A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

The Grand Old Man

R >> Richard B. Cook >> The Grand Old Man




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.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.