Whatever made him a Conservative, it was clear that he was one, by his reactions to proposed reforms introduced in the 1830s. Paul Adelman points out in his article from Modern History Review that Gladstone opposed every single proposed reform by the Whigs during the 1830s. However, towards the end of the 1830s and during the early 1840s Gladstone starts to move towards the free trade side of politics, something which would be completely against his Conservative roots.
So why does Gladstone start to move towards free trade and become a Peelite in 1846? Roy Jenkins suggests that Gladstone was a political heir to Peel, and therefore I would make sense that he would become a Peelite, Jenkins quotes Morley in saying, “we must not forget that Peel and Mr Gladstone were in the strict line of political succession.” Jenkins also observes that, “Gladstone also proudly called himself a Peelite for a full decade after the death of the eponym”, something only a true Peelite would do.
Biagini comments on Gladstone’s moving to free trade, “Gladstone’s move towards tariff reform proved an important step towards Liberalism. However, at the time, and for years after the party had split, he regarded himself as a ‘Free Trade Conservative’. So, if we consider this, maybe Gladstone’s change to a Peelite is just another step towards Liberalism without actually going the whole way there yet. Abbott however suggests that Gladstone was always a Peelite, even when in the Liberal party, “In some fundamental respects he remained a Peelite throughout his career, though from 1864-68 he adopted an ambiguously democratic rhetoric in an attempt to modernize the Peel Aberdeen government tradition and adapt it to the new realities of the extended franchise.” Looking at this quote, we can see that Abbott is suggesting that Gladstone is always a Peelite, even once he joins the Liberal Party, and he is always trying to adapt the Peel and Aberdeen method for the new conditions. This shows his devotion to Peel throughout his career.
Gladstone really showed his support for Peel when he supported Peel over the Maynooth Grant. Although he voted with Peel, he then resigned over the matter. Paterson thinks this is because he is still showing support for his previous beliefs, supporting his book, and yet he is still showing his support for Peel by voting on his side. It is as if he is still unable to decide whether he wants to be an Conservative, or move to become a Peelite, and he seems to take a compromise between the two, vote like a Peelite, but act as he should as Conservative afterwards.
Perhaps also, he moved to the side of Peel after the split in the corn laws because he felt sympathetic for him. Duncan Watts writes that by 1843 he was “very sympathetic to Peel, and he only differed with him on Church matters and on the problems of the West Indian planters.” And when the party does split, Gladstone stays with Peel, and shows that he is growing some tolerance for reform. Watts again points out that, “he voted for the admission of the Jews to the House of Commons in 1847 and for the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849.” These actions were something that we would certainly not expect from the old Gladstone, so it is clear that his opinions on politics are changing.
However, when Peel dies, Gladstone is left rather with his fellow Peelites without a leader, and so Gladstone is left in the wilderness somewhat. On Peel’s death, there is no clear leader to take over the Peelites, and it seems that the Peelites are going to have to decide whether they want to join the Conservatives, who they split from 4 years before, and the Liberals, who they had always opposed. But at this stage, we are already seeing signs of Gladstone’s Liberalism (which, as we know is where he eventually goes) so this hints to us that he will eventually join the Liberal party.
But what does he spend the next nine years deciding? HCG Matthews thinks that “In purely tactical political terms, the years 1855-59 were the most personally complex in Gladstone’s career”, so Matthews clearly sees this as no easy decision to make. Gladstone does seem to find this decision very hard, Matthews continues to say, “His personal inclination in the period 1855 to 1859 lay on the whole with the Conservatives whom he saw as less capricious than Palmerston.” So we should maybe be asking, was Palmerston putting Gladstone off joining the Liberals, and was he the only reason Gladstone does not join them straight away.
Michael Winstanley notes that, back in 1852, Gladstone had said he would be happier, “on the liberal side of the Conservative party than the conservative side of the Liberal party.” So, if Matthews is right in thinking that Gladstone is leaning towards the Liberal party, he clearly has changed his opinion in the years 1852-58. Gladstone does then say in 1858, a quote which supports Matthews belief, that he had “no broad differences of principle from the party opposite” a quote which suggests that something had happened between 1852 and 1858 which made him change his mind a little.
Abbott suggests that maybe even in 1851, after Gladstone returns from his trip to Florence, he is leaning to the Liberal side. Abbott writes, “It was on the continent that the contrast between Liberalism and autocracy could be seen sharp and clear, and it was through his visits to the continent that Gladstone perceived the road he was to tread.” Abbott goes on to explain how Gladstone’s watching of a public trial made him think about the ideas of Liberalism more deeply, and perhaps swung him to the side of the Liberals. Paterson also notes this trip’s importance when he describes it as, “A central event in the more general development of Gladstone’s liberal thought,” so this was certainly no mere holiday, it almost certainly influenced his political thoughts.
Another opinion voiced by several historians is that the main reason Gladstone joins the Liberals is because he thinks they have more chance of getting into power. Winstanley makes this point when he says, “If he [Gladstone] was to achieve anything in politics, he had to possess power and the Tories seemed to offer little prospect of that in the foreseeable future.” We know that Gladstone originally went into politics ahead of going into the church because he felt he could make more impact on the lives of the people he wanted in politics. For Gladstone to achieve anything, power was almost essential.
However, Gladstone did not only care about having his party in power, he felt he needed to be in charge of the party which he would stand for, that way he could make the most impact. Woodward, when explaining why Gladstone joined the Liberals in 1859, points out “Palmerston was 74 and Russell 67, while Disraeli was only 54.” So Woodward clearly thinks that Gladstone was influenced by the fact that Palmerston and Russell would be moving on far sooner than Disraeli would be. Matthews draws our attention to the importance of Gladstone’s actions in 1858 saying, “His failure to join Derby in 1858 was crucial, for, if he was again to hold office, there was no alternative left for him but to join the government of 1859.” We must ask ourselves whether Gladstone just felt that 1858 was too soon for him to make a decision, and he actually just makes the decision to join Palmerston in 1859 just because he needs to satisfy his ambition of being in power again.
Most of the historians cover the topic of the rivalry between Gladstone and his lifelong nemesis, Disraeli. It was obvious that neither of them liked the other, and the fact that Disraeli was in the Conservative party may have played a very significant role in Gladstone deciding where he would move from the Peelites. We know that Gladstone thought little of Palmerston, he even said, Matthews observes, “dishonour is the greatest characteristic of his [Palmerston’s] government.” However, it seems that Gladstone saw Palmerston as the ‘lesser of two evils’. Woodward says, “He [Gladstone] disliked Disraeli because he thought that Disraeli had no respect for authority in secular or spiritual matters”. Winstanley writes that Gladstone said he had “a strong sentiment of revulsion from Disraeli personally.” Hardly someone with whom you would want to work, especially fight against for the leadership of the Conservative party. Gladstone covers this point specifically when Matthews tells us that Gladstone felt, “unable to enter into ant squabble or competition with him for the possession of a post of prominence.” So clearly, the primary quotes alone suggest that Gladstone had great dislike for Disraeli, and the historians make this point stronger by supporting the manner in which we interpret Gladstone’s feelings.
Therefore, the combination of the above factors lead to Gladstone joining the Liberal party in 1859 under Palmerston, who was aged 74. In spite of this, was he really Liberal? Alternatively, was it just a way of getting to be the Prime Minister, a privilege, which eventually came to him in 1868? To answer this, we must briefly look at what historians have said about him once he gets into power.
Woodward seems to think that it is not so much Gladstone that has changed to fit the Liberal party, but actually the party that has changed to fit him. He says, “The anti-religious liberalism which he [Gladstone] opposed in his early career was very far removed from the liberalism he adopted in his later years.” Nonetheless, perhaps the most obvious commitment to Liberalism was the enthusiasm with which he tried to pass a new Reform Act before the Conservatives managed in 1867. The ferocity with which he had opposed the 1832 Reform Act had all but gone, and he does seem to have completely changed his political opinion.
Gladstone was brought up to be a Tory by both of his parents, the religious intolerance coming from his mother especially, and this Toryism was then further nurtured and encouraged by his time at Eton and then his university life at Oxford. However, Gladstone seems to spend the rest of his political career, or rather his entire life, trying to fight back against this Conservatism, which he had been taught from an early age. His steps towards Free Trade and ‘Free Thinking’ showed that he was overcoming what had been imprinted upon him as a child. His trips to Europe certainly taught him a lot about Nationalism, and this too seemed to free his mind to new ideas. By the end of his political career, he seemed to have almost completely shaken off his Conservative views, and although he still believed in some of his old Tory views, such as thinking there was a class born to govern, there was no Tory party to go back to anymore. It was perhaps the years of the 1850s that affected him the most where he could have gone either way, to the Conservatives or the Liberals. But only a true Liberal could ever persuade the masses that he was fighting for them, and it was a Liberal the people were supporting when they were voting for ‘The People’s William’.
