Essay on William Ewart Gladstone.

I’m currently struggling to find it in me to spend another second staring at my laptop screen, as I’m being pelted with constant essays, proposals and the need to rid my computer of malware. So, as I don’t relish the thought of sitting down and writing much this week, I thought I’d upload one of my essays from my 2nd year of reading History on William Ewart Gladstone.

William Ewart Gladstone’s policies towards Ireland were motivated by ‘sheer political opportunism’. Discuss.

William Gladstone’s time in office in 1886 was plagued with discontent from and towards the Irish nation. His policies towards Ireland were mainly composed of rights for land owners and tenant farmers and his attempt to grant Home Rule, which stemmed from a patriotic root leading back into the 17^th century.[1] Given that Gladstone was a Liberal politician, known to cycle the streets of London attempting to rehabilitate women forced into prostitution, it could be suggested that he decided that the people of Ireland deserved sovereignty, however it has been suggested by Arthur Reeves and Marjorie Bloy that in the 1880 election campaign, Gladstone ignored Ireland completely.[2] This essay will examine whether Gladstone’s policies towards Ireland were founded on his genuine concern or purely for political reasons.

When quoting J. L. Hammond’s work on Gladstone, George Boyce and Alan O’Day agreed that what set Gladstone apart from other politicians who were heavily engaged with Ireland was his ‘powerful and sustained moral purpose. This was a good man doing good things’.[3] Boyce and O’Day then reinforce this suggestion by citing excerpts from Gladstone Diaries, confirming the ‘persistent and sweeping nature of Gladstone’s Irish concerns’.[4] This can be verified as during the 1880s, the British Government turned their attention towards Ireland almost fully by focusing on, for example, the Land Act of 1881, in addition to this the Queen’s Speech in 1880 highlighted the government’s intent to abolish the Peace Preservation Act for Ireland, in favour of ‘enabling the Irish people to show that they also were as fit for just and equal law as Englishmen and Scotchmen’.[5] This evidence is crucial as it displays the tenacious will of Gladstone’s government to ensure equality in the treatment of Ireland, therefore suggesting that his Irish policies were not actually motivated by political opportunism, but by a genuine care.

On the other hand, the suggestion could be posed that in fact Gladstone was motivated somewhat by political opportunism when introducing the Land Act, which can be gathered from the timing of its introduction, which coincided with the boycotting from tenants encouraged by Charles Parnell in 1881.[6] One argument here could be that this was simply a quick answer to crush support for the Home Rule Party, which is further supported by the fact that The Land Act did not engage with all of the problems faced by tenants, as under the act landlords could still raise the rental fees and evict tenants, many of whom were unable to pay during financially challenging periods.[7] The amalgamation of these factors forms the basis of the argument that the Land Act was a prime example of political opportunism as it was simply introduced to prevent difficulties which were attributed to the Home Rule Party and it was a quick solution which did not solve all the issues which tenants struggled with.

One element of Gladstone’s political career which much be assessed here is the Home Rule Bill of 1886. This was very much the work of Gladstone, as his own Ministers as well as Irish MPs were not involved in drafting the bill, which was introduced shortly after the Purchase of Land Act in 1885.[8] The pretext to this bill could be interpreted as evidence suggesting very strongly that Gladstone was not simply an opportunist, as one direct result of the Home Rule Bill was the resignation of Trade Board President, Joseph Chamberlain who then formed a separate group of Liberal Unionists.[9] Therefore it could be suggested that Gladstone was more than aware of the fact that the bill would be met with scorn from his cabinet, and indeed that a possible consequence could have been the resignation of some of its members. Having said this, one could argue that his will to put it to parliament regardless of what his peers thought does suggest that he was motivated by morality. This interpretation of Gladstone’s actions is also shared by Christopher Harvie, who displays the importance of Gladstone’s will to pass the Home Rule Bill through parliament even without support from his own party. Harvie notes that many of the academic liberals who initially supported reforms in Ireland eventually joined Chamberlain and the unionists.[10] This is evidence in favour of the suggestion that Gladstone suffered a considerable loss of support in order to fulfil his commitment to the Irish people.

Having said this, one could pose the suggestion that Gladstone was intent on suppressing Ireland. Evidence of this is that towards the end of 1884, the expiry date of the Prevention of Crime acts was fast approaching, and was replaced by the Coercion Act, which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to declare a district ‘disturbed’ and therefore introduce curfews etc. Tomas A. O’Riordan & Gillian M. Doherty seem to suggest that many of the measures here introduced were to ‘keep the country quiet’, such as a lengthening of how long suspects could be detained before trial and forcing inhabitants of ‘disturbed’ districts to pay for extra police in the area.[11] Furthermore, it could be suggested this was in order to force those campaigning for Home Rule to cause less trouble by convincing them that it would be at their own expense to disrupt the political establishment.

There is of course a school of thought suggesting very strongly that Gladstone was a political opportunist, particularly in regards to Ireland. This can be highlighted by the fact that having controversially dissolved parliament in 1874, Gladstone began an attempt to appeal more to the masses by proposing the abolition of income tax and improving the local levels of government in Ireland for the Irish people.[12] In reference to this move, Richard Shannon suggests that ‘something with more bite was needed, he felt, to help save the Liberal seats there.’[13] Following this, Gladstone selected Lord Fermoy to draft an Irish Sub Manifesto, although notably only doing so having considered that Home Rule could potentially lighten the burden of work for Westminster yet still have no effect on the union.[14] This portrays Gladstone as a man whose sole intention was to gain and keep seats for the Liberal party without actually losing power over Ireland.

Opposing this view however, is that of Edmund Curtis. Curtis claims that ‘Mr. Gladstone had become a friend of Ireland, determined to do what he could do to redress the injustice of centuries including the union.’[15] Curtis then goes on to back up this statement by bringing into focus Gladstone’s introduction of the Land Act in 1870, paying particular attention to the fact that this gave legal force to Ulster and protected tenants from ‘unjust forms of ejectment.’[16] It is worth noting that this act had little effect however, further illustrating Gladstone’s will to improve Ireland is the 1881 Land Act which granted the tenants fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale.[17] This could perhaps be viewed as an extension of the 1870 Land Act which allowed tenants to sell the interest on their holdings and receive payment for any improvements they had made.

Also reinforcing Curtis’ sympathetic and supportive view of Gladstone is W. D. Hussey, who suggests that Gladstone understood that democratic acts passed regarding the well-being of Ireland were useful in preventing social unrest and discrimination as well as political inequalities.[18] Hussey informs us that Gladstone’s reputation in Ireland was positive amongst vast proportions of the population. In fact, he even goes as far as to suggest that to millions of Irish people, Gladstone was a ‘hero’.[19] This would make sense as the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881 certainly improved the rights of tenants, and it is also noticeable that there was no obvious political credit to be obtained here (other than electoral support, but by this logic it could be suggested that every single act ever passed through parliament was driven by political opportunism). Due to this, it seems appropriate to suggest that these policies were not motivated by political opportunism. Further supporting the suggestion that Gladstone had a genuine care for the people of Ireland is the fact that religion was central to his life. Reinforcing this idea is Paul Adelman, who cites Gladstone’s integral concepts when tackling the issues facing Ireland; ‘God… truth and justice.’[20]

Having highlighted the alleged morality stemming from Gladstone’s religion, there is a school of thought suggesting that this was one of Gladstone’s flaws. Upon coming into office, Gladstone wrote in his diary ‘The Almighty seems to spare and sustain me’.[21] Keith Feiling’s view is that Gladstone’s thoughts were ‘theological’ and that like many moralists of ‘the old Oxford sort… he confused his own mighty voice with the small voice of Divine command.’[22] Feiling informs that Gladstone took short cuts which were indefensible, and then goes on to discuss Gladstone’s disestablishment of the Irish Church, suggesting that this was in response to an increase in racial tensions and Fenian violence such as the raid in Canada in 1867.[23] Despite Feiling’s obvious reservations regarding Gladstone’s Church Act, Edmund Curtis appears to believe that the Irish Church only commanded the allegiance of only an eighth of the population, as it contended with Roman and Presbyterian elements, although it was powerful with the upper classes.[24] Here we can observe two opposing opinions from different historians on Gladstone’s disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. This essay suggests that the intention and indeed the result of this act was the suppression of nationalist violence. This is supported by the fact that many politicians at the time agreed that the Church was ‘impossible to defend’.[25]

Having assessed the arguments in favour of and against the suggestion that Gladstone’s policies towards Ireland were motivated purely by political opportunism, it would seem appropriate to conclude that his policies were in fact much more driven by his commitment to the Irish people. Whilst it cannot be disputed that of course Gladstone did benefit from many of his decisions, it does not seem that he acted with the rewards in mind. It appears that his conduct can be attributed mainly to his very sincere sense of religion and morality; as Richard Shannon fittingly described Gladstone as a ‘phenomenon in his time among the political classes: wielding the mandate of heaven in an age of burgeoning democracy.’[26]

Bibliography

Books:

• Paul Adelman, Gladstone, Disraeli and Later Victorian Politics (Essex, 1970)
• George Boyce & Alan O’Day, Gladstone and Ireland, Politics, Religion and Nationality in the Victorian Age (Hampshire, 2010)
• Edmund Curtis, A History of Ireland (London, 1936)
• Keith Feiling, A History of England, From the Coming of the English to 1918 (London, 1969)
• D Hussey, British History 1815-1939 (Cambridge, 1971)
• Alvin Jackson, Home Rule: An Irish History 1800-2000 (New York, 2003),
• Richard Shannon, Gladstone, Heroic Minister 1865-1898 (London, 1999)

 

Journals:

• O. Arnold-Forster, ‘The Gladstone Government and Ireland’ The North American Review, (1881)
• Christopher Harvie, ‘Ideology and Home Rule: James Bryce, A. V. Dicey and Ireland, 1880-1887’, The English Historical Review, (1976)
• Michael Morrogh, ‘Mr Gladstone & Ireland’, English Historical Review, (2001)

 

Websites:

• ‘Gladstone and Ireland 1880-1886’, Dr. Marjorie Bloy & Arthur Reeves, accessed on: 09/03/14 at http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/gladire2.htm
• Tomas A. O’Riordan & Gillian M. Doherty, ‘Home Rule- The Elections of 1885 & 1886’, accessed on 10/03/14 at http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886#11Gladstone8217sHomeRuleBill

[1] Alvin Jackson, Home Rule: An Irish History 1800-2000 (New York, 2003), pp. 3-10.

[2] ‘Gladstone and Ireland 1880-1886’, Dr. Marjorie Bloy & Arthur Reeves, accessed on: 09/03/14 at http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/gladire2.htm

[3] George Boyce & Alan O’Day, Gladstone and Ireland, Politics, Religion and Nationality in the Victorian Age (Hampshire, 2010) p. 1.

[4] Boyce & O’Day, Gladstone and Ireland, p. 2.

[5] H. O. Arnold-Forster, ‘The Gladstone Government and Ireland’ The North American Review, (1881) p. 561.

[6] Michael Morrogh, ‘Mr Gladstone & Ireland’, English Historical Review, (2001), p.20

[7] W.D Hussey, British History 1815-1939 (Cambridge, 1971), p.185.

[8] Jackson, Home Rule, p. 69.

[9] Tomas A. O’Riordan & Gillian M. Doherty, ‘Home Rule- The Elections of 1885 & 1886’, accessed on 09/03/14 at http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886#11Gladstone8217sHomeRuleBill

[10] Christopher Harvie, ‘Ideology and Home Rule: James Bryce, A. V. Dicey and Ireland, 1880-1887’, The English Historical Review, (1976), p.300

[11] Tomas A. O’Riordan & Gillian M. Doherty, ‘Home Rule- The Elections of 1885 & 1886’, accessed on 10/03/14 at http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886#11Gladstone8217sHomeRuleBill

[12] Richard Shannon, Gladstone, Heroic Minister 1865-1898 (London, 1999) pp. 136-137.

[13] Shannon, Gladstone, p. 137.

[14] Shannon, Gladstone, p. 137.

[15] Edmund Curtis, A History of Ireland (London, 1936) p. 375.

[16] Curtis, A History of Ireland, p. 375.

[17] Curtis, A History of Ireland, pp. 375-376.

[18] Hussey, British History, p.159

[19] Hussey, British History, p.159.

[20] Paul Adelman, Gladstone, Disraeli and Later Victorian Politics (Essex, 1970), p.41

[21] Keith Feiling, A History of England, From the Coming of the English to 1918 (London, 1969) p. 938.

[22] Feiling, A History of England. P. 938.

[23] Feiling, A History of England. P. 938.

[24] Curtis, A History of Ireland, pp. 373-374.

[25] Feiling, A History of England. P. 938.

[26] Shannon, Gladstone, p. xvii

Dapper’s Last Laugh

The short lived, viral phenomenon Dapper Laughs’ creator Daniel O’Reilly has this week stated that ‘Dapper Laughs is gone’. No doubt music to the ears of the angry petition signers, who in their thousands pushed to have the controversial television show Dapper Laughs: On The Pull scrapped from ITV. Maybe this is a testament to the will and the voice of the outraged… if you’re not happy with it, then criticize it, and it might just change for the better. I however, cannot help but think that there are two arguments to this story, one of which has been scarcely voiced by comparison. Ahh, apart from the foul mouthed, intellectually bereft Twitter postings from some of those who came to the defence of Mr. Laughs when he came under heavy fire from critics of course. This was observed by many. 

The show has been described as ‘A rapist’s almanac’, ‘unpleasant sexism’ and as ‘inciting harassment and violence’. I do not seek to necessarily obliterate these points (they are difficult to disagree with for anyone who is familiar with the show). What I have observed though is that these comments do come with issues of their own. For instance, surely it is a given that modern comedy will push the boundaries of what is acceptable to say (emphasis on ‘say’… not do) and what is not. After all, Jimmy Carr’s well known jibes containing a similar amount of sexism and jokes concerning rape have not cost him his position as one of the panel show’s hosts and familiar faces. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand still enjoy their large fan basis and TV chat shows after their public harassment of Andrew Sachs, even Roy Chubby Brown still releases DVD’s every now and then! The point here is that to single out Dapper Laughs for scorn seems to be an act of bowing the head to fashionable hatred, whilst not really challenging the nature of the ‘comedy’ but merely an individual proponent of the controversy. How can an argument against Mr. O’Reilly be even remotely coherent if it is not made on the same scale, about our other well-known offensive comedians? Why not go even further, surely if this case can be made against Dapper Laughs then the same can be said for any film portraying unfavourable treatment of women, or harassment of any kind. 

I think that this shows that a large portion of the contempt for Dapper’s jokes are based on the fact that he does not come across as someone who would stand up much to scrutiny very well; an easy target he has become, for people who seek to use him as a pin-up for a cult which they despise and (understandably) wish to attack. Jimmy Carr and Russell Brand are far too lovable, and adored too much by too much of the nation to suffer any long term consequences for their equally reprehensible jokes and acts, Mr. Laughs however being new to the scene, not appearing to be a man of great wit never really had a chance of getting away with a slap on the wrist.

I think it is also possible to take offence to some of the criticisms made of the act. For example, the vine in which O’Reilly claims he knows a great technique for quickly getting the bra off a woman, and then reveals that it is to hold a knife to the woman and order her to lift up her shirt. Nobody could defend this beastly act of barbarism actually happening in real life, and like a lot of comedy it is perfectly reasonable to find this offensive, criticize it and openly condemn it. The purpose here is not to say that this should be allowed to go without critique, but surely this cannot be legitimately described as the ‘incitement of harassment and violence’? (As it was when O’Reilly appeared on Newsnight). This is no such thing; it falls under the category of a joke. Like the classic one liner, it forces you to make a specific, and intended assumption, relying on nothing but simple wording. It then reveals that the assumption you made was entirely your own, and that the comedian essentially tricked you into misunderstanding the situation described. None of this trickery is revealed until the last line of the joke. This is exactly what has been happening for decades, this is exactly happened in the vine video in which this ‘incitement’ was seen, and therefore regardless of how offensive or immoral it is, it can be classified as a joke due to its structure. The joke of course relies on the good will and common sense of the audience to know not to take this seriously, perhaps this could be labelled as a criticism as not everybody will be able to so easily see the difference between what they see as a joke, and harassment, however the same problem applies. This is not only a criticism for Mr. Laughs, it can be said for anyone who makes jokes about ugly topics.

Another problem with the argument which in essence blames Dapper Laughs for ‘rape culture’, is that to do so is to absolve the rapists themselves of their responsibility for their own actions, sin and wickedness. The people who commit these terrible atrocities do so knowingly and without the involvement of media trends and performers, and it appears that it would be wiser to emphasise the blame on them for their evil doings, ensure that all the contempt is directed at those responsible, and be sure to distinguish between this kind of savagery, and the low level buffoonery of a comedian. Shout dissatisfaction with the stupidity of this performer, but do not take the blame off the criminals, by dividing it between them and Dapper Laughs. He treats these situations with mammoth levity, but he does not aid them in taking place.

Finally, one of the more notable comments on Dapper Laughs was made on the Huffington Post website, suggesting that (apologies in advance for the offensive and graphic language used here) Dapper Laughs has ‘contributed to a prevalent predatory culture that reduces women to nothing more than a piece of c***’. I think the problem with this statement is obvious, yet many seem to be oblivious. What this statement is saying is that women are as they are, each wonderful and perfect in their own way, amounting to 100% of the beautiful people they are… until Dapper Laughs has uttered his last syllable. At this point, they are from then on simple sexual objects. It is not me saying this, it states it explicitly in the quote, that women are ‘reduced’, thereby implying that as soon as the joke is over the women are worth less than they were originally. This places far too much blame on the women for my liking. No woman has been reduced by this at all, O’Reilly has succeeded well and truly in reducing himself to an ignoramus, but the integrity and beauty of the women he offends has not been reduced even remotely, they are worth just as much as they were before he made his joke. In fact, I think it wise to be careful about throwing such phrases around without consideration, regardless of how much you want to arouse disapproval of Mr. O’Reilly.

Please observe that here I am not actually defending the comments made by Dapper Laughs, I am just examining the potential issues with the arguments which have been against him.