The Real Gladstone: An Anecdotal BiographyRitchie, J. Ewing (James Ewing)
History
The Real Gladstone: An Anecdotal Biography
Ritchie, J. Ewing (James Ewing)
Gladstone, W. E. (William Ewart), 1809-1898
In the House of Commons the Bill was carried triumphantly, in spite of
good debating on the part of its enemies. On the second reading, the
division was 368 for, 250 against. But it was in the Lords that the
battle was chiefly fought, when the second reading was carried, after a
debate which lasted till three in the morning, by 179 against 146. Upon
a division being called, the two English Archbishops, amid a scene of
intense excitement, retired to the steps of the throne, which are
technically not within the House; Bishop Wilberforce and several
Conservative peers withdrew. Among the Conservatives who voted with the
Government were Lord Salisbury, Lord Bath, Lord Devon, Lord Carnarvon,
and Lord Nelson. The only Bishop who voted with the Government was
Bishop Thirlwall, of St. David’s. Thirteen English and three Irish
Bishops voted on the other side. But in Committee the Lords tacked on
sixty-two amendments. _Punch_ had a clever cartoon on the occasion. The
Archbishop of Canterbury was represented as a gipsy nurse giving back a
changeling instead of the child that had been presented to him, saying,
‘Which we’ve took the greatest care of ’m, ma’m,’ while Mrs. the Prime
Minister replies, ‘This is not _my_ child—not in the least like it.’ The
Ministerialists described the Bill to be so mutilated as to be
practically useless, and the vociferous Radical cheers which greeted Mr.
Gladstone as he rose on July 15 to move that the Lords’ amendments be
considered were significant of the temper of the House. Nothing could be
more uncompromising than his speech. He made no attempt to soften down
the differences; he even accentuated their gravity, as he recounted the
amendments one by one, and called upon the House to reject the
preposterous proposals of men who had shown themselves to be as ignorant
of the feelings of the country as if they had been ‘living in a balloon.’
He insisted on the rejection of each and every clause which involved,
however indirectly, the proposal of concurrent endowment; he declined to
sanction the postponement of the date of Disestablishment; and he
declined to leave the disposal of the anticipated surplus to the wisdom
of a future Parliament. He consented, however, to allow a
reconsideration of the commutation terms, and he went further than some
of his supporters in agreeing to give the lump half-million in lieu of
the private endowments which had been so much discussed. His unyielding
attitude made the Lords furious. When the Peers met, after a debate of
quite unusual warmth, they resolved by a majority of 74 to agree to the
first and most important of their amendments—the authorization of the
principle of concurrent endowments. Lord Granville immediately adjourned
the House to take counsel with his colleagues. It seemed as if a
collision between the two Houses was inevitable. However, Mr. Gladstone
and Lord Cairns met, a compromise was effected, the danger of a collision
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account