characteristics of this man,—­opinionated and strong-headed as he undoubtedly is,—­are to be found in the receptive quality of his mind, by which he is open to new ideas, and in the steady courage with which he affirms and stands by his convictions when once he has by reasoning arrived at them.  It took thirteen years of parliamentary strife before the Peelites, whom he led, were finally incorporated with the Liberal party.

Mr. Gladstone, now without office, became what is called an independent member of the House, yet active in watching public interests, giving his vote and influence to measures which he considered would be most beneficial to the country irrespective of party.  Meantime, the continued mistakes of the war and the financial burdens incident to a conflict of such magnitude had gradually produced disaffection with the government of which Lord Palmerston was the head.  The ministry, defeated on an unimportant matter, but one which showed the animus of the country, was compelled to resign, and the Conservatives—­no longer known by the opprobrious nickname of Tories—­came into power (1858) under the premiership of Lord Derby, Disraeli becoming chancellor of the exchequer and leader of his own party in the House of Commons.  But this administration also was short-lived, lasting only about a year; and in June, 1859, a new coalition ministry was again formed under Lord Palmerston, which continued seven years, Mr. Gladstone returning to his old post as chancellor of the exchequer.

Mr. Gladstone was at this time fifty years of age.  His political career thus far, however useful and honorable, had not been extraordinary.  Mr. Pitt was prime minister at the age of twenty-eight.  Fox, Canning, and Castlereagh at forty were more famous than Gladstone.  His political promotion had not been as rapid as that of Lord John Russell or Lord Palmerston or Sir Robert Peel.  He was chiefly distinguished for the eloquence of his speeches, the lucidity of his financial statements, and the moral purity of his character; but he was not then pre-eminently great, either for initiative genius or commanding influence.  Aside from politics, he was conceded to be an accomplished scholar and a learned theologian,—­distinguished for ecclesiastical lore rather than as an original thinker.  He had written no great book likely to be a standard authority.  As a writer he was inferior to Macaulay and Newman, nor had he the judicial powers of Hallam.  He could not be said to have occupied more than one sphere, that of politics,—­here unlike Thiers, Guizot, and even Lyndhurst and Brougham.