WI: William Gladstone died in 1880?

In the summer of 1880, following Gladstone's tireless campaigning for the 1880 election (the famous 'Midlothian campaign') and subsequent appointment as Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone suffered a serious bout of pneumonia. Whilst he survived this illness IOTL, his full health never recovered and he was plagued by a variety of health problems until his death in 1898.

But, what if the pneumonia that debilitated him in 1880 had actually killed him? The most likely immediate consequence would be Spencer Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington taking over from Gladstone. His appointment would not fill Queen Victoria with dread, as Gladstone's had done, and this less combative figure would have been greeted with respect by his Conservative opponents.

Cavendish, a man of the gentry and moderate Whig, would have opposed Home Rule (as he did even before his brother's murder in 1882 by the "Irish National Invincibles") and there likely wouldn't have been a split over the issue as there was IOTL in the form of the anti-Home Rule "Liberal Unionists".

Aside from the change of policy with regards of Home Rule, what would Cavendish's premiership have looked like and how would the Liberal Party have fared come an election in 1886 (or thereabouts)?
 
I must say that I'm not sure that Cavendish [technically he would be referred to as Hartington historically] would have necessarily become Prime Minister especially as he had just stepped aside for Gladstone. I should think that there would be a few other contenders [most notably Bright and Harcourt]. But to accept your premise:

I think you are right that Cavendish doesn't campaign for Home Rule for Ireland, thus preventing the Liberal Unionist split, but apart from that I should think in this timeline that the death of Gladstone is seen as a tragedy of epic proportions for the Liberal Party.

Although he was, in some ways, increasingly moderate as time went on, Gladstone maintained throughout his life the reputation of a radical. It was partly because he had a great Liberal pedigree stretching back to the Peelites and the 1840s and partly because he was a great orator with the ability to move crowds. Cavendish, for all his ability, was neither of those things. Thus whilst staving off a split over Ireland, Cavendish may see an increased challenge from the Radical elements of the party. Men like John Bright, Joseph Chamberlain, and Charles Dilke were all more radically minded MPs in this period and would have tried to push the leadership in their direction. Gladstone dying is only going to further encourage Chamberlain to push for the radical programme he did OTL. With no Grand Old Man to rely upon the Liberals in the 1890s are going to face severe challenges in managing their conservative and radical wings.

Likewise Gladstone's death will probably not prevent electoral defeat in the 1886 election. Although they'll do better without the split that occured OTL, the conservatives will still have been building the local party machines that helped propel them into power and rally support around Salisbury.

Finally, the Irish Parliamentary Party is still going to be a problem. Parnell will still be looking for Home Rule and with the growing ascendancy of Irish nationalism in this period, Cavendish will struggle to keep the issue from his party entirely. Parnell will be waiting his chance to pounce if any electoral deadlocks take place.
 
I too agree that Cavendish is not a sure, shoe in for the office of Prime Minister, however, I don't agree with your suggestions:

I should think that there would be a few other contenders [most notably Bright and Harcourt]
Although a talented speaker in parliament, William V. Harcourt, was regarded as aloof and had not held high office to warrent his elevation to the Prime Minister of the British EMPIRE, while John Bright, is too radical to rule his premiership.

My choice for replacing Gladstone, would be, Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville, who had served twice as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose foreign policy was based on patience, peace, and no alliances; it kept Britain free from European wars and improved relations with the United States after the strain during the American Civil War. It also helps that he was joint Leader of the Liberal Party between 1875 and 1880.
 
I too agree that Cavendish is not a sure, shoe in for the office of Prime Minister, however, I don't agree with your suggestions:


Although a talented speaker in parliament, William V. Harcourt, was regarded as aloof and had not held high office to warrent his elevation to the Prime Minister of the British EMPIRE, while John Bright, is too radical to rule his premiership.

My choice for replacing Gladstone, would be, Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville, who had served twice as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose foreign policy was based on patience, peace, and no alliances; it kept Britain free from European wars and improved relations with the United States after the strain during the American Civil War. It also helps that he was joint Leader of the Liberal Party between 1875 and 1880.

To be fair, as you quoted, I said 'contenders' not 'people who would definitely become leader'. Don't underestimate the support Bright had in the Commons and across the country nationally - he wouldn't have won a leadership ballot among MPs but would be a considerable power who [as Gladstone found OTL] had to be placated. Harcourt is the reverse. Aloof, as you noted, but considered so by the public rather than fellow MPs who at the time were the only deciding factor for the Premiership. Considering that OTL Harcourt did become Party Leader [albeit briefly] he, like Bright, is a considerable contender.

Granville isn't a bad choice, but the reason I didn't mention him is he has effectively ruled himself out by stepping aside for Gladstone. Admittedly so had Cavendish, who the OP chose, so its not impossible that Granville would have stepped back into the arena. But I imagine he would have been pretty cut up by the death of Gladstone, who was one of his closest friends, and might have stood aside a second time rather than fill his friend's empty chair.
 
I mentioned Cavendish because, aside from the fact that he'd been Leader of the Liberal Party prior to Gladstone's accession due to his stepping aside, he actually did have some ambition of becoming Prime Minister and entertained hopes, prior to the Midlothian campaign, that Gladstone would accept a subordinate position. I believe that Gladstone was also willing to entertain such a notion in the aftermath of the victory, but then his own ambitions struck and he forced the Queen's hand when she'd rather appoint Hartington.

Patrick Jackson, in The Last of the Whigs, even devotes chapter titles to Hartington by calling him "Gladstone's Acknowledged Successor" (these chapters covering the time from the 1880 election until the 1885 collapse).

Those points are why I considered Hartington to be the most likely man to take over after Gladstone's death.
 
Top