This month, events in Northern Ireland seem to be moving forcibly in the direction of an open and mutually agreed peace, with the final movement of the Good Friday Agreement into far-ranging legislative action in both the UK and the Republic. My thoughts (obviously!) turn to nineteenth century history. Whilst this is perhaps an unsubtle and boring attempt to force my current studies onto Christis readers, I'm going to use the chance to mention a political figure who tried and failed to solve the problem of Irish discontent, just over a century ago. William Gladstone was a Prime Minister, and probably the most active and passionate Christian to fill the role for the last two centuries.

Gladstone was born in 1809 in Liverpool, son of a wealthy merchant, and brought up as an evangelical member of the Church of England. Educated at Eton and Oxford University, he proved extremely intelligent winning two Firsts (in Latin Literature and Mathematics). Whilst at Oxford, his profound Christianity (often appearing to his acquaintances as haughty and hypocritical) shifted in expression from a very Protestant faith to the more “high” tendencies of the “Oxford Movement”. This revived a tradition in the Church of England that had more in common with Catholic modes of worship (though varying on a number of points of theology, as much as early nineteenth century Roman Catholicism differs from the doctrine of the Church today). Indeed, on leaving university, Gladstone deliberated over joining the priesthood, but appears to have become convinced that his vocation to serve God lay in Parliament. This was the start of a long career that was to make him Chancellor of the Exchequer on a number of occasions and Prime Minister three times (sometimes holding the two posts at once).

Initially, his politics were deeply conservative and “traditional”, wishing to force religious compliance to the Church of England on all involved in Government, and to uphold the existing semi- aristocratic social order. However, as time progressed, and as the parliamentary “gentleman's club ”that he'd joined evolved by a variety of weird routes into a more democratic institution at the head of an industrialised world power, Gladstone's politics slipped in more liberal directions. He left the Tory/Conservative Party with the more moderate “Peelites” when it split in 1846, and from that point on moved towards the left of the political spectrum as it then stood, joining and eventually leading the Liberal Party. His style of politics manifested itself in a belief in moral force and principle, financial responsibility (somewhat Gordon Brown-like, he hated to let his Cabinet colleagues get away with spending more money than he decided was strictly necessary) and constitutional change in order to make politics more accessible. The first was shown in his famous focussing of political anger at the Disraeli Conservative Government in 1874 over foreign policy on Turkish involvement in the Balkans (compared by one commentator to a “prophet coming down from the hills”), the second in his introduction of Income Tax to reduce what he regarded as unfair indirect taxes, and the third in a whole slew of measures, particularly his moves at the end of his life to give all of Ireland Home Rule, or what we would call “devolution”.

Home Rule dominated the end of his life. He came to believe, after initial scepticism that it was the only way to solve the Irish problems that plagued all British governments. The Liberal Party split in 1885, as those who refused to accept his solution labelled themselves Unionists and joined with the Conservative Party. His last premiership ended over this issue, when he was an old man of about 85, in 1894. His attempt failed, and though it was carried on by the Liberal Party into Edwardian politics, the sectarian violence and discontent had been awakened and not quieted, that would lead to rebellion and civil war and eventually to that which we call the Troubles.

What then is the point of remembering Gladstone? I believe his life and passionate Christianity dispel the popular myth in the Christian community that politics is a dirty game that means betrayal of principle. Gladstone always acted from high principle, but knew that compromise can be a virtue in itself and when tied in with a truly Christian respect for one's opponent, can help us to advance carefully to the better world we seek. As we see Christians in the western world either getting intensely involved in single-issue campaigning (such as the Jubilee 2000 movement) or being wooed politically with “kneejerk” measures or hackneyed sentiment, this past figure reminds us that we can articulate a wider-ranging Christian politics, that is not afraid to be always passionate, always intelligent, sometimes wrong, but never ever boring …

Matt Campbell

For more information read “Gladstone” by Roy Jenkins.