What do you think?
Rate this book
Gladstone
From the New York Times bestselling author of Churchill, a towering historical biography, available for the first time in paperback.
William Gladstone was, with Tennyson, Newman, Dickens, Carlyle, and Darwin, one of the stars of nineteenth-century British life. He spent sixty-three of his eighty-nine years in the House of Commons and was prime minister four times, a unique accomplishment. From his critical role in the formation of the Liberal Party to his preoccupation with the cause of Irish Home Rule, he was a commanding politician and statesman nonpareil. But Gladstone the man was much a classical scholar, a wide-ranging author, a vociferous participant in all the great theological debates of the day, a voracious reader, and an avid walker who chopped down trees for recreation. He was also a man obsessed with the idea of his own sinfulness, prone to self-flagellation and persistent in the practice of accosting prostitutes on the street and attempting to persuade them of the errors of their ways. This full and deep portrait of a complicated man offers a sweeping picture of a tumultuous century in British history, and is also a brilliant example of the biographer’s art.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
William Gladstone was, with Tennyson, Newman, Dickens, Carlyle, and Darwin, one of the stars of nineteenth-century British life. He spent sixty-three of his eighty-nine years in the House of Commons and was prime minister four times, a unique accomplishment. From his critical role in the formation of the Liberal Party to his preoccupation with the cause of Irish Home Rule, he was a commanding politician and statesman nonpareil. But Gladstone the man was much a classical scholar, a wide-ranging author, a vociferous participant in all the great theological debates of the day, a voracious reader, and an avid walker who chopped down trees for recreation. He was also a man obsessed with the idea of his own sinfulness, prone to self-flagellation and persistent in the practice of accosting prostitutes on the street and attempting to persuade them of the errors of their ways. This full and deep portrait of a complicated man offers a sweeping picture of a tumultuous century in British history, and is also a brilliant example of the biographer’s art.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
698 pages, Hardcover
First published October 13, 1995
67 people are currently reading
728 people want to read
About the author
Roy Jenkins
76 books36 followersThere is more than one author with this name
Roy Harris Jenkins, Baron Jenkins of Hillhead OM PC was a Welsh politician. Once prominent as a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and government minister in the 1960s and 1970s, he became the first (and so far only) British President of the European Commission (1977-81) and one of the four principal founders of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. He was also a distinguished writer, especially of biographies.
-Wikipedia
Roy Harris Jenkins, Baron Jenkins of Hillhead OM PC was a Welsh politician. Once prominent as a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and government minister in the 1960s and 1970s, he became the first (and so far only) British President of the European Commission (1977-81) and one of the four principal founders of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. He was also a distinguished writer, especially of biographies.
-Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
August 15, 2018
This may well be a good read but it’s not an easy one. It is packed solid with meat -Gladstone was in his 89th year when he died – so there’s a lot of it. At times this is quite off putting as the content is not always as accessible as it might be.
I learnt a lot about the Grand Old Man (or G.O.M.) and the more I read the more I liked him. He was perhaps our most honourable Prime Minister, and the least honoured, thanks to his modesty and his ghastly royal mistress Victoria. They rubbed each other up the wrong way and it was a far from happy political marriage. Gladstone’s political rival, the otiose and royally sycophantic Disraeli, didn’t of course help. Fortunately the G.O.M. had boundless energy much of the time; he needed it, if only for the writing of endless letters to H.M. in response to her niggling missives. They wrote to each other in the third person: eg “The Queen must point out to Mr Gladstone” and “Mr Gladstone is indebted to the Queen”…..
I suppose politics is constantly evolving and this book is almost as much about that evolution in the 19th century as about Gladstone. The G.O.M. started his political life as a Tory but was part of Whiggish administrations. He evolved further to earn the sobriquet of Liberal (NB capital L).
I was not surprised that he was deeply religious but had assumed that this was of the non conformist variety but he was high Anglican and lost a number of his close friends to Rome, including Newman and Manning. He wrote a great deal on religious matters and took a very keen interest in church appointments. He was a keen classicist too and was often occupied with translations from the Greek in his idle moments.
Rescuing fallen women was another of his favourite pastimes, passions even, and chopping down trees of course.
His speeches were inclined to be very long, and yet “The People’s Bill” could carry large crowds with him. I tittered to read that early on in their marriage (or was it during their engagement), Catherine Gladstone had told him that if he wasn’t such a great man he would be a terrible bore.
Gladstone was without doubt a fine human being, and a great Prime Minister. His work was cut out trying to keep his dissonant fellow ministers on side. Much of his later political career was spent in trying to solve the Irish Question. If his MPs had backed him many Irish and non Irish lives might have been saved. He was a passionate European, before such a thing was fashionable and he predicted the outbreak of the First World War as Britain continued to re-arm and build war ships. (he died in 1898, almost 20 years before it started).
I learnt a lot about the Grand Old Man (or G.O.M.) and the more I read the more I liked him. He was perhaps our most honourable Prime Minister, and the least honoured, thanks to his modesty and his ghastly royal mistress Victoria. They rubbed each other up the wrong way and it was a far from happy political marriage. Gladstone’s political rival, the otiose and royally sycophantic Disraeli, didn’t of course help. Fortunately the G.O.M. had boundless energy much of the time; he needed it, if only for the writing of endless letters to H.M. in response to her niggling missives. They wrote to each other in the third person: eg “The Queen must point out to Mr Gladstone” and “Mr Gladstone is indebted to the Queen”…..
I suppose politics is constantly evolving and this book is almost as much about that evolution in the 19th century as about Gladstone. The G.O.M. started his political life as a Tory but was part of Whiggish administrations. He evolved further to earn the sobriquet of Liberal (NB capital L).
I was not surprised that he was deeply religious but had assumed that this was of the non conformist variety but he was high Anglican and lost a number of his close friends to Rome, including Newman and Manning. He wrote a great deal on religious matters and took a very keen interest in church appointments. He was a keen classicist too and was often occupied with translations from the Greek in his idle moments.
Rescuing fallen women was another of his favourite pastimes, passions even, and chopping down trees of course.
His speeches were inclined to be very long, and yet “The People’s Bill” could carry large crowds with him. I tittered to read that early on in their marriage (or was it during their engagement), Catherine Gladstone had told him that if he wasn’t such a great man he would be a terrible bore.
Gladstone was without doubt a fine human being, and a great Prime Minister. His work was cut out trying to keep his dissonant fellow ministers on side. Much of his later political career was spent in trying to solve the Irish Question. If his MPs had backed him many Irish and non Irish lives might have been saved. He was a passionate European, before such a thing was fashionable and he predicted the outbreak of the First World War as Britain continued to re-arm and build war ships. (he died in 1898, almost 20 years before it started).
October 27, 2025
Grand Old Man/Great Old Book
Roy Jenkins’ biography on William Ewart Gladstone is great in both scale and achievement. After having recently re-read Jenkins’ epic Churchill I turned my attention to Gladstone. I can say that I wasn’t disappointed, Jenkins’ expansive political knowledge and beguile pros kept me glued to this book, which I read at the rate Gladstone himself would. Before this I had little knowledge of the Grand Old Man (GOM), expect that he was a Victorian titan and great rival of Disraeli. However I’ve walked away with an intricate knowledge of his personality, family, beliefs and political triumphs and tragedies.
Jenkins, himself no ordinary historian as he was a senior Cabinet minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later President of the European Commission and as such, brings an insider’s understanding to the political world Gladstone inhabited. That gives the book a rare authority. He understands not just what Gladstone did, but what it felt like to be inside the swirl of ambition, reform, and responsibility that defined nineteenth-century British politics.
Gladstone was a man of courage and principle, who did make mistakes, most famously his decision to delay the relieving of Gordon at Khartoum. He also had strange habits, his self flagellation, night walks and obsessions with different women all of which fall into his character as a religious man fighting natural urges. However he also had courage, great oratorical skill and masterful political outlook, such as his support for Home Rule or his budget of 1860. Modern politics is intellectually impotent, we are missing a great statesman such as Gladstone in today’s modern world.
Jenkins’s covers the huge topic of Gladstone’s career, including his four premierships, countless reforms, bitter party splits, and the long-running Irish question, all without losing sight of the man himself. Gladstone’s intense religiosity, his moral earnestness, and his lifelong internal battles (spiritual, sexual, and political) are rendered with empathy and nuance. Jenkins neither glorifies nor condemns; instead, he allows the contradictions to coexist, giving us a multidimensional figure whose flaws are as revealing as his virtues.
Jenkins’s prose style is my favourite part of the book. His writing is urbane, witty, and often dazzlingly elegant. There’s a certain old-fashioned charm to his phrasing, the kind of polished, almost conversational intelligence that makes even dense political passages a pleasure to read. His command of parliamentary history and his ability to sketch character in a few deft lines are reminiscent of a seasoned novelist.
Finally, Jenkins’s historical judgment feels trustworthy. He places Gladstone in his proper context, as a moral reformer in an age of empire and industrial upheaval, but also as a man whose conscience could both elevate and obstruct his politics. Jenkins recognises that Gladstone’s high-mindedness was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness, and he handles that paradox superbly.
That said, Gladstone is not an easy read. It’s dense and demanding, especially for readers without a grounding in 19th-century British politics. Jenkins assumes familiarity with parliamentary procedure, Victorian institutions, and a dizzying array of political figures. The narrative sometimes slows under the weight of detail, and the casual reader might find themselves lost among Cabinet reshuffles and Irish bills.
I found that Jenkins is a little too sympathetic to his subject. His admiration for Gladstone’s intellect and moral energy occasionally softens the edges of criticism, particularly when it comes to Gladstone’s self-righteousness or his intrusive moralism in public life. Compared to Robert Blake’s Disraeli (a natural counterpoint), Jenkins’s Gladstone feels slightly more reverential, though never uncritical.
Despite these challenges, Gladstone stands as one of the finest political biographies ever written. It’s richly detailed, beautifully written, and intellectually generous. Jenkins captures not just a man but an era — the high seriousness, the moral passion, the sense that politics could still be a form of moral vocation. This is a statesman’s insight into the mechanics of power. It’s not just a portrait of Gladstone, the Victorian era’s most compelling and confounding political figure, but also a meditation on leadership, morality, and the sheer complexity of public life.
Jenkins analysis himself is that he believes Churchill pips Gladstone as the greater of the two and I would agree. I feel that Gladstone may also come above Peel. Either way this is a great historical biography on a truly extraordinary figure. I prefer history which holds detail in a well written way. This has it and as such I will read this Gladstone again.
Roy Jenkins’ biography on William Ewart Gladstone is great in both scale and achievement. After having recently re-read Jenkins’ epic Churchill I turned my attention to Gladstone. I can say that I wasn’t disappointed, Jenkins’ expansive political knowledge and beguile pros kept me glued to this book, which I read at the rate Gladstone himself would. Before this I had little knowledge of the Grand Old Man (GOM), expect that he was a Victorian titan and great rival of Disraeli. However I’ve walked away with an intricate knowledge of his personality, family, beliefs and political triumphs and tragedies.
Jenkins, himself no ordinary historian as he was a senior Cabinet minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later President of the European Commission and as such, brings an insider’s understanding to the political world Gladstone inhabited. That gives the book a rare authority. He understands not just what Gladstone did, but what it felt like to be inside the swirl of ambition, reform, and responsibility that defined nineteenth-century British politics.
Gladstone was a man of courage and principle, who did make mistakes, most famously his decision to delay the relieving of Gordon at Khartoum. He also had strange habits, his self flagellation, night walks and obsessions with different women all of which fall into his character as a religious man fighting natural urges. However he also had courage, great oratorical skill and masterful political outlook, such as his support for Home Rule or his budget of 1860. Modern politics is intellectually impotent, we are missing a great statesman such as Gladstone in today’s modern world.
Jenkins’s covers the huge topic of Gladstone’s career, including his four premierships, countless reforms, bitter party splits, and the long-running Irish question, all without losing sight of the man himself. Gladstone’s intense religiosity, his moral earnestness, and his lifelong internal battles (spiritual, sexual, and political) are rendered with empathy and nuance. Jenkins neither glorifies nor condemns; instead, he allows the contradictions to coexist, giving us a multidimensional figure whose flaws are as revealing as his virtues.
Jenkins’s prose style is my favourite part of the book. His writing is urbane, witty, and often dazzlingly elegant. There’s a certain old-fashioned charm to his phrasing, the kind of polished, almost conversational intelligence that makes even dense political passages a pleasure to read. His command of parliamentary history and his ability to sketch character in a few deft lines are reminiscent of a seasoned novelist.
Finally, Jenkins’s historical judgment feels trustworthy. He places Gladstone in his proper context, as a moral reformer in an age of empire and industrial upheaval, but also as a man whose conscience could both elevate and obstruct his politics. Jenkins recognises that Gladstone’s high-mindedness was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness, and he handles that paradox superbly.
That said, Gladstone is not an easy read. It’s dense and demanding, especially for readers without a grounding in 19th-century British politics. Jenkins assumes familiarity with parliamentary procedure, Victorian institutions, and a dizzying array of political figures. The narrative sometimes slows under the weight of detail, and the casual reader might find themselves lost among Cabinet reshuffles and Irish bills.
I found that Jenkins is a little too sympathetic to his subject. His admiration for Gladstone’s intellect and moral energy occasionally softens the edges of criticism, particularly when it comes to Gladstone’s self-righteousness or his intrusive moralism in public life. Compared to Robert Blake’s Disraeli (a natural counterpoint), Jenkins’s Gladstone feels slightly more reverential, though never uncritical.
Despite these challenges, Gladstone stands as one of the finest political biographies ever written. It’s richly detailed, beautifully written, and intellectually generous. Jenkins captures not just a man but an era — the high seriousness, the moral passion, the sense that politics could still be a form of moral vocation. This is a statesman’s insight into the mechanics of power. It’s not just a portrait of Gladstone, the Victorian era’s most compelling and confounding political figure, but also a meditation on leadership, morality, and the sheer complexity of public life.
Jenkins analysis himself is that he believes Churchill pips Gladstone as the greater of the two and I would agree. I feel that Gladstone may also come above Peel. Either way this is a great historical biography on a truly extraordinary figure. I prefer history which holds detail in a well written way. This has it and as such I will read this Gladstone again.
March 23, 2011
I am not much of a reader, but I have at least read all the way through some truly difficult books such as the Critique of Pure Reason and the Phenomenology of Spirit. This book, however, was a dog of a work to get through, and I considered putting it down at many different times. It seems to focus all too much on the details Gladstone; his daily actions are discussed at great length, to the detriment of what his beliefs were, and who he really was. A great deal of time is spent on the odd markings he made in his journal regarding the various ladies of the night he met (ostensibly to tell them about Jesus), but little to no time is spent on his general political philosophy, and his relations with other politicians.
To be sure, his daily meetings are discussed, and at length. We often hear that he went to visit such and such an official, or stayed at such and such an inn. We hear about his daily routine. But we don’t have any real analysis on how Gladstone sought to organize his party, or how he tried to maintain a consensus on various issues. This is a shame, because it would have been very interesting to hear more about the real maneuverings regarding Home Rule and the like. Instead we get some vague references to Gladstone’s speeches, which are always described as quite forceful, but we never get to see them.
As such, I wonder if a general knowledge of British history is expected of the reader. There is many a Lincoln article, for instance, that does not bother to reprint the Gettysburg Address. To do so would be rather tedious. Who hasn’t heard of that speech? In the same way, it is possible that Gladstone is so well known that it would be disrespectful of the reader’s time to tread down such old paths.
There also seems to be an odd hatred for Disraeli, since he doesn’t seem to actually do anything aside from poisoning the Queen against Gladstone. Disraeli certainly did not do Gladstone any favors in this area, but the clash between these two men almost defines the political period. This work is about Gladstone, not Disraeli, but I would think more discussion would be devoted to what Churchill himself calls in his A History of the English Speaking Peoples as a “personal duel on a grand scale.” Such a relationship seems critical to the period, and in the least would make for riveting reading.
Towards the end of the book, Jenkins remarks on Gladstone’s inability to keep a diary in his later years:
The book ends some ten pages later, almost as if when Gladstone had ceased to list his day to day actions, there was no longer a need to list them in the book and thusly, no longer a reason to write it. It is quite probable that I am reading more of my bitterness into such a statement, however.
On the whole the book seems bogged down in details. As a result, I suspect this work is a great resource to researchers. For the rest of us, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a better treatment of this important man.
To be sure, his daily meetings are discussed, and at length. We often hear that he went to visit such and such an official, or stayed at such and such an inn. We hear about his daily routine. But we don’t have any real analysis on how Gladstone sought to organize his party, or how he tried to maintain a consensus on various issues. This is a shame, because it would have been very interesting to hear more about the real maneuverings regarding Home Rule and the like. Instead we get some vague references to Gladstone’s speeches, which are always described as quite forceful, but we never get to see them.
As such, I wonder if a general knowledge of British history is expected of the reader. There is many a Lincoln article, for instance, that does not bother to reprint the Gettysburg Address. To do so would be rather tedious. Who hasn’t heard of that speech? In the same way, it is possible that Gladstone is so well known that it would be disrespectful of the reader’s time to tread down such old paths.
There also seems to be an odd hatred for Disraeli, since he doesn’t seem to actually do anything aside from poisoning the Queen against Gladstone. Disraeli certainly did not do Gladstone any favors in this area, but the clash between these two men almost defines the political period. This work is about Gladstone, not Disraeli, but I would think more discussion would be devoted to what Churchill himself calls in his A History of the English Speaking Peoples as a “personal duel on a grand scale.” Such a relationship seems critical to the period, and in the least would make for riveting reading.
Towards the end of the book, Jenkins remarks on Gladstone’s inability to keep a diary in his later years:
For the outside observer this drew across his life a new screen of opaqueness as the perpetual fog in which he had complained to Morely of having to live. It became no longer possible to trace his day-to-day movements and activity from a single source. Obviously a great deal can be put together from letters, from the records of others and from his own sporadic writings. But there was no longer a wholly reliable budget of time against which the recollections of others and indeed himself could be measured. This had the objective effect of putting the short remainder of his life more in the shadows.
The book ends some ten pages later, almost as if when Gladstone had ceased to list his day to day actions, there was no longer a need to list them in the book and thusly, no longer a reason to write it. It is quite probable that I am reading more of my bitterness into such a statement, however.
On the whole the book seems bogged down in details. As a result, I suspect this work is a great resource to researchers. For the rest of us, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a better treatment of this important man.
November 16, 2021
William Gladstone was a giant in British politics, having served as Prime Minister on four separate occasions for a total of a dozen years. He was a member of the House of Commons for over sixty years, and served as Chancellor of the Exchequer as well. Roy Jenkins, who made somewhat of a habit of writing biographies of British Prime Ministers, makes copious use of Gladstone's diary (he kept one for a remarkable seven decades) and voluminous correspondence to help provide a detailed view of Gladstone's life.
Gladstone came across to me as at first somewhat of an opportunist (he switched parties early in his career, when it distinctly seemed to benefit him) and quite high-minded (for many years he would go on nightly rounds in London, talking to prostitutes in an effort to get them to stop living lives on the streets and improve themselves). Yet he later became almost obsessed with Home Rule for Ireland and steadfastly worked on it for the last few decades of his life. Gladstone's wife, Catherine, rarely appears in the book, although Jenkins covers his childhood, parents, and siblings at length.
There were some things that Jenkins did well. One of them was exploring Gladstone's mostly strained and sometimes contentious relationship with Queen Victoria. The Queen, quite frankly, comes across as a real witch. Pampered, condescending, and often undignified in correspondence, she made Gladstone's years as Prime Minister more difficult than they needed to have been. Yet Jenkins notes that Gladstone just as much irritated her and frequently did little to make her alter her opinion of him. Unfortunately for each other, their lifecycles pretty much overlapped, so they were always able to be pains in each other's sides. The Queen was quite conservative and did not hide that fact, while - by the time he first became Prime Minister - Gladstone was a Liberal and was not apologetic for it. Gladstone had started as a Conservative when he was young, often crusading for his devout religious beliefs (indeed religion is a main theme in his early life especially although Gladstone remains religious throughout).
Jenkins' heavy reliance on Gladstone's diaries allows him to sketch out what a typical day for Gladstone looked like, from decade to decade, place to place. Gladstone was an inveterate traveler (although he never came to North America or went to some significant British possessions such as India or South Africa) and detailed diarist. Gladstone provides glimpses into what kind of schedule Gladstone had: in London, at his country estate Hawarden, while traveling, and while Prime Minister. While there were some times where the detail probably could have been trimmed back without losing any of the flavor, I appreciated Jenkins' ability to place the reader into Gladstone's life. So many biographies leave me wondering "But what did an average day look like for ___?" Jenkins makes sure that question does not need to be answered.
Unfortunately, that level of detail did not carry over to important policies and politics of Gladstone's long life. Jenkins has the habit of beginning a chapter by indicating what the upcoming events are, but then launching into them without adequate explanation of just what the context is surrounding those events. I was frequently lost as Jenkins would go on and on about political battles over specific bills, without even saying what exactly the bill would do. Or the particulars of a bill would appear in one sentence in the middle of pages about Gladstone fighting with others about it. I found it disorienting, and it hindered my ability to coherently understand what was going on. I will accept some responsibility for not quite being up on my 19th century British history like I probably should have been going into this book, but a clear paragraph or two about a major bill prior to pages of discussion would have been appreciated.
Also, Jenkins constantly makes references to other Prime Ministers, many of them in the 20th century and thus several of them whom Gladstone had never met and had nothing to do with his story. For example, per the index there are sixteen references to Winston Churchill throughout the book, which sounds about right to me from what I read. Yet, Churchill and Gladstone never met. So why all of the references? One or two I get; not sixteen. Jenkins does not with several others as well. All of those asides prolong the book without really adding anything to Gladstone's story. Yet many of Gladstone's actual contemporaries came across as rather two-dimensional to me. Part of the problem, again, is my lack of familiarity with this time period in British history. And part of it is that Gladstone lived such a long life (88 years) and was in government service from the 1830s to the 1890s that you are bound to keep coming across new people.
Strangely, Jenkins does not provide an analysis at the end as far as what Gladstone's long-term contributions were to British politics and society. Given all of the references to later leaders, I am surprised that no final review was given. Overall I struggled at times with this book due to some of the issues mentioned above. Also, Jenkins writes in a format where there are no subsections or breaks within chapters, which for me makes it more difficult to follow along as there can be an abrupt change in topic from one paragraph to the next. Nonetheless the book is highly respected professionally, and it certainly had a lot of interesting sections given the life that Gladstone led.
Grade: C+
Gladstone came across to me as at first somewhat of an opportunist (he switched parties early in his career, when it distinctly seemed to benefit him) and quite high-minded (for many years he would go on nightly rounds in London, talking to prostitutes in an effort to get them to stop living lives on the streets and improve themselves). Yet he later became almost obsessed with Home Rule for Ireland and steadfastly worked on it for the last few decades of his life. Gladstone's wife, Catherine, rarely appears in the book, although Jenkins covers his childhood, parents, and siblings at length.
There were some things that Jenkins did well. One of them was exploring Gladstone's mostly strained and sometimes contentious relationship with Queen Victoria. The Queen, quite frankly, comes across as a real witch. Pampered, condescending, and often undignified in correspondence, she made Gladstone's years as Prime Minister more difficult than they needed to have been. Yet Jenkins notes that Gladstone just as much irritated her and frequently did little to make her alter her opinion of him. Unfortunately for each other, their lifecycles pretty much overlapped, so they were always able to be pains in each other's sides. The Queen was quite conservative and did not hide that fact, while - by the time he first became Prime Minister - Gladstone was a Liberal and was not apologetic for it. Gladstone had started as a Conservative when he was young, often crusading for his devout religious beliefs (indeed religion is a main theme in his early life especially although Gladstone remains religious throughout).
Jenkins' heavy reliance on Gladstone's diaries allows him to sketch out what a typical day for Gladstone looked like, from decade to decade, place to place. Gladstone was an inveterate traveler (although he never came to North America or went to some significant British possessions such as India or South Africa) and detailed diarist. Gladstone provides glimpses into what kind of schedule Gladstone had: in London, at his country estate Hawarden, while traveling, and while Prime Minister. While there were some times where the detail probably could have been trimmed back without losing any of the flavor, I appreciated Jenkins' ability to place the reader into Gladstone's life. So many biographies leave me wondering "But what did an average day look like for ___?" Jenkins makes sure that question does not need to be answered.
Unfortunately, that level of detail did not carry over to important policies and politics of Gladstone's long life. Jenkins has the habit of beginning a chapter by indicating what the upcoming events are, but then launching into them without adequate explanation of just what the context is surrounding those events. I was frequently lost as Jenkins would go on and on about political battles over specific bills, without even saying what exactly the bill would do. Or the particulars of a bill would appear in one sentence in the middle of pages about Gladstone fighting with others about it. I found it disorienting, and it hindered my ability to coherently understand what was going on. I will accept some responsibility for not quite being up on my 19th century British history like I probably should have been going into this book, but a clear paragraph or two about a major bill prior to pages of discussion would have been appreciated.
Also, Jenkins constantly makes references to other Prime Ministers, many of them in the 20th century and thus several of them whom Gladstone had never met and had nothing to do with his story. For example, per the index there are sixteen references to Winston Churchill throughout the book, which sounds about right to me from what I read. Yet, Churchill and Gladstone never met. So why all of the references? One or two I get; not sixteen. Jenkins does not with several others as well. All of those asides prolong the book without really adding anything to Gladstone's story. Yet many of Gladstone's actual contemporaries came across as rather two-dimensional to me. Part of the problem, again, is my lack of familiarity with this time period in British history. And part of it is that Gladstone lived such a long life (88 years) and was in government service from the 1830s to the 1890s that you are bound to keep coming across new people.
Strangely, Jenkins does not provide an analysis at the end as far as what Gladstone's long-term contributions were to British politics and society. Given all of the references to later leaders, I am surprised that no final review was given. Overall I struggled at times with this book due to some of the issues mentioned above. Also, Jenkins writes in a format where there are no subsections or breaks within chapters, which for me makes it more difficult to follow along as there can be an abrupt change in topic from one paragraph to the next. Nonetheless the book is highly respected professionally, and it certainly had a lot of interesting sections given the life that Gladstone led.
Grade: C+
October 10, 2016
This is a very good biography that obviously merits the Whitbread/Costa prize that it received in 1995. There are however two problems. The first is that Jenkins is writing for a reader that is very knowledgeable about 19th Century British political history. I found the book very dense and hard to follow in places despite the fact that I took one undergraduate history course on the period and according to my Goodreads database have read another 10 books in the area since. Jenkins work is simply not for dilettantes.
The second problem is that the author has been seduced by his sources. He chooses to describe Gladstone from his correspondence and diaries rather than his actions. As a result Jenkins,devotes too much attention to Gladstone's extraordinary quirks and not enough to his great accomplishments. Fortunately this tendency to dwell on Gladstone's eccentricities is most pronounced in the first half of the book. The second half is much better.
Overall this book was a tremendous joy to read. Jenkins obviously did an enormous amount of research for the project. As long-time member of parliament, Jenkins also has a great sense about parliamentary tactics and does a masterful job of explaining why some bills failed while others succeeded. Jenkins also has a skill for comic writing that brings to mind Anthony Trollope the great writer of political satire of the Victorian era. Finally, Jenkins does succeed in giving the read a sense of the greatness of Gladstone that has inspired so many liberals particularly in Canada up until the current era.
The second problem is that the author has been seduced by his sources. He chooses to describe Gladstone from his correspondence and diaries rather than his actions. As a result Jenkins,devotes too much attention to Gladstone's extraordinary quirks and not enough to his great accomplishments. Fortunately this tendency to dwell on Gladstone's eccentricities is most pronounced in the first half of the book. The second half is much better.
Overall this book was a tremendous joy to read. Jenkins obviously did an enormous amount of research for the project. As long-time member of parliament, Jenkins also has a great sense about parliamentary tactics and does a masterful job of explaining why some bills failed while others succeeded. Jenkins also has a skill for comic writing that brings to mind Anthony Trollope the great writer of political satire of the Victorian era. Finally, Jenkins does succeed in giving the read a sense of the greatness of Gladstone that has inspired so many liberals particularly in Canada up until the current era.
December 19, 2014
This book is very dense focusing too much on the minutiae of Gladstone's daily life and his petty personal anxieties to the detriment of the big historical issues and struggles of this era that he was a central actor in, which are glossed over in passing in the apparent assumption that the reader knows all this already. It is only in the latter part of the book that at least one significant issue, the struggle for Irish Home Rule, is given some serious discussion. Thus for anyone who is uninitiated into the world of the British aristocracy, this work is a sterile and superficial presentation that fails to do justice to its subject and his times.
May 6, 2023
Gladstone was a difficult book for me to enjoy. It was not the length (630 pages) nor the subject matter (I enjoy historical biography of world leaders and I was quite interested in learning more English history in the 19th century). Gladstone’s long life (1809-1898) literally spanned the Victorian era (from the defeat of Napoleon to the South African/Boer War – which began a year after his death). Moreover, I had read Roy Jenkins’ even longer biography of Churchill which I thought was a masterpiece. Gladstone’s 63 years in government or Parliament dominated British politics during those years. He was PM for 4 non-consecutive terms over 12 years (1868-74, 1880-85, 1886, 1892-94) as well as Chancellor of the Exchequer four times. Part of the problem for me I think is that Gladstone was lifelong diarist and a primary source for Jenkins seems to have been these mundane daily diary entries as he painfully recounts whose country house he stayed in for virtually every month of his adult life. Another is that Gladstone’s primary interests were the classics (Homer and Dante were his favorites) and religion which was even more important to him than politics. He was deeply involved in all the theological and liturgical battles of the 19th Century which are recounted in numbing detail in this volume. During his political life, Britain was the most powerful country in the world yet there is almost no discussion of contemporaneous world events in this biography, possibly because Gladstone deeply disapproved of British Imperialism as compared to Disraeli -- his contemporary and political rival. The great cause of his political career was Home Rule for Ireland (and various Irish land reforms). But Irish Home Rule was thwarted during his lifetime by the Unionists of his of Liberal Party, the Tories, the House of Lords and Queen Victoria who detested Gladstone and his political causes.
Read
November 12, 2021I abandonded it somewhere before page 280. Hard going, the text assumes detailled knowledge of English political history.
January 27, 2023
I have to be honest and say that I found this book to be a bit of a struggle. Educational rather than entertaining, it was a bit of a (whisper it quietly) bore. Home Rule and the intricacies of religious dogma have never been the most interesting of subjects to me, but - as another reviewer has already remarked - Jenkins' use of arcane language and foreign phrases when discussing such things pile Pelion on Ossa. That last phrase is used by Jenkins in the book and means (among other things) to further complicate something that is already tedious or challenging. Well, to use a more idiomatic phrase, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Many times I had to either reread a sentence or look a word or phrase up before fully understanding the meaning. And this about something that was tedious and challenging to begin with. I don't mind looking up new words or phrases. But when you're doing it every five minutes, or when the words and phrases are being used as stylistic garnish and don't really add very much in terms of understanding, it starts to get irritating. I don't remember this with Jenkins' book about Churchill. It's odd with politicians who write books. They often produce works - I'm thinking here of Roy Hattersley's book on the Edwardians; Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds' biography of Bevan - that are dry in style and devoid of spark. Strange, given that their day job is all about using words to seduce and inspire others.
Something else that is tedious is Jenkins' fascination with titles and honours. I know people used to joke about how Jenkins wasn't happy unless he had a few dukes and duchesses at his dinner table, but his obsession with who was called what - Lord This, Sir That, the Duke of Whatever - took up too much space and held up the main narrative.
Then there's Gladstone himself. I'm sorry to say I didn't find him to be inspiring, dynamic, scintillating or even interesting. Jenkins tells us time and time again that the four-time prime minister was an orator of great force and theatricality. Someone who could speak for hours and keep a packed House of Commons in thrall. Reading extracts from some of the speeches almost sent me to sleep. Maybe, like the late, great, Frank Carson used to say, 'It's the way I tell 'em'. No doubt Gladstone was a great statesman. But he comes across here as priggish, pedantic and, well, dull. Then there're all the trees he chopped down. An odd way to keep yourself physically fit. And an unnecessary destruction of nature.
Something else that is tedious is Jenkins' fascination with titles and honours. I know people used to joke about how Jenkins wasn't happy unless he had a few dukes and duchesses at his dinner table, but his obsession with who was called what - Lord This, Sir That, the Duke of Whatever - took up too much space and held up the main narrative.
Then there's Gladstone himself. I'm sorry to say I didn't find him to be inspiring, dynamic, scintillating or even interesting. Jenkins tells us time and time again that the four-time prime minister was an orator of great force and theatricality. Someone who could speak for hours and keep a packed House of Commons in thrall. Reading extracts from some of the speeches almost sent me to sleep. Maybe, like the late, great, Frank Carson used to say, 'It's the way I tell 'em'. No doubt Gladstone was a great statesman. But he comes across here as priggish, pedantic and, well, dull. Then there're all the trees he chopped down. An odd way to keep yourself physically fit. And an unnecessary destruction of nature.
November 13, 2014
As I was heading towards the end of the book, I was thinking that I would give it 4 stars. But when I got to the end of the book, and started tearing up at Gladstone’s death and his memorials, I had to give it a 5. Somehow, with all of the (occasionally excruciating) detail about his political life, Jenkins conveyed a man—a man who was somehow a force of nature—but a man nonetheless.
This is very much a political biography. While discussing Gladstone’s interactions with prostitutes who he was trying to “save” and his inner conflicts over them, other things go unanalyzed. His notorious love of tree felling, for instance, gets mentioned throughout the book but Jenkins makes no effort to understand it. Gladstone’s wife and children mostly disappear from the book and their relationships are hardly discussed. One thing that Jenkins does discuss is Gladstone’s relationship with the Queen with all of its tension. I thought he did a good job there of showing and explaining the dynamic.
Jenkins conveys his passions, his idiosyncrasies, his unbelievable physical fortitude and gladiatorial eloquence. When I finished the book, I rather missed him…
This is very much a political biography. While discussing Gladstone’s interactions with prostitutes who he was trying to “save” and his inner conflicts over them, other things go unanalyzed. His notorious love of tree felling, for instance, gets mentioned throughout the book but Jenkins makes no effort to understand it. Gladstone’s wife and children mostly disappear from the book and their relationships are hardly discussed. One thing that Jenkins does discuss is Gladstone’s relationship with the Queen with all of its tension. I thought he did a good job there of showing and explaining the dynamic.
Jenkins conveys his passions, his idiosyncrasies, his unbelievable physical fortitude and gladiatorial eloquence. When I finished the book, I rather missed him…
February 27, 2021
Gladstone epitomises the Victorian era, which is no kind of recommendation for the modern mind. His religiosity, priggishness, attachment to the classics and repressed sexuality do not make him easy to identify with for those born in the century after his death. Roy Jenkins does a great job of bringing him back to life, in making sense of him and ultimately in making sense of him for a contemporary audience. I have taken half a star off for Jenkins' obscurantism - using words like eleemosynary when chartable would do or, worse, refusing to translate quotes in Latin, Italian, French or German; and the other half for Jenkins' snobbery: I am not sure how many times Chamberlain needed to be referred to as a 'screw manufacturer'; earls and dukes weren't similarly dubbed 'rent collectors' when such a status was probably as relevant to their politics.
March 13, 2024
A very smoothly written biography of the Grand Old Man - of liberalism and English politics. 3.5 stars because it’s just a little too hagiographic about WEG (how many times do we hear that he’s given the best speech ever?) and Jenkins treats Disraeli very unfairly. Also Jenkins adopts the not uncommon tactic of biographers of skeining his narrative on the subject’s source, in this case Gladstone’s incredibly detailed diary so we get a lot of lists of activities, especially about forming cabinets. A wider overview of politics would have been nice. Also, Gladstone’s incredibly risky behavior with prostitutes needs more elaboration. (And what’s with the mania for chopping down trees.) in the end you have to agree with WEG’s wife that if he hadn’t been a Great Man he would be a great bore.
August 20, 2011
Sort of a slow read but an inside look at this bizarre little man with such great impact. Author gets drawn out on details outside the main subject. Should be read alongside a good book on Disraeli who was a contempory as well as maybe Queen Victoria(which bores me to tears). However for historical context you need the background noise for Gladstone for insight into his charactor.
November 21, 2017
Brilliant. All 638 pages of this. While Jenkins tries to be neutral his affection for Gladstone seeps through. And why shouldnt it? Gladtone comes across as an execptional man, even more so than Churchill who was probably the greatest leader but not comparable from a moral standpoint. Fascinating read and a must. On to his nemesis Disraeili next!
December 15, 2018
God bless Roy Jenkins. The man was an incredible historian, a verbose writer and a biographer extraordinaire of I don't know how many British leaders- but he also deserves some recognition for producing books that can double both as paperweights and doorstops if necessary, because dear Lord in heaven, does the man write exhaustively about his subjects.
Gladstone is one such staggering achievement. His biography of Churchill awaits my attention at some future date- (I'll need some time to recover from Gladstone.)
Jenkins immediately teases the reader from the opening pages: he considers Gladstone to be the greatest person to hold the office of Prime Minister- and then spends the next seven hundred pages or so making his case. But that initial hook was enough to get me interested. I didn't know a lot about Prime Ministers outside of the 20th Century. I have William Hague's biography of Pitt the Younger still kicking about somewhere that I need to tackle. I read an excellent history of the full breadth of the Napoleonic Wars that opened my eyes to the complexities of that particular conflict and of course, I knew who both Gladstone and Disraeli were and honesty, found the latter far more intriguing than the former.
By the end of this book, however, I'd changed my mind and was convinced. It's hard to think of another Prime Minister that dominated British politics the way Gladstone did over the course of the 19th Century. He was Prime Minister for twelve years, spread out over four terms. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer four times. He formed his last government, in 1892 at the ripe old age of 82. So, he's got the longevity in office to back up the claim that he's the G.O.A.T of British Prime Ministers- but there are other things to consider too.
Probably the biggest is Ireland: Gladstone sensed (correctly, as it turned out) that something needed to be done about Ireland and some form of devolution or as it was called back then 'Home Rule' was the most likely solution. Convinced by the rightness of his cause, he tried to force a bill through the Commons once and his government collapsed because of it. Coming back into office for one last time, he tried again and got the bill through the Commons only to see it go down hard in the House of Lords. The Liberal Party actually split over the issue and it kept them out of power as the majority party for at least two decades. I think that was probably the biggest thing I took away from reading this book: Gladstone knew that it was going to split his party. He knew there were going to be long term electoral consequences to this- but he also knew that giving Ireland some form of Home Rule was in the national interest and so he did it anyway. By that point in his career, his domination of both Parliament and his party was such that he was probably the only leader of any stature that could get that done by sheer force of will. He ultimately failed, but one has to wonder how the history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when it came to Ireland would be different if he had succeeded.
The second thing worth noting, I think is probably electoral reform. I think I need to go back and read that biography of Pitt The Younger to really get a good handle on this, because British advancement toward universal suffrage didn't go in a simple straight line the way America's has*- in America, we went from white men who owned property to white men to (in theory at least) men and then to men and women and finally (in theory at least) everybody. The 19th Century seems to have been a slow, protracted fight about letting more and more people into the franchise while the Establishment/aristocracy/gentry clutched their pearls in horror at the notion of letting gasp the common people actually vote.
Finally, there's the speeches and the effect on modern political campaigns. There's little snippets of Gladstone's voice out there you can listen to to get- if not an idea, then at least a little hint at his oratorical style and his famous Midlothian Campaign is considered by many to be the foundation of modern political campaigning.
Gladstone had some quirks that are sort of hard to get used to- but probably made a lot of sense in the context of the Victorian Age. The early chapters are drowning in various theological debates about disestablishmentarianism (my favorite word) and it's... complicated. And a little deep, but I think if you can make it through those chapters you'll be okay. Gladstone also had this thing where he would try and reform prostitutes by talking to them. (Also, a little strange.)
Overall: a doorstop of a political biography, Roy Jenkins states his case for Gladstone being the G.O.A.T right at the start and then proceeds to tell you everything you ever possibly wanted to know about Gladstone and 19th Century Politics and then some. Comprehensive and thorough, by the end of the book, Jenkins has made his case. Gladstone might well be the greatest to ever hold the office, but given the current mess of British politics, you can't help but wonder what he'd think of it all. My Grade: Jenkins remains the go-to biographer of British politics and Gladstone is no exception. **** out of ****
Gladstone is one such staggering achievement. His biography of Churchill awaits my attention at some future date- (I'll need some time to recover from Gladstone.)
Jenkins immediately teases the reader from the opening pages: he considers Gladstone to be the greatest person to hold the office of Prime Minister- and then spends the next seven hundred pages or so making his case. But that initial hook was enough to get me interested. I didn't know a lot about Prime Ministers outside of the 20th Century. I have William Hague's biography of Pitt the Younger still kicking about somewhere that I need to tackle. I read an excellent history of the full breadth of the Napoleonic Wars that opened my eyes to the complexities of that particular conflict and of course, I knew who both Gladstone and Disraeli were and honesty, found the latter far more intriguing than the former.
By the end of this book, however, I'd changed my mind and was convinced. It's hard to think of another Prime Minister that dominated British politics the way Gladstone did over the course of the 19th Century. He was Prime Minister for twelve years, spread out over four terms. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer four times. He formed his last government, in 1892 at the ripe old age of 82. So, he's got the longevity in office to back up the claim that he's the G.O.A.T of British Prime Ministers- but there are other things to consider too.
Probably the biggest is Ireland: Gladstone sensed (correctly, as it turned out) that something needed to be done about Ireland and some form of devolution or as it was called back then 'Home Rule' was the most likely solution. Convinced by the rightness of his cause, he tried to force a bill through the Commons once and his government collapsed because of it. Coming back into office for one last time, he tried again and got the bill through the Commons only to see it go down hard in the House of Lords. The Liberal Party actually split over the issue and it kept them out of power as the majority party for at least two decades. I think that was probably the biggest thing I took away from reading this book: Gladstone knew that it was going to split his party. He knew there were going to be long term electoral consequences to this- but he also knew that giving Ireland some form of Home Rule was in the national interest and so he did it anyway. By that point in his career, his domination of both Parliament and his party was such that he was probably the only leader of any stature that could get that done by sheer force of will. He ultimately failed, but one has to wonder how the history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when it came to Ireland would be different if he had succeeded.
The second thing worth noting, I think is probably electoral reform. I think I need to go back and read that biography of Pitt The Younger to really get a good handle on this, because British advancement toward universal suffrage didn't go in a simple straight line the way America's has*- in America, we went from white men who owned property to white men to (in theory at least) men and then to men and women and finally (in theory at least) everybody. The 19th Century seems to have been a slow, protracted fight about letting more and more people into the franchise while the Establishment/aristocracy/gentry clutched their pearls in horror at the notion of letting gasp the common people actually vote.
Finally, there's the speeches and the effect on modern political campaigns. There's little snippets of Gladstone's voice out there you can listen to to get- if not an idea, then at least a little hint at his oratorical style and his famous Midlothian Campaign is considered by many to be the foundation of modern political campaigning.
Gladstone had some quirks that are sort of hard to get used to- but probably made a lot of sense in the context of the Victorian Age. The early chapters are drowning in various theological debates about disestablishmentarianism (my favorite word) and it's... complicated. And a little deep, but I think if you can make it through those chapters you'll be okay. Gladstone also had this thing where he would try and reform prostitutes by talking to them. (Also, a little strange.)
Overall: a doorstop of a political biography, Roy Jenkins states his case for Gladstone being the G.O.A.T right at the start and then proceeds to tell you everything you ever possibly wanted to know about Gladstone and 19th Century Politics and then some. Comprehensive and thorough, by the end of the book, Jenkins has made his case. Gladstone might well be the greatest to ever hold the office, but given the current mess of British politics, you can't help but wonder what he'd think of it all. My Grade: Jenkins remains the go-to biographer of British politics and Gladstone is no exception. **** out of ****
March 10, 2012
Incredibly detailed, but dry at times. Less talk about his rivalry with Disraeli than I would have thought.
July 11, 2012
I try to always finish a book that I start. I did it but it wasn't easy. There is some background knowledge of the 19th Century here, but it BORING.
August 10, 2012
I don't like rating books this low and I'm fond of history; I just found this one difficult to pick up at times.
December 21, 2014
This book is simply too long. Section headings would be a good idea.
August 24, 2016
Fascinating but dense.
September 12, 2024
Well worth reading for the history buffs, but for me the book really dragged, and eventually became a speed-reading exercise due to the approach of Jenkins to focus on the minutia of Gladstone's life, and also the repetitive and at times incomprehensible inside baseball of Brit parliamentary politics.
My preference, though admittedly this would have transformed the book from less of a Gladstone biography to an examination of world events during the period of Gladstone, would have been to hear more of the background, causes and details of the Crimean War, Sudan adventure, Egypt adventure, Franco-Prussian War, US Civil War etc. Jenkins offered just enough on each of those important historical events to whet the appetite, and I understand the he wanted to focus on Gladstone, but describing every vacation was less relevant to me than Gladstone's thoughts and actions during the US Civil War.
I will note editorially that I found a lot that Gladstone had in common with LBJ - someone who spent a lifetime mastering the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and politics and triumphed in the getting or votes, forming of coalitions and surprising enemies and allies with his nimbleness and willingness to switch sides and views when needed to remain in power.
"His death marked not merely the fall of a great and more venerable oak than any of those he himself felled, but also the effective end of the century." (note that the oak reference was toward Gladstone's favored exercise of felling trees)
"Despite ease of material circumstance and reality of political achievement, the first half of Gladstone's adult life had in it more of the nature of a painful pilgrimage through a vale of sorrows (and temptations) than of a triumphal walk back to the cricket pavilion after scoring a debonair double century."
Gladstone's first triumphs were as Chancellor of the Exchequer - balanced the budget, and when possible cut taxes - "There was however remarkably little indication of even the most extravagant praise going to his head. Gladstone, like de Gaulle, was conceited rather than vain. He had great certainty about his intellectual positions, frequently although they could change (but not under pressure from others), and this meant that he was both undismayed in adversity and unflattered in success."
Gladstone had been right to jump (from the Conservatives to the Liberals) the way that he did in 1859. It was better to have Disraeli as an opponent across the floor of the House than as an enemy on his own side.
On the lead-up to the Franco-Prussian war (where Britain wanted to remain neutral) - "The French Emperor might or might not have been able to take Portsmouth or Plymouth but he would have found it much more difficult to overwhelm Gladstone."
In Gladstone's diary - "This birthday opens my 60th year. I descend the hill of life. It would be a truer figure to say I ascend a steepening path with a burden ever gathering weight."
"From the beginning a government elected on a largely anti-imperialist platform found itself uncomfortably squelching in too many imperial quagmires." South Africa, Afghanistan, Sudan, Egypt
Gladstone spent the latter part of his career dealing with the hopes for Home Rule in Ireland, which he defined as a separate parliament (though subordinate to a British Parliament) - the issues were how the Irish representatives could sit in the Brit parliament and vote on Brit issues, but Brit reps could not sit on the Irish parliament, plus an issue of money and how much, if any, Ireland should get from England
Queen Victoria never was a backer of Gladstone, but what she missed was that "His death announced the conclusion of the Victorian age only a little less clearly than did her own two and a half years later."
My preference, though admittedly this would have transformed the book from less of a Gladstone biography to an examination of world events during the period of Gladstone, would have been to hear more of the background, causes and details of the Crimean War, Sudan adventure, Egypt adventure, Franco-Prussian War, US Civil War etc. Jenkins offered just enough on each of those important historical events to whet the appetite, and I understand the he wanted to focus on Gladstone, but describing every vacation was less relevant to me than Gladstone's thoughts and actions during the US Civil War.
I will note editorially that I found a lot that Gladstone had in common with LBJ - someone who spent a lifetime mastering the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and politics and triumphed in the getting or votes, forming of coalitions and surprising enemies and allies with his nimbleness and willingness to switch sides and views when needed to remain in power.
"His death marked not merely the fall of a great and more venerable oak than any of those he himself felled, but also the effective end of the century." (note that the oak reference was toward Gladstone's favored exercise of felling trees)
"Despite ease of material circumstance and reality of political achievement, the first half of Gladstone's adult life had in it more of the nature of a painful pilgrimage through a vale of sorrows (and temptations) than of a triumphal walk back to the cricket pavilion after scoring a debonair double century."
Gladstone's first triumphs were as Chancellor of the Exchequer - balanced the budget, and when possible cut taxes - "There was however remarkably little indication of even the most extravagant praise going to his head. Gladstone, like de Gaulle, was conceited rather than vain. He had great certainty about his intellectual positions, frequently although they could change (but not under pressure from others), and this meant that he was both undismayed in adversity and unflattered in success."
Gladstone had been right to jump (from the Conservatives to the Liberals) the way that he did in 1859. It was better to have Disraeli as an opponent across the floor of the House than as an enemy on his own side.
On the lead-up to the Franco-Prussian war (where Britain wanted to remain neutral) - "The French Emperor might or might not have been able to take Portsmouth or Plymouth but he would have found it much more difficult to overwhelm Gladstone."
In Gladstone's diary - "This birthday opens my 60th year. I descend the hill of life. It would be a truer figure to say I ascend a steepening path with a burden ever gathering weight."
"From the beginning a government elected on a largely anti-imperialist platform found itself uncomfortably squelching in too many imperial quagmires." South Africa, Afghanistan, Sudan, Egypt
Gladstone spent the latter part of his career dealing with the hopes for Home Rule in Ireland, which he defined as a separate parliament (though subordinate to a British Parliament) - the issues were how the Irish representatives could sit in the Brit parliament and vote on Brit issues, but Brit reps could not sit on the Irish parliament, plus an issue of money and how much, if any, Ireland should get from England
Queen Victoria never was a backer of Gladstone, but what she missed was that "His death announced the conclusion of the Victorian age only a little less clearly than did her own two and a half years later."
June 24, 2021
This was an interesting but frustrating book, one that I can recommend with qualifications. Notably, you have to not only have an interest in 19th Century history, but also a fair amount of knowledge about the period going in.
That's because this thoroughly researched book is more interested in breaking down the complicated psychology of William Ewart Gladstone than it is contextualizing the fascinating political and intellectual current he was swimming in (and against). So we are told, for example, about a young Gladstone's anguish over issues of Anglican church reform, and lost friendships when some of his fellow Anglicans converted to Catholicism. But there's never any detailed description of the currents going on here except insofar as they reflect on Gladstone's subjective experience.
More seriously, Gladstone's shift from a hard-line Tory to a Peelite defector to the Grand Old Man of the Liberal Party happens without ever stepping back and setting the stage for these grand tectonic shifts that were happening in British politics to people other than William Ewart Gladstone!
So if you are already deeply familiar with these issues — as Jenkins, a longtime politician in addition to a writer of history, is — then this book will help shed deeper light on one of the most central and fascinating figures of the era. But for people who were hoping to learn a lot more about the entire period — not just the life of Gladstone but the life and times — this will prove a more frustrating read. (It's telling that my copy of it includes a special foreword for American readers, presumably less deeply versed in political history in the same way that a British reader might need more explanation of things that educated American readers know more intimately, like the names of second-tier leaders and events.)
Those caveats aside, the book is full of delightful turns of phrase, even if I found its structure a little loose, in the manner of a lecture by an expert who keeps going off on fascinating but digressive tangents.
That's because this thoroughly researched book is more interested in breaking down the complicated psychology of William Ewart Gladstone than it is contextualizing the fascinating political and intellectual current he was swimming in (and against). So we are told, for example, about a young Gladstone's anguish over issues of Anglican church reform, and lost friendships when some of his fellow Anglicans converted to Catholicism. But there's never any detailed description of the currents going on here except insofar as they reflect on Gladstone's subjective experience.
More seriously, Gladstone's shift from a hard-line Tory to a Peelite defector to the Grand Old Man of the Liberal Party happens without ever stepping back and setting the stage for these grand tectonic shifts that were happening in British politics to people other than William Ewart Gladstone!
So if you are already deeply familiar with these issues — as Jenkins, a longtime politician in addition to a writer of history, is — then this book will help shed deeper light on one of the most central and fascinating figures of the era. But for people who were hoping to learn a lot more about the entire period — not just the life of Gladstone but the life and times — this will prove a more frustrating read. (It's telling that my copy of it includes a special foreword for American readers, presumably less deeply versed in political history in the same way that a British reader might need more explanation of things that educated American readers know more intimately, like the names of second-tier leaders and events.)
Those caveats aside, the book is full of delightful turns of phrase, even if I found its structure a little loose, in the manner of a lecture by an expert who keeps going off on fascinating but digressive tangents.
December 14, 2024
With the exception of Queen Victoria, no single figure in British politics so encapsulated the second half of the nineteenth century as William Ewart Gladstone. Born in 1809 in Liverpool-the same year as Abraham Lincoln in Kentucky-Gladstone shaped expectations for British statesmen for generations after his 1898 passing.
This book was written by Roy Jenkins, a British historian and former MP. He did fantastic work in putting together this biography of the man who was Prime Minister of Britain on four separate occasions (1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886, and 1892-1894) totaling fourteen years cumulatively.
The book is extremely patient in recounting Gladstone's public and private life, with his first term as PM not occurring until past the book's halfway point.
The first half goes into the details of William's time at Eton, his love for debating which developed as a member of the Union Society, and his relationship with his five siblings (he was the fifth of six) as well as his parents Sir John and Anne Mackenzie Gladstone.
His wife, Catherine Glynne Gladstone, was distant throughout much of the book despite their fifty-nine years of marriage and eight children. Their frequent retreat to the country estate of Hawarden, passed down through the Glynne family, was a recurring setting throughout Gladstone.
His interest in reading and writing about religion was a big part of his life. He considered becoming a preacher, but instead went into politics and was elected to the House of Commons as a member from Newark at the age of 23. He would eventually work his way up the rungs of governmental service, making a name for himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet thanks to his expert ability to deal with tax, spending, and debt policies.
He would go on to design Britain's first effective income tax measure, and even William's detractors would begrudgingly admit to his budgetary talents.
Gladstone also was promoted to the Board of Trade during Robert Peel's government, and his work on the 1844 Railway Act earned him additional respect among the electorate.
There are several key points Roy Jenkins attempts to emphasize when it came to Gladstone's half-century plus on the stage of British politics.
By and large, Gladstone was anti-imperial and (with the exception of the 1882 Egyptian conflict) tended to push the country away from bellicosity in dealings with foreign governments. He was not a huge advocate of the Crimean War and ensured conflict with the U.S. did not explode during its Civil War against the Confederacy.
His handling of the Don Pacifico debate in 1850 helped to defuse a potentially explosive situation in Greece and demonstrated his desire to see cooler heads prevail in foreign affairs.
Another major component of policy in the book was Ireland.
Gladstone relentlessly sought to find compromises when it came to the governing of Ireland and its relationship with England. The Irish Land Act and Home Rule bill were momentous attempts on the part of Gladstone's government to pacify what was, and would remain for some time, a volatile situation vis a vis Ireland.
The Fenians did not help to calm the situation much, while Irish leader Charles Stuart Parnell at times helped and at times sabotaged attempts to bridge the divide between England and Ireland. Lord Frederick Cavendish's death during the 1882 Phoenix Park Murders did little to help in the bridging of any divides.
The Irish issue caused headaches for Gladstone for decades, and Jenkins takes ample time explaining how his governments attempted to thread this needle which at times seemed to approach a present day Israel/Palestine level of complexity.
Gladstone's drift from the conservative Tories to the Liberal Party was a process of evolution throughout the book. Although he never fully abandoned his patrician attitude and bias toward the propertied classes, the four-time Prime Minister did push for an expansion in voting rights and greater access to the ballot for men in Great Britain.
He never got along with Queen Victoria. There were excerpts of communications between the queen and Prime Minister included in the book, and this showed that their relationship never moved beyond the formal. Gladstone came to enjoy addressing huge crowds as his career progressed (especially after a famous address in Manchester), and Victoria slowly grew to distrust him as too much of an advocate of democracy.
The queen's views toward him appeared to be tainted by negative information fed to her by Gladstone's chief antagonist in the British government: Benjamin Disraeli. The MP, writer, and two-time Prime Minister rarely seemed to get along with Disraeli, opposing him on numerous policies large and small in Parliament.
Jenkins also looks at Gladstone's attempts to "save" young women from prostitution. His policy of going out at night to meet with prostitutes and to presumably talk them out of their lifestyle raised quite a few eyebrows; the book does not conclude that he ever took them up on their services, but he did become strangely close to some of them given his marriage to Catherine.
In addition to this pastime, Gladstone also recorded in his diary that he would scourge his back by whipping in order to punish himself after visits with these prostitutes, only adding to the oddity of this aspect of his life.
The book is replete with excerpts from Gladstone's lengthy speeches in Parliament. Sessions would often go on well past midnight, and he frequently would attempt to turn the tide of these debates with orations which even his detractors oftentimes complimented.
Any reader seeking a well-rounded take on William Gladstone's life would benefit greatly from delving into this book.
It is so well researched and it is unlikely any past or future biographies of Gladstone could surpass it in terms of readability and quality of information on elements both large or small of his life and accomplishments.
Reading this book alongside a biography of Queen Victoria will go a long way toward fleshing out the latter half of the 1800s in Britain. Changes in both domestic and foreign policies were in the air during this era, and Jenkins placed all of these within the context of William Gladstone's time as MP and Prime Minister.
Gladstone is a fantastic biography, and those who love reading about England's history will appreciate the insight provided into this impactful orator and guider of nineteenth century British policy.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
This book was written by Roy Jenkins, a British historian and former MP. He did fantastic work in putting together this biography of the man who was Prime Minister of Britain on four separate occasions (1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886, and 1892-1894) totaling fourteen years cumulatively.
The book is extremely patient in recounting Gladstone's public and private life, with his first term as PM not occurring until past the book's halfway point.
The first half goes into the details of William's time at Eton, his love for debating which developed as a member of the Union Society, and his relationship with his five siblings (he was the fifth of six) as well as his parents Sir John and Anne Mackenzie Gladstone.
His wife, Catherine Glynne Gladstone, was distant throughout much of the book despite their fifty-nine years of marriage and eight children. Their frequent retreat to the country estate of Hawarden, passed down through the Glynne family, was a recurring setting throughout Gladstone.
His interest in reading and writing about religion was a big part of his life. He considered becoming a preacher, but instead went into politics and was elected to the House of Commons as a member from Newark at the age of 23. He would eventually work his way up the rungs of governmental service, making a name for himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet thanks to his expert ability to deal with tax, spending, and debt policies.
He would go on to design Britain's first effective income tax measure, and even William's detractors would begrudgingly admit to his budgetary talents.
Gladstone also was promoted to the Board of Trade during Robert Peel's government, and his work on the 1844 Railway Act earned him additional respect among the electorate.
There are several key points Roy Jenkins attempts to emphasize when it came to Gladstone's half-century plus on the stage of British politics.
By and large, Gladstone was anti-imperial and (with the exception of the 1882 Egyptian conflict) tended to push the country away from bellicosity in dealings with foreign governments. He was not a huge advocate of the Crimean War and ensured conflict with the U.S. did not explode during its Civil War against the Confederacy.
His handling of the Don Pacifico debate in 1850 helped to defuse a potentially explosive situation in Greece and demonstrated his desire to see cooler heads prevail in foreign affairs.
Another major component of policy in the book was Ireland.
Gladstone relentlessly sought to find compromises when it came to the governing of Ireland and its relationship with England. The Irish Land Act and Home Rule bill were momentous attempts on the part of Gladstone's government to pacify what was, and would remain for some time, a volatile situation vis a vis Ireland.
The Fenians did not help to calm the situation much, while Irish leader Charles Stuart Parnell at times helped and at times sabotaged attempts to bridge the divide between England and Ireland. Lord Frederick Cavendish's death during the 1882 Phoenix Park Murders did little to help in the bridging of any divides.
The Irish issue caused headaches for Gladstone for decades, and Jenkins takes ample time explaining how his governments attempted to thread this needle which at times seemed to approach a present day Israel/Palestine level of complexity.
Gladstone's drift from the conservative Tories to the Liberal Party was a process of evolution throughout the book. Although he never fully abandoned his patrician attitude and bias toward the propertied classes, the four-time Prime Minister did push for an expansion in voting rights and greater access to the ballot for men in Great Britain.
He never got along with Queen Victoria. There were excerpts of communications between the queen and Prime Minister included in the book, and this showed that their relationship never moved beyond the formal. Gladstone came to enjoy addressing huge crowds as his career progressed (especially after a famous address in Manchester), and Victoria slowly grew to distrust him as too much of an advocate of democracy.
The queen's views toward him appeared to be tainted by negative information fed to her by Gladstone's chief antagonist in the British government: Benjamin Disraeli. The MP, writer, and two-time Prime Minister rarely seemed to get along with Disraeli, opposing him on numerous policies large and small in Parliament.
Jenkins also looks at Gladstone's attempts to "save" young women from prostitution. His policy of going out at night to meet with prostitutes and to presumably talk them out of their lifestyle raised quite a few eyebrows; the book does not conclude that he ever took them up on their services, but he did become strangely close to some of them given his marriage to Catherine.
In addition to this pastime, Gladstone also recorded in his diary that he would scourge his back by whipping in order to punish himself after visits with these prostitutes, only adding to the oddity of this aspect of his life.
The book is replete with excerpts from Gladstone's lengthy speeches in Parliament. Sessions would often go on well past midnight, and he frequently would attempt to turn the tide of these debates with orations which even his detractors oftentimes complimented.
Any reader seeking a well-rounded take on William Gladstone's life would benefit greatly from delving into this book.
It is so well researched and it is unlikely any past or future biographies of Gladstone could surpass it in terms of readability and quality of information on elements both large or small of his life and accomplishments.
Reading this book alongside a biography of Queen Victoria will go a long way toward fleshing out the latter half of the 1800s in Britain. Changes in both domestic and foreign policies were in the air during this era, and Jenkins placed all of these within the context of William Gladstone's time as MP and Prime Minister.
Gladstone is a fantastic biography, and those who love reading about England's history will appreciate the insight provided into this impactful orator and guider of nineteenth century British policy.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
March 24, 2025
Nearly upgraded this to a 4* (7/10) because of how good the last c.70/80 pages are. If only the rest of the book could match it.
Prior to that, I generally disliked Jenkins’s over-caffeinated prose which might serve a purpose when writing a polemic or a speech, but feels wholly out of place in 650 page biography, to the point that it becomes actively unhelpful in trying to provide information and insight into the events, ideas and debates of the period. I also felt that the book was poorly structured and a bit of a slog at times. It gives superfluous detail on trivial matters, such as how often Gladstone went swimming each year, where he stayed and for how long etc over and over again, while leaving you guessing elsewhere. Jenkins doesn’t quite manage to bring either the Victorian age or the GOM to life (although the latter maybe down to the subject himself), outside of those final few chapters on Home Rule and Gladstone’s decline. I couldn’t help but feel that a figure of his significance and longevity deserved better, considering this is supposed to be “the definitive biography of William Ewart Gladstone” per the blurb.
Plenty of fantastically supportive quotes on the inside of the cover which the book, in my view, simply doesn’t deserve. The cynic in me just thinks these are from Jenkins’s mates in the media and politics at the time of publishing.
Prior to that, I generally disliked Jenkins’s over-caffeinated prose which might serve a purpose when writing a polemic or a speech, but feels wholly out of place in 650 page biography, to the point that it becomes actively unhelpful in trying to provide information and insight into the events, ideas and debates of the period. I also felt that the book was poorly structured and a bit of a slog at times. It gives superfluous detail on trivial matters, such as how often Gladstone went swimming each year, where he stayed and for how long etc over and over again, while leaving you guessing elsewhere. Jenkins doesn’t quite manage to bring either the Victorian age or the GOM to life (although the latter maybe down to the subject himself), outside of those final few chapters on Home Rule and Gladstone’s decline. I couldn’t help but feel that a figure of his significance and longevity deserved better, considering this is supposed to be “the definitive biography of William Ewart Gladstone” per the blurb.
Plenty of fantastically supportive quotes on the inside of the cover which the book, in my view, simply doesn’t deserve. The cynic in me just thinks these are from Jenkins’s mates in the media and politics at the time of publishing.
November 22, 2022
I am surprised by the middling star rating for this excellent biography, which is one of the best political biographies I have read owing to the extensive research undertaken by Roy Jenkins - who is both very sympathetic to his subject as well as being politically aligned with him.
The book goes into a considerable amount of depth into Gladstone's life, career, family, travels etc. What impresses one about him is the extraordinary length of his political career in different ministerial positions as well as his remarkable speech-making ability, that he employed both inside and outside parliament to woo his listeners.
Gladstone, as Jenkins is keen to point out, was a politician of principle and was extremely popular with the Victorian electorate, although not, it seems, so popular with the Queen herself. He is a very good example of what a politician should be who has his people's interests at heart - something that cannot be said for some of today's bunch of MPs.
So, I was very pleased to have picked this book up in a charity shop whilst visiting Cambridge for GBP 2.99! Gladstone is a Victorian statesman we should all read and know about about, and Roy Jenkins has done an excellent job in revealing his life and political interests to us.
The book goes into a considerable amount of depth into Gladstone's life, career, family, travels etc. What impresses one about him is the extraordinary length of his political career in different ministerial positions as well as his remarkable speech-making ability, that he employed both inside and outside parliament to woo his listeners.
Gladstone, as Jenkins is keen to point out, was a politician of principle and was extremely popular with the Victorian electorate, although not, it seems, so popular with the Queen herself. He is a very good example of what a politician should be who has his people's interests at heart - something that cannot be said for some of today's bunch of MPs.
So, I was very pleased to have picked this book up in a charity shop whilst visiting Cambridge for GBP 2.99! Gladstone is a Victorian statesman we should all read and know about about, and Roy Jenkins has done an excellent job in revealing his life and political interests to us.
June 26, 2022
Roy Jenkins’ 632 page biography of Gladstone is a monumental account of one of Britain’s most consequential statesmen. Gladstone served as Prime Minister four times spanning a 61 year career in the House of Commons. He expanded the franchise, opposed foreign adventures, and championed Irish home rule. His eccentricities were befitting the span of the Victorian era. He loved chopping trees and counseled ladies of the night. He was pious, even priggish in his religious pursuits and dominated the Liberal party interspersing governments with his Tory nemesis Disraeli and, later, Salisbury. Queen Victoria loathed him and patronized him in ways unthinkable from a modern monarch today. Jenkins brings the all too common British habit of assuming historical allusions, places and endless titles. In the end an unsatisfying read that fails to encapsulate the man Gladstone was and why he endured in leadership until his early 80’s.
October 1, 2023
I read this because I enjoyed Jenkins' biography of Churchill, in which he said that Churchill had displaced Gladstone in his mind as the greatest British PM. Jenkins has a nice chatty writing style, but at times he digresses in irritating ways into the "future," noting in passing how an event in Gladstone's time would resonate decades later. This happens frequently, from a mention of how famous a Manchester art gallery would later become to a discussion of a split within the Labour Party in the 1950s. It's a distraction in a book with not much of a narrative drive. Jenkins also presumes an existing knowledge of British politics in the 19th century (I am Canadian). However, the passages on the workings of Parliament, the shifting coalitions there, Gladstone's frosty relationship with Queen Victoria and the debate over Irish Home Rule are enlightening and very relevant to anyone interested in today's politics.
June 29, 2025
It is a fair point to raise that an American might find this book inaccessible due to unfamiliarity with the British mode of government as well as the personalities who comprised it in the 19th century. However, the attentive reader can suss out the plot points in some of the affairs of state that the author highlights, and it is very easy to read this biography with a mobile phone and Wikipedia within arm’s length. Also, no great insight is needed to understand that Gladstone was a religious crank who found titillating the company of ladies of the night.
No, the big problem with this account is that Jenkins is a name dropper who never bothers fleshing out the names - well known or obscure - that inhabit these pages. As such the nature of their relationship with and posture toward the biography’s subject are murky and vague.
No, the big problem with this account is that Jenkins is a name dropper who never bothers fleshing out the names - well known or obscure - that inhabit these pages. As such the nature of their relationship with and posture toward the biography’s subject are murky and vague.
December 27, 2020
An intensely detailed public and private portrait of the four time prime minister, the "Grand Old Man" William Gladstone. The style takes rather some getting used to, as it reads almost like an intensely knowledgable person talking to you in extended detail about Gladstone, and the book occasionally therefore has the circuitous feel of a conversation. The author is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a leader of the House of Lords, and therefore has an intimate knowledge of the territory Gladstone trod in his life. Because of that knowledge, anyone not thoroughly versed on the history of Victorian Britain will find themselves regularly referring to wikipedia to fill in gaps, but the vigorous style of the writing and the rich detail more than make up for it.
Read
January 17, 2022The potential reader should understand that this is unapologetically a political biography and that interest inGladstone the politician overwhelms any consideration of Gladstone the father, the husband, etc. (These aspects of Gladstone's life are undoubtably explored in Shannon's two volume biography). That said, it is a thoroughly absorbing account of nineteenth century politics in the seat of the Empire. Jenkins’ own life in politics has well prepared him for this task. One of Jenkins' primary source are Gladstone’s diaries and when they conclude roughly four years before the GOM’s demise, Jenkins’ account begins to peter out. No one who reads this book will fail to be stunned by Gladstone’s ferocious personal energy. He was truly a titan among the Victorians and Jenkins more than does his subject justice.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews