Gladstone and Disraeli

Stephen J. Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781134349265
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: 19th Century History
• Index: History

Gladstone and Disraeli surveys and compares the careers of these two influential Prime Ministers. Stephen J. Lee examines how Gladstone and Disraeli emerged as leaders of the two leading parties and goes on to consider their time in power, analyzing many different aspects of their careers.

Using a wide variety of sources and historiography, Lee compares and contrasts the beliefs of Gladstone and Disraeli, their effect on the economy, social reform, the Irish problem and parliamentary reform, and on foreign policy.

1
GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI BEFORE 1868

BACKGROUND

Phase 1: 1812–41

British politics were controlled, from the later stages of the Napoleonic Wars until 1830, by the Tories under the premiership of Lord Liverpool (1812–27), George Canning (1827), the Earl of Goderich (1827–8) and the Duke of Wellington (1828–30). Following their victory in the 1830 general election, however, the Whigs dominated the next decade under Earl Grey (1830–4) and Lord Melbourne (1835–41). Despite a brief minority government under Robert Peel between 1834 and 1835, the Tories experienced a period of disarray as Peel tried to modernise the party’s approach and extend the basis of its appeal following the publication of his Tamworth Manifesto in 1835.

It was in this period of reconstruction that both Gladstone and Disraeli entered Parliament as Tory MPs. Their family backgrounds and their first experience of politics have both parallels and differences.

Gladstone’s father was a successful businessman, a convert from Presbyterianism to the Church of England and, from 1818, a Tory MP. The son started with evangelical beliefs but swung increasingly towards the high church and, for a while, considered a possible career in the ministry. Instead, he took a double first at Oxford in classics and mathematics, before entering the House of Commons as MP for Newark in 1832. Although initially seen as a ‘stern’ and ‘unbending’ Tory, Gladstone’s administrative ability was recognised by Peel, who gave him a junior post in the brief 1834–5 Tory government. By the end of the 1830s it was already clear that a close political partnership was being forged between Peel and Gladstone – which might transform the party once it again managed to win a general election.

Disraeli came from a Jewish business background, his grandfathers having migrated from Italy in the mid-eighteenth century. After the family’s conversion to Christianity in 1817, he seemed set for a career in law. During the 1820s, however, he became involved in financial speculation which left him badly in debt. He was also renowned as a sharp dresser with an extravagant lifestyle. He made five attempts to enter the House of Commons after 1832, finally succeeding in being elected Tory member for Maidstone in 1837. At this stage in his career he took his stand on resisting what he saw as radical and Whig attempts to undermine Britain’s key institutions – the monarchy and the Church. He failed, however, to impress and his maiden speech in the Commons was badly heckled. He tried – but failed – to gain the attention and patronage of his party leader and, by end of the 1830s, the mutual antagonism of Disraeli and Peel was already apparent. Disraeli’s prospects for future office were therefore much more limited than Gladstone’s.

Phase 2: 1841–6

In 1841 Peel’s reforms within the Tory party paid off as the newly renamed Conservatives won a forty-one-seat majority over the Whigs. In his second ministry (1841–6) Peel now focused on economic and financial reform, introducing a series of budgets which reduced duties on a variety of imports and exports. His main target, however, was the repeal of the Corn Laws of 1815 and 1828, which provided British farmers with protection against imports of cheaper foreign grain. In forcing the repeal through in 1846 Peel split the Conservative party.The protectionists defied their party leader, which meant that Peel had to rely on Whig votes to supplement those Conservatives supporting the repeal of the Corn Laws. During the crisis Gladstone and Disraeli lined up on different sides: Gladstone gave unequivocal support to Peel’s actions, while Disraeli was part of the Conservative majority opposing them.

Gladstone’s support for Peel was the logical result of a close political cooperation which was further strengthened during the 1841–6 Conservative government. As vice-president, and then president, of the Board of Trade, Gladstone was directly involved in drawing up and implementing Peel’s free-trade budgets which were designed to stimulate Britain’s manufacturing industries. But he also agreed with Peel about the need to extend the reforming measures to cover agriculture as well, even though these were opposed by the protectionist and farming interests within the party. It was Gladstone who emphasised the urgency of repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 to try to offset the economic and human disaster facing Ireland as a result of the potato famine. Economic laissez-faire therefore converged with moral principle as Gladstone and Peel risked bringing down the most productive government seen in Britain since 1800.

Disraeli’s perspective was entirely different. He had no reason to back the leader who had denied him access to government office – or, for that matter, to pursue free trade into the potentially dangerous field of agriculture. Instead, he emerged as one of the focal points of opposition to Peel. He was one of the leaders of the ‘Young England’ movement which criticised the social record of Peel’s government and, when the opportunity arose in 1846 to remove Peel, he aligned himself with the protectionists.While Gladstone had supported his leader against the party, Disraeli held with the party against its leader. The result was a parting of the ways.

Phase 3: 1846–68

Peel’s government fell in 1846. Although the support of the Whigs was sufficient to help him force through the repeal of the Corn Laws against the opposition of most of the Conservatives, he was forced to resign when the Whigs subsequently introduced a vote of no confidence on Peel’s Coercion Bill to deal with Irish disorders. For the next two decades the Whigs dominated the British political scene, as a comparison of the records of the two parties shows.The Whigs were in power under Russell (1846–52 and 1865–6) and Palmerston (1855–8 and 1859–65); they also provided most of the ministers for Aberdeen’s coalition government (1852–5). Russell was, without doubt, the most experienced politician of the period, with a pedigree that went back to the 1832 Reform Act, while Palmerston became arguably the most powerful and popular prime minister of the whole of the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, the Conservatives managed only three minority ministries (1852, 1858–9 and 1866–8), all under the Earl of Derby.The Conservatives were, of course, depleted by the permanent loss of Peel’s supporters in 1846; these proceeded to form a new political grouping known as the Peelites.This sub-party continued even after the death of Peel in 1851, and one of its members, Aberdeen, collaborated with the Whigs in his coalition government of 1852–5.

Between 1846 and 1868 there were therefore three main trends in British politics. First, the Whigs dominated under two particularly influential statesmen – Russell and Palmerston. Second, the Conservatives, under the overall leadership of Derby, did what they could to keep themselves from disintegrating, gradually establishing the base for a permanent recovery. And third, the Peelites existed for a while as a separate group of ex-Conservatives who had more in common with the Whigs and who contributed individual ministers to Whig governments. Then, in 1861 an event of particular significance took place. At the Willis’s Rooms meeting a formal alliance was drawn up between the Whigs and Peelites which became the basis of a new Whig–Liberal party. For four years this secured Palmerston’s position as the ‘great unmoveable’ in British politics. The Conservatives who had, by the 1860s, done much to put their house in order, despaired of ever being able to break his political monopoly. But shortly after Palmerston’s death in 1865 the political situation was transformed and Britain experienced two decades of more evenly balanced two-party politics. For part of this period the two great protagonists were Gladstone and Disraeli.

Each of these had played a crucial role in the political developments between 1846 and 1865. As Conservative leader in the House of Commons Disraeli had skilfully prevented further splits within the party and also persuaded it to come to terms with free trade, even if this had been a fait accompli. In doing this, he was moving away from his ultra-Conservative and protectionist roots, developing an awareness of the need to reform the party and broaden its appeal. He also gained experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Derby’s government of 1852.After the latter’s death in 1868, Disraeli became overall leader of the Conservative party and, for a few months in 1868, Prime Minister. His rival by this time was Gladstone, who had taken over the leadership of the Whig–Liberals in 1867. Between 1846 and 1852 he had been in the political wilderness, before joining Aberdeen’s coalition government as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1862. In 1859 he played an important part in fusing the Whigs and Peelites into the Liberals, also serving with distinction as Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1859 and 1865.

The new dominance of Gladstone and Disraeli was established by the next three general elections. In 1868 Gladstone’s Liberals won a majority of 116 seats; Disraeli reversed this in 1874 through a 39-seat victory for the Conservatives, before Gladstone regained the initiative in 1880 with a Liberal majority of 64. For a while, at least, two-party politics had returned to Britain.

ANALYSIS 1: COMPARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO BRITISH POLITICS BETWEEN 1832 AND 1868 BY GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI.

Gladstone and Disraeli made a variety of contributions, the extent and value of which may be compared under three main criteria. The first two are their service in public office and the contribution they made to the party of their origin, especially their subsequent role in redefining party politics. Third, a comparison should also be drawn between their ideas and the way in which they tried to enhance the political image of the parties they led by 1868.

Before 1867 both men had experience of public office, although Gladstone had served longer and in more roles than Disraeli. Gladstone was, for example, an important member of the ministries of Peel, Aberdeen, Palmerston and Russell – as President of the Board of Trade (1843–5), Colonial Secretary (1845–6) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (1852–5 and 1859–66). Disraeli’s experience was confined to three spells as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Derby (1852, 1858–9 and 1866–8). Disraeli’s opportunity was, admittedly, reduced by the comparative weakness of the Conservative political performance between 1846 and 1866, while Gladstone’s experience was greatly enhanced by the ascendancy of the Whigs during the same period. Disraeli’s experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer was also combined with the office of Leader of the Commons, a significant role which evaded Gladstone.

The contributions of Gladstone and Disraeli to party politics differed fundamentally. The first contrast is in their role within the party of their origin – the Conservatives. The defining influence appears to have been the leadership and ideas of Robert Peel, Prime Minister in 1834 and 1841–6. Although initially ‘the rising hope of the stern, unbending Tories’, Gladstone was won over by Peel’s more progressive approach – especially over economic policy. There was a strong affinity between the two politicians which meant that Gladstone was a natural inclusion in Peel’s second cabinet and provided consistent support for the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Disraeli, by contrast, found himself excluded by Peel from government office. By the early 1840s he was firmly established as a volatile critic of Peel’s economic ideas and played a major part in the revolt of Conservative backbenchers against the government policy on the Corn Laws. Gladstone followed Peel’s brand of Conservatism – but to the point of the destruction of party unity in 1846. Disraeli had the reverse effect, dividing the party during Peel’s ascendancy but staying with the majority who opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Gladstone departed with his leader from the party; Disraeli, in defying his leader, forced the latter’s departure but kept together what was left of the party between 1846 and 1866. Both, therefore, had unifying and divisive influences, although chronologically in the opposite order.

The year 1846 represents a watershed in redefining party politics in the nineteenth century, with Gladstone and Disraeli heading the flow in opposite directions. Gladstone spent the next decade outside political parties, belonging rather to a Peelite splinter group which gradually shrank in size. Disraeli remained within the Conservative party and, as its leader in the Commons, played an important role in holding it together during the period 1846–66. Gladstone, meanwhile, helped to bring about a fundamental party realignment. In 1859 he brought the Peelites into a permanent alliance with the Whigs and Radicals to form what was soon to become known as the Liberal party. Both Gladstone and Disraeli were, for a while, overshadowed by more traditional aristocrats. The Conservatives were led by the Earl of Derby, who formed three minority governments (1852, 1858–9 and 1866–8), the Whigs by Lord Palmerston, who dominated British politics as Prime Minister (1855–8 and 1859–65). Disraeli and Gladstone were very much their subordinates and, although they provided many of the progressive ideas of their respective parties, were in no position to implement them fully until Derby’s retirement in 1868 and Palmerston’s death in 1865. The relationship between Disraeli and Derby was generally harmonious: both had been strong opponents of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, only to accept free trade in the 1850s as a fait accompli. There was also close cooperation between them over the 1867 Reform Act. By contrast, Gladstone and Palmerston were frequent antagonists, whether over foreign policy or over the extension of the franchise.

This brings us to the next key contribution which can be attributed to both Gladstone and Disraeli – the broadening of the base of support for their respective parties. Gladstone contributed to a new consensus among the more progressive elements in politics: this involved a coalition of Peelites and Whigs under Aberdeen (1852–5), with the inclusion of the Radicals as well in Palmerston’s second ministry (1859–65). Gladstone’s influence was pivotal in transforming ad hoc coalition governments into a permanent coalition party and he was well placed as a new moderate amongst old Whigs and old Radicals. He also pressed for the expansion of the electorate to support the Liberal claim to be the natural force for progress. Meanwhile, Disraeli was providing a similar boost to Conservative appeal. He prevented his party from retreating into the reactionary and entrenched rump of a once larger body. Instead, he aimed to give the Conservatives a vision which involved competing with the Whigs. The latter he considered corrupt oligarchs who had ‘no object but their own aggrandisement’. Conservatism, by contrast, was more in the interest of the nation as a whole, since it would appeal ‘with a keener sympathy to the passions of the millions’. But the implementation of ‘Tory democracy’ would involve a layer of voters from the upper working class – which Disraeli achieved through the Second Reform Act (1867). The overall trend, especially during the 1860s, was for Gladstone and Disraeli to extend their parties’ bases, each hoping to undermine the other in the process.

Both statesmen added substantially to the ideas which underlay political action in the mid-nineteenth century. Both were conscious of widespread exploitation and presented a case for measured reform. Disraeli’s contrast between rich and deprived in the Two Nations provided a case for measured social reform, eventually attempted between 1874 and 1880. Gladstone’s focus was more on the corruption within institutions, his chance to deal with these coming in his first ministry (1868–74). Neither envisaged a radical break with the past – but rather a process of regeneration. All this would be accomplished within the political framework either of ‘Tory Democracy’ or ‘Gladstonian Liberalism’. In the sector of economics, Gladstone made the earlier impression, embedding laissez-faire principles within the Peelite–Whig– Radical coalition and making free trade a fundamental Liberal policy. Disraeli’s approach was more pragmatic – but he came to accept free trade in the 1850s and managed to persuade the Conservatives of its inevitability. This meant that the policies pursued as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Gladstone (1852–5 and 1859–65) and Disraeli (1852, 1848–9 and 1866–8) were often complementary.

The middle third of the nineteenth century therefore saw major political trends, with which Gladstone and Disraeli were closely associated – often in direct opposition to each other. Depending on the perspective used, the roles of the two men can be seen as either positive or negative – or both. It would, however, be hard to argue that they were unimportant.

Questions

1. Disraeli’s contribution to the Conservative party before 1868 was constructive, while Gladstone’s was destructive. Do you agree?
2. Who contributed more to extending the popular base of party politics before 1868 – Gladstone or Disraeli?

ANALYSIS 2: HOW AND WHY HAVE INTERPRETATIONS DIFFERED ABOUT THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI BEFORE 1868?

The year 1868 is a crucial date in the history of Gladstone and Disraeli, of Liberalism and Conservatism. It was the year in which Disraeli succeeded Derby as Prime Minister, only to give way to Gladstone following the Liberal party’s victory over the Conservatives in a general election. It also initiated a period of two-party politics. But the very notion of a post-1868 rivalry between two parties equipoised under two combative leaders automatically raises the question as to what role these leaders had been playing within their parties before 1868.

How have they been interpreted?

There are two main perspectives on what Gladstone and Disraeli contributed before 1868 towards the development of their parties as they existed by 1868. The first is based on an assumption that they were directl...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Introduction
• Acknowledgements
• Outline Chronology of Ministerial Posts
• 1 Gladstone and Disraeli Before 1868
• 2 The Ideas of Gladstone and Disraeli
• 3 Social, Economic and Institutional Reforms
• 4 Constitutional Reform
• 5 Foreign Policy
• 6 Imperialism and Empire
• 7 Ireland
• 8 Gladstone, Disraeli and Their Political Parties
• Notes
• Select Bibliography