Sharnjit Sandhar
Did Gladstone Unite or Divide the Liberals?
Gladstone was undoubtedly the leading Liberal politician of his era. He supported free trade and, under his leadership, his governments passed many significant reforms, which abolished privilege and moved Britain towards a meritocracy. He did not, however, always represent the views of his Liberal supporters. As a High Churchman and a supporter of the right of the aristocracy to govern, Gladstone led a party where many opposed the privileged position of both the Church of England and the aristocracy. It did not help that inside parliament, a rift grew between Whigs and Radicals, which led to the split of 1886. Outside parliament, the Party comprised a wide variety of competing groups, each in pursuit of its own political aims. Historians such as D.A Hamer in Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery (1974) and Martin Pugh in The Making of Modern British Politics (1982) have referred to the ‘faddism’ within the Liberal Party in that the Party was susceptible to splits. Even before Gladstone had become Liberal leader, the Party split over the issue of parliamentary reform when Robert Lowe led the ‘Adullamite’ faction against Gladstone’s electoral bill in 1866. From 1873 to 1886, the Liberal party was affected by division within its ranks. Eventually the party did split, over the issue of Irish Home Rule, into two factions: the Gladstonian Liberals and the Liberal Unionists. Gladstone’s main rival was Joseph Chamberlain, he had a radically different view of which policies the Liberal Party should follow. The disunity within the party and the split of 1886 had much to do with the issue of Irish Home Rule as well as the rivalry between Gladstone and Chamberlain.
The Liberal party was often made up of many different often competing factions as well as holding Gladstone’s own political views. His own political views were sometimes in tune with the views of the majority of Liberal supporters but, at other times, were at odds with them. A central key to understanding Gladstone’s views is to realise that he was a deeply religious man who believed that his involvement in politics was related directly to his religious beliefs. Much of his stature as a politician was based on his ability to think of political problems as moral issues. His opposition to the Bulgarian Horrors, his opposition to Beaconsfieldism in 1879-80 and his campaigns on Irish issues all seemed like religious crusades. In practical terms Gladstone was a firm supporter of free trade for the whole of his life political life. Alongside this was his dislike of government interference in the lives of its citizens. As a result, Gladstone supported retrenchment thereby lowering taxation. This was combined with a constant drive to improve the efficiency of government and other national institutions. The basis of Gladstone’s view of the ‘minimalist’ state was the importance of the individual. Gladstone did not see society as a set of competing economic classes, but rather of individuals where each should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. As he stated, ‘I will always back the masses against the classes.’ This did not mean he that he was a democrat or even by the norms of the time, a social conservative. In 1878 he said ‘I am an out-and-out inequalitarian.’ He believed in rule by those individuals in society who had a tradition of service to the state and possessed sufficient wealth to be above the charge of possible corruption. He was therefore a supporter of the traditional roles of monarchy and aristocracy.
