglo-American treaty was finally signed by the representatives of the
two nations, providing for the settlement of all questions between the
two nations by arbitration instead of by war, but the Senate of the
United States refused to ratify the treaty.

Mr. Gladstone deplored intensely the extraordinary misunderstanding
which had prevailed on the subject of the Venezuela frontier. He seemed
to think that nothing but a little common sense was needed to secure the
pacific settlement of the question at any moment. A hundred square miles
more or less on either side of the boundary of British Guiana was to him
a matter of supreme indifference. He was extremely anxious to see
justice done, and one of his last speeches in the House of Commons was
in favor of permanent arbitration between England and the United States.

Another one of the absorbing questions that came before the civilized
world for consideration, and almost to the exclusion of the Armenian
question, was the Cretan Question. Greece heroically sustained the
insurrection of the Cretans against the Turkish rule. The scene of
Turkish cruelty was now transferred to the isle of Crete. For the time
the Armenian massacres were forgotten. The Greeks rushed to the rescue,
while all Europe held aloof. Mr. Gladstone sent the following dispatch
to the Chronicle: "I do not dare to stimulate Greece when I cannot help
her, but I shall profoundly rejoice at her success. I hope the Powers
will recollect that they have their own character to redeem." This was
in February, 1897, Later he wrote that to expel the Greek troops from
Crete and keep as police the butchers of Armenia, would further deepen
the disgrace of the Powers of Europe.

In March, 1897, Mr. Gladstone addressed a letter, now justly celebrated,
on the same subject to the Duke of Westminster in which he expressed his
opinion more fully, and which was evidently the sentiment of the English
speaking people of the world. The letter was in the form of a pamphlet
of 16 pages, published, and entitled The Eastern Crisis.

In less than a week after this eloquent manifesto in behalf of the
Cretans and of Greece was put forth, it was currently reported that the
precise solution of the problem recommended by Mr. Gladstone was likely
to be adopted. The Sultan himself, fearful of the effect of the appeal
on public opinion in Europe, sought the settlement of the question in
the manner suggested. The Greeks still clamored for war. In the war
that followed between Greece and Turkey, Greece was defeated and crushed
by the Turk. Only by the intervention of the Powers was Greece saved
from becoming a part of the Sultan's Empire.

After peace had been concluded between Turkey and Greece, Mr. Gladstone
undertook to arouse public opinion by a trenchant review of the
situation. Looking back over the past two years of England's Eastern
policy, he inquires as to what have been the results, and then answers
his own question. He thus enumerates:

1. The slaughter of 100,000 Armenian Christians, men, women and
children, with no guarantee against a repetition of the crime.

2. The Turkish Umpire stronger than at any time since the Crimean war.

3. Christian Greece weaker than at any time since she became a kingdom.

These are facts, Mr. Gladstone claimed, for which the leading Christian
nations and statesmen of Europe are responsible.

While Mr. Gladstone thus expresses himself, yet his vigorous protests
had not been without effect. His voice penetrated into the very palace
of the Sultan, and into every Cabinet of Europe, and was heard by every
statesman and ruler throughout the world, and aroused the people
everywhere. It was a mighty voice lifted for right and against
oppression. The Sultan was afraid and was compelled to desist; not that
he feared the protests and the warnings of the Christian Nations of
Europe, but because that one voice was the expression of the popular
feeling of all Christians throughout the world, and to defy such
sentiment would be to court the overthrow of his throne, if not of the
dominion of the Turk in Europe.

In June, 1894, an invitation was extended to Mr. Gladstone to visit the
United States, signed by many representative men in public life. But Mr.
Gladstone, while acknowledging the compliment, declined because of his
age. It would, he thought, be a tremendous undertaking for him. The
fatigue of the voyage and the strain of the receptions while in America,
would prove greater than his physical condition could bear.

Later Mr. Gladstone was waited on at Hawarden by one hundred members of
the Philadelphia Manufacturer's Club. He personally escorted them over
the Castle grounds and narrated the history of the Castle to them.
Greatly pleased with the warmth of their reception, they thanked Mr.
Gladstone for his courtesy. They then gave him three cheers. This token
of appreciation was very gratifying to Mr. Gladstone, who said that it
was the first time he had ever heard American cheers.

Saturday afternoon, August 15, 1896, Li Hung Chang, the great Chinese
Statesman and Embassador, visited Mr. Gladstone at Hawarden. Probably
the three greatest living statesmen of the time were Gladstone, Bismarck
and Li Hung Chang. The Embassador and his suite went to Chester in a
special train, and were driven in three open carriages to Hawarden.
Along the route as, well as at the station, the party was cheered by a
large crowd. The Viceroy was sleeping when the train reached Chester and
he was allowed to sleep until he awoke. Yet the party was ahead of time
in reaching the Castle, but Mr. Gladstone hastened to receive them. The
Chinese visitors were received at the door by Mr. Henry Gladstone. Li
Hung Chang was escorted into the Library where he was introduced to Mr.
and Mrs. Gladstone.

The intention of Mr. Gladstone was to have as escort a guard of honor to
the Viceroy, the Hawarden corps of the Welsh Fusiliers, which reached
the Castle, owing to the visitors being ahead of time, ten minutes after
the arrival of the party.

The two aged statesmen sat near the window overlooking the terrace, and
at once, with the aid of Lo Feug Luh, engaged in conversation, Li asked
various questions concerning Mr. Gladstone's career, and was informed by
Mr. Gladstone that he had been Prime Minister nearly thirteen years,
and in the Cabinet nearly twenty-four years. When complimented upon the
service he had rendered to his country, Mr. Gladstone replied that he
had done what he could, but he should have done a great deal more. Li
observed that British interests and British trade in China were greater
than those of all other countries put together. The Viceroy also talked
with Mr. Gladstone of free trade, of restrictions upon commerce, of the
power of the British Navy, of the greatness of the British Revenues, of
the vastness of the Colonial Empire, of the necessity of a railway
system to commerce and upon a number of similar subjects. Refreshments
were served which Li enjoyed, and then by request he wrote his autograph
in three books, using Dorothy Drew's colors for the purpose. Mr.
Gladstone and Li were photographed together sitting on chairs outside
the porch. Mr. Gladstone presented Li with three books from his library,
and then the Chinese visitors departed.

On Saturday evening October 10, 1896, the Right Hon. and Most Rev.
Edward White Benson, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all
England, arrived at Hawarden with Mrs. Benson on a visit to his old
friend Mr. Gladstone. Sunday morning Dr. Benson went with the Gladstone
family to Hawarden Church and occupied the Gladstone pew. After the
service had commenced a commotion was observed. It was caused by the
fall of Dr. Benson In the pew while kneeling in prayer. Attendants
removed Dr. Benson to the Rectory, and medical aid was summoned, but
death came soon after from apoplexy. The Rev. Stephen Gladstone, rector,
proceeded with the service until notified of the death of the
Archbishop, when he dismissed the congregation. Mr. Gladstone, who had
not attended church from indisposition, was deeply affected by the death
of his guest and friend.

The morning papers of London, June 1, 1896, printed a long letter from
Mr. Gladstone to Cardinal Rampolla for submission to the Pope Leo XIII,
in favor of the unity of Christendom by means of a papal declaration in
favor of the validity of Anglican orders. It created a great sensation.
Shortly after this the Pope issued an Encyclical letter addressed to
"all bishops in communion with the Holy See." The theme was the same as
that of Mr. Gladstone's letter, to which it was regarded as an answer.
The Pope invited all the English people "to return to the religion of
the Roman Catholic Church." "This," remarks Mr. Justin McCarthy, "was
exactly what any thoughtful person might have expected." While this
letter and its answer did not satisfy the clergy of the established
Church of England, who were favorably disposed towards Rome, on the
other hand it aroused the dissenting Christians of England to reply
that they were opposed to all state or established churches, whether
Roman Catholic or English Episcopal.

On December 29, 1896, the eighty-seventh anniversary of Mr. Gladstone's
birth was celebrated at Hawarden, surrounded by his family and friends.
There were the usual demonstrations by the villagers, consisting in the
ringing of bells and the appointments of deputations to wait upon the
aged statesman at the Castle with congratulations. An enormous flow of
telegrams and messages continued throughout the day from all parts of
the kingdom, the United States and the Continent. Among those sending
congratulations were the Prince and Princess of Wales, and Baroness de
Rothschild. Mr. Gladstone was in good health, and in the afternoon went
out for a walk.

May 10, 1897, the Prince and Princess of Wales, accompanied by the
Princess Victoria, visited Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone at Hawarden. They were
received by Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone in the porch erected in 1889 to
commemorate their golden wedding. The mutual greetings were of the
heartiest nature. The royal party inspected the ruins of the old castle,
Mr. Gladstone acting as escort to the Princess of Wales. An interesting
incident occurred on the lawn. The Princess took great interest in
inspecting the favorite dogs of the Gladstone family. These were the
black Pomeranians. Two puppies were carried in a basket, one of which
the Princess accepted as a gift.

June 22, 1897, was celebrated with great pomp and rejoicing the Diamond
Jubilee of Victoria, the Queen of England and Empress of India, when the
Queen reached the 60th anniversary of her reign, which is the longest in
English history. Victoria became queen at the age of 19 years, in 1837,
and then the British Isles possessed a population of 26,000,000 and they
had became 40,000,000. Her Empire has been extended until in India,
South, Central and Western Africa, Australia, New Zealand and North
America, and including the British Isles, there were 360,000,000 people
who owned her sway. And to this greatness and glory Mr. Gladstone had
been one to contribute largely, while his influence has been felt more
still by far in promoting the moral greatness of the people. Throughout
all the Empire the event was celebrated, and the jubilee procession in
London was swollen by representatives of all parts of the Queen's domain
and all nations on earth which rendered it the greatest pageant ever
beheld. Even the Turk was there, but Mr. Gladstone was not there, nor
was his name even mentioned for a place in the march on jubilee day. Yet
the period of Victoria's reign will often be spoken of in history as the
Gladstonian Era.

"The public life of a leading statesman," says an eminent writer,
"offers the boldest and stateliest outline to the public view. It may be
that the most striking and memorable chapters in a future biography of
Mr. Gladstone will contain the story of his private affairs and domestic
life." His daily life at home was a model of simplicity and regularity,
and the great secret of the vast amount of work he accomplished was
owing to the fact that every odd five minutes were occupied. He had a
deep sense of the preciousness of time and the responsibility which
everyone incurs who uses or misuses it. "To such a length did he carry
this that at a picnic to a favorite Welsh mountain he has been seen to
fling himself on the heather and bury himself in some pamphlet upon a
question of the day, until called to lighter things by those who were
responsible for the provision basket."

Mr. Gladstone was ever a most severe economist of time, a habit acquired
as long ago as 1839, when he awed his young wife by filling up all odd
bits and scraps of time with study or work. Out of his pocket would come
the little classic at every chance opportunity of leisure. This accounts
for his ability to get through in one day more than most people do in a
week. Then besides, he had the faculty of concentrating the whole power
of his mind upon the one thing before him, whether small or great. He
was unable to divide the machinery of his mind. Interruption was almost
fatal to his train of thought, but he was generally oblivious to
conversation buzzing around him. Hence it was some time before a
questioner could get an answer--he did not seem to hear, but patience
finally secured attention, after the train of absorbing thought
was finished.

It was this power of concentrating all his faculties upon what he was
doing, whether it was work or play, that made Mr. Gladstone one of the
ablest as well as happiest of the century. He took the keenest delight
in the scholarly and beautiful, and this accounts for his disregard of
minor ills and evils. He was too absorbed to be fretful or impatient.
But to be absorbed in great things did not mean, in his case, to be
neglectful of little things. At one time his mind and time were so
completely taken up with the Eastern question, that he could not be
induced to spare a thought for Ireland, and afterward it was quite as
difficult to get him to think of any political question except that
of Ireland.

In the daily routine of private life none in the household were more
punctual and regular than Mr. Gladstone. At 8 o'clock he was up and in
his study. From 1842 he always found time, with all his manifold duties,
to go to church regularly, rain or shine, every morning except when ill,
at half-past 8 o'clock, He walked along the public road from the castle
to Hawarden church. Writes an observer: "The old statesman, with his
fine, hale, gentle face, is an interesting figure as he walks lightly
and briskly along the country road, silently acknowledging the fervent
salutations of his friends--the Hawarden villagers. He wears a long
coat, well buttoned up, a long shawl wrapped closely around his neck,
and a soft felt hat--a very different figure from that of the Prime
Minister as he is known in London."

At the Castle prayers were read to the family and household soon after 9
o'clock daily. His customary breakfast was comprised of a hard-boiled
egg, a slice of tongue, dry toast and tea. The whole morning whether at
home or on a visit was devoted to business. Luncheon at Hawarden was
without formality. "Lunch was on the hob," for several hours, to be
partaken of when it suited the convenience of the various members of the
family. Tea, of which Mr. Gladstone was particularly fond, and of which
he could partake at any hour of the day, or night, was served in the
afternoon at 5 o'clock,--after which he finished his correspondence.

In the afternoon, Mr. Gladstone was accustomed to a walk in the grounds,
accompanied by his faithful little black Pomeranian dog, Petz, who was
obtained on a trip abroad, and became and remained for many years, an
important member of the household, and one of Mr. Gladstone's most
devoted followers. Increasing years of over fourscore, prevented finally
walks of fifty miles a day once indulged in, and the axes stood unused
in their stands in the vestibule and library, but still Mr. Gladstone
kept up his walks with his silent companion Petz. After walking for half
an hour longer in his library after his return to the Castle, Mr.
Gladstone would dress for dinner, which operation usually took him from
three to five minutes. At 8 o'clock he joined the family, at dinner,
which was a cheerful meal. Like Goethe he ate heartily and enjoyed his
meals, but his diet was extremely simple, Mr. Gladstone eating only what
was prescribed by his physician. At dinner he talked freely and
brilliantly even when none but his family were present. When visitors
were present he would enter upon whatever was the subject of
conversation, taking his share with others, and pouring a flood of light
upon any theme suggested, giving all the benefit of the fund of wisdom
and anecdote collected through two generations of unparalleled political
and social activity.

After dinner, when there were no visitors at Hawarden, Mr. Gladstone
would quietly sit reading in his library, or conversing with his family.
He never used tobacco. Shortly after 10 o'clock he retired to bed and to
sleep. He never allowed himself to think and be sleepless. Mr. Bright
had a habit of making his speeches after he had retired to bed, which
Mr. Gladstone thought was detrimental to his health. Bight hours was the
time Mr. Gladstone permitted himself to sleep. His bed-room was on the
second floor and reached by a fine staircase. Everything in the room was
plain and homely.

On the walls of his bed-room and over the mantlepiece was a text
emblazoned, on which at evening and morning he could look, which read:
"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee."
This not only expresses Mr. Gladstone's trust in God, but doubtless
accounts in a large degree for that tranquility of mind so notably his,
even in those trying times that prostrated many and carried many more
away from their bearings.

From the worry or weariness of business, Mr. Gladstone was ever ready to
turn for rest to reading, which has thus proved of inestimable value to
him. "His family cannot speak without emotion of that look of perfect
happiness and peace that beamed from his eye on such occasions." When
during the general elections of 1882, this was denied him, he turned
with equal readiness to writing and thinking on other subjects. During
the Midlothian Campaign and General Election, and through the Cabinet
making that followed, he relieved the pressure on his over-burdened
brain by writing an article on Home Rule, "written with all the force
and freshness of a first shock of discovery;" he was also writing daily
on the Psalms; he was preparing a paper for the Oriental Congress which
was to startle the educated world by "its originality and ingenuity;"
and he was composing with great and careful investigation his Oxford
lecture on "The rise and progress of learning in the University
of Oxford."

All during the morning hours he would sit in the silence of that
corner-room on the ground floor reading. There were three writing-desks
in the library, and one was chiefly reserved for correspondence of a
political nature, and another for his literary work, while the third was
used by Mrs. Gladstone. He spent his evenings when at Hawarden in a cosy
corner of the library reading. He had a wonderfully constructed lamp so
arranged for him for night reading, as to throw the utmost possible
light on the pages of the book. It was generally a novel that employed
his mind at night. Occasionally he gives Mrs. Drew about two hundred
novels to divide the sheep from the goats among them. She divides them
into three classes--novels worth keeping, novels to be given away, and
novels to be destroyed.

Mr. Gladstone generally had three books in course of reading at the same
time, changing from one to the other. These books were carefully
selected with reference to their character and contents, and he was
particular as to their order and variation. For instance at one time he
was reading Dr. Laugen's Roman History, in German, in the morning,
Virgil in the afternoon, and a novel at night. Scott was his preference
among novelists. He read with pencil in hand, and he had an elaborate
system of marking a book. Aristotle, St. Augustine, Dante and Bishop
Butler were the authors who had the deepest influence upon him, so he
himself said. His copy of the Odyssey of Homer he had rebound several
times, as he preferred always to use the same copy.

Mrs. Drew says of her father: "There could not be a better illustration
of his mind than his Temple of Peace--his study, with its
extraordinarily methodical arrangement. Away from home he will write an
exact description of the key or paper he requires, as: 'Open the left
hand drawer of the writing table nearest the fireplace, and at the back
of the drawer, in the right hand corner, you will find some keys. You
will see three on one string; send me the one with such and such teeth.'
His mind is arranged in the same way; he has only to open a particular
compartment, labelled so and so, to find the information he requires.
His memory in consequence is almost unfailing. It is commonly found that
in old age the memory may be perfect as regards times long gone by, but
inaccurate and defective as to more recent events. But with Mr.
Gladstone the things of the present are as deeply stamped on his brain
as the things of the past." Some one has said of Mr. Gladstone that his
memory was "terrible." It is evident that he always kept abreast of the
times--informing himself of everything new in literature, science and
art, and when over eighty years of age was as ready to imbibe fresh
ideas as when he was only eighteen, and far more discriminating.

Those who entered Mr. Gladstone's official room on a Sunday, during the
busiest parliamentary session, could not fail to be struck by the
atmosphere of repose, the signs and symbols of the day, the books lying
open near the armchair, the deserted writing-table, the absence of
papers and newspapers. On Sunday Mr. Gladstone put away all business of
a secular nature, occupied his time in reading special books, suitable
to the day, and generally attended church twice, never dined out, except
he went on a mission of mercy, or to cheer some sorrowful friend. When
the Queen invited him to Windsor Castle on Sunday for one night, as she
did sometimes, he always arranged to stay in Windsor Saturday. In his
dressing room he kept a large open bible in which he daily read.
Physically, intellectually and spiritually Mr. Gladstone's Sundays were
regarded by his family as a priceless blessing to him, and to have made
him the man he was. Mr. Gladstone had strict notions of his duty to his
church. Whenever he established himself in London, he always attended
the nearest church, and became regular in his attendance, not only on
the Sabbath, but daily. With an empire on his shoulders he found time
for daily public devotion, and in church-going he was no "gadabout."
When he resided at Carlton House Terrace he attended the church of St.
Martin-in-the-Fields.

Mr. Gladstone's daily correspondence, when Prime Minister, was simply
enormous. At first he felt it to be a conscientious duty to deal with
the most of it himself, but finally came to trust the bulk of it to
secretaries as other ministers did. Some letters came to him daily that
he had to answer with his own hand; for example, from ministers or on
confidental business, from the court, At the end of every Cabinet
Council the Premier has to write a letter with his own hand to his
sovereign, giving full information of the business transacted. The same
kind of report is required daily from Parliament. Of course Mr.
Gladstone, whenever he was Prime Minister, faithfully attended to this
duty and dispatched the required letters written with his own hand to
the Queen.

Mr. Gladstone was remarkable for the strength and endurance of his body
as well as for the vigor of his intellect. "Don't talk to me of Mr.
Gladstone's mind," said a contemporary; "it is his body which astonishes
me." He never had any serious illness in his life, and up to quite
recent years were vigorous exercise, sometimes walking when in Scotland
20 miles at a stretch over rough and mountainous country. The physical
effort of speaking to twenty thousand people, and being heard in every
part of the vast building by the audience, as was the case at
Birmingham, in 1889, was remarkable. His power of endurance was
wonderful. In 1882, he once sat up through an all-night sitting of the
House of Commons, and going back to 10 Downing Street, at 8 o'clock in
the morning, for half an hour's rest, again returned to the House and
remained until the conclusion of the setting. Tree-cutting, which was
with him a frequent recreation until he became a very old man, was
chosen "as giving him the maximum of healthy exercise in the minimum of
time." This favorite pastime of the great statesman was so closely
associated with him that it was deemed the proper thing to do to place
on exhibition in the Great Columbian Exposition at Chicago one of the
axes of Mr. Gladstone.

The Psalmist says, "A man was famous according as he had lifted up axes
upon the thick trees." These singular words were written long before
Mr. Gladstone's day, but famous as he was for felling the great trees of
the forest, the words have a deeper meaning and in more than one sense
met their fulfilment in him. His swift and keen axe of reform brought
down many hoary headed evils. Mr. Gladstone himself explained why he
cultivated this habit of cutting down trees. He said: "I chop wood
because I find that it is the only occupation in the world that drives
all thought from my mind. When I walk or ride or play cricket, I am
still debating important business problems, but when I chop wood I can
think of nothing but making the chips fly."

The following story illustrates Mr. Gladstone's remarkable powers and
the surprise he would spring upon those who met him. Two gentlemen who
were invited guests at a table where Mr. Gladstone was expected, made a
wager that they would start a conversation on a subject about which even
Mr. Gladstone would know nothing. To accomplish this end they "read up"
an "ancient" magazine article on some unfamiliar subject connected with
Chinese manufactures. When the favorable opportunity came the topic was
started, and the two conspirators watched with amusement the growing
interest in the subject which Mr. Gladstone's face betrayed. Finally he
joined in the conversation, and their amusement was turned into
confusion, when Mr. Gladstone said, "Ah, gentlemen, I perceive you have
been reading an article I wrote in the ---- Magazine some thirty or
forty years ago."




CHAPTER XXI


CLOSING SCENES OF A LONG AND EVENTFUL LIFE

Mr. Gladstone died at Hawarden Castle, at 5 o'clock, Thursday Morning,
May 19, 1898.

The first intimation of the rapidly approaching end of Mr. Gladstone was
conveyed in a bulletin issued at 9 o'clock Tuesday morning, May 17. It
read "Mr. Gladstone had a poor and broken sleep last night; he is
somewhat exhausted, but suffers no discomfort." The report of the
evening before was assuring as to any sudden change, so that the anxiety
was increased. For hours no additional information was given, but there
were indications outside the Castle of a crisis. Throughout the day
could be heard expressions of deep regret among the working people,
asking, "How is the old gentleman?" Despite the heavy rain the people
collected in groups, and the hush and quiet that prevailed indicated the
presence of death.

A bulletin at 5 p.m. said: "Mr. Gladstone has taken a serious turn for
the worse. His death may be expected in twenty-four hours." All day the
condition of the patient had been critical. The doctor doubted that his
patient was fully conscious at any time, he answered, "Yes," and "No."
He refused all medicine, exclaiming No! No! It was remarked that when
addressed in English, Mr. Gladstone would answer in French, and
sometimes was praying in French.

Later in the evening the servants of the household were admitted to the
sick room for a final farewell. They found Mr. Gladstone lying in a deep
sleep; each in turn knelt down, kissed his hand and tearfully withdrew.

About 9 o'clock the patient rallied a little and fell into a peaceful
sleep, which was thought to be his last.

The rain had continued to fall during the night, but the villagers had
been coming singly and in groups to glance silently at the rain-beaten
scrap of paper which was the latest bulletin, and then silently
returning to the gate, and disappearing in the darkness only to
return later.

About 4 o'clock in the morning Mr. Gladstone seemed to be sinking. The
scene in the sick-room was painful. The Rev. Stephen Gladstone read
prayers and hymns, including Mr. Gladstone's favorite, "Rock of Ages."
When this was concluded, Mr. Gladstone murmured, "Our Father." As Mrs.
Gladstone leaned over her husband, he turned his head and his lips moved
slightly. Though extremely distressed, Mrs. Gladstone bore up with
remarkable fortitude. But Mr. Gladstone rallied again, and Wednesday
morning he was still living. By his almost superhuman vitality he had
fought death away.

The morning was beautiful and clear and the sunshine came in at the open
window of Mr. Gladstone's room. The aged sufferer was hovering between
life and death, and only by the feeble beating of his pulse could it be
told he was alive. He was sleeping himself away into eternal day. Mrs.
Gladstone sat by the side of his bed, holding his hand, and never
leaving except for needed rest. At times he seemed to recognize for a
moment some of those with him. He surely knew his wife as she tenderly
kissed his hand.

It soon became known abroad that Mr. Gladstone was dying. In the House
of Commons it caused profound sorrow. Everything else was stopped while
members discussed how best to honor him, even by taking steps without,
precedent as that of adjourning, because the circumstances were
unprecedented. His former colleagues silently watched his last struggle
with the relentless foe, to whom, true to himself, he was yielding
slowly, inch by inch.

Telegrams of inquiry and sympathy came from all parts of the world to
the Castle. The Queen wrote making inquiries and tendering assurances of
profound sympathy. A long telegram from the Princess of Wales concluded:
"I am praying for you." The Prince of Wales wrote: "My thoughts are with
you at this trying time., God grant that your father does not suffer."
The Duke of Devonshire before the British Empire League referred
touchingly to the mournful scenes at Hawarden, when "the greatest of
Englishmen was slowly passing away." And all over the land people of all
conditions and at all kinds of gatherings, politicians, divines,
reformers, and women joined in expressions of grief and sympathy. Many
were the messages of regard and condolence that came from other lands.

Dr. Dobie furnishes the following picture of the dying man. "His grand
face bears a most peaceful and beautiful look. A few days ago the deeply
bitten wrinkles that so long marked it were almost gone; but now,
strangely enough, they seem strong and deep as ever. He looks too in
wonderfully good color."

At 2 o'clock in the morning, it was evident that the time had come, and
the family gathered about the bed of the aged man, from that time none
of them left the room until all was over. The only absentee was little
Dorothy Drew, who tearfully complained that her grandfather did not know
her. Behind the family circle stood the physicians and the nurses, and
the old coachman, who had been unable to be present when the other
servants took their farewell, and who was now sent for to witness the
closing scene.

The end was most peaceful. There were no signs of bodily pain or of
mental distress. The Rev. Stephen Gladstone read prayers and repeated
hymns. The nurse continued to bathe with spirits the brow of the
patient, who showed gratitude by murmuring, "How nice!" While the son
was engaged in praying, came the gentle, almost perceptible cessation of
life, and the great man was no more. So quietly had he breathed his
last, that the family did not know it until it was announced by the
medical attendants. The weeping family then filed slowly from the room,
Mrs. Gladstone was led into another room and induced to lie down. The
only spoken evidence that Mr. Gladstone realized his surroundings in his
last moments was when his son recited the litany. Then the dying man
murmured, "Amen." This was the last word spoken by Mr. Gladstone and was
uttered just before he died.

The death of Mr. Gladstone was announced to the people of Hawarden by
the tolling of the church bell. The following bulletin was posted at 6
a.m.: "In the natural course of things the funeral will be at Hawarden.
Mr. Gladstone expressed a strong wish to have no flowers at his funeral;
and the family will be grateful if this desire is strictly respected."

There was something indescribably pathetic in the daily bulletins about
Mr. Gladstone. All the world knew that he was afflicted with a fatal but
slow disease, and all the world was struck with wondering admiration at
his sustained fortitude, patience, and resignation. The tragedy of a
life, devoted simply and purely to the public service, drawing to an end
in so long an agony, was a spectacle that struck home to the heart of
the most callous. These bulletins were posted on the front door of the
Jubilee Porch, at Hawarden Castle, at 9 a.m., 5 p.m. and 10 o'clock at
night daily, and published throughout the world.

When the sad event was announced that Mr. Gladstone had passed away, the
action of the House of Commons was prompt, decided and sympathetic. The
House was crowded Thursday, May 19, when Speaker Gully called upon the
government leader, Mr. A. J. Balfour, the First Lord of the Treasury,
and all the members uncovering their heads, Mr. Balfour said:

"I think it will be felt in all parts of the House that we should do
fitting honor to the great man whose long and splendid career closed
to-day, by adjourning.

"This is not the occasion for uttering the thoughts which naturally
suggest themselves. That occasion will present itself to-morrow, when it
will be my duty to submit to the House an address to the Queen, praying
her to grant the honor of a public funeral, if such honor is not
inconsistent with the expressed wishes of himself or of those who have
the right to speak in his behalf, and also praying the Queen to direct
that a public monument be erected at Westminster with an inscription
expressive of the public admiration, attachment and high estimate
entertained by the House of Mr. Gladstone's rare and splendid gifts and
devoted labors in Parliament and in high offices of State.

"Before actually moving the adjournment, I have to propose a formal
resolution that the House to-morrow resolve itself into committee to
draw up an address, the contents of which I have just indicated."

After a word of assent from Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, the Liberal
leader, the resolution was adopted and the House adjourned.

The House of Commons was crowded again on Friday, and went into
committee of the whole to consider the address to the Queen in regard
to the interment of the remains of Mr. Gladstone in Westminster Abbey.
Not since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill by Mr. Gladstone had
there been such an assemblage in the House, members filled every seat,
clustered on the steps of the speaker's dais, and occupied every space.
The galleries were all filled. In the Peer's gallery were the foremost
members of the House of Lords. United States Ambassador Hay and all his
staff were present with other Ambassadors. The members of the House were
in deep mourning, and all removed their hats, as if in the presence of
the dead. An unusual hush overspread all. After the prayer by the
chaplain, there was an impressive silence for a quarter of an hour,
before Mr. Balfour rose to speak. The whole scene was profoundly
affecting. The eulogies of Mr. Gladstone formed an historic episode.
All, without respect to party, united in honoring their late illustrious
countryman.

Mr. Balfour delivered a brilliant panegyric of the dead statesman, and
his speech was eloquent and displayed great taste. He was so ill,
however, from weakness of heart that he was barely able to totter to his
place and to ask the indulgence of the speaker while he rested, before
offering his oration. He was too sick for the sad duty imposed upon him,
but he preferred to pay this last tribute to his friend. The
circumstances were painful, but added a dramatic touch to the scene.
His oration was lengthy and his eulogy spoken with evident emotion. He
concluded by formally moving the presentation of the address to the
Queen. The Liberal Leader, Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, the political as
well as the personal friend of Mr. Gladstone, seconded the motion. He
paid a heartfelt tribute to the memory of his eminent colleague, and
spoke in a vein of lofty and glowing eloquence until overcome with
emotion, so that he had to stop thrice to wipe his eyes; finally he
completely broke down and was unable to proceed.

Mr. Dillon, the Irish leader, in a speech of five minutes duration, and
in his most oratorical style, dwelt on Mr. Gladstone's fervid sympathy
for the oppressed people of all races, and touched a chord which stirred
the House. As Mr. Dillon had spoken for Ireland, so Mr. Abel Thomas
followed as the representative of Wales.

The address to the Queen was unanimously adopted.

In the House of Lords there was also a full attendance of members. The
Marquis of Salisbury, Prime Minister, spoke feelingly of Mr. Gladstone,
who, he said, "was ever guided in all his efforts by a lofty moral
idea". The deceased will be remembered, not so much for his political
work as for the great example, hardly paralleled in history, of the
great Christian Statesman.

The Earl of Kimberly, the liberal leader in the House of Lords, followed
in a touching tribute, and the Duke of Devonshire expressed generous
appreciation of Mr. Gladstone's services in behalf of the Liberal
Unionists, saying their severance from Mr. Gladstone was a most painful
incident. But, he added, he could "recall no word from Mr. Gladstone
which added unnecessarily to the bitterness of the situation." The Earl
of Rosebery delivered an eloquent panegyric. The honors of the occasion
were unanimously accorded to him, whose eulogy of his predecessor in the
leadership of the liberal party was a masterpiece of its kind. He spoke
of the triumphs of life rather than the sorrows of death. Death was not
all sadness. His life was full---his memory remains. To all time he is
an example for our race and mankind. He instanced as an illustration of
the fine courtesy always observed by Mr. Gladstone towards his political
opponents, that the last letter he had written with his own hand was a
private note to Lady Salisbury, several weeks since, congratulating her
and her husband on their providential escape from a carriage accident at
Hatfield. Lord Salisbury was visibly touched by Lord Rosebery's
reference to this circumstance.

The House of Lords then adopted the Resolution to the Queen.

The body of Mr. Gladstone, un-coffined, was laid on a couch in the
Library of the Castle--the room called the Temple of Peace. He was
dressed in a suit of black cloth, over which were the scarlet robes of
the university, and by his side the cap was placed. His hands were
folded on his breast. He rested on a most beautiful white satin cloth,
with a rich border in Eastern embroidery. Above his head in letters of
gold were the words sewn into the satin: "Requiescat in pace." There was
the beauty of death--the terror was all gone. During Tuesday the body
was viewed by the tenants on the estate, the neighbors and friends.

On Wednesday morning, May 25th, at 6 o'clock, the remains, having been
enclosed in a plain panelled elm coffin, were removed to the village
church, where they were lying in state during the day. The body was
carried by half-a-dozen old retainers of the family to a bier on wheels,
on which it was taken to the church, over the lawn, following the
private path Mr. Gladstone used to tread on his way to church, and past
the favorite nooks of the deceased in the park. The family--excepting
Mrs. Gladstone, who came later, tenants, servants, friends, local
officials and neighbors followed in procession, Thousands of people were
arriving by public and private conveyances at Hawarden. At eleven
o'clock the doors of the church were opened, when men, women and
children, from all the surrounding country, and even tourists from
abroad, entered to view the remains. All day long a constant stream of
people poured into the church, while the streets were filled with people
unable to gain admittance. Several ladies fainted from excess of emotion
when passing the bier, and many men and women dropped on their knees and
silently prayed.

At 6 o'clock in the evening the body was removed from Hawarden Church
and carried to the station for the journey to London. The procession to
bear the remains was composed of the family, representatives of
organizations, friends and neighbors. Vast crowds lined the route, afoot
and in every kind of vehicle. The cortege stopped at the entrance to the
Park--Hawarden Lodge, and sang one of Mr. Gladstone's favorite hymns.
Again, when the procession reached the Castle, it paused at the entrance
and sang another hymn loved by the late resident of the house, and went
on its way to Broughton Hall Station. Every step of the way, after
leaving the park, was again lined with sympathetic spectators. While at
the station the spectacle was remarkable for the surrounding crush of
human beings. A special train was provided for the body and the family.
As the body of Mr. Gladstone was placed upon the funeral car the sorrow
of the people was manifest. The representatives of the Earl Marshall, of
England, took possession of the funeral at this point. Henry and Herbert
Gladstone accompanied the body to London and Mrs. Gladstone and family
returned to the castle to follow later.

All along the route to London grief-stricken people were standing to
view the funeral train as it passed at Chester, Crewe, Rugby, Stafford
and Farnworth until the darkness and lateness of the night shut out
the scene.

When the train reached London and passed to Westminster, it was early in
the morning. A group of some thirty gentlemen, connected with the
ceremonies, was at the station; among them the Duke of Norfolk, About
two hundred people looked silently on while the body was removed from
the train to the hearse, and the funeral cortege moved on to Westminster
Hall at once and entered the Palace Yard just as "Big Ben" tolled the
hour of one like a funeral knell.

The coffin was placed in position for lying in state in Westminster
Hall, and at about 3 o'clock Canon Wilberforce conducted a special
service in the presence of Henry and Herbert Gladstone and several
members of the House of Commons.

The scenes that followed were remarkably impressive and unparalleled.
The people began to arrive at Westminster at 2 o'clock in the morning.
The line formed was continually augmented by all classes of
people,--peers, peeresses, cabinet members, members of the House of
Commons, military and naval officers, clergymen, costermongers, old and
young, until 6 o'clock, when the doors were opened and the procession
commenced to stream into the Hall, and passed the catafalque.

This long procession of mourners continued all day Thursday and Friday.
Two hundred thousand people, at least, paid homage to the dead
statesman. On Friday evening, after the crowd had departed, large
delegations, representing Liberal organizations from all parts of the
kingdom, visited the Hall, by special arrangement, and fifteen hundred
of them paid respect to the memory of their late leader.

Saturday morning, May 28, thousands of people assembled in the square
outside to witness the passage of the funeral cortege from Westminster
Hall, where it was formed, to the Abbey, to find sepulchre in the tomb
of kings. The procession passed through two lines of policemen. It was
not a military parade, with all its pomp, but a ceremony made glorious
by the homage of the people, among them the greatest of the nation. The
funeral was in every respect impressive, dignified and lofty, in every
way worthy the great civilian, and the nation that accorded him a
public burial with its greatest dead. And the people were there. Every
spot on which the eye rested swarmed with human beings. They looked from
the windows of the hospital, and from the roofs of houses. Everybody was
dressed in black.

The principal officials had assembled in Westminster Hall at 10 o'clock.
The Bishop of London, the Right Rev. Mandell Creighton, D.D., read a
brief prayer and at 10.30 o'clock the procession had formed and slowly
passed through the crowds who with uncovered heads stood on either side
of short pathway, a distance 300 yards, to the western entrance of the
Abbey, between two ranks of the Eton Volunteers, the boys of the school
where Mr. Gladstone received his early education, in their
buff uniforms.

The pall-bearers who walked on each side of the coffin were perhaps the
personages who attracted the most attention during the day. They were
the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Marquis of Salisbury, the
Earl of Kimberly, A. J. Balfour, Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, the Duke
of Rutland, Lord Rosebery, Baron Rendel and George Armitstead, the two
latter being life-long friends of the deceased statesman.

When Mrs. Gladstone entered the Abbey the whole assembly rose and
remained standing until she was seated. This honor was accorded only
once beside--when the Princess of Wales, the Princess Mary and the
Duchess of York appeared.

The Abbey was filled with people. Every gallery, balcony and niche high
up among the rafters held a cluster of deeply interested spectators.
Temporary galleries had been erected in long tiers around the open
grave, which was in the floor of the Abbey. There were 2,500 persons
assembled in the Abbey, all--both men and women--clothed in black,
except a few officials whose regalia relieved this sombre background by
its brilliancy. The two Houses of Parliament sat facing each other,
seated on temporary seats on opposite sides of the grave. About them
were the mayors of the principal cities, delegates from Liberal
organizations, representatives of other civic and political societies,
representatives of the Non-Conformists, while the long nave was crowded
with thousands of men and women, among them being most of the
celebrities in all branches of English life. In each gallery was a
presiding officer with his official mace beside him, whose place was in
the centre, and who was its most prominent figure. It was a
distinguished assembly in a famous place. Beneath were the illustrious
dead; around were the illustrious living.

The members of the bereaved family sat in the stall nearest the
bier--Mrs. Gladstone, her sons Henry, Herbert and Stephen; with other
members of the family, children and grand-children, including little
Dorothy Drew, Mr. Gladstone's favorite grand-child, in her new mourning.

The Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York occupied the Dean's pew
opposite. Other royalties were present in person or by their
representatives.

Within the chancel stood the Dean of Westminster, and behind him were
gathered the cathedral clergy, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
scarlet and white surpliced choir, filling the chapel.

It was the wish of the deceased for simplicity, but he was buried with a
nation's homage in the tomb of kings. In the northern transept, known as
the "Statesmen's Corner", of Westminster Abbey, where England's greatest
dead rests, the body of Mr. Gladstone was entombed. His grave is near
the graves of Pitt, Palmerston, Canning and Peel, beside that of his
life-long political adversary, Lord Beaconsfield (Benjamin Disraeli),
whose marble effigy looks down upon it, decked with the regalia Mr.
Gladstone had so often refused. Two possible future kings of Great
Britain walked besides the great commoner's coffin and stood beside his
grave, and all the nobility and learning of the nation surrounded his
bier. This state funeral, the first since that of Lord Palmerston, was
rendered more imposing by the magnificence of the edifice in which it
was solemnized. The coffin rested on an elevated bier before the altar,
its plainness hidden beneath a pall of white-and gold embroidered cloth.

A choir of one hundred male singers, which had awaited the coffin at the
entrance to the Abbey, preceded it along the nave, chanting, "I am the
Resurrection and the Life." When the coffin was laid on the bier,
Purcell's funeral chant, "Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Refuge," was sung,
and Dean Bradley and the whole assemblage sang, "Rock of Ages," and then
while the coffin was being borne along the aisle to the grave, sang Mr.
Gladstone's favorite hymn, "Praise to the Holiest in the Height."

The choir of Westminster Abbey is said to be fine at any time, but for
this great occasion special arrangements had been made, and there was a
recruiting of the best voices from several of the choirs of London, and
many musical instruments beside. The result was to win general praise
for the beauty, harmony and perfection of the music. The weird, dismal
strains of a quartette of trombones, in a recess far above the heads of
the congregation, playing the three splendid "Equali," Beethoven's
funeral hymn, swept through the vaulted roof of the Abbey, in pure tones
never to be forgotten. When these ceased and finally died away, the
great organ and a band of brass instruments took up Schubert's funeral
march, booming sonorously; and changed to Beethoven's funeral march with
a clash of cymbals in the orchestral accompaniment. A third march being
required, owing to the time needed by the procession to reach the Abbey,
"Marche Solennelle" was played.

The choir, and a large number of bishops and other clergy, joined the
procession at the west door and together they all proceeded to
the grave.

There was no sermon. The service was simple and solemn. The final paean
of victory over death and the grave from Paul's great epistle was read,
and the last hymn sung was, "Oh God! Our Help in Ages Past." The dean
read the appointed appropriate service, committing the body to the
earth, and then the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a loud voice,
pronounced the benediction. The family and others near the grave kneeled
during the concluding ceremonies, and then Mrs. Gladstone was helped
from her knees to her unoccupied chair at the head of the grave.

After the benediction came one of the saddest moments of the day. Mrs.
Gladstone stood, with great courage and composure, throughout the
service, supported on the arms of her two sons, Herbert and Stephen, and
with other members of her family near the grave. Her face was lifted
upward, and her lips were moving as though repeating the lines of the
service. She also kept standing during the one official feature of the
service; "The Proclamation by Garter, by Norroy, King of Arms, of the
Style of the Deceased," as the official programme had it, and in which
the various offices which Mr. Gladstone had held in his lifetime, were
enumerated. Then, when the final word was spoken, the widow, still
supported by her sons, approached the edge of the grave and there took a
last, long look and was conducted away. Other relatives followed, and
then most of the members of Parliament. Finally the Prince of Wales, the
Duke of York and other pall-bearers defiled past the grave, took a last
view of the coffin in the deep grave, and when they had been escorted
down the nave to entrance, the people slowly departed.

The "Dead March" from "Saul" and the "Marche Solennelle" of Schubert
was played as the congregation slowly wended its way out of the
sacred edifice.

Perhaps the most solemn function of all, witnessed by none but the
Gladstone family and the officials, was when the casket was opened
shortly after midnight on Thursday to allow the Earl Marshal to verify
with his own eyes that it really contained the remains of the dead
statesman. It was said that the old man's face, seen for the last time
by the Duke of Norfolk, who is responsible to England for his sacred
charge, was more peaceful and younger looking than it had seemed for
years. At the very last moment a small gold Armenian cross, a memento of
that nation for which the great statesman worked so zealously, was
placed by his side. Then all was sealed.

As the deceased statesman was undoubtedly the greatest parliamentarian
of our time, the following concise expressions with regard to his
character and influence have been collected from a number of
representative members of different political parties in both Houses of
Parliament:

The Marquis of Londonderry said: "What impressed me about Mr. Gladstone
was his extraordinary moral influence."

Lord George Hamilton: "I doubt whether we ever had a parliamentarian who
equalled Mr. Gladstone."

The Marquis of Lorne: "I share the universal regret at Mr. Gladstone's
death as a personal loss."

Sir John Gorst: "One feature, which greatly distinguished Mr. Gladstone,
was his remarkable candour in debate. He never affected to misunderstand
his opponents' arguments, and spared no pains in trying to make his own
meaning understood."

Sir Charles Dilke: "I think Mr. Gladstone's leading personal
characteristic was his old-fashioned courtesy. Whilst a statesman, his
absolute mastery of finance, both in its principles and details, was
incomparably superior to that of any of his contemporaries."

Mr. Thomas Ellis, the chief Liberal Whip, confessed that the greatest
interest of his life in Parliament was to watch Mr. Gladstone's face.
"It was like the sea in the fascination of its infinite variety, and of
its incalculable reserve and strength. Every motion in his great soul
was reflected in his face and form. To have had opportunities of
watching that face, and of witnessing one triumph after another, is a
precious privilege, for some of the charms of his face, as of his
oratory and character, were incommunicable. He more than any man helped
to build up and shape the present commercial and political fabric of
Britain, but to struggling nations his words and deeds were as the
breath of life."

Sir Joseph Pease: "His memory will be kept green by a grateful country.
Death soon buries the battle-axe of party, and he who devoted a long
life and immense intellectual power, coupled with strong convictions on
moral and Christian ethics, to the well being of his country and the
world, will never be forgotten by the English people."

Mr. James Bryce, author of "The American Commonwealth": "This sad event
is the most noble and pathetic closing of a great life which we have
seen in England in historical memory. I cannot recall any other case in
which the whole nation has followed the setting of the sun of life with
such sympathy, such regret, and such admiration."

Lord Kinnaird: "Few men in public life have been able to draw out such
personal love and devotion from his followers and friends. In the midst
of an ever-busy life he was always ready to take his part in the
conflict of right against wrong, of truth against error, and he earned
the gratitude of all patriots, for he was never ashamed of contending
that no true progress could be made which left out of sight the moral
well-being of the people."

Mr. Labouchere: "What impressed me most in Mr. Gladstone was his power
of concentrated effort. Once he had decided on a course, action at once
followed. Every thought was bent to attain the end, no labour was deemed
to arduous. He alone knew how to deal with supporters and opponents. The
former he inspired with his own fierce energy."

Mr. John Redmond, leader of the Parnellite group of the Irish
Nationalists: "The loss to England is absolutely incalculable. I regard
Mr. Gladstone as having been the greatest parliamentarian of the age,
and the greatest parliamentary orator. Englishmen of all parties ought
to be grateful to him for his services in promoting the greatness and
prosperity of their empire."

John Dillon: "The greatest and most patriotic of Englishmen. If I were
asked to say what I think most characteristic of Gladstone, I should say
his abiding love for the common people and his faith in the government
founded upon them, so that, while he remained the most patriotic of
Englishmen, he is to-day mourned with equal intensity throughout the
civilized world."

Justin McCarthy, M. P.: "The death of Mr. Gladstone closes a career
which may be described as absolutely unique in English political
history. It was the career of a great statesman, whose statesmanship was
first and last inspired, informed and guided by conscience, by
principle, and by love of justice. There were great English statesmen
before Mr. Gladstone's time and during Mr. Gladstone's time, but we
shall look in vain for an example of any statesman in office, who made
genius and eloquence, as Mr. Gladstone did, the mere servants of
righteousness and conscientious purpose. Into the mind of Gladstone no
thought of personal ambition or personal advancement ever entered. He
was as conscientious as Burke. In the brilliancy of his gifts he was at
least the equal of Bolingbroke. He was as great an orator as either
Pitt, and he has left the imprint of his intellect on beneficent
political and social legislation. In eloquence he far surpassed Cobden
and was the peer of Bright, while his position as Parliamentary leader
enabled him to initiate and carry out measures of reform which Bright
and Cobden could only support. He was, in short, the greatest and the
best Prime Minister known to English history."

Michael Davitt: "One can only join with the whole world in admiration of
the almost boundless talents of Mr. Gladstone, which were devoted with
unparalleled power of charm to the service of his fellow-men. He was
probably the greatest British statesman and leaves behind a record of a
career unequalled in the annals of English politics. For the magnitude
of his national labors and integrity of his personal character, Irishmen
will remember him gratefully."

The _Daily Chronicle_ heads its editorial with a quotation from
Wordsworth:

     "This is the happy warrior: this is he:
     That every man in arms should wish to be."

The editorial says: "A glorious light has been extinguished in the land;
all his life lies in the past, a memory to us and our children; an
inspiration and possession forever. The end has come as to a soldier at
his post. It found him calm, expectant, faithful, unshaken. Death has
come robed in the terrors of mortal pain; but what better can be said
than that as he taught his fellows how to live, so he has taught them
how to die?

"It is impossible at this hour to survey the mighty range of this
splendid life. We would assign to him the title. 'The Great Nationalist
of the Nineteenth Century;' the greatest of the master-builders of
modern England. Timidity had no place in Mr. Gladstone's soul. Ho was a
lion among men, endowed with a granite strength of will and purpose,
rare indeed in our age of feeble convictions."

The _Daily News_ says: "One of his most characteristics qualities was
his personal humility. This cannot be explained without the key, for Mr.
Gladstone did not in the ordinary meaning of the word, underrate
himself. He was not easy to persuade. He paid little attention to other
people's opinions when his mind was made up. He was quite aware of his
own ascendency in counsel and his supremacy in debate. The secret of his
humility was an abiding sense that these things were of no importance
compared with the relations between God's creatures and their Creator,
Mr. Gladstone once said with characteristic candour that he had a
vulnerable temper. He was quickly moved to indignation by whatever he
thought injurious either to himself or to others, and was incapable of
concealing his emotions, for, if he said nothing, his countenance showed
what he felt. More expressive features were never given to man.

"Mr. Gladstone's exquisite courtesy, which in and out of Parliament was
the model for all, proceeded from the same source. It was essentially
Christian. Moreover, nobody laughed more heartily over an anecdote that
was really good. He was many men in one; but he impressed all alike with
the essential greatness of his character.

"He was built mentally and morally on a large scale. Of course it cannot
be denied that such a face, such a voice, such natural dignity, and such
perfect gesture produced in themselves an immense effect. There was
nothing common-place about him. Mr. Gladstone was absolutely simple; and
his simplicity was not the least attractive element of his fascinating
personality.

"His life presented aspects of charm to all minds. His learning
captivated the scholar, his eloquence and statesmanship the politician,
his financial genius the business man; while his domestic relations and
simple human graciousness appealed to all hearts.

"'There is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel.'"

_Public Ledger_, Philadelphia: "To write Gladstone's career is to write
the history of the Victorian era and that of the closing years of the
reign of William IV, for Gladstone took his seat in Parliament for the
first time in 1832, two years after he was out of college, and
Victoria's accession took place in 1837. Since that remote day Gladstone
has been four times Premier; has delivered numberless speeches of the
highest order of excellence; has published a multitude of pamphlets and
volumes which attest consummate intellectual gifts, and has been a great
force in English statesmanship and scholarship through an exceptionally
long life and almost to the very close of it. It has been given to
exceedingly few men to play so great, so transcendent a role in any
country or at any time."