Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:59:16.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gladstone on Liberty and Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Extract

It is well known that Gladstone entered Parliament in 1832 as a conservative and a Tory, and ended his Parliamentary career as leader of the Liberal Party. As late as 1839 Macaulay could call him “the rising hope of … stern and unbending Tories.” What was the reason for his change of position? Did he merely drift with Peel, or was there some positive principle which led him to liberalism? There is much in his notebooks to suggest the latter. It is the purpose of this brief article to discuss this change, and to examine the position which Gladstone came to accept in later life. It will also be necessary to relate his notion of liberty to the ideas of democracy and equality which he entertained. Although it cannot be claimed that Gladstone was a political philosopher, he did hold a series of principles and an understanding of them is essential for a correct interpretation of his actions as a statesman.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Morley, JohnThe Life of W. E. Gladstone (London, 1903), III, 474475Google Scholar.

2 Historical Essays (London, 1913), p. 335Google Scholar.

3 British Museum, Additional Manuscripts, 44721:68Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., 44723:107.

5 “Colonial subjects … made a breach in my Toryism.” Ibid., 44790:44.

6 Morley, , op. cit., I, 360364, passimGoogle Scholar.

7 The State in its Relations with the Church (4th ed., London, 1841), p. 85Google Scholar.

8 B.M. Add MSS, 44791:46–7.

9 Ibid., 44790:35. Cf. also a speech to the Palmerston Club in Oxford in 1878. Morley, , op. cit., I, 60Google Scholar.

10 B.M., Add MSS, 44681:23Google Scholar.

11 Morley, , op. cit., I, 129Google Scholar.

12 The State in its Relations with the Church (1st ed., London, 1838), p. 72Google Scholar.

13 “To impose a religion is one thing to provide one is another. The conception of the State is different in the two cases.” B.M. Add MSS, 44094:41.

14 Ibid., 44791:14–15.

15 Ibid., 44791:48.

16 Ibid., 44360:70–1.

17 Church Principles Considered in Their Results (London, 1840), pp. 496fGoogle Scholar.

18 Figgis, J. N.Churches in the Modern State (London, 1913), p. 45Google Scholar.

19 Quarterly Review, CIX (07, 1857), 283Google Scholar.

20 Contemporary Review, XXX (06, 1876), 13Google Scholar.

21 Macdonnell, J. C.The Life and Correspondence of W. C. Magee (London, 1896), II, 194Google Scholar.

22 House of Commons Debates, 20th June, 1849.

23 H.C. Deb., 20th July, 1869.

24 Church Principles, p. 502.

25 B.M. Add MSS, 44725:196.

26 Edinburgh Review, XCII (04, 1852), 368Google Scholar.

27 B.M. Add MSS, 44777:14.

28 Ibid., 44722:196.

29 Speech at Greenwich (London, 1871), p. 25Google Scholar.

30 Acton declared “that aristocracy is necessary to liberty, that rights are not safe without privileges, that liberty is inconsistent with equality.” This is from a document owned by Mr. Douglas Woodruff, who kindly let me look through some of the Acton MSS in his possession.

31 B.M. Add MSS, 44721:6.

32 The Political Correspondence of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville (London, 1952), I, 56Google Scholar.

33 Liberty Equality Fraternity(London, 1874), p. 31Google Scholar.

34 Morley, , op. cit., III, 123Google Scholar.

35 B.M. Add MSS, 44721:13.

36 Ibid., 44093:26.

37 Morley, , op. cit., II, 7173Google Scholar.

38 B.M. Add MSS, 44791:40.

39 Ibid., 44094:4.

40 Morley, , op. cit., III, 58Google Scholar.

41 “Don't suspect me of denying the principle of nationality altogether. Only if I were to say as much as you say, I should be afraid of being driven to admit the priority of national independence before individual liberty—of the figurative conscience before the real. We do not find that nationalists are always liberals, especially in Austria. We may pursue several objects, we may wear many principles, but we cannot have two courts of final appeal.” B.M. Add MSS, 44094:13.

42 Morley, , op. cit., I, 402Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., I, 204.