1 I 
 
 II 
 
 
 I i 

 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD
 
 UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME. 
 2s. <x/. net. 
 
 THE LIFE OF RICHARD COBDEN. By 
 the RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY. 
 
 THE LIFE OF GIROLAMO SAVONA- 
 ROLA. By Professor PASQUALK VILLARI. 
 
 THE LIFE OFNICCOLO MACHIAVELLI. 
 By Professor PASQUALE VILLARI. 
 
 THE LIVES OF ROBERT AND MARY 
 MOFFAT. By JOHN SMITH MOFFAT. 
 
 ENGLISH WAYFARING LIFE IN THE 
 MIDDLE AGES (XIVTH CENTURY). By 
 
 J. J. JUSSERANO. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF FLORENCE (FOR THE 
 FIRST Two CENTURIES). By Professor 
 PASQUALE VILLARI. 
 
 LONDON: T. FISHER UNWIN.
 
 BBACONSPIELD'S LAST VISIT TO THE HOUSE.
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 A EIOGRAPHT 
 
 T. P. O'CONNOR, M.P. 
 
 EIGHTH EDITION 
 
 LONDON 
 T. FISHER UNWIN 
 
 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
 MCMV
 
 All Rights Reserved
 
 PKEFACE. 
 
 SOME time ago, I published the first volume of a 
 Biography of Lord Beaconsfield, intending to add a 
 second volume of the same length and on the same 
 plan. It has been represented to me that a different 
 arrangement would be more suitable. I have received 
 many assurances of the value of my work from 
 competent authorities ; and its reception in the Press 
 was far more gratifying than I ventured to expect. 
 It was highly praised by many journals, which, 
 perhaps, may be accepted as proof that it possessed 
 some merit ; it was attacked by others with a violence 
 which, perhaps, as clearly proved that it had some 
 force. But the plan I adopted in writing it was 
 calculated, I now believe, to make the work valuable 
 to the politician and the journalist, rather than 
 popular with the general public. Instead, therefore, 
 of adhering to my original intention, I accepted the 
 representations made to me, and set about producing 
 a new work on a new plan. I determined to give, 
 
 2066062
 
 vi PREFACE. 
 
 as before, copious quotations from the speeches and 
 writings of Lord Beaconsfield, so as to afford the 
 reader material for accepting or rejecting my con- 
 clusions ; but I resolved that those quotations should 
 for the most part be placed in foot-notes, instead 
 of being embodied in the text. In that way I hoped 
 to avoid interruption of the narrative ; and to consult 
 that liberty of choice which every reader demands 
 in these days the liberty to read or to skip as 
 he may please. It was also part of my plan to 
 omit everything that did not have important bearing 
 on my subject. Another way in which I deter- 
 mined to make my new work different from the 
 old one was in the arrangement of the incidents. 
 Acting on those ideas, I have now written a book 
 which, except in the general tendency of opinion, is 
 almost completely different from my first. My first 
 work consisted of 746 pages, and brought the life 
 of Lord Beaconsfield down to the fall of Peel in 
 1846 ; the present work, carrying the narrative 
 down to the entry of the Prime Minister and Lord 
 Salisbury into London, after the conclusion of the 
 Berlin Treaty, contains just 675 pages. This second 
 book, retracing all the ground in my first, and 
 dealing with thirty-two years of Lord Beaconsfi eld's 
 life besides, contains 70 pages less than the first.
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 I regret having had to enter into these purely per- 
 sonal details, but they are made necessary by many 
 circumstances. 
 
 I have again to acknowledge the assistance I have 
 received from previous writers on the same subject. 
 I may mention the Biography of Lord Beaconsfield 
 attributed to Mr. Macknight; the Life by Mr. Mac- 
 Gilchrist, published by Messrs. Cassell and Co,; the 
 Life by the late Mr. G. H. Francis ; and the short 
 sketch in Mr. Jeafferson's " Novels and Novelists." 
 I have likewise derived much assistance from two 
 able pamphlets by Mr. Sedley Taylor, the one on the 
 Reform Bill of 1867, the other on the Eastern question ; 
 and a series of brilliant Essays in the Fortnightly 
 Review, under the title, " The Political Adventures of 
 Lord Beaconsfield," have also given me many valu- 
 able suggestions. But the assistance I have received 
 from books is small compared with that I have 
 received from friends, who have helped me in collect- 
 ing materials in my laborious task. Without the aid 
 of Mr. Carey Taylor, Mr. D. MacSweeney, and my 
 brother, Mr. John O'Connor, I should not have been 
 able to finish my work within even the considerable 
 period it has already occupied me. 
 
 One word, finally, as to the views expressed. I 
 claim to have advanced no opinion, which has not
 
 via PREFACE. 
 
 been tested by patient investigation of facts, and 
 by candid consideration. At least, I can say that 
 I have made no statement for which I do not give 
 authority; that I have pronounced no judgment 
 without supplying the facts by which it can be 
 tested ; and that I have endeavoured to convince 
 the reader of nothing of which I have not convinced 
 mysel
 
 PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 THIS is a reprint of the first edition. The pressure 
 of the public demand for a new edition, and other 
 circumstances, have prevented me making some cor- 
 rections which I had intended introducing. Those 
 corrections would have been, in most cases, of an 
 almost typographical character. Here and there, for 
 instance as happens in even the most carefully 
 revised work a misspelled proper name, or a mis- 
 placed accent in a foreign word, called for change. 
 Such trivial errors may be the more readily excused 
 in face of the fact that, though the book has been 
 necessarily and properly subjected to severe scrutiny, 
 no misstatement or inaccuracy of any importance has 
 been pointed out. This affords a reasonable ground 
 for satisfaction to the author of a work which deals 
 with all the prominent events of public life in 
 England for a period of nearly fifty years. Objection, 
 it is true, has been made to a few of my statements 
 in reference to subsidiary matters. Dr. B. A. Kennedy 
 regards my references in pp. 190-193 to the part he 
 played in the Shrewsbury election of 1841 as "false,"
 
 x PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 "libellous," and "scandalous." On examining, how- 
 ever, the reasons by which Dr. Kennedy endeavoured 
 to justify such harsh epithets, I found that his own 
 admissions afforded additional proof of the general 
 accuracy of my representation of his conduct. He 
 showed, on the other hand, that I had erred in 
 two or three minor matters of detail. He did not 
 invite Mr. Disraeli to the speech-day ; Mr. Disraeli 
 came of his own accord. He is not a "staunch 
 Tory," but a "Constitutional Whig," though in 
 1841 he was a supporter of Sir Robert Peel. And 
 he did not as the Shrewsbury Chronicle stated 
 oppose the emancipation of the Jews. Those errors 
 I gladly correct. A relative of Rogers the poet has 
 written me a courteous letter, throwing doubt on 
 the report that the poet stood godfather to young 
 Disraeli when he was baptized. He also thinks that 
 some of my casual references to Rogers give an 
 unduly unfavourable view of the character of his 
 celebrated relative. This is possible: all my state- 
 ments with regard to Rogers are necessarily second- 
 hand.
 
 INTEODUCTION 
 
 TO A NEW (THE SIXTH} EDITION. 
 
 LONDON presented a curious spectacle on Saturday, 
 April 19th, 1884. The Primrose League, established 
 amid jeers, by fussy nobodies, and with titles that had 
 been banished from real life to the regions of Op6ra 
 Bouffe, had proclaimed a demonstration in memory 
 of Lord Beaconsfield, and had suggested that on this 
 day the third anniversary of his death his admirers 
 should wear the primrose, his favourite flower. The 
 idea had been taken up with a fervour that must 
 have astonished even the most hopeful Knight or 
 Dame of the New Order. In some parts of the town 
 the primrose was worn by at least one of every two 
 persons one met ; and it was still more remarkable 
 that it was worn by people of all classes. The thin 
 and pale city clerk, hurrying home to his tea, the 
 sempstress or milliner coming from the heated work- 
 room, sometimes even the sullen artizan, bore the 
 ruling flower as ostentatiously as the retired officer,
 
 xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the merchant, or the male or female occupants of 
 carriages. At night the primrose was to be seen in 
 the gallery and pit as often as in the stalls and boxes 
 of the theatres ; an actress at an East End theatre, 
 wholly frequented by the working classes, coming on 
 the stage with a bunch of primroses attached to her 
 girdle, was pelted with nosegays from every part of 
 the delighted house. In short, the testimony of 
 London to the dead Minister was sincere, enthusi- 
 astic, universal. 
 
 It is rarely that a statesman is in any country so 
 honoured at a period so soon after his death. There 
 is no time when an active and vivid personal force 
 in politics is so completely forgotten as in the years 
 which succeed to the first outburst of emotion after 
 his disappearance. Time passes, and he takes his 
 place among the immortalities of the country ; the 
 interest that had ceased in the political man revives 
 in the historic figure, and hot praise or venomous 
 hate again asserts its place. But before that time 
 has come, there is an interval when the name is 
 rarely mentioned : the politician, departed but a few 
 years back, is more spectral than the Minister whose 
 grave was dug a century before. 
 
 The celebration of the third anniversary of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's death was then in every way pheno
 
 INTRODUCTION. riu 
 
 menal. How is it to be accounted for? The main 
 causes are the mistakes of the men who replaced 
 him in office; the littleness of the men who have 
 taken his place in his own party. Above all, Lord 
 Beaconsfield has the same advantage which, according 
 to M. Ranc, G-ambetta had over all other competitors 
 for French favour, he has a legend. Whatever else 
 his life wanted, it was full of picturesqueness. A 
 foreigner, the child of an outcast and despised race, 
 of comparatively poor parents, and a member of 
 the still unconsidered profession of literature, he 
 reached the proudest position in the Empire, after a 
 life of fierce struggle, of many and disastrous defeats, 
 through a whole series of break-neck escapes from 
 disastrous ruin. And then his latest years had a 
 legend all of their own. Not One out of every 
 hundred of the men and women who wore primroses 
 on April 19th could give a lucid account of the real 
 points at issue between Mr. Gladstone and Lord 
 Beaconsfield in their prolonged controversy over the 
 Eastern question. But there was a vague feeling 
 in the minds of the people that Lord Beaconsfield 
 had spoken up for England with courage and a bold 
 front ; that he had made England look big once more 
 in the eyes of the world; that the British lion had 
 again showed with its old spirit that it could not
 
 JOT INTRODUCTION. 
 
 be interfered with ; and all the other vague and 
 loose ideas that make up the creed of Conservative 
 Jingoism : and Jingoism is still the gospel of the 
 overwhelming majority of the English people of all 
 classes, of the hnmble as much as, if not more than, 
 of the better educated, more impartial, and more 
 cosmopolitan aristocracy. Indeed, the tribute to the 
 memory of Lord Beaconsfield is one more proof of 
 the thoroughness with which he had mastered the 
 character of the English people ; and to the political 
 student will serve to confirm the conviction that 
 Lord Beaconsfield had the detachment of mind 
 from the passions and convictions of the people 
 over whom he ruled that supplies the secret of his 
 political success and confirms the impression of his 
 moral worthlessness. 
 
 It is not unnatural that, in considering a career 
 like that of Lord Beaconsfield, the writer should 
 seek his type in the creations of romance. There are 
 many who will instinctively think of him and " Tito 
 Melema ; " and perhaps the great author of " Romola," 
 when she drew the portrait of the adventurous Greek, 
 was not unconscious of the resemblance between the 
 creation of her pen and the successful Hebrew who 
 in her own time had attained such mastery over a 
 Christian and a Western people. I think a better
 
 INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 analogy is the " Spendius " of " Salamrnb6." There 
 is a strange scene between " Spendius," the Greek 
 slave, and " Mathd," the general of the Carthaginian 
 mercenaries, that always bears, to my mind, a resem- 
 blance to many of the episodes in the career of Lord 
 Beaconsfield. The Greek slave is found in his tent, 
 beaten in battle, broken in spirits and cowed ; but 
 in the midst of his disasters he rises up and recalls 
 to the scornful barbarian the exploits which the 
 cunning of his tongue and the dauntlessness of his 
 irreverence had worked ; hov he had turned the 
 wrath of the mercenaries agai let Carthage ; how he 
 had baffled all the efforts to i ppease them ; how he 
 had penetrated at night into the temple and stolen 
 without fear the sacred veil of the gods, the sight 
 of which shook the stoutest heart. And the bar- 
 barian, hearing the story, stands aghast before this 
 man, " at once so cowardly and so terrible." 
 
 To some extent it was the same with Lord Beacons- 
 field. He was potent and terrible because he revered 
 nothing, he respected nothing ; because the sacred 
 things in the temples of the people he ruled were to 
 him idols and nothing more. In one sense, then, 
 Lord Beaconsfield was not wholly wrong in the 
 claim he makes for himself in that wonderful piece 
 of self-revelation his first novel. " There wasnt
 
 zri INTRODUCTION. 
 
 but one thing more,'* exclaims " Vivian Grey " in 
 his communings on his chances of fdture greatness, 
 " courage, pure, perfect courage ; and does Vivian 
 Grey know fear ? He laughed an answer of bitterest 
 derision." 
 
 It was his courage which helped him throughout 
 all his difficult and perilous enterprises ; but it may 
 be doubted whether it was what most men would call 
 "pure, perfect courage." The courage was the re- 
 sultant of two forces, of the lack of all reverence to 
 which I have just alluded ; and of inflexible self- 
 confidence, of unquestioning self-worship. 
 
 And on this latter point I invite the reader to again 
 follow me for enlightenment to the pages of " Vivian 
 Grey." " Shrined," says " Mrs. Felix Lorraine," in 
 that immortal walk by moonlight with " Vivian 
 Grey," " shrined in the secret chamber of your soul 
 there is an image before which you bow down in 
 admiration, and that image is YOURSELF." 
 
 To anybody who studies closely the secrets of 
 political success, the inference will be inevitable that 
 self-complacency is almost the greatest of political 
 talents, the most potent weapon of the political 
 combatant. The doubts, the self-questionings of men 
 of diffident nature handicap them in the race with 
 competitors of unruffled self-confidence. Thus, in the
 
 INTRODUCTION. xtti 
 
 long and interesting conflict between Lord Beaconsfield 
 and the present Lord Derby, all the advantages at first 
 sight were in favour of the younger man. He is the 
 descendant of a long line of wealthy peers who hold 
 places in the history and in the sublimest literature of 
 the country ; his opponent was the son of a Hebrew 
 litterateur. Lord Derby had the reputation of having 
 a character essentially English in its good sense and 
 its unimaginativeness ; his rival had histrionic tricks 
 worthy of an Eastern showman and perilous flashes 
 of a romancer's imagination. Lord Derby was com- 
 paratively young ; his opponent stood on the brink 
 of the grave. To mark the largeness of the odds 
 in Lord Derby's favour, one has only to recall the 
 statements that were commonly made when the 
 election of 1874 gave the Conservatives their unex- 
 pected and overwhelming victory. Everybody was 
 then saying that it was Lord Derby and not Lord 
 Beaconsfield whom the country was calling to the 
 leadership of the party and the rule of the country ; 
 and Lord Derby had himself, at a public dinner 
 immediately after the election, to protest against the 
 attempt to run him in competition with his old chief 
 a protest that at the time was supposed to display 
 great generosity of character. Within four years of 
 that time, Lord Derby had been driven out in humilia-
 
 xviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tion from the Cabinet of Lord Beaconsfield ; and 
 a little later the man put in competition with Lord 
 Beaconsfield for the Premiership was a subordinate 
 member of a Liberal Cabinet, distanced hopelessly 
 and for ever in the race for first political place. 
 
 We do not yet know the inner history of the 
 struggle between the two men ; but one thing may be 
 confidently asserted, that the issue was due largely to 
 the difference in temperament as well as in opinion 
 between the rivals. The somewhat commonplace 
 Englishman, with notions of duty to his country, a 
 horror of bloodshed, the fears of an avenging conscience, 
 had no chance in times of perilous and fateful resolves 
 against the brilliant, callous, self-adoring Oriental. 
 It would be bad taste to enter into a comparison 
 of the courage of a man still living with that of 
 a man dead; but assuredly few would find it easy 
 to believe that there was a greater want of purely 
 physical courage in the robust and massive frame of 
 the Englishman than in the thin, light, though lithe 
 frame of the Oriental The courage in which they 
 differed was not physical courage, any more than 
 "MathA," the barbarian warrior, was less bold than 
 the Greek slave he despised. Lord Beaconsfield's 
 superiority was in the want of the cowardice that 
 comes from scruple and self-doubt.
 
 INTRODUCTION. xix 
 
 It is one of the fictions by which Lord Salisbury 
 has sought to justify the difference of his attitude 
 towards Lord Beaconsfield in his earlier and in his 
 latest days that Lord Beaconsfield sustained a great 
 change in his old age. Whatever might have been 
 the faults and offences of his youth, at least he came 
 to esteem above all things the glory of his country 
 when he was Premier for the last time : such is the 
 apologia of Lord Salisbury for his acceptance with 
 such servile humility of the position of Lord Beacons- 
 field's subordinate and tool. The defence is utterly 
 untenable. It is hard for any one except a member 
 of the Salvation Army to believe in sudden transfor- 
 mations of character in any man ; but most difficult in 
 the case of Lord Beaconsfield. The career is singu- 
 larly inconsistent in its defence and attack of principles; 
 and no politician ever made less scruple of preaching 
 the most opposite doctrines to suit his political 
 exigencies ; but yet on most of his innermost con- 
 victions he never really changed. And his character 
 above all things was set in a singular rigidity of line. 
 The purposes of his maturity were the avowed pur- 
 poses of his early boyhood ; the means employed were 
 practically the same ; the pursuit of the purpose never 
 varied and never flagged. Soft as wax Lord Beacons- 
 field certainly was, so far as regarded the adoption of
 
 xx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the strategies, the cries, the passions, the faiths of 
 other men whom he wanted to use ; bnt he himself 
 in his own individual and inner nature was as un- 
 impressible as granite. It is impossible to think of 
 any great change of purpose or character in a man of 
 such a nature. 
 
 It may be that he had convinced himself that 
 the policy he adopted in the Eastern struggle was 
 that best calculated to advance the interests of Eng- 
 land; and though his feeling for this country was 
 like his feeling for the aristocracy a curious mix- 
 ture of the scorn of the supreme and foreign egotist 
 and the servility of the self-seeking and mean 
 adventurer ; yet he probably felt the interest in the 
 nation's welfare of the master in his servant. But it 
 would require an entire perversion of the palpable 
 lessons of his whole career, and of any careful and 
 impartial study of his character, to assume that any 
 consideration for England, or for anything else in the 
 world but himself, was the guiding motive of his 
 policy. To himself he was the centre of the uni- 
 verse, around which everything else was bound to 
 revolve. That conception of his place in this world 
 is to be found in all his literary works, in all his 
 political conduct; it was equally to be seen in all 
 the small habits of the mail. There never was a
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 face that had a look of more complete self-conscious- 
 ness. The historic pose in the House of Commons 
 was one of the most extraordinary instances in history 
 of an actor that never took off his wig or rouge or 
 rohes. It required a nature that could lie buried in 
 reverential contemplation of self and of what the 
 world thought of him, to bear for so many long 
 hours every day, during a parliamentary career of 
 forty-four years, the strain of a face set in sphinx- 
 like impassiveness and a figure of rigid immobility. 
 What, then, was the secret of Lord Beaconsfield's 
 attitude on the Eastern Question? Not, assuredly, 
 the enthusiasm for the glory of England which com- 
 mends itself to the unsophisticated and the pro- 
 verbially charitable imagination of Lord Salisbury. 
 No; it was the desire to cut a big figure, to feel 
 himself one of the levers that could move the 
 mightiest and the most terrible forces of the world, 
 that could send hundreds of thousands of other men 
 into the dread shock of arms and bring into a col- 
 lision the vastest countries of the world. And in 
 contemplating such a prospect, with ecstasy un- 
 disturbed by a single tremor of self-reproach, Lord 
 Beaconsfield had his advantage over Lord Derby. 
 Self-adoration makes a man strong in face of tragic 
 and awful possibilities. The supreme egotist is as
 
 ixii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 incapable of the hesitations of ordinary conscience as 
 a tiger of being taught the Christian doctrine of the 
 sacredness of human life. Lord Beaconsfield be- 
 longed to the race of supreme egotists. "They are 
 happily rare in human life. ' 
 
 Another favourite statement with regard to Lord 
 Beaconsfield, and with his enemies no less than his 
 friends, is that he was a self-mocker. This is a 
 complete misapprehension of the entire character of 
 the man. He always took himself seriously. The 
 fulsome flattery of the world he regarded as but his 
 due; he contemplated himself always as a great 
 natural portent. He may have laughed at every- 
 thing else in the world ; he never laughed at him- 
 self. 
 
 This book was written in the midst of a great 
 and exciting political struggle ; and in the estimate 
 of the issues of a controversial and tempestuous time, 
 there are doubtless many traces of the heat and in- 
 justice of eager partisanship. The author, since he 
 produced the work, has had some experience of active 
 political life ; and though he is not ready to form 
 a more favourable estimate of Lord Beaconsfield, he 
 might, perhaps, be not disinclined to accept less 
 favourable views of some of his antagonists. To 
 enter into an explanation of any modification which
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxiii 
 
 / 
 
 the views of the writer may have undergone on those 
 points, would take him outside his purpose. The 
 book is intended to be mainly a biography, a study 
 of a great historic character. And the writer is as 
 convinced now as when he wrote it, that, as a study 
 of character, it will be ultimately adopted as an 
 accurate analysis of Lord Beaconsfield's nature and 
 purposes. 
 
 It remains only now to complete rapidly the sketch 
 ot Lord Beaconsfield's career from the period to which 
 it is brought in the text. He is taken leave of there 
 at the triumphant moment when, to a multitude of 
 wildly enthusiastic admirers, he declared that he had 
 brought back "peace with honour" from the Berlin 
 Conference. 
 
 The general impression is that Lord Beaconsfield 
 was anxious to have the appeal to the constituencies 
 at that period. Certainly he never, throughout the 
 whole course of his political career, stood nearly so 
 high in the confidence of the country. Honours 
 poured in upon him : he was entertained at a banquet 
 at Knightsbridge by an assembly of the highest in 
 rank of his party, including many who had held 
 aloof from him for years in distrust of his character 
 or contempt of his origin ; he received the freedom
 
 QT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of the City amid every mark of popular favour ; he 
 was ordered to Osborne to take from the hands of 
 the Queen the exalted Order of the Garter. The 
 extent of his power and popularity was to be seen in 
 the fact that the spirit of exultant egotism, which, 
 having found such free and childish expression in his 
 youth, had been carefully restrained in maturity, 
 once more broke forth ; and he assailed Mr. Gladstone, 
 his chief opponent, with ferocity, and even with inso- 
 lence. There can be little doubt that if his advice 
 had been followed, and if the general election had 
 then taken place, he would have received a new 
 lease of power. But the great moment was allowed 
 to pass ; and shortly after this period of dazzling 
 triumph, difficulties and embarrassments began to 
 dog his path. 
 
 The first of these came from India. The govern 
 inent was represented there by the son of one of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's oldest personal and political friends, 
 the present Lord Lytton. The evidence has since 
 been produced which proves that when Lord Lytton 
 was sent to India, it was to cany out a part of 
 that programme of spirited policy with which Lord 
 Beaconsfield had determined to signalize his second 
 Premiership. The fruits of this scheme soon began 
 to show themselves, and the country, before it knew
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxv 
 
 well where it was, found itself committed to a tedious, 
 costly, and perilous war with Afghanistan. The war 
 was fought with varying fortunes and with many 
 episodes of tragedy and some of humiliation. The 
 Viceroy of India sent an embassy to the entrance 
 into Afghanistan to pave the way for the establish- 
 ment of English influence and the admission of an 
 English representative at Cabul. The mission was 
 turned back with circumstances which were exag- 
 gerated at the time into deliberate and gross insult. 
 An ultimatum was then despatched to Shere Ali, 
 and in the same way the reply received was repre- 
 sented as couched in very insulting language. When 
 the text was published, the letter was found, as the 
 Spectator put it, to be "a whine, not an insult." 
 War was declared, and the English troops succeeded 
 easily in driving into exile Shere Ali, the then ruler 
 of the country, and in making their way to Cabul. In 
 May 1879, a treaty was made at Gandamak a town 
 between Jellalabad and Cabul between Yakoob Khan, 
 who had succeeded Shere Ali, his father, the stout old 
 warrior not having survived the ruin of his kingdom, 
 and it was agreed that an English envoy should be 
 received at Cabul. Sir Louis Cavagnari, an Irish 
 officer who had taken a distinguished part in these 
 
 transactions, was selected as the representative of 
 
 c
 
 xxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 England ; and everybody thought that their complete 
 triumph had fully justified the policy of the Govern- 
 ment The congratulations had scarcely been uttered 
 when the worst prophecies of the opponents of the 
 Afghan policy of the Cabinet were realized. There was 
 a popular rising in Cabul, and Sir Louis Cavagnari 
 and his companions were massacred. This compelled 
 the Government to enter on a new campaign ; and on 
 Christmas Eve of 1879 the British troops once more 
 entered Cabul. 
 
 In the midst of these disturbing events there had 
 come the news that war had broken out in another 
 part of the empire. The responsibility for this new 
 embarrassment belonged to Sir Bartle Frere ; but it 
 was the spirit of violence and adventure of the Govern- 
 ment at home which had stimulated the excesses of 
 their representatives in Africa. This war came at a 
 time when the public mind was already alarmed at 
 the magnitude of the enterprises into which it had 
 been drawn ; and the causes which were put forward 
 in its justification, were generally held to be flimsy 
 and disproportionate. The prickings of conscience 
 were stimulated by the news that a disaster had 
 happened to the British arms terrible in its com- 
 pleteness. The condemnation of the Ministry became 
 strong, and the public mind was still further en-
 
 INTRODUCTION. vii 
 
 lightened as to what a spirited foreign policy meant 
 by the state of the national finances. Attempts were 
 made to hide from the public, as much as possible, the 
 full cost of the policy which it had applauded with 
 such lightness of heart. Sir Stafford Northcote, then 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of following the 
 good old plan of paying the cost of the various enter- 
 prises of the Q-overnment immediately, spread the 
 payment over several years. But these tactics did not 
 wholly succeed. The disturbance in the finances of 
 the country from these costly enterprises was aggra- 
 vated by the bad state of trade and the unbroken 
 series of agricultural depression. " I am," said Lord 
 Beaconsfield, talking over the causes of his fall to 
 Lord Ronald Grower ("Reminiscences," ii. 354-5), "the 
 unluckiest of mortals ; six bad harvests in succession, 
 one worse than the former, this has been the cause of 
 my overthrow ; like Napoleon, I have been beaten by 
 the elements." He did not add that he had helped 
 the destructive effects of the elements by the inrecuri.ty 
 which his bellicose policy induced and the vast taxa- 
 tion which his enterprises necessitated. Finally, the 
 Government was discredited by the state of things in 
 Parliament. Under the feeble lead of Sir Stafford 
 Northcote, and through the vigorous and merciless 
 tactics of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar, the Ministry
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 had lost all control over that assembly ; and its prestige 
 there was farther prejudiced by the incessant attacks 
 of an energetic, passionate, and able Opposition. 
 
 Such was the state of things when the year 1880 
 opened. There had as yet been given no hint that the 
 Government intended to dissolve Parliament. The 
 fact was over and over again repeated that the Parlia- 
 ment had still, according to law, a full year to run ; 
 and the session began in the ordinary way. The long- 
 expected and oft-delayed moment was, however, near 
 at hand, and was hastened by a victory and a disaster. 
 The victory was the success of Mr. Clarke for South- 
 wark following on a victory at Liverpool ; the disaster 
 was the Water Bill introduced by Mr. (now Sir) 
 Richard Cross. This measure proposed the purchase 
 of the rights of the Water Companies on terms 
 monstrously and ridiculously high j and it had scarcely 
 been introduced when everybody confessed that its 
 defeat was foredoomed. The dissolution could no 
 longer be delayed. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield was at this moment confronted 
 by the difficulty which he had so often ridiculed in the 
 deshabille of literature the want of a good cry. The 
 hour had passed when a spirited foreign policy could 
 excite the popular imagination, for the dream had been 
 translated into the hideous reality of bloodshed, huge
 
 INTRODUCTION. xrix 
 
 expenditure, perilous and wide- spreading enterprises. 
 And on the other hand there was no principle of 
 domestic reform to which the leader of a Conservative 
 Administration could appeal. Here, indeed, was a 
 difficulty for a statesman who had made the gratifica- 
 tion of the passions of a nation the guiding principle 
 of his policy. But though the passion of blood and 
 hate could no longer take the shape of appeals against 
 great and strong powers, it might be still roused 
 against the weak and the helpless. The love of con- 
 quest abroad had to give place to the correlative love 
 of masterfulness at home ; for the traditional hatred 
 of Russia had to be substituted the ever latent hatred 
 of the smaller and weaker dependency. Lord Beacons- 
 field resolved to appeal to the constituencies on an 
 anti- Irish cry. 
 
 A policy like this wicked beyond description at 
 any time was especially so at the moment when 
 Lord Beaconsfield adopted it. For, as everybody now 
 knows, the matter has passed out of the stage of 
 controverted into that of admitted historical facts, 
 Ireland at that moment stood face to face with one of 
 the famines that have been Nature's periodic Nemesis 
 for a system of land tenure that permitted the lord of 
 the soil to constantly keep the tiller at the lowest 
 point above actual starvation. The potato crop, which
 
 xxx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 had been bad for the years 1877 and 1878, had in 
 1879 fallen to a point which represented the destruc- 
 tion of at least two-thirds of the entire crop. Three 
 bad potato crops in succession meant in Ireland at 
 least, as she then was wholesale destitution and 
 sporadic famine. The most prominent leaders of the 
 Irish people had attempted in vain to bring this state 
 of things home to the minds of the Legislature ; and, 
 baffled by the steady refusal to attend to the crying and 
 terrible evils that gathered over their country, or 
 exasperated by remedies mean and insufficient, had 
 resorted to tactics which had exasperated public opinion 
 in England against them. Mr. Parnell, too, had in 
 Ireland finally given in his adhesion to a movement 
 which called upon the people to strive for radical 
 change in their condition ; and had advised them in 
 the mean time, instead of lying down to die, as did 
 their fathers in the famine of 1846, to withhold in the 
 present famine as much of the rent from the landlords 
 as would enable them to keep themselves and their 
 families from the graves of the starved. This move- 
 ment had, of course, been misrepresented in England. 
 The press of London filled their columns with denun- 
 ciations of Mr. Parnell as preaching public plunder ; 
 and in Parliament, Mr. James Lowther, then the 
 Chief Secretary for Ireland, grinned through a horse-
 
 INTRODUCTION. . xS 
 
 collar while this national tragedy was slowly unfolding 
 its dread succession of scenes. With Ireland starving, 
 and at the same time exasperatingly loud in menace 
 and complaint, with England angry, ignorant, and 
 misinformed, the time was ripe for an anti-Irish 
 cry ; and Lord Beaconsfield determined to play that 
 villanous card. 
 
 The announcement of the Dissolution accordingly 
 took the shape of a letter to the late Duke of Marl- 
 borough, who was then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. 
 This historic document was as strange in form as it 
 was in opinion. It seemed as if Lord Beaconsfield 
 desired to show the recrudescence of the worst faults 
 of his earlier style. The language was pretentious, 
 inflated, barely English at all. " All men of light and 
 leading " " to consolidate the co-operation " these 
 were two of the flowers of speech in this extraordinary 
 document, at which all England laughed. The attack 
 on the Irish Members had that extravagance which 
 was the inseparable accompaniment of Lord Beacons- 
 field's affectation of principles and feelings which he 
 did not entertain. The demand for self-government in 
 Ireland, which, by the way, at the moment the Irish 
 Members were not very urgently pressing, being too 
 busy with the primary question of saving their people 
 from starvation, was described as " a danger in its
 
 xxxu INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ultimate result scarcely less disastrous than pestilence 
 and famine." Then, it being notorious that the 
 leaders of the Liberal party at the time were just as 
 hostile, and for that matter quite as unjust, as Lord 
 Beaconsfield himself to Mr. Parnell and his principles, 
 Lord Beaconsfield went on to describe the Liberal 
 party as being ready to " challenge the imperial 
 character of this realm. Having attempted," went 
 on this extraordinary effusion, " and failed to enfeeble 
 our colonies by their policy of decomposition, they may 
 perhaps now recognize in the disintegration of the 
 United Kingdom a mode which will not only accom- 
 plish but precipitate their purpose." 
 
 To any one who will study the pages which follow 
 this introduction, this manifesto will cause no surprise. 
 He will see in it the devices, the arts, the morality, the 
 tricks even of style, which run with such singular 
 uniformity throughout the whole of Lord Beaconsfield's 
 career. Exaggerated charges against opponents in 
 which he believed less himself probably than anybody 
 else ; unscrupulous appeals to the lower rather than 
 the better instincts of the people ; language at once 
 inflated and mysterious, these are the characteristics 
 of his appeals throughout his whole political life. He 
 was, indeed, consistent ; he conjured to the end. 
 
 Nobody had the least idea of what the result of the
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 appeal to the constituencies would be. In London, 
 to judge at least by the press, the popularity of Lord 
 Beaconsfield was still unshaken ; and the general 
 impression was that he would again have a majority. 
 The first few days of the election removed this impres- 
 sion. Defeat followed defeat in disastrous succession, 
 and when the final result was known, it was found that 
 the Liberals had been returned with a success more 
 overwhelming than even the great Conservative victory 
 of 1874. Lord Beaconsfield saw that his day was over, 
 and refused to accept the glozing consolings of his 
 friends. Before he retired from office, however, he 
 made a last attempt to gratify his hate of his success- 
 ful rival. He recommended the Queen to send for 
 Lord Hartington ; and he bitterly complained to Lord 
 Ronald Grower (" My Reminiscences," ii. 355) that 
 Lord Hartington did not lend himself to this plot to 
 deprive the Premier of the fruits of the victory which 
 he was the most potent instrument in gaining. It 
 was on April 19th that he went to Windsor Castle to 
 surrender the Premiership ; on the same day, twelve 
 months after, he died. 
 
 But there was no sign of death being so near for 
 some time after he left office. He took an active part 
 in a meeting of his party which took place immediately 
 after his fall ; and he attended with sufficient regularity
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in his place in the House of Lords. Within a few 
 months after his retirement from office, he published 
 another and the last of his novels. I have never read 
 it ; and pronounce no criticism. He spent a consider- 
 able part of the year 1880 in Hughenden ; and there 
 is an interesting account of him in his retreat in the 
 book I have already quoted, Lord Ronald Grower's 
 " Reminiscences." He was always fond of the country ; 
 exaggerated the simple beauties of Hnghenden (it. 348) ; 
 and with his nature at once dreamy and equable, was 
 able to get on very well without society. As he put it 
 to Lord Ronald Gower, " he likes his solitude," and 
 11 does not know what it is to feel bored even for a 
 moment" (/., 358). His main grievance seems to have 
 been that he was still pestered with the cares of leader- 
 ship ; and there are amusing pictures of the not wholly 
 undeserved contempt he had for the mediocrities whom 
 he had elevated into spurious and undeserved import- 
 ance ( Vide 355-6). 
 
 In 1881, he took his place at the opening of Parlia- 
 ment as leader of the Conservatives in the House of 
 Lords. But it was easy to see that his health was 
 rapidly failing. The chief debate in which he took 
 part was that initiated by Lord Lytton on the abandon- 
 ment of Candahar by the Liberal Ministry. At least 
 once in the course of that speech he lost his memory.
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 " There are," he said, " several places which are called 
 the Keye of India. There is Merv . . . then there is 
 a place whose name I forget" (Times, March 5, 1881) 
 meaning, of course, Herat, which for the moment had 
 escaped his memory. I was present on the occasion of 
 this speech ; and it was certainly a painful and even 
 a touching scene. Throughout the whole speech, Lord 
 Beaconsfield had a dreadfully inanimate look ; he 
 appeared like a man in a dream ; and even the respect 
 to his age and his position did not prevent occasionally 
 those indications of weariness which an assembly is as 
 unable to control for any length of time as a child its 
 emotions. It speaks eloquently of the hard fate of the 
 public man, that as he told Lord G-ranville he had 
 to swallow two powders before he was able to speak ! 
 Macaulay was right ; power is well- watched slavery. 
 The last time Lord Beaconsfield spoke in the House of 
 Lords was in seconding the Vote of Condolence on the 
 assassination of the late C/ar. This was on March 15. 
 On March 19 he dined with the Prince of Wales 
 at Marlborough House ; and he seems to have caught 
 a severe chill. On the following day he sent for 
 Dr. Kidd, his usual medical adviser, who, by the 
 way, is a follower of the heterodox medical creed of 
 Homoeopathy. At first it was not thought that the ill- 
 ness was very serious, and he was able to hold a meeting
 
 xxxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of his intimate political friends in his room towards the 
 end of March, to discuss the proposed speech of Lord 
 Cairns, in the House of Lords, on the conduct of the 
 Ministry in the Transvaal. At a later period he corrected 
 his last speech in the House of Lords, making the re- 
 mark, " I will not go down to posterity, at all events, as 
 talking bad grammar." The illness from which he 
 suffered was a combination of gout, bronchitis, and 
 asthma, and he went through the fluctuations of such 
 complaints. The public took an enormous interest in 
 his illness, and bulletins were issued twice daily. 
 One of the touching incidents of his illness is, that on 
 one occasion he asked to see a copy of the bulletin. 
 " What have you said," he asked, " about me, that the 
 British public will read when they awake in the morn- 
 ing? " On the bulletin being read to him which con- 
 tained the words, "Takes nourishment well, and the 
 strength is maintained," he remarked with a smile, 
 " I think the well is a little too strong ; " and with 
 regard to the last phrase he said, " No doubt you are 
 conscious of its accuracy ; I only wish I were." The 
 weather was variable, and when the sun shone brilliantly 
 there were slight symptoms of recovery ; but on Easter 
 Monday the weather underwent a severe change for 
 the worse ; there came bitter east winds ; and he 
 gradually grew weaker. On Monday, April 18th, the
 
 INTRODUCTION. xxxvii 
 
 crisis came ; at midnight of that day he grew very 
 weak ; lost strength rapidly ; at two o'clock on Tuesday 
 morning his intimate friends were sent for, and shortly 
 after, he drew his last breath. It is stated that just 
 before he died he used the words, " I am over- 
 whelmed." * 
 
 The disappearance from the political stage of so 
 familiar and picturesque a figure naturally called forth 
 an outburst of popular emotion. In that moment the 
 follies and mistakes of his career were forgotten, and 
 the sorrow for his death unquestionably was profound 
 and universal. He was buried, by his own directions, 
 in the same vault as his wife, in Hughenden church- 
 yard. As has been said, his fame, up to the present, 
 has been increased, not diminished, by his death. To 
 a period more remote than the present must it be left 
 to decide whether the estimate of his character given in 
 the following pages is true or false, just or unjust ; 
 whether I have drawn a portrait or a caricature.* 
 
 * The one point which came out in the voluminous accounts 
 published during his illness and after his death, which corrects 
 a statement in this volume, is as to his place of birth. He stated 
 that when his father was young in his married life, he was poor, 
 and lived in a chamber in the Adelphi (Times, April 20, 1881). 
 His large store of books overflowed into every room in the 
 house, including that in which the future Premier was born ; 
 hence the phrase in the general preface to his works, " Born in 
 a Library."
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS ... 1 
 
 II. VIVIAN GREY .... 27 
 
 III. THE FIRST ELECTION ... 43 
 
 IV. THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYC031BE . 56 
 V. REACHING THE NADIR .... 83 
 
 VI. OTHER CONTROVERSIES . . . .113 
 
 VII. THE MAIDEN SPEECH .... 145 
 
 viii. "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT" . . .177 
 
 IX. YOUNG ENGLAND 202 
 
 X. PREPARING THE MUTINY . . . 248 
 
 XI. THE FALL OF PEEL .... 279 
 
 XII. PROTECTIONIST LEADER .... 360 
 
 XIII. MINISTER 419 
 
 xiv. "A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION" . , . 478 
 
 XV. DICTATOR 602 
 
 INDEX 677
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD: 
 
 A BIOGRAPHY. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 
 
 THERE are two stories with regard to the date of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's birth : the one given by him- 
 self, the other by Mr. Picciotto. According to 
 " Dod," that is, Lord Beaconsfield, the future 
 Premier was born on December 21, in the year 1805 : 
 Mr. Picciotto fixes the date of the birth in 1804 
 a year earlier.* There is the same uncertainty 
 as to where Lord Beaconsfield was born : some say 
 it was in Hackney; but the generally accepted tra- 
 dition is that it was in the house at the south-west 
 corner of Bloomsbury Square, facing Hart Street. 
 
 He was the son of Isaac D'Israeli, and of Maria, 
 daughter of George (or Joshua) Basevi, of Brighton, 
 and was the second of four children. His sister 
 * " Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History," p. 300. 
 
 I
 
 a LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Sarah, was the eldest child : Ralph and James were 
 younger than he. Sarah accompanied her brother 
 on one of his Eastern tours, and there are strong 
 traces of her influence in "Alroy." She died in 
 1 859, and her tomb may be seen in Willesden Ceme- 
 tery, Paddington.* James was appointed by Lord 
 
 * Miss D'Israeli plays an important part in the life of her father. 
 "Towards the end of the year 1839, still in the fall vigour of bis 
 health and intellect," writes Lord Beaconsfield of his father, '-he 
 suffered a paralysis of the optic nerve ; and that eye which so long a 
 term had kindled with critical interest over the volumes of so many 
 literatures was doomed to pursue its animated course no more." 
 ' Unhappily," proceeds Lord Beaconsfield, " his previous habits of 
 study and composition rendered the habit of dictation intolerable, 
 even impossible to him. But with the assistance of his daughter, 
 whose intelligent solicitude he has commemorated in more than one 
 grateful passage, he selected from his manuscript three volumes." 
 ("Curiosities of Literature of Isaac D'Israeli," edited by his Son. 
 Introduction, viii., ix.) Let me give one or two specimens from the 
 "grateful passages" in which Isaac D'Israeli speaks of the ''intelli- 
 gent solicitude " of his daughter. In the Preface to the " Amenities 
 of Literature " (Moxon, 1841.) occurs the following passage : " There is 
 one more remark in which I must indulge ; the author of the present 
 work is denied the satisfaction of reading a single line of it, yet he 
 flatters himself that he shall not trespass on the indulg nee he claims 
 for any slight inadvertencies. It has been confided to ONE whose 
 eyes unceasingly pursue the volume for him who can never read, and 
 whose eager hand traces the thought ere it vanish in the thinking ; 
 but it is only a father who can conceive the affectionate patience 
 of filial devotion." (ix.-x.) "Public favour," he writes again in 
 the u Miscellanies of Literature," (Moxon, 1840, Preface, vi.,) " has 
 encouraged the republication of these various works, which, often 
 referred to, have long been difficult to procure. It has been deferred 
 from day to day with the intention of giving the subjects a more 
 enlarged investigation ; but I have delayed the task till it cannot be 
 oerformed. One of the Calamities of Authors falls to my lot, the 
 
 lelicate organ of vision has suffered a singular disease which no 
 oculist by his touch can heal, and no physician by his knowledge can 
 expound ; so much remains concerning the frame of man unrevealcd 
 t-i man ! In the midst of my library, I am. as it were, distant from
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 3 
 
 Beaconsfield to a Commissionersliip in the Inland 
 Revenue, and died, rather suddenly, in 1868. Ralph, 
 who also owes his elevation to his better-known 
 brother, still holds the office of Deputy Clerk of 
 Parliaments. 
 
 The first of the family to settle in England was 
 
 it. My unfinished labours, frustrated designs, remain paralysed. In 
 the joyous heat I wander no longer over the wide circuit before me. 
 The ' strucken deer ' has the sad privilege to weep when he lies down, 
 perhaps no more to course amid those far-distant woods where once 
 he sought to range. Although thus compelled to refrain in a great 
 measure from all manual labour, and incapacitated from the use of 
 the pen and the book, these works notwithstanding have received 
 many important corrections, having been read over to me with critical 
 precision. Amid this partial darkness, I am not left without a distant 
 hope nor a present consolation ; and to HER who has so often lent to 
 me the light of her eyes, the intelligence of her voice, and the careful 
 work of her hand, the author must ever owe the 'debt immense' of 
 paternal gratitude." 
 
 Mr. H. G. Bohn, the eminent publisher, in a letter to the Richmond 
 and Twickenham Times, August 3, 1878, gives the following interest- 
 ing particulars with regard to Mr. Meredith, the betrothed of Miss 
 Disraeli : " The Mr. Meredith who was engaged to marry Miss Sarah 
 D' Israeli was an accomplished and highly educated gentleman, the 
 nephew and adopted heir of Mr. William Meredith, a retired con- 
 tractor of considerable wealth who had remained a confirmed celibate 
 to an advanced age. His name had become familiar in literary 
 t'ircles in consequence of his liberal patronage of Mr. Thomas Taylor, 
 the so-called Platonist, whose translation of Aristotle in ten volumes 
 quarto, and many other translations from the Greek, he encouraged 
 and paid for to the extent of several thousand pounds, besides grant- 
 ing him an annuity for life. Mr. Meredith's great enjoyment was 
 literary society, to which end he used during the London season to 
 give monthly dinners literary symposia to parties of eight, rarely 
 more, at which, besides myself, were usually present Mr. Thomas 
 Taylor, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Day, the Poor Law Commissioner, Mr. 
 Meredith, junior, and occasionally one or both the D'Israelis. 
 There were others, but I don't remember their names. The eldest 
 Mr. Meredith died late in the summer of 1831, and with the exception 
 of the annuity already granted to Mr. Thomas Taylor, bequeathed all
 
 4 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Benjamin D'Israeli, grandfather of the present bearer 
 of the same name. As to the history of the family 
 before their arrival in England, we have to rely 
 wholly on the authority of Lord Beaconsfield ; and 
 his story is somewhat fanciful. His grandfather, he 
 tells us,* was "an Italian descendant from one of 
 those Hebrew families whom the Inquisition forced 
 to emigrate from the Spanish Peninsula at the end of 
 the fifteenth century, and who found a refuge in the 
 more tolerant atmosphere of the Venetian Republic." 
 In their new home they dropped their "Gothic 
 surname," and "grateful to the God of Jacob, who 
 had sustained them through unprecedented trials, 
 and guarded them through unheard-of perils, they 
 assumed the name of Disraeli, a name never borne 
 before or since by any other family, in order that 
 their race might for ever be recognised/' 
 
 Continuing the story in the same strain, he tells 
 
 Ins property, including a fine library, to the nephew in question, who, 
 however, died of fever at Gibraltar on his way home, a few days after 
 his uncle, and before he could receive tidings of the event. In con- 
 sequence of this, the property passed to his father's rather numerous 
 family, which was by no means originally intended. Miss D'Israeli 
 retired to Twickenham in 1832, where she resided till within a short 
 time of her death, in one of the Ailsa Park villas, solacing herself 
 with charitable pursuits and the cultivation of her small garden." The 
 inscription on her monument is as follows: " In Memory of Sarah, 
 only Daughter of Isaac D'Israeli, Esqre., Author of Curiosities of 
 Literature. Born 29th Deer., 1802. Died 19th Deer., 1859." The 
 monument consists of a Maltese Cross, which bears the letters I. U.S., 
 and at the junction of the arms is the inscription " Thy will be done," 
 graven in old English characters. 
 
 * " Curiosities of Literature of Isaac Disraeli," edited by his Son. 
 I. Introduction, xx. xxii. Fourteenth edition, 1849.
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS, 5 
 
 as that the Disraelis belonged to the higher Jewish 
 caste of the Sephardim, and that they were related to 
 the very best Hebrew families. It is not explained 
 to us why Disraeli should be considered a name so 
 peculiar in a Jew: it is simply Israel, with a ' d' 
 prefixed, and a vowel added : in other words, an 
 Italianized form of one of the very commonest of all 
 Jewish names. Nor does Lord Beaconsfield explain 
 why a name so peculiar, and by which the race 
 was to " be for ever recognised," has been changed 
 by himself. His father always spelled the name 
 " D'Israeli," and so, as a rule, did Lord Beaconsfield 
 himself in his earlier years. And, finally, we have 
 no mention here of a third variety of the name. 
 We hear nothing either in connection with the 
 remarkable name itself, or in the catalogue of the 
 family's grand relations of a Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, 
 who, in the earlier part of this century, carried on 
 business as a money-lender in the. city of Dublin. 
 This omission is the more strange if it be true that 
 Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, of Dublin, was the uncle of 
 Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. 
 
 Up to the publication of Mr. Picciotto's interesting 
 book, to which I have already referred, the con- 
 nection of Isaac D'Israeli with the Jewish faith was 
 generally supposed to have been slight and brief, 
 and certainly to have closed before the birth of his 
 son. Mr. Picciotto has thrown, however, quite a 
 different light upon this subject. It is true that 
 Isaac D'Israeli, though he was for years a regular
 
 6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 subscriber to the synagogue/ was never a regular 
 attendant at its services, inherited religious indiffer- 
 ence on both sides, f and abandoned all communion 
 with the faith on very small cause. But he remained 
 in avowed communion with the creed till 1817, and 
 did not completely break from it until 1821. 
 
 As a consequence, Lord Beaconsfield was brought 
 up during his earlier years in the Jewish faith ; and 
 both he and his brothers were " all initiated into the 
 covenant of Abraham." Mr. Picciotto even gives the 
 name of the person who performed the "initiatory 
 rite."J 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, however, did not long remain 
 a member of his ancestral faith; but the circum- 
 stances of his entrance into the Christian Church 
 
 Picciotto, p. 296. 
 
 f Ibid., p. 295 j and Lord Beacousfield gives similar testimony. 
 His grandfather, he says (Curiosities of Literature, I. Int., xxiii.), 
 "appears never to have cordially and intimately mixed with his 
 communion." And as to his grandmother, he writes : " My grand- 
 mother, the beautiful daughter of a family who had suffered much 
 from persecution, had imbibed that dislike for her race which the 
 vain are too apt to adopt when they find that they are born to 
 public contempt. The indignant feeling that should be reserved 
 for the persecutor, in the mortification of their disturbed sensibility, 
 is too often visited on the victim; and the cause of annoyance is 
 recognised, not in the ignorant malevolence of the powerful, but in 
 the conscientious conviction of the innocent sufferer." (Ibid.) He 
 adds that she was "ao mortified by her social position (hat she lived 
 until eighty without indulging in a tender expression." (Ibid, xxv.) 
 
 t " It may be interesting," writes Mr. Picciotto, " to our Jewish 
 readers to learn th.it the gentleman who performed the initiatory 
 rite on the present Premier of England was a relative of his mother, 
 the late David Abarbenel Lindo, an influential member of the 
 Spanish and Portuguese congregation, and a merchant of high com- 
 mercial rtanduig." (Note, p. SOQ.)
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. ^ 
 
 are not clearly known. According to one story, 
 Mr. Rogers was the author of the great work of 
 regeneration. The tale goes that the poet, who was 
 an intimate friend of Isaac D'Israeli, took a fancy 
 to the bookworm's bright young child ; and, anxious 
 that religion should not be a bar to his success in 
 life, asked whether he had been baptized. Finding 
 that, though twelve years of age, the young hopeful 
 was still outside the pale of the Church, the pious 
 poet brought him off to the nearest church, and 
 had him baptized. This tale ought certainly to be 
 true; it would fit in dramatically with the rest of 
 Mr. Disraeli's career. Fancy the champion-in- chief of 
 our Established Church owing his Christianity to the 
 whim of a man unconnected with him in blood and 
 the whim of such a man ! Heine says one ought to 
 be very particular as to what grandfather he chooses ; 
 perhaps one ought to be even more particular in 
 his choice of a godfather. It was certainly rather 
 ominous to have as one's sponsor a man declared by 
 the experienced Luttrell to be the greatest sensualist 
 he had ever known.* 
 
 According to the other account, Lord Beaconsfield 
 owes his admission to the Christian Church to a 
 
 * " Luttrell was talking of Moore and Rogers the poetry of 
 the former so licentious, that of the latter so pure ; much of its 
 popularity owing to its being so carefully weeded of everything 
 approaching to indelicacy ; and the contrast between the lives 
 and the works of the two men the former a pattern of conjugal 
 and domestic regularity, the latter, of all the men he had ever 
 known, the greatest sensualist." Greville'g Memoirs, in. 324. Fourth 
 edition-
 
 B LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Mrs. Ellis, the wife of a literary man well known 
 some years ago. She, it is said, took advantage of 
 old D'Israeli's absence, and had the son baptized. 
 
 However, whatever doubt there may exist as to 
 Mr. Disraeli's sponsors, there is no doubt that he 
 was baptized, and that the ceremony took place in 
 St. Andrew's, Holborn. 
 
 This point, long in dispute, was settled by " Syl- 
 vanus Urban," of the Gentleman's Magazine, who, 
 in the December number of 1875, gives the form 
 on the page opposite as a copy from the Register 
 of Baptisms. 
 
 We have glimpses in Lord Beaconsfield's own words 
 of the manner of his life in his youth. His father is 
 generally supposed to have stood for one of the 
 figures in "Vivian Grey," and the description there 
 given of him represents a man at ease in his circum- 
 stances, devoted to study, and but slightly attentive 
 to the every-day cares of life. His son was probably 
 allowed pretty much his own way; and was not 
 so much reared, as allowed to grow. It is, perhaps, 
 characteristic of the father's easy way of taking 
 his child's destiny that he did not send him to 
 Eton, or to any other of the fashionable schools. 
 Indeed, the places where Lord Beaconsfield was 
 educated are so obscure that there is some diffi- 
 culty in finding out which they were. I believe he 
 spent some portion of his boyhood in a boarding- 
 school at Winchester; not in the great school of 
 the town, but in a private establishment there. He
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS 
 
 
 
 Q> c 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ^a 
 
 
 ,0 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 ^ - 
 03 
 
 P ^> a 
 
 111 
 
 at 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 'So 
 
 ^ 
 
 P 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 *w 
 
 pO 
 
 ^2 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 5* 
 
 S 
 
 H 
 
 PS 
 
 CO 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 W* ^ 
 
 PH 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 iH 
 
 g 
 
 
 Q T 
 
 O 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 a oo 
 
 ^ (H 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 1 
 
 ^' 
 
 o 
 
 fe * 
 o i^i 
 
 "3 a 
 
 tS 
 
 a 
 
 .S 
 
 .a 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 v ' 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 % 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 * i 
 
 g 1 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 o> 
 > 
 
 I 
 
 a3 
 
 1 
 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 "M 3* F 3 ' 
 .98 
 
 M 
 
 cS 
 
 m 
 
 "o 
 >, 
 
 v 
 
 PH 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ts 
 
 nd 
 
 
 P 
 
 i i 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 | 
 
 S "o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 CN 
 
 CO 
 
 
 *"" 
 
 ft 
 
 P3 
 
 | 
 
 B 
 
 ^ 
 
 h 
 
 B 
 
 |S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 1 
 
 Q g 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 55 
 
 "i 
 
 45 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 CN 
 
 M 
 
 ^J 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 ^(<t 
 
 8 
 P-I 
 
 CO 
 r-4 
 
 ,3 
 
 9 id ^ 
 
 " rt S o 
 
 <o 
 
 5 
 S 
 
 f> 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 ^ r "** 
 
 
 o 
 
 OJ 
 
 1 
 
 01 
 
 
 W 
 
 CO 
 
 o 1 
 
 
 
 a> 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 g 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 *j^ 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 .s" 
 
 _J3 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 i 
 
 S *o 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 f 
 
 2 c 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 <q 
 
 ii 
 
 13 
 
 
 "^ ^ 'S 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 PH 
 
 u ^ 
 
 o ^~ 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 5 cc ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 w t 
 
 ?- 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 IH 
 
 G ai 
 
 i-I CO 
 t~ CO CO 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ t. 
 -a-Z 
 
 
 i-l t^ 50 
 
 ao ,2? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ C 
 
 4 
 
 rt s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 H 
 

 
 to LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 is also said to have attended a school taught by 
 a Unitarian clergyman at Walthamstow ; and in an 
 essay in the Edinburgh Review, by Mr. A. Hay ward, 
 Q.C., I find it stated that he received part of his 
 education in Hampshire. 
 
 Whatever he does know, however, Lord Beaconsfield 
 probably owes principally to himself. We can quite 
 fancy that one of his dreamy and imaginative nature 
 took a strong delight in poring over the quaint 
 volumes with which the library of the author of the 
 "Curiosities of Literature" was filled. The history 
 of his own people, it is evident, was one of the sub- 
 jects of which he was passionately fond; for we find 
 traces in several of his works particularly in his early 
 ones of considerable acquaintance with the story of 
 the Jewish people. The thoughts which, in these 
 hours of boyish study, were suggested of the contrast 
 between the sublime Hebrew past and the mean 
 Hebrew present, had their share in firing the boy's 
 imagination, in stirring his ambition, perhaps also in 
 hardening his heart. 
 
 One great advantage Lord Beaconsfield reaped 
 from the position of his father: he obtained through 
 it the entree into good London society. Self-confident, 
 ready-tongued, and handsome, it is evident that he 
 made the most of this advantage ; and we find him 
 at a very early age a prominent figure at one of the 
 most prominent talons of London in that day. 
 
 \\ hile Mr. Disraeli was a youth, the Countess of 
 Bk-ssington and the Count d'Orsay were still in the
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. n 
 
 prime of life and the hey (ley of fortune. The 
 manner of life which the Countess led has been so 
 often described, that I may dismiss the subject 
 in a few words. Her ladyship, it is known, was 
 the daughter of a drunken, brutal, and impecunious 
 Irish squire, and spent her earlier days in a small 
 town in Ireland. Conscious at the same time of 
 extremely brilliant talents and brilliant beauty, she 
 must have felt with terrible bitterness the squalor 
 of her early surroundings, and have learned to prize 
 with fierce earnestness the advantages of wealth. 
 Then, she received from childhood the bad training 
 of those who have to hide from the outside world 
 the misery of their circumstances. And, in addition, 
 she was allowed unrestrained liberty, and made ample 
 use of the indulgence by audacious flirtations with 
 the garrison officers. Her girlhood was the fittest 
 training for an after-life of female Bohemianism. 
 Nor was her womanhood passed in circumstances 
 more favourable. She was married before she was 
 sixteen to a Captain Farmer, who was, or became, 
 a wild and insane drunkard. Separated from him, 
 she passed some years as the companion of a former 
 admirer. Captain Farmer died in 1817; four months 
 after his death, his widow was married to the Earl of 
 Blessington. The death of the Earl of Blessington in 
 1829 again left her a widow. 
 
 With the Countess of Blessingtou lived Count 
 d'Orsay. As he, too, has often been described, I 
 may dismiss him also with a few words. He had,
 
 , 2 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 it is well known, been married to the daughter of 
 the Earl, and the step-daughter of the Countess of 
 Blessington. The match, for some reason or other, 
 proved unhappy. The Count, his wife, and the 
 Countess of Blessington had at one time lived all 
 three together, but after two years of this life the 
 young Countess took leave of her husband and her 
 step-mother, and from that time till their death, 
 in various places and amid various fortunes, Count 
 d'Orsay and the Countess of Blessington lived to- 
 gether. They were perfectly suited the one to the 
 other, and evidently were deeply attached. But as to 
 whether their relations were immoral, as they were 
 equivocal, society had then, as now, strong suspicions, 
 yet no absolute certainty. It is, however, but just 
 to say that, in his last days, when the heavy hand 
 of illness had already fallen on him, and the heavier 
 hand of death was very near, and when already the 
 Countess was dead, Count d'Orsay solemnly declared 
 that he had never borne any love towards her but 
 that of a son to a mother. 
 
 The Count was blessed by nature with a fine face 
 and a splendid figure, and, as is known, was, amid 
 all the dandies of his time, the acknowledged leader 
 of fashion, dictating with equal omnipotence the 
 code of a ballroom and the shape of a hat. Nature, 
 besides, had bestowed on him the still greater blessing 
 of perfect health, and accordingly he was cheerful 
 amid multitudinous embarrassments, and was never 
 afflicted by that weariness of spirit which so often
 
 BIRTH A ND EARLY YEARS. 13 
 
 afflicts the favourites of fortune. He was, besides, 
 the paragon of politeness, had artistic ability of a 
 high order, and those who knew him best (Lord 
 Beaconsfield among the rest*) declare that, besides 
 those showy talents, he had a keen and solid intellect. 
 
 The company that Mr. Disraeli met at the Countess 
 of Blessington'a was of a motley character. The 
 future Emperor of the French, then plain Prince 
 Louis Napoleon, was often there taciturn, abstracted, 
 and, according to the appearance of the times, a 
 dreamer of wild dreams. And with him came, too, 
 M. de Moray, engaged as yet in composing light 
 love poems, occasionally strumming the guitar, and 
 giving to but few, and perhaps not even to himself, 
 any indication of the will of iron and the heart of 
 steel that could plot the strangulation of a republic, 
 the quick assassination of hundreds in the streets, 
 and the slow murder of thousands in the pontoons. 
 
 There, too, probably Mr. Disraeli occasionally heard 
 Theodore Hook's good-natured, and Horace Smith's 
 pointed, wit, Tom Moore's melodies, and the evil 
 stories of Rogers; and it may have been in this 
 debateable ground that he first laid the foundations 
 of that friendship with Lord Lyndhurst which was to 
 so greatly help and so deeply influence his career. 
 
 It will be seen that, however varied the nationality, 
 
 the pursuit, and the character of the people who met 
 
 at the Countess of Blessiugton's, there was yet a 
 
 certain similarity a sort of family likeness between 
 
 * "Lothair," General Preface, xviii.
 
 I 4 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 several of them. The equivocal character of the house 
 was reflected in the equivocal character of the guests. 
 
 Many of the guests, like the host, were gamblers 
 with fortune : great in hope and deep in debt, rich 
 in talents and energy, but with a career spoiled or 
 not yet come, and ever expecting the morrow that 
 would bring sublime fortune or abysmal ruin. 
 
 We see, then, the double influences to which the 
 young Disraeli was subjected. On the one hand, 
 there was the literary quiet of his home; on the 
 other, the bustle of ft society in which he moved 
 among the active and the great of the earth. His 
 surroundings at once suggested literary effort and 
 political ambition. 
 
 The nature, too, which was exposed to these 
 different sets of circumstances, was, like that of 
 most men, a very mixed one. On one side of his 
 character dreamy, imaginative, and abstracted, young 
 Disraeli was on the other active, practical, and 
 observant. And now we proceed to describe the 
 fruits which this variety of circumstances and this 
 mixture of character produced. 
 
 But before I proceed to the description of the 
 young Disraeli's mental character, it will not be 
 amiss to say something of his rather remarkable 
 exterior. According to unanimous contemporary 
 testimony, he was singularly handsome. He li;nl 
 long raven locks, eyes bright with intelligence and 
 vivacity, a regular nose, and a complexion of ultm- 
 roinantic pallor. Unfortunately, Mr. Disraeli appears
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 15 
 
 to have been as conscious of Ms beauty as of his 
 other gifts. There are traditions of his having out- 
 daudied even the leaders in that age of dandies. 
 We hear of coats of velvet and strange cut, flashing 
 rings, and interminable chains, tasselled canes, and 
 such like extravagances.* 
 
 In 1826 occurred a remarkable event in Lord 
 Beaconsfield's life : in that year was published the 
 first volume of " Vivian Grey/' The success of the 
 
 * " He was," writes one of Mr. Disraeli's most caustic critics, (J. C. 
 Jeaffreson, "Novels and Novelists,") "an egregious dandy. Foppery 
 to an extreme of extravagance was the mode with lads thirty years 
 ago ; but he outstripped every one of his competitors in personal 
 adornment. At this day matrons of fashion often recall the graces, 
 the separate trappings, and the entire appearance of Disraeli the 
 younger as he made his first essay in the great world; his ringlets, 
 of silken black hair, his flashing eyes, his effeminate air and lisping 
 voice, his dress coat of black velvet lined with white satin, his white 
 kid gloves, with his wrist surmounted by a long hanging fringe of 
 Mack silk, and his ivory cane, of which the handle, inlaid with gold, 
 was relieved by more black silk in the shape of a tassel." 
 
 " D'Israeli," writes N. P. Willis, (" Pencillings by the Way,") 
 describing an evening at the Countess of Blessington's, " had arrived 
 before me, and sat in the deep window looking out upon Hyde Park, 
 with the last rays of daylight reflected from the gorgeous gold flowers 
 of a splendidly embroidered waistcoat. Patent leather pumps, a white 
 . stick with a black cord and tassel, and a quantity of chains about his 
 neck and pockets, served to make him, even in the dim light, a con- 
 spicuous object. . . . D'Israeli has one of the most remarkable faces I 
 ever saw. He is lividly pale, and, but for the energy of hia action 
 and the strength of his lungs, would seem to be a victim to con- 
 sumption. His eye is black as Erebus, and has the most mocking, 
 lying -in- wait sort of expression conceivable. His mouth is alive with 
 H kind of working and impatient nervousness, and when he has burst 
 forth, as he does constantly, with a particularly successful cataract 
 of expression, it assumes a curl of triumphant scorn that would be 
 worthy of Mephistopheles. His hair is as extraordinary as his taste 
 in waistcoats. A thick heavy mass of jet-black ringlets falls over 
 his left cheek almost to his collarless stock, while on the right temple
 
 , 6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 book was enormous. Its wit, its cynicism, its splendid 
 diction, but above all its bold introduction under 
 transparent names of the most prominent characters 
 of the day, made it the book of the season. It was 
 everywhere called for ; in the papers of the day we 
 find mention of its having even had the honour of 
 royal perusal, and the author became one of the 
 
 it is parted and put away with the smooth carefulness of a girl's, and 
 sliines most unctuously 
 
 ' With thy incomparable oil, Macassar ! ' " 
 
 We have from this all-too-graphic writer, and others, descriptions 
 as to Mr. Disraeli's manner and conversation at this stage of his 
 career. 
 
 The conversation on the evening Mr. Willis celebrates turned on 
 Beckford of FonthilL " D'Israeli," continues the writer, " was the 
 only one at the table who knew hi (Beckford), and the style in 
 which he gave a sketch of his habits and manners was worthy of 
 himself. I might aa well attempt to gather up the foam of the sea 
 an to convey an idea of the extraordinary language in which he 
 clothed his description. There were at least five words in every 
 sentence that must have been very much astonished at the use they 
 were put to, and yet no others apparently could so well have con- 
 veyed his idea. He talked like a racehorse approaching the winning- 
 post every muscle in action, and the utmost energy of expression 
 flung out into every burst. Victor Hugo, and his extraordinary 
 novels, came next under discussion, and D'Israeli, who was fired by 
 his own eloquence, started off, apropos de bottes, with a long story 
 of impalement he had seen in Upper Egypt. It was as good, and 
 perhaps as authentic, as the description of the Chow-tow-tow in 
 ' Vivian Grey.' The circumstantiality of the account was equally 
 \orrible and amusing. Then followed the sufferer's history, with a 
 KOI* of murders and barbarities heaped together, like Martius's 
 'Feast of BeLshazzar,' with a mixture of horror and splendour that 
 was unparalleled in my experience of improvisation. No mystic 
 priest of the Corybantcs could have worked himself up into a finer 
 frenzy of language. Count d'Orsay kept up during the whole con- 
 venation and narration a running fire of witty parentheses, half 
 French and half English ; and with champagne in all the pores, the 
 houra flew on very dashingly. Lady Blessington left us toward*
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS, 17 
 
 lions of the hour. The second part of the story 
 was written in 1827, and was much inferior to the 
 first. In 1828 appeared "Popanilla," a satire upon 
 the leading political topics of the day. It is a very 
 clever work, and, indeed, Mr. Disraeli's chief ex- 
 cellence in composition lies in his power of clever 
 burlesque. 
 
 To this period also belongs the "Young Duke," 
 a work somewhat of the " Vivian Grey " style. 
 
 midnight, and then the conversation took a rather political turn, 
 and something was said of O'Connell. D'Israeli's lips were playing 
 upon the edge of his champagne glass, which he had just drained, 
 and off he was again with a description of the interview he had 
 had with the agitator the day before, ending in a story of an Irish 
 dragoon who was killed in the Peninsula. His name was Sarsfield. 
 His arm was shot off, and he was bleeding to death. When told 
 he could not live, he called for a large silver goblet, out of which 
 usually he drank claret. He held to it the gushing artery, and 
 filled it to the brim with blood. Looking at it for a moment, he 
 turned it slowly upon the ground, muttering to himself, ' If that 
 had been for Ireland ! ' and expired. You can have no idea how 
 thrillingly this story was told. Fonblanque, who is a cold political 
 satirist, saw nothing in the man's 'decanting his claret,' and so 
 Vivian Grey got into a passion, and for a while was silent." 
 
 "Many years ago, upwards of twenty," writes Mr. Madden, the 
 biographer of the Countess of Blessington, " I frequently met Mr. 
 Disraeli at Lady Blessington's abode in Seamore Place. It needed 
 no ghost from the grave, or rapping spirit rom the invisible world, 
 to predicate even then the success of the young Disraeli in public 
 life. Though in general society he was usually silent and reserved, 
 he was closely observant. It required generally a subject of more 
 than common interest to produce the fitting degree of enthusiasm 
 to animate him and to stimulate him into the exercise of his mar- 
 vellous powers of conversation. When duly excited, however, his 
 command of language was truly wonderful ; his power of sarcasm 
 unsurpassed, the readiness of his wit, the quickness of his percep- 
 tion, the grasp of his mind, that enabled him to seize all the points 
 of any subject under discussion, persons would only call in question 
 who had never been in his company at the period I refer to." 
 
 2
 
 ,8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Like the earlier work, it professes to be a picture 
 of fashionable society, but instead of the elite being 
 spoken of with the scorn which we find in the earlier 
 production, they are described in terms of slavish 
 adulation. It is almost astounding, indeed, to find 
 that Lord Beacon sfield is not ashamed at the present 
 day to republish this very poor and servile production 
 of his youth. The book was at the time very sharply 
 criticised, and some terms which were employed 
 towards it by the then recently established West- 
 minster Review are very severe, and also very true, 
 but can scarcely be mentioned to ears so delicate as 
 those of our present generation. From 1828 to 1831 
 he was engaged for the most part in foreign travel. 
 Of this portion of his life we have no direct informa- 
 tion beyond incidental allusions in some of his pub- 
 lished works. For instance, in one of the notes to 
 " Alroy " we find it stated that he visited the Mosque 
 of Omar in Jerusalem, and endeavoured to enter it 
 at the risk of his life.* It is also evident from other 
 passages of his works that he visited the chief 
 countries of the East. This tour had a considerable 
 influence on his writings and his character. In the 
 presence of Jerusalem, the cradle of his race, he seems 
 to have been elevated to a serener and better atmo- 
 sphere than that of the salons of London, and the 
 works which he produced at this period are much 
 better in tone and finer in feeling than the precocious 
 cynicism of "Vivian Grey," and the ultra-fashionable 
 
 New edition, note 35, p. 76.
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. ig 
 
 pretences of tho "Young Duke." During these 
 travels he wrote " Contarini Fleming/' This he tells 
 us, in the General Preface to his works he wrote in 
 1870,* was published anonymously in the midst of a 
 revolution, and was almost stillborn. He goes on, 
 however, to add that the story gradually found ad- 
 mirers amongst others Goethe, Beckford, and Heine. 
 In an earlier preface, written in 1845, he speaks of 
 the design of the work as being to describe "the 
 development and formation of the poetic character," 
 a subject " virgin in the imaginative literature of 
 every country ; " t and he also tells us that for the 
 purpose of his story he thought it better to select 
 " a character whose position in life should be at 
 variance, and, as it were, in constant conflict with 
 his temperament." He was a being who, while of 
 southern descent, was to live in a Scandinavian 
 country, and whose " nervous temperament " was, in 
 the midst of " the snows and forests of the North," to 
 be continually acted upon by " the image of a distant 
 and most romantic city." Carrying out this plan, he 
 makes his hero the descendant from a Venetian family, 
 and a dweller in a northern country. In other worus, 
 in "Contarini Fleming," as in nearly all his earlier 
 works, Mr. Disraeli, under the name of another person, 
 is really describing himself. He, too, a dweller in the 
 harsh and sunless climate of England, traces back 
 his descent to ancestors who lived by the shores of 
 
 * General Preface, xix. 
 
 f Preface to " Contarini Fleming, ' edition 1846.
 
 20 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Adriatic, and, in remoter times, moved amid the 
 stately temples of Jerusalem ; and, in the midst of our 
 mist and fog, his imagination is haunted by the memory 
 of the clear air of Venice, and the brilliant sun of 
 Palestine. These things made the work extremely in- 
 teresting. As a piece of composition, however, it is 
 very unequal. There are in it passages of poetic self- 
 abandonment, of pure eloquence, and of passionate 
 feeling, that almost make us doubt whether they could 
 have been written by the cruel, hard man of the 
 world with whom we are now all familiar. But, on 
 the other hand, there are some scenes which are fan- 
 tastically and wildly absurd, and which it is scarcely 
 possible to conceive as the products of a man of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's real literary ability and genuine wit, 
 for they show utter deficiency in the humour that dis- 
 tinguishes between bathos and sense. But literary 
 taste is not one of Lord Beaconsfield's gifts, and even 
 in his latest utterances, as in his earliest, we find him 
 mistaking tawdry ornament for real grace. 
 
 As in "Vivian Grey," we are told at considerable 
 length the history of Contarini Fleming's schoolboy 
 days, and of his feelings at this period. It is rather 
 interesting to find that Contariui " entertained at this 
 time a deep conviction that life must be intolerable 
 unless" he "were the greatest of men." "I longed," 
 says the hero, "to wave my inspiring sword at the 
 head of armies, or dash into the very heat and blaze 
 of eloquent faction."* 
 
 ' ' Contftrini Fleming," new edition, 29.
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 21 
 
 We have also a description of a schoolboy fight, 
 which is not altogether without interest as pre- 
 saging the future career of the man who is telling 
 this story. Contarini has succeeded in knocking 
 his antagonist down ; " and indeed," he continues, 
 " I would not have waited for their silly rules of 
 mock combat, but have destroyed him in his pros- 
 tration." * The reader, in the course of this nar- 
 rative, will find many actions recorded in which 
 Lord Beaconsfield showed no inclination whatever to 
 wait for the "silly rules of mock combat" which are 
 supposed to regulate the struggles between honour- 
 able men. 
 
 The father of Contarini Fleming is one of the 
 ministers in a small Court, and if I had space to 
 quote at length, I might be able to supply the reader 
 with many extracts which foreshadow, iu the descrip- 
 tion of the character of this minister, some of the 
 manners of Lord Beaconsfield, and some of the scenes 
 in which he has taken part. Ultimately, Contarini 
 Fleming becomes the private secretary of his father, 
 and assists him very considerably when a contest 
 arises between him and a Count de Moltke for the 
 premiership of the country. Among other things, he 
 writes an anonymous pamphlet which has the effect 
 of throwing his father's rival into ridicule. We have 
 also, at this period, an account of the production of a 
 story called " Manstein," and the character of this 
 work corresponds very much, almost word for word, 
 * Hid. 37.
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 with that of " Vivian Grey." But the most remarkable 
 and important scene in "Contarini Fleming" is that 
 in which is described the part the hero took in a con- 
 gress. According to Contarini's own account of the 
 story, his father, the Prime Minister, and the King, 
 had both been thoroughly defeated by the ambas- 
 sadors of the other powers, until he, who was acting 
 as private secretary of the meeting, suddenly burst 
 in with a happy piece of audacity, and succeeded in 
 carrying all those points which his colleagues had 
 almost given up in despair. The sentences which 
 follow the description of this incident I give in full, 
 partly because of the wondrous prophecy which they 
 contain, and partly because it appears to me to be 
 almost the very best passage that Lord Beaconsfield 
 has ever written : 
 
 " The Conference broke up, and my father retired with the 
 King, and desired me to wait for him in the hall. I was alone. 
 I was excited. I felt the triumph of success. I felt that I had 
 done a great action. I felt all my energies. I walked up and 
 down the hall in a phreuzy of ambition, and I thirsted for 
 action. There seemed to me no achievement of which I was 
 not capable, and of which I was not ambitious. In imagination 
 I shook thrones and founded empires. I felt myself a being 
 born to breathe in an atmosphere of revolution. 
 
 "My father came not. Time wore away, and the day died. 
 It was one of those stern, sublime sunsets, which is almost the 
 only appearance in the north in which nature enchanted me. I 
 stood at the window, gazing on the burnished masses that, for a 
 moment, were suspended in their fleeting and capricious beauty 
 on the far horizon. I turned aside and looked at the rich trees 
 tuffused with the crimson light, and ever and anon irradiated by 
 the dying shoots of a golden ray. The deer were stealing
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 23 
 
 to their bowers, and I watched them till their golden and 
 glancing forms gradually lost their lustre in the declining 
 twilight The glory had now departed, and all grew dim. A 
 solitary star alone was shining in the grey sky, a bright and 
 solitary star. 
 
 " And as I gazed upon the sunset, and the star, and the dim 
 beauties of the coming eve, my mind grew calm, and all the 
 bravery of my late reverie passed away. And I felt indeed a 
 disgust for all the worldliness on which I had been late ponder- 
 ing. And there arose in my mind a desire to create things 
 beautiful as that golden sun and that glittering star. 
 
 " I heard my name. The hall was now darkened. In the 
 distance stood my father. I joined him. He placed his arm 
 affectionately in mine, and said to me, " My son, you will be 
 Prime Minister of ; perhaps something greater." * 
 
 One of the points which Lord Beaconsfield keeps 
 most distinctly and frequently before our minds, is 
 the already mentioned fact that Contarini Fleming is 
 a foreigner in a foreign land; that he has no real 
 communion of feeling with the people among whom 
 he lives; that, in point of fact, he rather despises 
 those whom he helps his father to rule. 
 
 * Ibid. 176-7. It is shown by an anecdote in Mr. M : Cullagh 
 Torrens's Life of Lord Melbourne that it was not in the pages of fiction 
 only that Lord Beaconsfield ventured to prophecy the sublime climax 
 of hia career. 
 
 "To celebrate her younger brother's birthday," writes Mr. Torrens, 
 " Mrs. Norton asked to dinner the other members of the family, two of 
 her husband's colleagues in the Ministry, Lord Melbourne, and the 
 author of ' Vivian Grey,' in whom she had recently discovered the son of 
 her father's intimate friend. Young Diaraeli was not long returned 
 from his travels in the East, with traits of which he had interested her 
 on the occasion of their first acquaintance. He had just then been 
 defeated in an attempt to get into Parliament for the borough of 
 Wycombe, where he attributed bis failure to want of support by the
 
 1 4 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Contarini asks us to allow that " some exemption 
 from the sectarian prejudices wliicli embitter life 
 may be surely expected from one who, by a curious 
 combination of circumstances, finds himself without 
 country, without kindred, and without friends." 
 " Wherever I moved," he tells us agaiu, " I looked 
 around me and beheld a race different from myself. 
 There was no sympathy between my frame and the 
 rigid climate whither I had been brought to live."f 
 " Their blue eyes," he says, speaking of his two 
 brothers, " their flaxen hair, and their white visages, 
 claimed no kindred with my Venetian countenance." \ 
 And in another passage he speaks of " the vast quantity 
 of dull, lowering, entangling ties that formed the great 
 domestic mesh, and bound me to a country which I 
 detested, covered me with a climate which killed me, 
 surrounded me with manners with which I could not 
 sympathize, and duties which nature impelled me not 
 
 Whigs. Mrs. Norton presented him, after dinner, to the Home Secre- 
 tary, who had the power, she said, of retrieving the disappointment if 
 he chose ; and whose frank and open manner led to a long conversation 
 in which Mr. Disraeli mentioned the circumstances of his late discom- 
 fiture, dwelling on each particular with the emphasis which every young 
 man of ambition since Parliament was invented is sure to lay upon the 
 broken promises and scandalous behaviour of his victorious foes. . The 
 Minister was attracted more as he listened to the uncommonplace 
 language and spirit of the youthful politician, and thought to hiui.self 
 he would be well worth serving. Abruptly, but with a certain tone 
 of kindness which took away any air of assumption, he said, ' Well 
 now, tell me, what do you want to be ? ' The quiet gravity of the 
 reply fairly took him aback. 'I want to be Prime Minister." " 
 Memoir of the Jtiytd I/on. William, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, l.y W. M. 
 Torrena, M.P., i. 4'2o-6. 
 
 111,1. 4. f ibid. 6. I Ibid. 60.
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS. 25 
 
 to fulfil" "I felt," he adds, "that to ensure inj 
 emancipation, it was necessary at once to dissolve 
 all ties of blood and affection, and to break away from 
 those links which chained me as a citizen to a country 
 which J abhorred." * 
 
 These passages, the frank expressions of youth, 
 explain a great deal in Lord Beaconsfield's career. 
 If we find him indifferent to the ordinary feelings of 
 our country, sympathising with its passious only so 
 far as they serve his own purposes, and heedless of 
 its interests save when they are bound up with his 
 own, he himself supplies in " Contarini Fleming " the 
 explanation. We cannot expect, he tells us, that he, 
 the raven-locked, dark-oyed, dark-skinned child of 
 Venice and Jerusalem, should have any community 
 of feeling with a race of blue eyes, flaxen hair, and 
 white visages, who dwell in a country he detests and 
 under a climate that kills him. 
 
 It is significant, also, that the great political idols 
 of Contarini Fleming's admiration are Alberoni and 
 Ripperda, the two foreigners who succeeded, by 
 nieans of boldness, intrigue, and unscrupulousness, 
 in obtaining the chief power in Spain. 
 
 The remaining portion of " Contarini Fleming " is 
 taken up with a description of the hero's travels in 
 Italy and the East. There are some passages which 
 are extremely interesting, but which I have to pass 
 over as not bearing directly on my subject. There 
 is also a love story, which, like most of the other 
 * Ibid. GO.
 
 26 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 love stories told by Lord Beaconsfield, is extravagant, 
 exaggerated, and unreal. 
 
 "Alroy " is even a still stranger and more extrava- 
 gant work than "Contarini Fleming." It describes 
 a prince of the captivity who in the twelfth century 
 succeeded in conquering the Moslem rulers of the Jews, 
 and establishing a new Jewish empire. In this work, 
 more so even than in " Tancred," we have the clearest 
 view of the Hebrew side of Lord Beaconsfield's 
 character. It is one long eulogium of the glories of 
 the Jewish race, and one long aspiration for the 
 revival of its power and fame. As to style, the 
 story is principally remarkable for the occurrence of 
 passages written in a sort of jargon, half prose, half 
 rhythm. Some of these passages are eloquent, but 
 the majority are ludicrous in the extreme. This is 
 all the notice I can take of the two last-mentioned 
 productions of the Prime Minister's pen. In them 
 both, as I have pointed out, we have the same central 
 figure, and that figure is the writer himself. They 
 thus expose to us the early feelings and the first 
 phases of the career which has now become interesting 
 for all time. But " Vivian Grey " yields a still richer 
 harvest than even " Contarini Fleming " or "Alroy" 
 of this kind of valuable information. With " Vivian 
 Grey," then, which I have hitherto only glanced at, 
 I shall deal more fully, and I now proceed, in another 
 chapter, to give an analysis of that work.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 VIVIAN GEEY. 
 
 " VIVTAN GTKEY" on the front page of whose history 
 is the ominous motto, 
 
 "Why, then, the world's mine oyster 
 Which I with sword will open," 
 
 is the son of a distinguished literary man. At an 
 early age he gives promise of future eminence. Being 
 sent to school, " in a very few days Vivian G rey was 
 decidedly the most popular " boy in the place. " He 
 was ' so dashing ! so devilish good-tempered ! so com- 
 pletely up to everything ! ' " * 
 
 Of course Vivian becomes the leader of the school ; 
 and how does he employ his position ? Tutors are 
 very often gentlemen by birth as well as by education, 
 but our superior hero teaches his schoolfellows that 
 " ushers were to be considered as a species of upper 
 servants, and were to be treated with civility certainly, 
 as all servants are by gentlemen, but that .... any 
 fellow voluntarily conversing with an usher was to be 
 cut dead dead by the whole school." f He then forms 
 * New edition, 6. f Ibid. 8.
 
 28 LORD BEACONSFJELD. 
 
 a conspiracy against the authorities with great skill, 
 for already it has been discovered that he has "the 
 tongue of a serpent," * and, in the end, leaves the 
 school amid a blaze of triumphant vengeance most 
 artfully obtained, f 
 
 "In England," reflects the writer of "Vivian 
 Grey," " personal distinction is the only passport to 
 the society of the great. Whether this distinction 
 arise from fortune, family, or talent is immaterial, 
 but certain it is, to enter into high society, u man 
 must either have blood, a million, or a genius." As 
 the father of Vivian Grey is possessed of genins,. he 
 is able to " enter into the society of the great," and 
 "this boy of nineteen began to think this society 
 delightful," and being, unlike other boys, entirely 
 free from modesty, made himself at home in it. 
 Meantime, "having got through an immense series 
 of historical reading, he had stumbled upon a branch 
 of study certaiuly the most delightful in the world; 
 but, for a boy, as certainly the most perilous Tin: 
 STUDY OP POLITICS." " And now everything was solved ! 
 the inexplicable longings of his soul, which had so 
 often perplexed him, were at length explained. .... 
 He paced his chamber in an agitated spirit, and 
 panted for the Senate." || "The time drew nigh for 
 Vivian to leave his home for Oxford." .... But 
 " this pupil, this stripling, who was going to begin 
 his education, had all the desires of a matured mind. 
 .... He was already" at nineteen! "a cunning 
 
 * Ibid. 10. f Ibid. 12. J Ibid. 1C. llnd.
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 29 
 
 reader of human hearts, and felt conscious that his 
 was a tongue which was born to guide human beings. 
 The idea of Oxford to such an individual was an 
 insult.* 
 
 Communing with himself as to how "he could 
 obtain his magnificent ends," Vivian Grey thus 
 speaks : " The Bar, pooh ! law and bad jokes till we 
 are forty j and then, with the most brilliant success, 
 the prospect of gout and a coronet. Besides, to 
 succeed as an advocate, I must be a great lawyer; 
 and to be a great lawyer, I must give up my chance 
 of being a great man. The Services in war time are 
 fit only for desperadoes (and that truly am I); but, in 
 peace, are fit only for fools. The Church is more 
 rational. Let me see : I should certainly like to act 
 Wolsey; but the thousand and one chances against 
 me ! And truly 1 feel my destiny should not be on a 
 chance. Were I the son of a millionaire or a noble, 
 I might have all. Curse on my lot ! that the want of 
 a few rascal counters, and the possession of a little 
 rascal blood, should mar my fortunes ! " f 
 
 "Why," continue these reflections, "have there 
 been statesmen who have never ruled, and heroes who 
 have neve* 1 conquered ? Why have glorious philo- 
 sophers died in a garret? and why have there been 
 poets whose only admirer has been Nature in her 
 echoes ? It must be that these beings have thought 
 only of themselves, and, constant and elaborate stu- 
 dents of their own glorious natures, have forgotten 
 * Ibid 18. f Ibid.
 
 30 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 or disdained the study of all others. Yes! me must 
 mix with the herd; we must enter into their feelings ; 
 we must humour their weaknesses ; we must sympathise 
 with the sorrows that we do not feel; and share the 
 merriment of fools. Oh, yes! to rule men, we must 
 be men ; to prove that we are strong, we must be weak ; 
 to prove that we are giants, we must be dwarfs ; even 
 as the Eastern Genie was hid in the charmed bottle. 
 Our wisdom most be concealed under folly, and our 
 constancy under caprice. " * 
 
 " I have been often struck/' proceeds our youtlif nl 
 philosopher, " by the ancient tales of Jupiter's visits to 
 the earth. In these fanciful adventures, the god bore 
 no indication of the Thunderer's glory ; but was a man 
 of low estate, a herdsman, a hind, often even an 
 animal. A Mighty spirit has in Tradition, Time's 
 great moralist, perused the wisdom of the ancients. 
 Even in the same spirit, I would explain Jove's ter- 
 restrial visitings. For, to govern man, even the god 
 appeared to feel as a man ; and sometimes as a beast, 
 was apparently influenced by their vilest passions. 
 Mankind, then, is my great game" f 
 
 Having reached this view of life, Vivian Grey con- 
 templates his means of success. "At this moment, 
 how many a powerful noble wants only wit to be 
 a minister; and what wants Vivian Grey to attain 
 the same end ? That noble's influence Sup- 
 posing I am in contact with this magnifico, am I 
 prepared? Now let me probe my very soul. Does 
 * I***. t ibid. is.
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 31 
 
 my cheek blanch? I have the mind for the con- 
 ception; and I can perform right skilfully upon the 
 most splendid of musical instruments, the human 
 voice, to make those conceptions beloved by others. 
 There wants but one thing more : courage, pure, 
 perfect courage ; and does Vivian Grey know fear ? 
 He laughed an answer of bitterest derision.'" * 
 
 Soon after these resolutions have been formed, 
 Vivian Grey is brought " in contact " with a " magni- 
 fico," and on him he at once resolves to try his newly 
 formed arts. The Marquess of Carabas (this was the 
 magnifico) dines one day with Horace Grey, Vivian's 
 father, and others. After dinner, "the peer, at the 
 
 top of the table, began to talk politics The 
 
 Marquess was decidedly wrong, and was sadly badgered 
 
 by the civil M.P. and the professor The 
 
 Marquess refuted, had recourse to contradiction, and 
 was too acute a man to be insensible to the forlornness 
 of his situation; when, at this moment, a voice pro- 
 ceeded from the end of the table, from a young 
 gentleman who had hitherto preserved a profound 
 silence, but whose silence, if the company were to 
 have judged from the tones of his voice, and the 
 matter of his communication, did not altogether pro- 
 ceed from a want of confidence in his own abilities. 
 
 " ' In my opinion/ said Mr. Vivian Grey, . . . . ' his 
 Lordship has been misunderstood/ .... The eyes 
 of the Marquess sparkled, and the mouth of the 
 Marquess was closed." 
 
 * Ibid.
 
 j, LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Does not the next passage sound exactly like a 
 description of one of Mr. Disraeli's own speeches at 
 the present day? 
 
 " Mr. Vivian Grey proceeded with the utmost 
 sang froid; he commented upon expressions, split 
 and subtilised words, insinuated opinions, and finally 
 quoted a whole passage of Bolingbroke to prove that 
 the opinion 'of the most noble the Marquess of Carabas 
 was one of the soundest, wisest, and most convincing 
 of opinions that ever was promulgated by mortal 
 man." * 
 
 The quotation from Bolingbroke was invented by 
 the defender of the Marquess, for " it was a rule with 
 Vivian Grey never to advance any opinion as his 
 own. It was, therefore, his system always to advance 
 an opinion as that of some eminent and considered 
 personage." f Accordingly, " Vivian Grey was re- 
 puted in -the world as having the most astonishing 
 memory that ever existed; for there was scarcely a 
 subject of discussion in which he did not gain the 
 victory, by the great names he enlisted on his side 
 of the argument." } 
 
 "Vivian did not let the peer escape him in the 
 drawing-room. He st>on managed to enter into con- 
 versation with him; and certainly the Marquess of 
 Carabas never found a more entertaining companion. 
 Vivian discoursed on a new Venetian liqueur, and 
 taught the Marquess how to mull Moselle, an operation 
 of which the Marquess had never heard (as who has ?); 
 * H>id. 24-6. t Ibid. 25-6. /. 26.
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 33 
 
 and then the flood of anecdotes, and little innocent 
 personalities, and the compliments so exquisitely in^ 
 troduced, that thev scarcely appeared to be compli- 
 ments; and the voice so pleasant, and conciliating, 
 and the . quotation from the Marquess's own speech; 
 and the wonderful art of which the Marquess was not 
 aware, by which, during all this time, the lively, 
 chattering, amusing, elegant conversationist, so full 
 of scandal, politics, and cookery, did not so much 
 appear to be Mr. Vivian Grey as the Marquess of 
 Carabas himself." 
 
 " ' Well, I must be gone/ said the fascinated noble ; 
 ' I really have not felt in such spirits for some time ; I 
 almost fear I have been vulgar enough to be amusirig, 
 eh ! eh ! eh ! But you young men are sad fellows, 
 eh ! eh ! eh ! Don't forget to call on me ; good 
 evening ! And Mr. Vivian Grey ! Mr. Vivian Grey ! ' 
 said his lordship, returning, 'you'll not forget the 
 receipt you promised me for making tomahawk 
 punch?' 
 
 " ' Certainly not, my lord,' said the young man. 
 ' Only it must be invented first,' thought Vivian, as 
 he took up his light to retire. 'But never mind, 
 never mind 
 
 " ' Chapeau bas ! cliapeau has ! 
 
 Glorie au Marquis de Carabas 1 ! ' " * 
 
 Vivian Grey, determined to make good use of the 
 acquaintance thus begun, calls on the Marquess a few 
 days after the dinner, flatters the feeble old man's 
 
 * Hid. 26-7.
 
 34 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 vanity to the top of its bent, and ultimately per- 
 suades him to attempt the formation of a political 
 party.* As a result, he becomes an intimate of the 
 Marquess, and is spoken of constantly by the en- 
 chanted nobleman as "the most astonishingly clever 
 and prodigiously accomplished fellow that ever 
 breathed." t 
 
 " But it must not be supposed that Vivian was to 
 all the world the fascinating creature that he was to 
 the Marquess of Carabas. Many complained that he 
 was reserved, silent, satirical, and haughty. . . . A 
 smile for a friend, and a sneer for the world, is the 
 way to govern mankind, and stick was tlie motto of 
 Vivian Grey" J 
 
 Having been invited to Chateau Desir, the country 
 seat of the Marquess of Carabas, Vivian Grey practises 
 his arts on others with the same rapid and astonish- 
 ing success. " He complimented her Ladyship's 
 poodle, quoted German to Mrs. Felix Lorraine, and 
 taught the Marquess to eat cabinet pudding with 
 Curacoa sauce; .... and then his stories, his 
 scandal, and his sentiment j stories for the Marquess, 
 scandal for the Marchioness, and sentiment for the 
 Marquess's sister." 
 
 "The first week at Chateau Desir," || we are told, 
 " passed pleasantly enough. Vivian's morning was 
 amply occupied in maturing with the Marquess the 
 grand principles of the new political system: in weigh- 
 
 * Hid. 28-35. t Ibid. 35. J Ibid. 35-6. Ibid. 10-41. 
 | Among the guests at Ch&temi iVsir is a Lord IV.ic-onsfield
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 35 
 
 ing interests, in balancing connections, and settling 
 'what side was to be taken on the great questions.' 
 Oh, politics, thou splendid juggle ! The whole busi- 
 ness, although so magnificent in its result appeared 
 very easy to the two counsellors, for it was one of 
 the first principles of Mr. Vivian Grey that everything 
 was possible. Men did fail in life to be sure, and, 
 after all, very little was done by the generality ; but 
 still all these failures and all this inefficiency might 
 be traced to a want of physical and mental courage. 
 .... Now Vivian Grey was conscious that there was 
 at least one person in the world who was no craven 
 either in body or in mind, and so he had long come to 
 the comfortable conclusion that it was impossible that 
 his career could be anything but the most brilliant.'' * 
 
 A grand dinner is given in Chateau Desir, and 
 Vivian Grey distinguishes himself at it in his usual 
 manner. " In process of time, Mr. Vivian Grey made 
 his entrance. There were a few vacant seats at the 
 bottom of the table, ' Luckily for him/ as kindly re- 
 marked Mr. Grumbleton. To the astonishment and 
 indignation, however, of this worthy squire, the late 
 comer passed by the unoccupied position, and pro- 
 ceeded onward with undaunted coolness, until he 
 came to about the middle of the middle table, and 
 which was nearly the best situation in the hall." f 
 After all, does not mere " cheek " in the same way 
 obtain good seats in other places as well as at 
 dinner -tables on the Treasury Bench, for instance ? 
 * Ibid. 43-4. t Ibid. 61.
 
 36 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 It will be found in the course of the following 
 narrative that the Corn Laws played a very important 
 part in the career of Lord Beaconsfield. This lends 
 interest to the following passage : 
 
 " It was a rule with Stapylton Toad never to com- 
 rait himself. Once, indeed, he wrote an able pamphlet 
 on the Corn Laws, which excited the dire indignation 
 of the Political Economy Club. But Stapylton cared 
 little for their subtle confutations and their loudly ex- 
 pressed contempt. He had obliged the country gentlemen 
 of England, and ensured the return, at the next election, 
 of Lord Mounteneys brotJier for the county."* 
 
 We have next a description of the meeting at which 
 Vivian Grey proposes the formation of the Carabaa 
 party. 
 
 "When the blood of the party was tolerably 
 warmed, Vivian addressed them. The tenor of his 
 oration may be imagined. He developed the new 
 political principles, demonstrated the mistake under 
 the baneful influence of which they had so long 
 suffered ; promised them place, and power, and 
 patronage, and personal consideration, if they would 
 only act on the principles U'hi<>h he recommended, iu 
 the most flowing language and the most melodious 
 voice in which the glories of ambition were ever yet 
 chanted. There -was a buzz of admiration when the 
 flattering music ceased; the Marquess smiled trium- 
 phantly, as if to say, 'Didn't I tell you he was a 
 monstrous clever fellow ? ' and the whole business 
 * Ibid. 67.
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 37 
 
 eoemed settled. Lord Corn-town gave in a bumper, 
 ' Mr. Vivian Grey, and success to his maiden speech I ' ' 
 oh, irony of events ! " and Vivian replied by pro- 
 posing ' The New Union.' " * 
 
 Vivian Grey is supposed by three of the four poli- 
 tical confederates to be able to take the place of leader 
 in the House of Commons. What a prodigious youth 
 of twenty-one ! But he modestly proposes another 
 a Mr. Cleveland, who, betrayed by some political 
 associates, has retired, disgusted, into private life. 
 Vivian is sent on a mission to Cleveland, and is by 
 him plainly told that he is the mere dupe and tool of 
 the Marquess of Carabas. 
 
 " ' Of all the delusions," says Cleveland, at a 
 period subsequent to this first interview, "which 
 flourish in this mad world, the delusions of that man is 
 most frantic icho voluntarily, and of his own accord, 
 supports the interests of a party. . . . They will cheer 
 your successful exertions, and then smile at your 
 youthful zeal ; or, crossing themselves for the un- 
 expected succour, be too cowardly to reward their 
 unexpected champion. No, Grey ; make them fear 
 you, and they ivill kiss your feet. There r is no act of 
 treachery or meanness of which a political party is not 
 capable ; for in politics there is no honour.' " f 
 
 A lady ; named Mrs. Felix Lorraine, plays an im- 
 portant part in the book. She is a clever, designing, 
 unscrupulous, and vicious woman ; and sometimes 
 
 * Hid. 85. The italics are Lord Beaconsfield's. 
 t Ibid. 136-7.
 
 38 LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 aids and sometimes thwarts the plans of Vivian Grey. 
 At length, however, she becomes his implacable 
 enemy, and makes an attempt to poison him. This 
 attempt gives rise to the following frank piece of self- 
 examination on the part of Vivian Grey : 
 
 " I once imagined that I was using this woman for 
 my purpose. Is it possible that aught of good can 
 come to one who is forced to make use of such evil 
 instruments as these ? A horrible thought sometimes 
 comes over my spirit. I fancy that in this mysterious 
 foreigner, that in this woman I have met a kind of 
 double of myself. The same wonderful knowledge 
 of the human mind, the same sweetness of voice, the 
 same miraculous management which has brought us 
 both under the same roof : yet do I find her the most 
 abandoned of all beings; a creature guilty of that 
 which, even in this guilty age, I thought was obso- 
 lete In seeking the Marquess, I was unques- 
 tionably impelled by a mere feeling of self-interest ; 
 but I have advised him to no course of action in 
 which his welfare is not equally consulted with my 
 own. . . . But am I entitled, I, who can lose nothing, 
 am I entitled to play with other men's fortune.- .' 
 Am I all this time deceiving myself with some 
 wretched sophistry ? Am /, then, an intellectual Don 
 Juan, reckless of human minds, as he was of human 
 bodies; a spiritual libertine ? " * 
 
 A scene, in which Vivian Grey avenges himself on 
 his enemy, is afterwards described with sickening 
 * Ibid. 103-6.
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 39 
 
 gusto. He attacks Mrs. Lorraine in what he knows 
 to be her tenderest points with an ingenuity that is 
 almost terrible ; and thus the effect is described : 
 
 "She threw herself on the sofa; her voice was 
 choked with the convulsions of her passion, and she 
 writhed in fearful agony. Vivian Grey lounging in 
 an arm-chair in the easiest of postures, and writh a 
 face brilliant with smiles, watched his victim with the 
 eye of a Mephisfcopheles One large vein pro- 
 truded nearly a quarter of an inch from her forehead. 
 And the dank light which gleamed in her tearful eye 
 was like an unwholesome meteor quivering in a marsh. 
 When he ended she sprang from the sofa, and, looking 
 up and extending her arms with unmeaning wildness, 
 she gave one loud shriek and dropped like a bird shot 
 
 on the wing ; she had burst a blood-vessel Sad 
 
 Vivian Grey left the boudoir a pledged bridegroom his 
 countenance could not have been more triumphant." * 
 
 A scene by moonlight between these two beings, 
 before they have finally quarrelled, is worth quoting. 
 
 " ' Superior spirits ! say you ? ' " and here they 
 paced the gallery. 'When Valerian, first Lord 
 Carabas, raised this fair castle; when, profuse for 
 his posterity, all the genius of Italian art and Italian 
 artists was lavished on this English palace; when 
 the stuffs and statues, the marbles and mirrors, the 
 tapestry, and the carvings, and the paintings of Genoa, 
 and Florence, and Venice, and Padua, and Vicenza, 
 were obtained by him at miraculous cost, and with 
 * Ibid. 163-4.
 
 4 o LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 still more miraculous toil ; what think you would have 
 been his sensations if, while his soul was revelling 
 in the futurity of his descendants keeping their state 
 in this splendid pile, some wizard had foretold to him 
 that, ere three centuries could elapse, the fortunes of 
 his mighty family would be the sport of two indi- 
 viduals; one of them a foreigner, unconnected in 
 blood, or connected only in hatred; and the other, a 
 young adventurer alike unconnected with his race, in 
 blood or in love ; a, being ruling all things by the 
 power of his own genius } and reckless of all con- 
 sc't/uences save his own prosperity ? If the future 
 hud been revealed to my great ancestor, the Lord 
 Valerian, think you, Vivian Grey, that you and I 
 s*hould be walking in this long gallery ? ' . . . . 
 
 "And here she grasped Vivian with a feverish 
 hand. ' Omnipotent and ineffable essence ! . . . . 
 Miserable mocker ! It is not true, Vivian Grey ; 
 you are but echoing the world's deceit, and even 
 at this hour of the night you dare not speak as you 
 do think. You worship no omnipotent and ineffable 
 essence; you believe in no omnipotent and ineffable 
 essence. Shrined in the secret chamber of your soul 
 there is an image before which you bow down in 
 adoration, and that image is YOURSELF. And truly, 
 when I do gaze upon your radiant eyes/ and here the 
 lady's tone became more terrestrial ; ' and truly, when 
 I do look upon your luxuriant curls/ * and here tho 
 
 Is not Mr. Disraeli's description of Vivian Grey very like Mr. 
 Willis's description of Mr. Disraeli?
 
 VIVIAN GREY. 4! 
 
 lady's small white hand played like lightning through 
 Vivian's dark hair ; ' and truly, when I do remember 
 the beauty of your all-perfect form, I cannot deem 
 your self-worship a false idolatry/ and here the lady's 
 arms were locked round Vivian's neck, and her head 
 rested on his bosom." 
 
 Vivian Grey is, in the end, defeated by Mrs. 
 Lorraine. The Marquess of Carabas, foiled in his 
 schemes, turns him from his doors, and he is chal- 
 lenged by Cleveland. In the duel, Cleveland is 
 killed, and Vivian Grey rushes away on a foreign 
 tour to drown his grief. The second part of the 
 book describes the hero's adventures on the Con- 
 tinent, but that part of the story I have not time 
 to notice. 
 
 Such, then, is Vivian Grey.f 
 
 Now, at the very outset of this work, I frankly 
 tell the reader the thesis I attempt to prove. My 
 
 * Ibid. 112-13. 
 
 t I must dismiss briefly, and in the obscurity of a note, some of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's earlier productions. The " Eise of Iskander " 
 describes the revolt of a Christian against Mohammedan rule with 
 as much apparent sympathy at that of the Jew "Alroy" against 
 the same oppression. It is a short, picturesque, brisk narrative. 
 " Ixion in Heaven," and the "Infernal Marriage," are burlesques, 
 in which, after a fashion novel in Lord Beaconsfield's youth, but 
 commonplace in ours, the heathen divinities are introduced, and, 
 in professing to describe celestial manners, the author lashes modern 
 foibles. These two sketches are little known ; but they are among 
 the best things Lord Beaconsfield has written. The wit is effective, 
 and often brilliant ; and the more ambitious passages are picturesque 
 without being tawdry. The simple and chaste style of some of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's earlier works, indeed, curiously enough, contrast 
 favourably with the pretentiousness and bathos of some of his 
 maturer creations.
 
 42 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 view of Lord Beaconsfield's character is that it is 
 essentially a counterpart of that of Vivian Grey ; and 
 my view of Lord Beaconsfield's political career is 
 that it has been conducted upon the same arts as 
 are practised by the hero of his earliest story. I 
 shall give the reader abundant opportunity of seeing 
 whether this estimate be correct or not. I will 
 endeavour to maintain, so far as possible, throughout 
 my narrative, the parallel between the two careers. 
 The reader has just traced the life of Vivian Grey. 
 Let us now resume our record of the life of Lord 
 Beaconsfield.
 
 43 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PIEST ELECTION. 
 
 UP to this time we find the young Disraeli still wavering 
 between a political and a literary career, though un- 
 mistakably prepossessed in favour of the former mode 
 of life. The events of 1832, however, brought these 
 doubts to an end. The agitation for Reform swept like 
 a storm over the land : the Crown, the House of Lords, 
 the House of Commons as it was then constituted, all 
 existing institutions seemed for a while endangered, 
 And there was that uneasiness and excitement in the 
 public mind which presage and sometimes prepare 
 a revolution. In such moments, politics become, of 
 course, the paramount subject of interest. Amid 
 exciting realities, people turn away with impatience 
 from the tamer sensations of the romance; and the 
 public have no ears for any poet's lute, save only when 
 it gives voice to their passions. The hour was not 
 favourable to literature; and young Disraeli as he 
 has so often told us already was not the man to play 
 to an inattentive audience.
 
 44 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 An accidental circumstance, besides, drew him, if he 
 still had any hesitation, into an active career. His 
 father had some years before this taken Bradenham 
 House, in Bucks ; and, in the midst of all this Reform 
 whirlwind, a vacancy arose in a borough close by. 
 
 High Wycornbe, or Chipping Wycombe, as it is 
 sometimes called, was, when young Disraeli first 
 sought its representation, a constituency of the good 
 old kind. Inside the parish, which was 6,318 acres in 
 extent, was the municipal borough, the area of which 
 was but 128 acres.* This area of 128 acres was repre- 
 sented in Parliament by two Members, and these two 
 Members were elected exclusively by the corporation 
 and burgesses of the town. 
 
 High Wycombe had for many years been represented 
 by the Hon. Robert Smith and Sir Thomas Baring, 
 both staunch Liberals. 
 
 In April or May of 1 832, there began to be rumours 
 of a vacancy in one of the seats. The report was first 
 circulated, then denied ; and finally it was announced 
 that Sir Thomas Baring had determined to leave High 
 Wycombe in order to contest Hants. Young Disraeli 
 put himself forward as a candidate for the vacant 
 place. 
 
 In order to make clear the contest which ensued, I 
 must say a few words, on the state of political part its 
 at this period. The Ministry of Earl Grey was in 
 power; and had just passed, after many delays and 
 stupendous obstacles, the first Reform Bill. The 
 Sheahan's " History of Buckinghamshire," 917919.
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 45 
 
 Government, however, though it had performed this 
 splendid service, was still unpopular with a large 
 section of its followers. The division which always 
 exists, either latently or in open expression, between 
 the Whig, or moderate, and the more advanced section 
 of the Liberal party, was both wide and very bitter at 
 this period. Lord Grey, the Premier, was an aris- 
 tocrat of aristocrats ; had solemnly pledged himself 
 to " stand by his order ; " and abhorred Radicalism as 
 strongly as any Tory. The first point of difference 
 between the two sections was as to the exact way in 
 which the Eeform Act should be regarded. In the 
 eyes of Lord Grey and his supporters, it was to be 
 considered as a final measure. To their imaginations, 
 the Liberal party had now, at last, reached the land of 
 promise ; and its only business was to " rest and be 
 thankful." 
 
 The more advanced Liberals took a very different 
 view. In their eyes, the Reform Act was but one step 
 on the road of progress. The State was still worm- 
 eaten by many evils. There was need for a reform of 
 the Corporations ; the franchise ought to be further 
 lowered; the voter ought to be protected by the 
 ballot ; and the duration of Parliaments should be 
 made shorter. And there was another point on which 
 the difference between the two Liberal sections was 
 aggravated by personal considerations. In those days, 
 a monstrous proportion of the revenues of the State 
 went into the hands of sinecurists, and the abolition 
 of this public burden appeared to the more earnest
 
 46 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Liberals one of the most crying wants of the time. 
 But very different were the feelings of Lord Grey; 
 for even in that period of lavishly bestowed ministerial 
 favours, he was notorious for his liberal, if not shame- 
 less, indulgence in the arts of nepotism. The result 
 of all this was that the more advanced Liberals enter- 
 tained feelings of bitter hostility against Whigs in 
 general, and still more rancorous sentiments against 
 the particular Whigs then in office. 
 
 Two things, finally, must be remembered in read- 
 ing the accounts of the elections of 1832. The word 
 " Radical " had not at that time become a part of our 
 regular political vocabulary ; " Reformer" is the term 
 by which what we call a Radical was then known. 
 Secondly, the "Reformer," though he differed from 
 the existing Liberal Ministiy, was none the less a 
 Liberal ; and was no more to be considered a Tory 
 than is Sir Charles Dilke or Mr. Chamberlain, in 
 our day, because occasionally they may think the 
 pace of Lord Hartington too slow, and may doubt 
 the infallible efficacy of Whig nostrums. 
 
 In several constituencies, then, the electors had 
 their choice of three candidates. Besides the Tory 
 and the Whig, there was the Reformer, or Radical. 
 And in several boroughs such was the bitterness of 
 feeling the Reformers ran a candidate of their own 
 colour against a relative of one of the Ministers. 
 Two of those Radical candidatures are of especial 
 interest to us in these days. The one is tin it 
 of Mr. Roebuck, at Bath; the other that of Mr.
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 47 
 
 Disraeli, at Wycombe. At Bath, Mr. Roebuck op- 
 posed Mr. Hobhouse, brother of Sir John Gain 
 Hobhouse, then Minister for War; at Wycombe, the 
 opponent of Mr. Disraeli was Colonel Grey, the third 
 son of the Premier. Mr. Roebuck, like Mr. Disraeli, 
 stood as a Reformer; and in the case of both one 
 the other, Mr. Joseph Hume was the chief sponsor 
 with the electors. Mr. Hume wrote a strong letter 
 in favour of Mr. Disraeli.* But Mr. Disraeli was too 
 energetic a man to be satisfied with a single letter of 
 recommendation. Daniel O'Connell and Mr. Lytton 
 Bulwer were then powerful in the Radical ranks, 
 
 * The following is the text of Mr. Hume's letter: 
 
 " Bryanston Square, 2nd June, 1832. 
 
 " Sir, As England can only reap the benefit of Reform by the 
 electors doing their duty in selecting honest, independent, and 
 talented men, I am much pleased to learn from our mutual friend, 
 Mr. E. L. Bulwer, that you are about to offer yourself as a candidate 
 to represent Wycombe in the New Parliament. 
 
 " I have no personal influence at that place, or I would use it 
 immediately in your favour ; but I should hope that the day has 
 arrived when the electors will consider the qualifications of the 
 candidates, and, in the exercise of their franchise, prove themselves 
 worthy of the new rights they will obtain by the Reform. 
 
 ' : I hope the Reformers will rally round you, who entertain liberal 
 opinions in every branch of government, and are prepared to pledge 
 yourself to support reform and economy in every department as 
 far as the same can be effected consistent with the best interests 
 of the country. 
 
 " I shall only add that I shall be rejoiced to see you in the new 
 Parliament, in the confidence that you will redeem your pledges and 
 give satisfaction to your constituents if they will place you there. 
 
 " Wishing you success in your canvass, 
 
 I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) "JOSEPH HUME. 
 
 To Disraeli, Esq." (Sucks Gazette, June 9, 1832.)
 
 48 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and from both the one and the other he obtained 
 notes of approval. He also succeeded in getting a 
 few friendly lines from Sir Francis Burdett.* 
 
 The following are copies of these letters in fall : 
 
 (From Edward Lytton-Bulwer, Esq., M.P., to B. D'Israeli, Esq.) 
 
 " June 3rd, 1832. 
 
 My dear Disraeli (*i0), I have received from my friend Mr. Hume 
 a letter addressed to you, which I have forwarded to Bradenham. 
 In case you should not receive it in such good time as may be 
 wished, I may as well observe that in it Mr. Hume expresses his 
 great great ('<?) satisfaction at hearing that you are about to start 
 for Wycombe, his high opinion of your talents and principles ami 
 while he regrets he knows no one at Wycombe whom otherwise he 
 would certainly endeavour to interest in your behalf, he avails him- 
 self of his high situation in public esteem to remind the electors of 
 Wycombe that the Reform Bill is but a means to the end of good and 
 cheap government, and that they ought to show themselves deserving 
 of the results of that great measure by choosing Members of those 
 talents and those principles which can alone advocate the popular 
 cause, and which Mr. Hume joins with me in believing you so 
 eminently possess. 
 
 " Yon will receive his letter at latest on Tuesday morning, and 
 so anxious was he in your behalf that he would not leave London, 
 though on matters of urgent private business, until he had written it. 
 
 " Assuring you of my cordial wishes, which, I trust, may be shared 
 by all true reformers, 
 
 " Believe me, my dear D'Israeli, truly yours, 
 
 M E. LYTTON-BULWKn. 
 
 "M.P. for St. Ive*." 
 
 (From Daniel O'Connell, Esq., to Edward Lytton-Bulwer, Esq., M.P.) 
 
 " Parliament Street, June 3rd, 1832. 
 
 " My dear Sir, In reply to your inquiry, I regret to say that I 
 have no acquaintance at Wycombe to whom I could recommend 
 Mr. D'Israeli. It grieves me, therefore, to be unable to serve him 
 on his canvass. I am as convinced as you are of the great advantage 
 the cause of genuine Reform would obtain from his return. His 
 readiness to carry the Reform Rill into practical effect towards the 
 production of cheap government and free institutions is enhanced 
 l>y the talent and information which he brings to the good cause. 
 I should certainly express full reliance on his political and personal
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 49 
 
 Two somewhat untoward circumstances, however, 
 intervened to spoil to some extent the effect of these 
 recommendations. Mr. Joseph Hume, either suspect- 
 ing the genuineness of Mr. Disraeli, or perhaps for 
 all the facts of the case are not quite clear imagining 
 that he had prematurely interfered, partially withdrew 
 his first letter.* The second circumstance rather hostile 
 
 integrity, and it would give me the greatest pleasure to assist in any 
 way in procuring his return, but that, as I have told you, I have no 
 claim on Wycombc, and can only express my surprise that it should 
 be thought I had any. 
 
 " I have the honour to be, 
 
 ft My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 
 "DANIEL O'CONNELL." 
 
 * It will b remembered that it was uncertain for some time 
 whether Sir Thomas Baring really intended to resign or not. Mr. 
 Hume's first letter was probably written when the rumour of the 
 vacancy got abroad. The second refers in all likelihood to the 
 period when the report was still denied, and had not been confirmed 
 by the resignation of Sir Thomas Baring. This is the text : 
 
 " Bryanston Square, June 6th, 1832, 
 
 " Dear Sirs, A handbill has just been put into my hands, con- 
 taining an abstract of a letter of mine sent to Mr. B. D'Israeli, in 
 which I express my hopes that, as a reformer, I should be happy to 
 see him a Member of the new Parliament ; but, at the same time 
 I wrote that letter, I was not aware that he would come in opposition 
 to either of you, to disturb you in your present seats, and I feel con- 
 cerned that I should in any way, by my statement in favour of Mr. 
 D'Israeli, have tended to disturb the seats of two gentlemen with 
 whom, for so many years, I have had the pleasure to sit in Parlia- 
 ment. I am anxious to state to you that it would really give me 
 considerable pain to have inadvertently done anything to weaken 
 the confidence which your constituents ought to have in you both, 
 who have, for so many years, supported Liberal measures, and in 
 particular during the last eighteen months, given such important 
 support to the cause of Reform, now near its completion. 
 
 " I have this day written to Mr. D'Israeli, stating to him the cause 
 of the mistake by which my name has been used against you, and 
 
 4
 
 S o LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 to Mr. Disraeli's success with the Liberal electors was 
 that he was mercilessly assailed by the Liberal,* and 
 as strongly supported by the Tory,f organ. 
 
 Between the abilities of the two candidates no 
 attempt at comparison was made. Colonel Grey, at 
 that period of his career at all events, was not a 
 speaker. He himself, on the day of his first appear- 
 anoe in the town, declared with great naivete that this 
 was the first time he had ever addressed a public 
 meeting, and craved indulgence. This ample admis- 
 sion allows us to form a sufficiently humble estimate 
 of the natural abilities of the gallant Colonel, though 
 perhaps it did not justify the Tory organ in declaring 
 that "a more perfect simpleton" never sought the 
 representation of a constituency. 
 
 expressing my hope that be will not attempt to disturb the seats of 
 two gentlemen who have given their aids to bring about that Reform 
 for which the country has so long been in need. 
 
 " Hoping that you may neither of you suffer any inconvenience by 
 the manner in which my name has been used, 
 
 " I remain, your obedient servant, 
 
 "JOSEPH HUME. 
 
 " To the Hon. Robert Smith, M.P., and 
 Sir Thomas Baring, Bart., M.P." Ibid. 
 
 * " He intruded himself on the borough," said the Bucks Gazette 
 decisively, " as a Reformer, but the electors saw reason to suspect 
 that he was an impostor." Ibid. June 30, 1832. 
 
 f "We do not," wrote the Buckt Herald (June 16, 1832), "con- 
 cur politically with either of the gentlemen, but we prefer most 
 decidedly the independent and manly declaration of Mr. Disraeli 
 to the puling protestations of Colonel Grey. Mr. Disraeli, moreover, 
 is not a Whig. He is an independent, not tied to party, but, having 
 talents and self-dependence, may cut out for himself a career of 
 honour and distinction in the Senate which the Colonel cannot hope 
 to aspire to. We weigh fairly the merits of the two, and the scale 
 preponderates towards Mr. Disraeli most powerfully."
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 51 
 
 On the loth of June the candidates made their 
 public entry into the town. Colonel Grey stumbled 
 through a short speech, winding up with the frank 
 admission already quoted. 
 
 But not so Mr. Disraeli. He entered the town in 
 an open carriage, drawn by four horses, and he was 
 accompanied in his march by a crowd of admirers. 
 This crowd was, either spontaneously or by arrange- 
 ment, joined by another a mile outside the town, 
 and so, escorted by a band, banners, and a troop of 
 admirers, Mr. Disraeli made his triumphal appearance. 
 "The candidate," wrote our contemporary and mali- 
 cious chronicler of Mr. Disraeli at this great moment 
 of his career "the candidate .... kissed his hand 
 or blew kisses, we cannot say which, to all the females 
 who were at the windows, bowing profoundly at times 
 to his friends." * 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's next act was equally characteristic. 
 The " Red Lion " was then the chief hostelry of the 
 town, and the " Red Lion " had a porch before the 
 door. Mr. Disraeli perched himself on the roof of this 
 porch, and, in this commanding position, could be 
 seen and heard by arny crowd, however large. For a 
 whole hour, at least, did the future Premier then pour 
 forth his rhetoric, and, from the reports, meagre as 
 they are, which come down to us, it is evident that 
 in those days Mr. Disraeli was the model of a mob 
 orator. A mob, above all things, likes hard blows 
 and broad jokes, and Mr. Disraeli, in this speech 
 * Buclc* Gazette, June 16, 1832.
 
 51 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 castigated the Whig.s alternately with the bitterest 
 vehemence and the broadest sarcasm. And all this 
 was done with an energy and animation that must 
 have been very effective.* 
 
 We have already seen that appearance was a matter 
 to which Mr. Disraeli evidently paid a great deal of 
 attention; and that other people repaid this, by 
 founding their admiration or contempt for Ms abilities 
 and character to some extent on their impressions of 
 his exterior. The Liberal journal of the district, 
 at all events, found a most convincing proof of Mr. 
 Disraeli's unworthiness in his appearance.f 
 
 The nomination took place on the 26th June, and 
 naturally excited Wycombe to its shallow depths. 
 The occasion, apart altogether from the character of 
 the candidates, was deeply interesting. On Thursday, 
 June 7, that is, about three weeks before this day, 
 
 The estimates formed of the speech by the Liberal and the Tory 
 journals, amid apparent difference, agree on the whole. " After this 
 harlequinade," writes the chronicler already alluded to, " had been 
 performed," meaning the kissing of hands, etc., "Mr. DisraHi 
 
 addressed the populace and, in a speech of some ability 
 
 and much gesticulation, amused the gaping throng for a little more 
 than an hour." " Mr. Disraeli," said the Tory journal, " concluded a 
 speech replete with talent, delivered with great energy, and producing 
 a powerful effect." 
 
 f Having first characterised Mr. Disraeli as an " Adonis of the 
 sable cheek," he "challenges attention to himself," continues the 
 liuck* (rtizfttc, "by adorning his wrists with cambric, his bosom 
 with lace ; " he " puts .a blue band round his bat, when the vulgar 
 wean a black one ; " he ' carries a black cane with a gold head ; " 
 his "coat is lined with pink silk," and "before he essays to speak 
 on the hustings," he "formally adjusts his ringlets," whose "duty is 
 assigned them on his brow." " Such a man," and here we must 
 apologise for the indecorous language of our authority" such a
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 53 
 
 the Reform Bill had received the Royal assent. 
 The Act had not yet come into operation; but 
 this was at all events the last election under the 
 old form. 
 
 The Mayor and Corporation, who had so long 
 enjoyed the exclusive right of election, were about 
 to exercise their power for the last time, and the 
 townsfolk were about to witness the last scene in 
 the oligarchical rule, which had been abolished for 
 ever. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's speech was just such as one might 
 expect from a Radical candidate ; and many of its 
 passages are paraphrases of the sentences in some 
 of the letters of recommendation which he had pre- 
 sented from the Radical leaders. 
 
 The Radicals or Reformers, as I have said, complained 
 of the existence of sinecures, and of the nepotism of 
 the Premier. Mr. Disraeli said that " he had never 
 received one shilling of public money," and that " he 
 belonged to a family who never had." Then he spoke 
 of the Reform Act, in almost the very words of Daniel 
 O'Connell and Joseph Hume. He regarded it as 
 '' a means to a great end ; " and, finally, he made the 
 
 man we had said, such, a popinjay appears to deliver himself some- 
 thing as follows : ' Look on my antagonist, and look on me. See him 
 plain in his attire, plain in his speech. Behold me ; will you not vote 
 for a person of my blandishments ? and the author of the novel ? ' " 
 " The short fact is," says the same unfriendly critic, " that he is a3 
 artificial a speaker as he is a reformer ; that his novel his ' Vivian 
 Grey ' is as meretricious as are the ornaments with which he bedizens 
 himself." June 30, 1832.
 
 54 LORD 
 
 truly Radical boast that lie was "sprang from the 
 people/' and bad " none of the blood of the Flantaga- 
 nets or Tudors in his veins." 
 
 One other point in this memorable speech is worth 
 notice. It has already been seen that the Radical 
 candidate, as is so often tike case, received a certain 
 amount of Tory support. The plain reason of this 
 circumstance, on the present occasion, has been stated 
 in a pamago of the Tory organ already quoted. It was 
 not that the Tories loved Liberalism more, but that 
 they hated Radicalism less than Whiggery. The 
 explanation which Mr. Disraeli gives is pretty much 
 the same. "The support he received from the 
 Tones," he said, "was easily to be accounted for. 
 The people supported him first, and the Tories, 
 finding that it was useless to attempt to check their 
 wishes, resolved to promote a general feeling of 
 friendliness. It was to this he owed the support of 
 his friends the Tories, and he trusted this union 
 would be lasting. It would be, for the Tories must 
 now lean on them : they need not lean on the 
 Tories." 
 
 However, neither the support of the Radical* nor 
 of the Tories was of any avail. Let me not spoil, 
 by interpolating a word of my own, the splendid 
 though nnconscioas humour of the paragraph in which 
 the paper of the period announces the result of the 
 
 "The polling then commenced. At about fire 
 o'clock Mr. Disraeli retired. The poll aft the don
 
 THE FIRST ELECTION. 55 
 
 was Grov, 23; Disraeli, 12; majority, 11. Mr. 
 Disraeli says in a bill that he had a majority of 
 resident voters, but the numbers were Grey, resi- 
 dents, 11 ; Disraeli, 7; majority, 4. There were two 
 more to poll in the Grey interest." * 
 
 Gazette, June 30, 1832. The same journal, in the BUM 
 issue, also says Mr. Disraeli's ''principal supporters were the 
 Radicals."
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBB. 
 
 MR. DISRAELI received his defeat at High Wycombe 
 with neither patience nor despair. 
 
 Immediately after the declaration of the poll, he 
 again ascended the rostrum, and again delivered a 
 lengthy speech. In those days of hard hitting, no 
 man, perhaps, had much chance of prominence in 
 the political arena without using strong language. 
 Mr. Disraeli, at all events, had determined at a 
 very early stage in his career that the bitterness 
 of his tongue should be one of his principal means 
 of success. 
 
 Some of the assertions made in this speech afforded 
 subject for a controversy between Mr. Disraeli and 
 his opponent in the interval between the first and 
 second elections. Of these things, however, there is 
 but one which interests us nowadays. In a speech 
 to his constituents in December, Colonel Grey accused 
 Mr. Disraeli of having made use of the words,
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 57 
 
 " The Whigs have cast me off, and they shall repent 
 it." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli at once replied in a letter to the 
 Times* "Whatever," he wrote, " may be the dispo- 
 sition of the Whigs to me, they never could have cast 
 me off, since I never had the slightest connection with 
 them. I believe that the phrase I did use, and I am 
 sanctioned in my recollection by every person to whom 
 I have applied, was the following : ' The Whigs had 
 opposed me, not I them, and they shall repent it.' 
 I am in nowise ashamed of this observation, and I 
 adhere to my intention." 
 
 Parliament was dissolved on August 16, and 
 Mr. Disraeli resolved to seek a second time the 
 suffrages of the Wy combe electors. On the 5th of 
 October appears in the Times the first election address 
 of Lord Beaconsfield which I am able anywhere to 
 find. 
 
 " I come forward," says Mr. Disraeli in this address, 
 "wearing the badge of no party, and the livery of 
 no faction." But he goes on to add that he has no 
 desire to " escape an explicit avowal " of his opinions. 
 Then he expresses himself in favour of vote by 
 ballot, triennial Parliaments, and . retrenchment of the 
 public expenditure. After a violent attack on the 
 Ministry, the address winds up with an appeal to the 
 constituency to rid themselves of all " that political 
 jargon and factious slang of Whig and Tory two 
 names," proceeds Mr. Disraeli, "with one meaning, 
 Times, Nov. 11, 1832.
 
 58 LORD BRACONSFIELD. 
 
 used only to delude you, and unite in forming a 
 great national party, which can alone save tho country 
 from impending destruction."* 
 
 Tliis is the address in full : 
 
 "TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTOES OF THE BOBOUOH OF 
 CHIPPING WYCOMBB. 
 
 " Friends and Neighbours, 
 
 "A dissolution of Parliament, notwithstanding the machinations 
 of those who have clogged the new charter of your rights which you 
 have won with so much difficulty, with all the vexatious provisoes of 
 a fiscal enactment, being an event which cannot be much longer 
 delayed, I think fit to announce my readiness to redeem the pledge 
 which I made to you at the close of the late contest on the hustings 
 of our borough, and to assure you of my resolution to go to the 
 poll to make another, and, I doubt not, triumphant straggle for 
 your independence. 
 
 " I warned our late masters of the dangerous precedent of electing 
 a stranger merely because he was the relative of a Minister. I ore- 
 told, as a consequence of their compliance, a system of nomination 
 as fatal as those close corporations of which you are relieved. The 
 event has justified my prediction. Wycombe has now the honour 
 of being represented by the private secretary of the First Lord of 
 the Treasury. 
 
 " A few years back, Aylesbury was threatened with the private 
 secretary of the Lord Chancellor. The men of Aylesbury rejected 
 with loathing that which, it appears, suited the more docile digestion 
 of the late electors of Wycombe. The private secretary of the Lord 
 Chancellor was withdrawn, and in his place was substituted an 
 unknown youth, whose only recommendation is that he is the very 
 young brother of a very inexperienced Minister, and one who has 
 obtained power merely* by the renunciation of every pledge which 
 procured him an entrance into public life. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I come forward to oppose this disgusting system of 
 factious and intrusive nomination, which, if successful, must be 
 fatal to your local independence ; and which, if extensively acted 
 upon throughout the country, may even be destructive of your 
 general liberties. I come forward wearing the badge of no party, 
 nd the livery of no faction. I seek your suffrages as an indepen- 
 neighbour, who, sympathising with yi.nr wants and interests, 
 will exercise his utmost influence in the great national council to 
 ; the one and support the other.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMfiE. 59 
 
 At a public meeting given to him by his supporters, 
 Mr. Disraeli elaborated the opinions which he had 
 expressed in the address. This speech is a really 
 memorable one : delivered at a petty dinner in a 
 
 " But, while I am desirous of entering Parliament as an indepen- 
 dent man, I have never availed myself of that much-abused epithet 
 to escape an explicit avowal of my opinions. I am desirous of 
 assisting in the machinery of our new constitution, without which 
 perfection I am doubtful whether it will work. I am prepared to 
 support that ballot which will preserve us from that unprincipled 
 system of terrorism with which it would seem we are threatened even 
 in this town. 
 
 " I am desirous of recurring to those old English triennial Parlia- 
 ments of which the Whigs originally deprived us, and, by repealing 
 the taxes upon knowledge, I would throw the education of the 
 people into the hands of the philosophic student, instead of the 
 ignorant adventurer. 
 
 " Although I shall feel it my duty to enforce on all opportunities 
 the most rigid economy, and the most severe retrenchment, to 
 destroy every useless place and every undeserving office, and to effect 
 the greatest reduction of taxation consistent with the maintenance 
 of the public faith and the real efficiency of the Government, 
 I shall withhold my support from every Ministry which will not 
 originate some great measure to ameliorate the condition of the 
 lower orders to rouse the dormant energies of the country, to 
 liberate our shackled industry, and reinstate our expiring credit. 
 
 " I have already expressed my willingness to assist in the modifi- 
 cation of our criminal code. I have already explained how I think 
 the abolition of slavery may be safely and speedily effected. With 
 regard to the Corn Laws, I will support any change the basis of 
 which is to relieve the customer without injuring the farmer ; and 
 for the Church, I am desirous of seeing effected some commutation 
 which, while it prevents the tithe from acting as a tax on industry 
 and enterprise, will again render the clergy what I am always 
 desirous of seeing them, fairly remunerated, because they are valu- 
 able and efficient labourers, and influential, because they are beloved. 
 
 "And now I call upon every man who va ues the independence 
 of our borough, upon eveiy man who desir3s the good go 1 , ernment 
 of this once great and happy country ; upon every man who feels 
 he has a better chance of being faithfully served by a Member who 
 is his neighbour, than by a remote representative, who, like tae idle
 
 60 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 small town almost half a century ago, and when 
 Mr. Disraeli was an unknown political stripling, it 
 yet follows exactly the same lines of thought as 
 addresses delivered by Lord Beaconsfield at immense 
 Conservative gatherings in the full maturity of his 
 years, and after his full harvest of honours. The 
 leading theme is that the Tories of the last century 
 were the real friends, and the Whigs the real enemies, 
 of political reform. And in connection with this 
 theme are mentioned the names of two Tory leaders, 
 whose authority has been since quoted by Lord 
 Beaconsfield in support of the same views, at least 
 hundreds of times, and in a dozen different shapes. 
 
 wind no man regardeth, comes one day we know not whence, and 
 goes the next we know not whither, to support me in this struggle 
 against that rapacious, tyrannical, and incapable faction, who, having 
 knavishly obtained power by false pretences, sillily suppose that they 
 will be permitted to retain it by half measures, and who, in the 
 course of their brief but disastrous career, have contrived to shake 
 every great interest of the empire to its centre. 
 
 " Ireland in rebellion, the colonies in convulsion, our foreign rela- 
 tions in a slate of such inextricable confusion, that we are told that 
 war alone cau sever the Gordian knot of complicated blunders; the 
 farmer in doubt, the shipowners in despair, our merchants without 
 trade, and our manufacturers without markets, the revenue declining, 
 and the army increased, the wealthy hoarding their useless capital, 
 and pauperism prostrate in our once-contented cottages. English- 
 men, behold the unparalleled empire raised by the heroic energies of 
 your fathers ; rouse yourselves in the hour of doubt and danger ; rid 
 yourselves of all that political jargon and factious slang of Whig 
 and Tory two names with one meaning, used only to delude you, 
 and unite in forming a great national party which can alone save 
 the country from impending destruction. 
 
 1 liave the honour to remain, 
 
 ir obliged and devoted servant. 
 
 " B. DISKAKLI. 
 
 ".Bradenham House, Oct. 1st, 1832."
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 6l 
 
 These two men are Sir William Wyndham and Lord 
 Bolingbroke. 
 
 This speech is also remarkable as showing the first 
 change of political front. At the election in June, Mr. 
 Disraeli stood as a Radical pure and simple ; and what- 
 ever support he got from the Tories, he then repre- 
 sented as simply the result of the Tory sense of the 
 necessity of seeking Radical aid. But at this second 
 election we have quite a different tone. All the 
 Radical dogmas triennial Parliaments, vote by ballot, 
 abolition of the taxes on knowledge are still strongly 
 advocated, but, at the same time, the Tory, with his 
 eyes open, is allowed to see short, slight glimpses of a 
 Tory leaven in Mr. Disraeli's Radicalism.* 
 
 The nomination took place on the 10th December. 
 There were three candidates for the two seats. Mr. 
 Smith, afterwards the second Lord Carington, who 
 had held the seat for many years, and was Lord of 
 the Manor, was considered certain of success ; and the 
 real contest accordingly again lay between Colonel 
 Grey and Mr. Disraeli. I would willingly pause over 
 Mr. Disraeli's speech on this occasion ; but I am able 
 to glance at but one or two of its points. 
 
 * " Now I," he says in this speech, " who am cried down and 
 branded as a destructive Radical, only advocate what Sir William 
 Wyndham, the Tory champion, sought to recover, as an act of justice 
 to the people as an essential point in the well-being of the consti- 
 tution. Lord Bolingbroke, one of the ablest men that ever lived 
 (cheers) was a firm and uncompromising Tory, and advocated 
 Triennial Parliaments." And in another passage he speaks of him- 
 self as " a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, 
 a Radical to remove all that is bad." BucTct Herald.
 
 62 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 There is a possible misapprehension with regard to 
 the political character in which Mr. Disraeli appeared 
 at these elections, against which I have already 
 cautioned the reader; but it is a point to which, as 
 will afterwards be seen, it is necessary to recur again 
 and again. That misapprehension is that, because Mr. 
 Disraeli abused the Whigs, he is on that account not 
 to be considered a Liberal. I have stated that this 
 very attitude towards Whiggery must be taken in his 
 case at that time as it would be taken in the case of 
 men like Sir Charles Dilke or Mr. Chamberlain in our 
 days: that is to say, as proof of the more than ordi- 
 nary intensity of his Liberalism. In confirmation of 
 this contention, I point to the fact, familiar to every- 
 body acquainted with our political condition in 1 832, 
 that in the speeches of such unquestioned Liberal > 
 as Joseph Hume, Daniel O'Connell, and Mr. J. A. 
 Roebuck, and in the writings of such equally staunch 
 Liberals as James and John Mill and Albany 
 Fonblanque, there is abuse of Whigs and Whiggery 
 quite as vehement as any in the speeches of Mr. 
 Disraeli at Wycombe. 
 
 But the strongest proof that Mr. Disraeli meant his 
 abuse of the Whigs to pass for intensity of Liberalism 
 is to be found in Mr. Disraeli's own utterances. I 
 have already pointed out this in commenting on the 
 first Wycombe election. Now let me take an extract 
 or two on the same point from this speech in the 
 ion of December. 
 
 " He was objected to," said Mr. Disnu-li, according
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WY COMBE. 63 
 
 to the report in the local paper,* " by tlie gallaiit 
 colonel who nominated Colonel Grey (Colonel Bristow), 
 because of his alliance with the Tories : he would 
 object to the gallant colonel because of his alliance 
 with the Whigs; and the Tories had tendered him 
 their support, and if they were inclined to serve 
 the purposes of the people, and help them to obtain 
 their object, would he, as a friend of the people, be 
 justified in rejecting their aid? (Cheers and continued 
 hooting.)" 
 
 This passage, I think, indisputably means that if 
 the Tories supported him, that was their affair; it 
 was not that he was the less a Liberal. But there is 
 a still more remarkable passage I am still quoting 
 from the same report : 
 
 "He charged the Whigs with having violated, in 
 his case, a solemn pledge never to oppose a Reformer. 
 He had been assured by his friends in London that 
 that this was the principle on which the Whigs acted. 
 When, therefore, Colonel Grey offered himself, he 
 instantly went to London and got a personal friend of 
 his to wait on one of Colonel Grey's relatives. The 
 reply was that he (Mr. Disraeli) had no chance of 
 being elected, and if Colonel Grey did not offer, a 
 Tory would come in." 
 
 And, finally, the speech wound up with an indict- 
 ment of the Whigs for their treatment of Mr, Joseph 
 Hume ; and mark the manner in which Mr. Disraeli 
 points this charge : 
 
 * Bucks Gazette, Dec. 15, 1832.
 
 64 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 " The orator next drew a parallel between the case 
 of Mr. Hume and that of Burke, who, having helped 
 the Whigs to power, found himself rejected by them 
 because he was no part of the high aristocracy. The 
 secret of the enmity of the Whigs to himself was that 
 he was not nobly born/ 1 
 
 We now see clearly what was the nature of Mr. 
 Disraeli's hate of the Whigs. He hated them, not 
 because they were Liberals, but because they were an 
 aristocratic and selfish clique. That charge against 
 the Whigs was brought in 1832, and has been 
 brought many thousand times since by men whose 
 Liberalism no one can gainsay; and that charge most 
 Liberals will willingly admit to be true. And there- 
 fore Mr. Disraeli cannot escape from the fact that he 
 stood for Wycombe in 1832 as an advanced Liberal, 
 by pointing to his attacks on Whigs and Whiggery. 
 
 The second Wycombe election ended, like the first, 
 in Mr. Disraeli's defeat. Nothing daunted, however, 
 and determined, if he could not have election, to at 
 least have notoriety, he rushed across to the county 
 nomination at Aylesbury, and in the noisy pro- 
 ceedings of the day took a characteristically noisy 
 part.* And then, to call still more attention to the 
 occasion, he wrote an indignant letter to the Times ,f 
 complaining of misrepresentation in the report of his 
 implacable enemy the Bucks Gazette. 
 
 We have seen that Mj, Disraeli of June 1832, and 
 Mr. Disraeli of December in the same year, are just a 
 Ibid. Dec. 22, 1832. f Dec. 27, 1832.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 65 
 
 little different. At tlie first Wy combe election, he is 
 the Radical pure and simple ; at the second, he can go 
 so far as to tolerate Tories. We now follow him 
 to a metropolitan stage, and here we shall find that 
 he appears once again as the Radical, pure and un- 
 disguised. 
 
 In the early part of 1833, a vacancy was expected 
 in Marylebone, and Mr. Disraeli issued an address, 
 <vhich is purely Radical, if ever such a thing as a 
 Radical address was published. He is in favour of 
 triennial Parliaments, vote by ballot, and the aboli- 
 tion of taxes on knowledge. But not satisfied with 
 proclaiming himself the adherent of the two prin- 
 ciples which were then the distinctive and prominent 
 badges of the Radical party, Mr. Disraeli pledges 
 himself to minor articles also of the Radical gospel. 
 He talks of himself as one " of a family untainted by 
 the receipt of public money," and an attack on the 
 pension list was daily made by the Radicals ; and an 
 announcement of himself as unsupported by either of 
 " the aristocratic parties " was evidently a sop to th 
 levelling tendency supposed to reside in Radicalism. 
 
 But he does even more than this. "Believing/' 
 he says in this address, "that unless the public 
 burdens are speedily and materially reduced, .a civil 
 convulsion must occur" Lord Beaconsfield has been 
 always fond of prophesying the most dire conse 
 quences from the neglect of his counsels " I ain 
 desirous of seeing a Parliamentary Committee ap- 
 pointed to revise the entire system of our taxation 
 
 5
 
 66 . LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 with the object of relieving industry form those en- 
 cumbrances which property is more capacitated to 
 endure" Thus Mr. Disraeli joins in the cry for 
 a laud-tax a cry distinctive even more than vote 
 by ballot and triennial Parliaments of the Radical 
 party. 
 
 .Assuredly the proposition that a land-tax is a 
 Radical, and not a Conservative proposal, requires no 
 proof. But the time and place selected for the state- 
 ment of a political opinion are also of importance. It 
 is one thing to pronounce an opinion on a question 
 which belongs to the distant future, and another thing 
 to pronounce an opinion on a question which is at the 
 moment dividing parties. Now the property tax was 
 at the moment of Mr. Disraeli's address a question of 
 the hour. The address is dated April 9, 1833. On 
 February 18 of that same year that is, less than two 
 months before the issue of the address Mr. Cobbett 
 had proposed a series of resolutions in the House of 
 Commons, the general intention of which was to 
 transfer a considerable portion of the public burdens 
 to the land.* And to these proposals O'Connell and 
 Hume who are still, it must be remarked, the leaders 
 Mr. Disraeli swears allegiance to gave a general 
 support. On several occasions too during March the 
 month preceding the issue of the Marylebone address 
 Cobbett and Hume recurred to this idea of a property 
 tax. It is, therefore, quite evident that a tax on 
 property was the Radical cry of the hour, and 
 Hansard, Feb. 18, 1832.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 67 
 
 that, as a consequence, Mr. Disraeli sought election at 
 Marylebone as a Radical of the most pronounced type. 
 
 The expected vacancy in Marylebone did not take 
 place, and so Lord Beaconsfield was prevented from 
 explaining on the hustings his political creed. How- 
 ever, he took another form of doing so. In his early 
 years, if his tongue was at rest, his pen was sure to be 
 at work. 
 
 He published a pamphlet, entitled "What is He?' ; 
 Of the hundreds of candidates who had sought election 
 since the passage of the Reform Bill, probably Lord 
 Beaconsfield was the only one who thought it necessary 
 to explain in pamphlet form the articles of his creed- 
 But in failure as in success, whether his position were 
 mean or exalted, as a stripling and as a septuagenarian, 
 Lord Beaconsfield has acted as if the eyes of an 
 admiring world were fixed upon him. 
 
 The title page of the pamphlet is worthy of the 
 writer. "What is He ? by the author of ' Vivian Grey/ " 
 
 and underneath are the words " I hear that 
 
 is again in the field. I don't know whether we ought 
 to wish him success ; * What is he ? ' Extract from a 
 letter of an eminent personage." The " eminent per- 
 sonage ! " what a characteristic phrase ! was under- 
 stood to be Earl Grey, and thus the world was taught 
 how deeply important the candidature of Mr. Disraeli 
 appeared to the most influential politicians. 
 
 The tone of reasoning in "What is He?" is one 
 with which the reader has already been made tolerably 
 familiar.
 
 68 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Setting out with the statement that, before the 
 passing of the Reform Bill, the Government of the 
 country was established on an aristocratic principle, 
 the writer declares that Government is now established 
 on no principle at all. Searching for a principle, then, 
 we are left to choose between a return to the aris- 
 tocratic, or an advance to the democratic. " A Tory 
 and a Radical," writes Lord Beaconsfield, " I under- 
 stand ; a Whig a democratic aristocrat I cannot 
 comprehend. If the Tories indeed despair of restoring 
 the aristocratic principle, and are sincere in the avowal 
 that the State cannot be governed with the present 
 machinery, it is their duty to coalesce with the Radicals, 
 and permit both political nicknames to merge in the 
 common, the intelligible, and the dignified title of a 
 National party." * Here again, the reader sees, Lord 
 Beaconsfield tells his Radical friends how they are to 
 make use of the benighted Tories. 
 
 " What," asks the writer, " are the easiest and most 
 obvious methods by which the democratic principle 
 may be made predominant ? It mould appear that 
 the easiest and the most obvious methods are the instant 
 repeal of the Septennial Act, the institution of election 
 by ballot, and the immediate dissolution of Parlia- 
 ment.''! 
 
 "What is He? ".is, it will be seen, a repetition of 
 
 the programme of the second Wy combe election. A 
 
 comparison between it and the Marylebone address 
 
 shows the same change of front as occurred between 
 
 New edition, 10-11. f Ibid. 13.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 69 
 
 the elections of June and December of 1832. In the 
 Marylebone address, as in the first election at Wycombe, 
 Lord Beaconsfield is the Radical, pure and simple; 
 and in the pamphlet, as at the second Wycombe 
 election, he betrays an inclination to conciliate the 
 Tories. The reader, however, ought to take note of 
 the care with which, while even making these advances 
 to the Tories, Lord Beaconsfield preserves the purity 
 and rigour of his own Radicalism. He proposes a 
 junction with the Tories, it is true; but to any of his 
 Radical patrons who might object to this as incon- 
 sistent with his own Radical creed, he has a very ready 
 answer. He proposes reconciliation of the Tories with 
 the Radicals ; but he proposes it on the truly Radical 
 basis that the Tories shall surrender all their prin- 
 ciples. Of course, when Mr. Disraeli was talking to 
 the Conservatives, he gave his scheme a very different 
 complexion. 
 
 The great principle and the great secret of Lord 
 Beaconsfield' s success has been to play on the meaner 
 passions of men. 
 
 " Yes ! " exclaimed Vivian Grey, " we must mix 
 with the herd ; we must enter into their feelings ; we 
 must humour their weaknesses ; we must sympathise 
 with the sorrows that we do not feel, and share the 
 merriment of fools." And Lord Beaconsfield has fully 
 acted up to these ideas. The three weaknesses on 
 which he has played most frequently are the vanity 
 of the aristocracy, the stupidity of the agriculturist, 
 and the lunacy of the urban population. We have
 
 TO LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 seen his appeal to the more rabid doctrines of the 
 dwellers in the town; in the next scene, he is dis- 
 covered in the somewhat opposite part of bowing to 
 the nobility and glorifying the farmer. 
 
 The scene of this second appearance is a dinner in 
 the Town Hall at Aylesbury on December 17, 1834. 
 Between this date and the Marylebone address an 
 important change had come over the political world. 
 The Ministry of Lord Grey, sunk to the last degree of 
 impotence, had required recasting. Lord Melbourne, 
 who succeeded Lord Grey, was not much more suc- 
 cessful ; towards the end of the year he was dismissed, 
 and the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were 
 sent for. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's game was quite clear in such a state 
 of parties. In the first place, Toryism had approached 
 the haven of office; and while a Tory may ally himself 
 with Radicals to drive out the "Whigs, such a union 
 becomes unnecessary and dangerous when the Tories 
 are "in." It was full time that Mr. Disraeli should 
 abandon the dangerous creed of Radicalism. 
 
 At this period, too, there was a section of Sir Robert 
 Peel's supporters who offered excellent material for 
 Mr. Disraeli's arts. The rural districts were in a state 
 of great distress. The landlords complained that 
 they could get no rents, the farmers that they could 
 get no profits, and the labourers, maddened by their 
 misery, had committed wild outrages in several parts 
 of the country. 
 
 In those dnys people had still a strong belief in the
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 71 
 
 omnipotence of Government, and everybody was con- 
 vinced that " something should be done." It was not 
 quite so easy to discover what that " something " 
 should be. King's speech after King's speech alluded 
 to agricultural distress, but Ministers could agree on 
 no measure; and committees sat for months on the 
 subject, and could agree on no report. But one thing 
 was certain : the British farmer was more than ever 
 convinced that he was the chief bulwark of the State, 
 and that absolute ruin stared this bulwark in the 
 face. 
 
 Thus the agriculturists needy, exasperated, and 
 bewildered stood in need of a leader, bold, vehement 
 of tongue, and clear of head ; and they were, besides, 
 the very best of parties for a young politician. They 
 were Tories, for the most part, it is true; but they 
 put forward claims that even a Tory Minister would 
 find it difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy. The lead 
 of a section of the party in power, which is excited, 
 mutinous, and rather stupid, could an ambitious 
 youth ask more ? 
 
 The party, besides, had at that moment its Marquess 
 of Carabas, whose influence the uninfluential Vivian 
 Grey could use, and whose mind the clever Vivian 
 Grey could sway. The Marquis of Chandos had 
 become, within the last few years, the leader of the 
 agricultural party. The son of the Duke of Bucking- 
 ham, an owner of wide estates, member for Mr. 
 Disraeli's own county, influential in every Bucking- 
 hamshire constituency, the idol of the farmers,
 
 7 2 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 what better Marquess of Carabas could Vivian Grey 
 find? 
 
 When, at length, a friendly Administration had come 
 into power, the farmers raised their voices louder than 
 before; and it was determined that the Administration 
 should be told what they were expected to do. 
 
 In Bucks, the excitement was particularly intense. 
 The rumour had gone abroad, and had actually been 
 confirmed, that the Marquis of Chandos was to have 
 no place in the new Administration. Alarming as this 
 rumour was, the cause assigned was still more alarm- 
 ing, and deepened the dark suspicion that the friends 
 of the farmers were about to play false to their pro- 
 mises. The Marquis of Chandos would not be a 
 member of the Ministry, because the Ministry refused 
 to promise the repeal of the malt tax ! 
 
 The County Agricultural Association accordingly 
 organised a great meeting, which was to warn Minis- 
 ters against evil courses; and no means were spared 
 to make the demonstration imposing. 
 
 The report of this dinner, at Aylesbury Town Hall, 
 in the December of 1834, must be very pleasant 
 reading nowadays to an enemy of our aristocracy. 
 It is amusing to see the fatuous insolence of the 
 Buckinghamshire magnates their pomposity, their 
 condescension, their belief in the eternity of their 
 influence, and, above all things, their insulting patron- 
 age of the man who was at that moment using them 
 as tools, and at this moment uses them as foot- 
 stools.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 73 
 
 The meeting developed into an apotheosis of the 
 Marquis of Chandos. The Marquis of Chandos was 
 mentioned in every speech ; his name was proposed in 
 three different toasts ; the farmers hailed him at every 
 possible moment with enthusiastic cheers; he spoke 
 three different times. 
 
 Mark, too, how conscious son and father show 
 themselves of their dignity ! The Marquis of Chandos 
 speaks of his father as " the noble Duke who presides 
 in the chair;" as to say, "Vulgar folk, behold how 
 even I bow before the ducal dignity of my sire ! " 
 And the Duke is no less conscious of the over- 
 whelming importance of the child of his loins. " Can 
 any man feel prouder than I am ? " says the Duke in 
 a burst of self-complacency; "surrounded by so many 
 of my friends, I received your confidence, which was 
 transmitted to me by those you loved, who went 
 before me, which I have transmitted THERE." 
 
 "Here," says our gushing rural reporter, "his 
 Grace pointed to Lord Chandos, and the cheering 
 that followed was so long and loud as for a long 
 time to interrupt the speech of the noble Duke." 31 
 
 But where, amid all this self-gratulation, all this 
 complacent chuckling of the aristocrats, where is 
 poor Mr. Disraeli? Apparently, he is not thought 
 much of by these magnates; and his presence at 
 this banquet is an incident of the most trifling 
 importance. Indeed, I find in one of the reports 
 that his name occupies the last place on the list of 
 Bucks Herald. Dec. 20, 1834.
 
 74 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 those present ; and from the newspaper accounts 
 I am inclined to think he occupied a seat among 
 the general ruck, and not on the Olympian height 
 of the dais, where the dii majores of the meeting 
 ate, drank, and orated. 
 
 Poor Mr. Disraeli ! Toast after toast has been 
 proposed, local magnate after magnate has spoken, 
 and the time is gradually approaching when no toast 
 will be left but "The Press," and "The Ladies," 
 and still you have not had an opportunity of uttering 
 a word. 
 
 What a picture Mr. Disraeli presents at this dinner 
 to our eyes, enlightened by future events. How 
 he loathes the gormandising farmers, among whom 
 he is compelled to sit ; with what eyes of envy and 
 hate he looks up to the dais, on which the " quality " 
 sit ; how he sickens at the oft-repeated name of the 
 heritor of the Duke's title and land; what are his 
 feelings as he hears the tame sentences of this man, 
 who, merely by his position, can call himself the 
 leader of a parliamentary party, while he Benjamin 
 Disraeli, with the tongue of fire the twice-rejected 
 of Wycombe, has to sit below the salt, and listen 
 to the foolish utterances of titled dullards. 
 
 Such must have been Mr. Disraeli's bitter thoughts ; 
 but when he rose to speak, his words were all honey 
 and flattery ; for Vivian Grey, we know, had " the 
 tongue of a serpent." Proposed by a " Mr. John 
 Kolfe, of Beaconsfield," as a gentleman " firmly 
 attached to the cause of agriculture," he attempted
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE, 75 
 
 to justify this description by a eulogium of the 
 agricultural interest, so wild as almost to read like 
 burlesque. He states, among other things, that " He 
 had long been of. opinion that a conspiracy existed 
 among certain orders in the county against what was 
 styled the Agricultural interest." 
 
 And again : " No nation could ever do without 
 agriculture, and a peasantry attached to it ; and 
 as for the manufacturers of Birmingham and Man- 
 chester, they would, if it suited them at any time, 
 migrate to Belgium, France, or Egypt. (Cheers.) 
 The agriculturists had a spirit of patriotism," f but 
 I need give no more. 
 
 A number of stupid farmers, their stomachs well 
 filled with meat and drink, of course wildly cheered 
 these testimonies to their own supernal virtues ; but 
 assuredly any one with even the slightest sense of 
 humour, or with an even less than ordinary degree 
 of penetration, could hear underneath this exagge- 
 ration and flattery the tones of utter insincerity. 
 
 The farmers, however, were not the only persons 
 who came in for the sweetnesses of the orator's 
 tongue. I have already spoken of the part the 
 Marquis of Chandos took in this meeting. Mr. 
 Disraeli pays court to the great man with the deepest 
 fervour. He speaks of his ' ' distinguished talents ; " 
 his "unsullied parliamentary conduct;" and as Sir 
 Robert Peel had not availed himself of these great 
 mental gifts, and this lofty character, Mr. Disraeli 
 Ibid. t find-
 
 7 6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 for one "rather faltered in his confidence in the 
 new Ministry." " Ought it be said/' demanded the 
 indignant orator, "that a Knatchbull was called to 
 the Councils of his Sovereign, and that a Chandos was 
 not ? " And to this question the answer ye gods ! 
 was not uproarious laughter, but "loud cheers."* 
 
 Finally, the speech concluded with a flourish about 
 the country gentlemen and the yeomanry of England, 
 which almost sounds like a quotation from "Vivian 
 Grey."f 
 
 The reader has now had an opportunity of reading 
 in immediate succession the Marylebone address of 
 1833 and the speech to the Aylesbury farmers of 1834. 
 Could any opinions be more contradictory than those 
 expressed on those two different occasions ? 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 t Prom the Ayletbury speech. From " Vivian Grey.' 
 
 " The agriculturists had a spirit " And then followed a long 
 of patriotism they had on their dissertation, Vivian Grey was 
 ride wealth and intelligence, and talking to Mr. Stapylton Toad 
 all the aristocracy of the country, on the character of the noble 
 an aristocracy which the wildest statesman, and his views as to 
 Liberals would prefer to that the agricultural interest, and the 
 mongrel race which had already importance of the agricultural 
 corrupted the greatest portion of interest ; and then a delicate hint 
 Europe. (Cheers.) They had on was thrown out as to 'how de- 
 their side the gentlemen of Eng- lightful it would be to write a 
 land, and the still noble remains pamphlet together ' on this mighty 
 of a once unrivalled yeomanry." agricultural interest ; and then 
 
 came a panegyric on the character 
 of country gentlemen, and English 
 yeomen, and the importance of 
 keeping up the old English spirit 
 in the peasantry," etc., etc., et<x, 
 etc. (New edition, 70.)
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 77 
 
 "Believing/' writes Mr. Disraeli to the Marylebone 
 electors in 1 833, " that unless the public burdens are 
 speedily and materially reduced, a civil convulsion 
 must occur, I am desirous of seeing a Parliamentary 
 Committee appointed to revise the entire system of 
 our taxation, with the object of relieving industry 
 from those encumbrances which property is more 
 capacitated to endure." 
 
 "He had long been of opinion," says Mr. Disraeli, 
 to the Aylesbury farmers in 1834, "that a conspiracy 
 existed among certain orders in the country against 
 what was styled the Agricultural interest." 
 
 Is not the Mr. Disraeli of Marylebone, and 1833, as 
 widely separated from the Mr. Disraeli of Aylesbury, 
 and 1834, as the North Pole from the South? He 
 denounces in 1834, as conspirators, the men whom in 
 1833 he sought as allies : a fanatic devotee of urban 
 interests in 1833, he is an equally fanatic devotee of 
 rural interests in 1834. 
 
 The change in the prospects of the Conservative 
 party appears to have had the effect about this time 
 of making Mr. Disraeli seriously think of abandoning 
 the double game of Liberal in town and Conservative 
 in country ; but for a while he still held himself open 
 to offers from either political party. 
 
 "The Chancellor called on me yesterday," writes 
 
 Mr. Greville,* on December 6, 1834, "about getting 
 
 young Disraeli into Parliament (through the means 
 
 of George Bentinck) for Lynn. I had told him George 
 
 * Memoirs, iii. 170. Fourth edition.
 
 78 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 wanted a good man to assist in turning out William 
 Lennox, and he suggested the above-mentioned 
 gentleman, whom he called a friend of Chandos. His 
 political principles must, however, be in abeyance, for 
 he said that Durham was doing all he could to get 
 him, by the offer of a seat and so forth ; if, therefore, 
 he is undecided, and wavering between Chandos and 
 Durham, he must be a mighty impartial personage. 
 I don't think such a man will do, though just such as 
 Lyndhurst would be connected with." 
 
 Lord Durham, it may be as well to remind readers 
 of this generation, was recognised in 1834 as one 
 of the leaders of Radicalism ; indeed, of the Whig 
 aristocrats, he was the only one who was distinctly 
 pledged to Household Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. 
 Of the Marquis of Chandos something has been said 
 already; suffice it to add that he was one of the 
 stubborn band of Tories who denounced Sir Robert 
 Peel when he passed Catholic Emancipation, and 
 fought the battle against Reform after the Tory leaders 
 had left the field. Lord Durham was a Radical leader 
 among Whigs ; Lord Chandos, an ultra-Tory leader 
 among Tories; the politician who wavered between 
 the two might well be called " mighty impartial." 
 
 It is evident, however, that a week or so after 
 the entry in Mr. Greville's diary, Mr. Disraeli had 
 made his choice, and that he chose to be a True 
 Blue. On December 16, he delivered a long speech at 
 Wycombe, the representation of which he was for a, 
 third time seeking. In that speech he said not one
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 79 
 
 word about Triennial Parliaments or Vote by Ballot ; 
 the entire address was one long argument in favour of 
 the new Tory Administration. 
 
 We are, fortunately, not left to mere newspaper 
 reports for an account of this speech. With his 
 characteristic belief in the importance of everything 
 he said and did, Mr. Disraeli afterwards published it in 
 pamphlet form, under the title " The Crisis Examined." 
 The speech was, as I have said, for the most part a 
 strong plea in favour of the Ministry of Sir Robert 
 Peel, which had just come into power ; but it contained 
 some expressions of opinion which the cautious leader 
 of the Conservative party would not much care to have 
 heard. 
 
 Ireland, at that period, as so often since and before, 
 was the great difficulty of the Ministers; and the 
 scandal of the Irish Church was the prominent part 
 of the Irish problem. In these days, the tithes still 
 existed, and their collection was attended with scenes 
 of wild disorder and terrible cruelty, and sometimes 
 with murderous encounters. Mr. Disraeli sympathised 
 in " The Crisis Examined " most strongly with the 
 hate of the Irish tithes, which was then felt by every 
 man of just and humane feeling; and he gave, like- 
 wise, a hearty adhesion to the prevalent project for 
 reducing somewhat the bloated proportions of the Irish 
 Church. 
 
 " Twelve months, therefore/ 3 he said, " must not pass 
 over without the very name of tithes in that country " 
 Ireland " being abolished for ever ; nor do I deem it
 
 go LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 leas urgent that the Protestant Establishment in that 
 country should be at once proportioned to the popu- 
 lation which it serves." * I ask the reader to carefully 
 mark this declaration of opinion. 
 
 Equally zealous was Mr. Disraeli that the usurpations 
 of the Church in England should be reduced in favour 
 of the rights of Dissenters. 
 
 " As for the question of the Church rate," he said, 
 it is impossible that we can endure that every time one 
 is levied, a town should present the scene of a contested 
 election. The rights of the Establishment must be 
 respected, but for the sake of the Establishment itself 
 that flagrant scandal must be removed."^ 
 
 Here, again, I ask the reader to take particular note 
 of Mr. Disraeli's expression of opinion. 
 
 Another point of considerable importance, which 
 Mr. Disraeli discussed in this speech, was whether 
 Peel, now that he was in office, would be justified in 
 passing measures to which he had been hostile in 
 opposition. Mr. Disraeli decides this question em- 
 phatically in the affirmative. 
 
 " The truth is, gentlemen," he said, " a statesman is 
 the creature of his age, the child of circumstance, the 
 creation of his times. A statesman is essentially a 
 practical character ; and when he is called upon to take 
 office, he is not to inquire what his opinions might or 
 might not have been upon this or that subject he is 
 only to ascertain the needful and the beneficial, and 
 the most feasible manner in which affairs are to be 
 1884 edition, 6, t Ibid. 8.
 
 THE SECOND ELECTION AT WYCOMBE. 81 
 
 carried on. The fact is, the conduct and opinions of 
 public men at different periods of their career must 
 not be too curiously contrasted in a free and aspiring 
 country. The people have their passions, and it is 
 even the duty of public men occasionally to adopt sen- 
 timents Tcitk which they do not sympathise, because the 
 
 people must have leaders I laugh, therefore, at 
 
 the objection against a man that, at a former period of 
 his career, he advocated a policy different to his pre- 
 sent one : all I seek to ascertain is whether his present 
 policy be just, necessary, expedient ; whether, at the 
 present moment, he is prepared to serve the country 
 according to its present necessities." 
 
 * Ibid. 16-17. In this speech was contained the famous Dacrow 
 simile one of the first specimens of that power of satirical illustra- 
 tion which Lord Beaconsfield has found so useful in his career. " The 
 Reform Ministry, indeed!" said Mr. Disraeli. " Why, scarcely an 
 original member of that celebrated Cabinet remained. You re- 
 member, gentlemen, the story of Sir John Cutler's silk hose. These 
 famous stockings remind me of this famous ministry ; for really 
 between Hobhouse darns, and Ellice botchings, I hardly can decide 
 whether the hose are silk or worsted. The Reform Ministry ! I dare 
 say now some of you have heard of Mr. Ducrow, that celebrated 
 gentleman who rides upon six horses. What a prodigious achieve- 
 ment ! It seems impossible, but you have confidence in Ducrow ! 
 You fly to witness it ; unfortunately, one of the horses is ill, and a 
 donkey is substituted in its place. But Ducrow is still admirable; 
 there he is. bounding along in a spangled jacket and cork slippers ! 
 The whole town is mad to see Ducrow riding at the same time 
 on six horses ; but now two more of the steeds are seized with the 
 staggers, and lo 1 three jackasses in their stead ! Still Ducrow 
 persists, and still announces to the public that he will ride round ia 
 circus every night on six steeds. At last, all the horses are knocked 
 up, and now there are half-a-dozen donkeys. What a change 1 
 Behold the hero in the amphitheatre, the spangled jacket thrown 
 on one side, the cork slippers on the other ! Puffing, panting, 
 and perspiring, he pokes one sullen brute, thwacks another, cuffs a 
 
 6
 
 8 2 LORD BE A CONSFIELD. 
 
 A third time Mr. Disraeli was defeated, both Mr. 
 Smith and Colonel Grey having again received more 
 votes.* 
 
 But, still unconquered, he showed in the very hour 
 of defeat that spirit of elastic self-confideuce, and 
 that patient steadiness of purpose, to which he owes so 
 much of his life's success. 
 
 "He had," he said at a Conservative dinner about 
 a fortnight after his defeat " He had made two 
 straggles for the independence of Wycombe, and he 
 was prepared, if the opportunity offered, to make a 
 third. (Cheers.) He was not at all disheartened; 
 he did not in any way feel like a beaten man. Per- 
 haps it was because he was used to it. (Cheers and 
 laughter.) He would say of himself with the famous 
 Italian general, who being asked in his old age why 
 he was always victorious, replied, it was because he 
 had always been beaten in youth. (Loud applause.)" f 
 
 third, and curses a fourth, while one brays to the audience, and 
 another rolls in the sawdust. Behold the late Prime Minister 
 and the Reform Ministry 1 The spirited and snow-white steeds have 
 gradually changed into an equal number of sullen and obstinate 
 donkeys. While Mr. Merryman, who. like the Lord Chancellor, was 
 once the very life of the ring, now lies his despairing length in 
 the middle of the stage, with his jokes exhausted and his bottle 
 empty 1 " Ibid. 29 31. In the title-page of the " Crisis Examined," 
 as well as in that of other works of his youth, Lord Beaconsfielcl 
 describes himself as " Disraeli the Younger." 
 
 * The numbers were Smith, 288 ; Grey, 147 ; Disraeli, 123. 
 
 t Bvela fferald, Jan. 31, 1836.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 BEACHING THE NADIR. 
 
 THE year 1835 is one to which Mr. Disraeli must look 
 back occasionally with feelings of poignant pain. In 
 that year he reached his nadir. 
 
 In ] 834 he published " The Revolutionary Epick." 
 He had already given the world abundant proof of a 
 conceit, both political and literary, that was almost 
 superhuman. But " The Revolutionary Epick " eclipsed 
 all previous performances. 
 
 The preface to that poem is perhaps the most extra- 
 ordinary piece of writing that has ever been penned by 
 any man, not admittedly a lunatic or an imbecile. " It 
 was on the plains of Troy," it begins, " that I first 
 conceived the idea of this work."' 
 
 Mark, first, the mise en scene. The plains of Troy ! 
 Mr. Disraeli is so impressed with the greatness of his 
 work, and himself, that he must select as the birthplace 
 of his poem the most remarkable spot on the whole 
 earth : he stands with his epic in his hand, the central 
 figure, at the centre of the universe ! 
 
 " Wandering," proceeds Mr. Disraeli, " over that 
 * Preface, i.
 
 8 4 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 illustrious scene, surrounded by the tombs of heroes 
 and by the confluence of poetic streams, my musing 
 thoughts clustered round the memory of that im- 
 mortal song, to which all creeds and countries alike re- 
 spond, which has vanquished Chance and defied Time 
 Deeming myself, perchance too rashly, in that excited 
 hour, a Poet, I cursed the destiny that had placed me 
 in an age that boasted of being anti-poetical. And 
 while my Fancy thus struggled with my Reason, it 
 flashed across my mind, like the lightning which 
 was then playing over Ida," thus Nature, in one of 
 her sublimest moods, is pressed into service : flashes of 
 lightning ; Mr. Disraeli ; the plains of Troy these are 
 the magnificent stage directions " it flashed across 
 my mind, like the lightning which was then playing 
 over Ida, that in those great poems which rise, the 
 pyramids of poetic art, amid the falling and fading 
 splendour of less creations, the Poet hath ever em- 
 bodied the spirit of his Time. Thus the most heroic 
 incident of an heroic age produced in the Iliad an 
 Heroic Epick; thus, the consolidation of the most 
 superb of Empires produced in the >Eneid a Political 
 Epick ; the revival of Learning, and the birth of ver- 
 nacular Genius, presented us in the Divine Comedy 
 with a National Epick; and the Reformation and its 
 consequences called from the rapt lyre of Milton a 
 Religious Epick. And the spirit of my time, shall it 
 alone be uncelebrated ? Standing upon Asia, and 
 gazing upon Europe, with the broad Hellespont alone 
 between us, and the shadow of Night descending on
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 85 
 
 the mountains " Nature pressed into service again 
 "these mighty continents appeared to me as it 
 were the Eival Principles of Government, that at pre- 
 sent contend for the mastery of the world. e What ! ' 
 I exclaimed, 'is the Revolution of France a less im- 
 portant event than the siege of Troy? Is Napoleon 
 a less interesting character than Achilles ? For me 
 remains the Revolutionary Epick"* 
 
 Homer, Virgil, Dante, Milton, and Mr. Disraeli the 
 Iliad, the ^Eneid, the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, 
 and the Revolutionary Epick ! was there ever such 
 strangely assorted company ? 
 
 We can imagine the effect such a preface produced 
 in 1834. Up to that year Mr. Disraeli had practi- 
 cally given proof of little beyond his own conceit. 
 " Contarini Fleming " was in great part nonsense, 
 " Alroy " was nonsense, " Vivian Grey's " cleverness 
 was obscured by extravagance and vanity ; and the 
 author of all this mediocre stuff declares himself the 
 successor of the Father of Poetry ! 
 
 Let us remember, in addition to all this, the corre- 
 sponding pretentiousness of appearance and tone, the 
 flowing ringlets and the D'Orsay garments, the affecta- 
 tion of keeping the best company and drinking the 
 finest wines : let us remember this, and we can well 
 understand the bitter dislike and contempt which were 
 excited by the Disraeli of 1834. 
 
 The " Revolutionary Epick " fully carries out the 
 promise of the preface. Like the preface, void of 
 * Ibid. i.-ii.
 
 86 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 idea and inflated in language, it confirms the im- 
 pression that it is the work of a mind at once impotent 
 and ambitious. 
 
 "I am not/' wrote our poet, "one who finds con- 
 solation for the neglect of my contemporaries in the 
 imaginary plaudits of a more sympathetic Posterity. 
 The public will then decide whether this work is 
 to be continued and completed; and if it pass in 
 the negative, I shall, without a pang, hurl my lyre 
 to Limbo."* The public has passed in the nega- 
 tive, to use Mr. Disraeli's strange phrase, and the 
 lyre, accordingly, has been hurled to Limbo. A 
 second edition was published about twenty years after 
 the appearance of the first, but not in obedience 
 to a demand from the public. It was published to 
 carry out an idea of Mr. Disraeli, and under circum- 
 stances which we shall afterwards discuss, not wholly 
 without edification. 
 
 Towards the close of 1834, Mr. Disraeli had, it will 
 be remembered, already ceased to be " mighty im- 
 partial," and had given indications of emerging from 
 Radicalism into the full splendour of a " True Blue." 
 As yet, however, he had not openly and irrevocably 
 declared himself. He had made speeches at Tory 
 gatherings, but if he abused the Whigs, he let the 
 Radicals alone. He had, in his speech at the Wycombe 
 election of 1834, omitted all mention of Triennial 
 Parliaments and Vote by Ballot ; but he had certainly 
 abstained from any condemnation of those Radical 
 Ibid. iv.
 
 REACHING THE, NADIR. 87 
 
 nostrums. The moment, however, had at last come 
 when he thought he might once and for ever throw off 
 the Radical mask. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, called to the head of the G-overn- 
 ment in November, 1834, was compelled by an adverse 
 vote to resign, in April of the following year. In the 
 new Government formed by Lord Melbourne, Mr. 
 Henry Labouchere was appointed Master of the Mint. 
 When Mr. Labouchere, on taking office, appealed for 
 re-election to the electors of Taunton, he found himself 
 opposed by Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 Some astonishment was created by the boldness of 
 Mr. Disraeli's enterprise; for Mr. Labouchere was 
 not an unimportant member of the new Cabinet, 
 had a good parliamentary reputation, and had been 
 returned five times already by the constituency of 
 Taunton. But Mr. Disraeli was wiser than his critics. 
 M. Emile de Girardin, we are told by M. Louis Blanc,* 
 regarded a deal with Armand Carrel as a bonne fortune. 
 The originator of newspaper advertisements in France, 
 understood the art of self -puffing well; but not a bit 
 better than Mr. Disraeli. He has advanced himself 
 from obscurity partly by the judicious selection of 
 eminent opponents. 
 
 Still more astonishment was created by the poli- 
 tical character in which Mr. Disraeli chose to appear. 
 " Mr. Disraeli," wrote the Taunton Courier, a Liberal 
 journal, (April 22nd, 1835,) " possesses the confidence 
 of the Conservative Club in London, and to whick 
 * " Histoire de Dix Ans," v. 64.
 
 88 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 body of gentlemen this borough is indebted for his 
 visit on the present occasion." What ! the protegd 
 of O'Connell and Hume; the writer of the Radical 
 address to Marylebone, and "What is He?"; the 
 advocate of Triennial Parliaments and Vote by Ballot, 
 an avowed nominee of a Conservative Club it was 
 incredible ! 
 
 First, a gentleman came forward to express absolute 
 doubt of the accuracy of the Taunton Courier. " Mr. 
 Disraeli," he wrote, " is a Liberal, and a member of 
 the Westminster Reform Club." * 
 
 " So the Tories," wrote the Morning Chronicle of 
 April 25, 1835, "have started Mr. Disraeli at Taunton 
 
 * " To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle. 
 
 " Sir, In jour journal of to-day, it is stated, on the authority of 
 the Taunton Courier, that D' Israeli the Younger had been sent 
 to that borough by the Conservative Club, to oppose the re-election 
 of Mr. Labouchere. This statement (so far, at least, as the Con- 
 servative Club is concerned, must, I think, be a gross mistake, 
 seeing that Mr. D'Israeli professes to be a Liberal, and in proof 
 thereof is actually a member of the Westminster Reform Club, esta- 
 blished last year in Great George Street, Westminster, by Messrs. 
 Tennyson, Hume, and others of the Liberal party. Nay, more, pro- 
 posed to offer himself as a candidate for Marylebone, and, on being 
 told that his principles were considered somewhat doubtful, he upon 
 a recent occasion put forth a pamphlet entitled ' What is He-? ' in 
 which he recommends triennial Parliaments, election by ballot, and 
 that the Tories should coalesce with Radicals. I refer you to the 
 pamphlet itself rather than to extracts, and although it is as ambi- 
 guously worded as the most dexterous trimmer could wish, yet, coupling 
 the above extracts with the fact of its having been written expressly 
 with the view to recommend the writer to the favourable notice of 
 the electors of Marylebone, it can hardly be believed that its author 
 is now under the especial patronage of the Conservative Club. 
 " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " AN ELECTOR OP WESTMINSTER."
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 89 
 
 to oppose Mr. Labouchere, .... and report says that 
 they have supplied him liberally with the sinews of 
 
 war Is he making a catspaw of the Tories, or 
 
 are they making one of him ? " 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, however, was preparing for himself 
 far .more violent and memorable attacks. In the 
 course of his canvass, he made a most foolish speech, 
 in which he attacked O'Connell in very severe terms. 
 He called the Irish Tribune an incendiary and a 
 traitor. The nomination took place on April 2 7 ; and 
 Mr. Disraeli, after he had been proposed and seconded, 
 made some attempt, as will be seen, to repair the error 
 of his electioneering indiscretions. 
 
 This nomination speech is certainly one of the 
 most startling even Lord Beaconsfield ever delivered ; 
 and it required even all the peculiar form of courage 
 with which he is gifted, to make some of its state- 
 ments without faltering. 
 
 The " Crisis Examined " was published in the 
 December of 1834; this Taunton speech was de- 
 livered in April of 1835 that is, four or five months 
 after. Yet Mr. Disraeli had in this short period 
 made a complete change in his opinions on some 
 of the most important and pressing questions of the 
 time. 
 
 Take the question of the Irish Church. 
 
 In the " Crisis Examined," as will be remembered, 
 he expressed the opinion that "the Protestant Esta- 
 blishment in that country " Ireland " should be at 
 once proportioned to the population which it serves."
 
 90 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 In the Taunton speech, he says on this same sub- 
 ject, 
 
 "I cannot understand the principle by which the 
 Whigs would reform, as they call it, the Church 
 of Ireland! It appears to me that they offered a 
 premium to the Whiteboys to destroy the Protestants. 
 (Cheers from the Blues.) If forty-nine souls are 
 not worthy to be saved, whilst fifty are, I think we 
 shall soon have no congregations in Ireland which 
 exceed the Popish tariff of salvation." 
 
 Take the question of the Irish Tithes. 
 
 In the " Crisis Examined," he said, it will be 
 remembered, 
 
 " Twelve mouths, therefore, must not pass over 
 without the very name of tithes in that country " 
 Ireland " being abolished for ever." 
 
 Wei], not twelve, but only five months have passed, 
 and here is what Lord Beaconsfield had to say on 
 this same question : 
 
 " If the Irish Church has always been the intolerable 
 nuisance it is described, why has this nuisance been so 
 lately discovered ? It is upon record that, twenty 
 years ago, tithes were paid more readily than rents are 
 now in England. Gentlemen, it is agitation that has 
 made the nuisance, and it is the Whig party who for 
 their own ends have encouraged the agitation.'' 
 
 Now this entire change of opinion is strange enough ; 
 but there is something that makes it stranger. In 
 
 * Dortet County Chronicle, April 30, 1835, quoted in Morning Pott, 
 March 2, 1836.
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 91 
 
 this interval of five months between the "Crisis 
 Examined" and the Taunton speech, a terrible 
 occurrence took place, which ought to have shaken 
 anybody who had hitherto supported the Tithes, and 
 most strongly confirmed anybody who had been 
 hitherto opposed to them. 
 
 The speech of which the " Crisis Examined'' was 
 a republication, was delivered on December 16, 1834. 
 In the Times of December 19 there is an account of 
 a Tithe affray in Ireland, in which thirteen persona 
 were killed, seven desperately wounded, and twenty 
 others more or less seriously injured. Among those 
 victims to the Tithe were at least two women, and the 
 accounts given of the whole occurrence are, without 
 exaggeration, appalling.* 
 
 Here then is the plain statement of Mr. Disraeli's 
 conduct on this occasion. On December 16, 1834, he 
 delivered a speech in which he declared that the very 
 
 * Let me make a quotation or two from the accounts published by 
 the Tinws : 
 
 ' The Southern Reporter contains the names and descriptions 
 of seven dangerously wounded, and thirteen killed, now lying in 
 the temporary morgue at Rathcormack, where three coroners are 
 officiating under circumstances of the most painful interest, described 
 in three sentences in a despatch received in Cork on Saturday, dated 
 one o'clock 'The town is full of military.' -A fiery discussion is 
 going on before the three coroners.' 'The excitement is terrible. 1 
 Its correspondent states ' To describe the state of the country since 
 the tragic occurrence was enacted is not in the power of the writer. 
 The shops in Watergrass Hill and Rathcormack are generally closed ; 
 business of every kind suspended ; not a cow, a horse, a sheep, or a 
 pig to be seen for miles. The people are dark and sullen, desperate 
 and reckless. One old man, in the presence of the writer, was sur- 
 rounded by several scores of peasants, fell upon his knees, and im- 
 precated the vengeance of Heaven upon the destroyers of his children.
 
 92 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 name of tithes should be abolished for ever in Ireland 
 before twelve months had elapsed. On the very heels 
 of that declaration comes a massacre, attended by 
 surroundings of an appalling and heartrending nature. 
 And the direct cause of this massacre is the Irish 
 Tithe system. 
 
 Yet on April 17 in the following year, Mr. Disraeli 
 contradicts his own expression of opinion, and is deaf 
 to the thunderous confirmation which the Rathcormack 
 massacre had given to that opinion. 
 
 "If there be anything," says Mr. Disraeli in this 
 same Taunton speech, " on which I pique myself, it is 
 my consistency ! " * 
 
 Let us next advance to the explanation of his 
 change as a thorough "True Blue" at Taunton, from 
 the Radical candidate for Wycombe, who advocated 
 Triennial Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, and all the 
 other destructive Radical " cries/' 
 
 " Gentlemen," he said, " if there be anything on 
 
 Another offered up an oath that he would not die till the blood in 
 which he that moment knelt was avenged. The feeling is intense, the 
 people are quite careless of their lives. They are incommunicative, 
 and, with very few exceptions, were observed not to shed a tear. ' We 
 subjoin what follows on the same subject from the correspondent of 
 the Dublin Evening Post: ' I went up to inspect the haggard where 
 the carnage occurred, and so awful a spectacle I never witnessed. 
 The straw all saturated with human gore, so that the blood oozed 
 through the straw on the pressure of the foot, and, shocking to relate, 
 the widow Collins was seen to kiss the blood of her sons, imprecating 
 God's vengeance on the murderers of her children. Another man 
 have I seen stamping his foot on the blood of his brother, and saying, 
 "The man that shed this, my brother's blood, shall drink his own 
 Wood if I live." ' " 
 
 I'ortet County ChronicU, April 30, 1836.
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 93 
 
 which I pique myself, it is my consistency. (Loud 
 cheers.) Well, I shall be ready to prove my con- 
 sistency, either in the House of Commons or on the 
 hustings of Taunton. (Hear, hear.) Every man may 
 be attacked once, but no one ever attacked me twice. 
 (Cheers.) Here is my consistency. I have always 
 opposed with my utmost energy the party of which 
 my hon. opponent is a distinguished member. That 
 party I have opposed for reasons I am prepared to 
 give and to uphold. I look upon the Whigs as an 
 anti-national party. . . . When I first entered into 
 public life, I found the high places of the realm filled 
 by the party of which my opponent is a member. . . . 
 I considered it my duty to oppose the Whigs, and 
 to ensure their discomfiture, and, if possible, their 
 destruction as a party. (Murmurs, and loud cheers.) 
 There was then no constitutional opposition to keep the 
 Government in check. That great Tory party, which 
 is now so strongly constituted, was a shattered, a 
 disabled, and a disheartened fragment, self-confessing 
 their own inability to carry on the King's government, 
 and announcing the impending revolution. Gentle- 
 men, had I been a political adventurer, I had nothing 
 to do but to join the Whigs; but conscientiously 
 believing that their policy was in every respect per- 
 nicious, I felt it my duty to oppose them. But how 
 were they to be opposed ? Where were the elements 
 for a party to keep the Government in check and to 
 bring together the old constitutional balance? I 
 thought they existed in the Liberal Tories and in
 
 94 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 those independent Reformers who had been returned 
 to Parliament independently of the Whigs. I laboured 
 for their nnion, and I am proud of it. Remember the 
 Whig policy. They had a packed Parliament. They 
 had altered the duration of Parliaments once before. 
 ... I wished to break their strength by frequent 
 elections and frequent appeals to a misgoverned 
 people. Therefore, I advocated the recurrence to 
 those triennial Parliaments which it was once the 
 proudest boast of the Tories to advocate. I wished to 
 give the country gentlemen a chance of representing 
 the neighbouring towns where they are esteemed, in- 
 stead of the nominees of a sectarian oligarchy. There- 
 fore I proposed the adoption of the ballot in the only 
 constituencies willing to assume it. And now where is 
 my inconsistency? (Loud cheers.) . . . The mighty 
 Whig party, which had consented to a revolution to 
 gain power, fell to pieces. . . . Gentlemen, the object 
 for which I laboured is attained. The balance of 
 parties is restored; and now, gentlemen, I do not 
 longer advocate the measures in question, merely 
 because they are no longer necessary." 
 
 Let us briefly examine the defence Mr. Disraeli gives 
 of the change in his opinions. It was necessary, 
 he said, to create an Opposition to fight against the 
 then all-powerful Whigs ; and this he proposed to do 
 by producing an alliance between the Radicals and 
 Liberal Tories, and by frequent appeals to the con- 
 ytituencies. 
 
 * Ibid.
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 95 
 
 First, let us remark the boldness of Mr. Disraeli's 
 expedient. Who but he could have ever thought of 
 bringing together the representatives of Conservative 
 counties and Radical towns, the farmer's friends and 
 the friends of the working man ? Who but he could 
 think of proposing a platform, on which Lord 
 Chandos and Joseph Hume, Sir Robert Peel and 
 Daniel O'Connell, would stand side by side? 
 
 And, again, what was the object of this alliance? 
 In whose interest was it proposed ? Not in that of 
 both parties; Mr. Disraeli does not venture to men- 
 tion one priuciple which united both parties. Was 
 it in the interest of the Radicals ? Then Mr. Disraeli 
 was using the Tories for the purposes of the Radicals. 
 In the interests of the Tories only ? Then Mr. Disraeli 
 was cheating Mr. Hume into playing the game of Sir 
 Robert Peel. 
 
 As might be expected from one playing such a 
 double game, Mr. Disraeli varied his plans as the 
 fortunes of the two parties rose and fell. In 1832, 
 the Tories were "a shattered, a disabled, and a dis- 
 heartened fragment ; " in 1832, therefore, the Radicals 
 were playing the first, and the Tories only the second 
 part, in Mr. Disraeli's programme. " He was objected 
 to," said Mr. Disraeli on the hustings at Wycombe in 
 1832, " . . . . because of his alliance with the Tories." 
 The " Tories laid tendered him their support, and, if they 
 were inclined to serve the purposes of the people, and 
 help them to obtain their object, would he, as a friend 
 of the people, be justified in rejecting their aid?"
 
 96 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Thus, then, the Tories are used simply for "the 
 purposes of the people," that is, for the purpose of 
 the Radicals. 
 
 But in 1835 the Tories had completely risen from 
 their defeat, and had once more become a great party. 
 Accordingly, we are now told that the Radicals were 
 merely used to " serve the purposes " of the Tories. 
 "Gentlemen The object for which I laboured is 
 attained ; the balance of parties is restored " that 
 is, the Tories are once more strong; "and now, 
 gentlemen, I do no longer advocate the measures in 
 question, simply because they are no longer necessary." 
 What does this mean, but that the cry of Triennial 
 Parliaments and -Vote by Ballot was put forward 
 merely to catch the Radical vote for the Tory party ; 
 and that the Tory party, having once more become 
 strong, these baits were "no longer necessary/' 
 And yet, "with matchless impudence of face/' Mr. 
 Disraeli winds up this explanation of his conduct 
 by confidently asking "Is this an answer? Is this 
 inconsistency ? " 
 
 It will be seen that, throughout this defence of his, 
 Mr. Disraeli dexterously manages to so mark the 
 difference between a Reformer and a Whig as to 
 suggest that a man might be a Reformer and yet not 
 be a Liberal. I have already shown the reader the 
 falseness of this position; and, as my narrative pro- 
 ceeds, I shall heap proof on proof that Mr. Disraeli, 
 on entering public life, represented himself to be a 
 Liberal. At this stage, it is sufficient to point to the
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 97 
 
 answer which he made to the accusation that he had 
 formerly belonged to a Liberal club. His answer was 
 a pointblank denial that he had ever belonged to that 
 or to any other political club in his life.* 
 
 Now, this controversy as to whether Mr. Disraeli 
 did or did not belong to the Westminster Club, is 
 one to which the reader ought to pay particular 
 attention. It is in the first place important because 
 of the character of that club; but is, perhaps, still 
 more important in another respect. Here is a distinct 
 issue of fact, upon which mistake is impossible ; and, 
 therefore, it is an issue which decides irrevocably in 
 favour or against the personal veracity of the persons 
 engaged in it. 
 
 The " Westminster Elector " who, on the nrst an- 
 nouncement of Mr. Disraeli's candidature at Taunton, 
 in the Conservative interest, had stated that Mr. 
 Disraeli was a Liberal, and a member of the West- 
 minster Reform Club, immediately after the Taunton 
 speech, returned to the charge. And then he told 
 this startling story. Mr. Disraeli, he said, was 
 elected a member on the proposition of Mr. Henry 
 Lytton Bulwer, M.P., who was then, and remained 
 ever after, a Liberal, being seconded by Dr. John 
 Elinore, "one of the most honest reformers in the 
 
 * " I have always fought the battle of the people from my own 
 resources, and am not indebted to any other person for a single farthing, 
 and I will fight again on my own resources, and neither that club nor 
 any other has ever given me anything. No, gentlemen, or the West- 
 minster Reform Club. It is a club I never heard of, and I never 
 belonged to a political club in my life." 
 
 7
 
 98 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 kingdom." He neglected, however, to pay his sub- 
 scription; but at last, after repeated applications, 
 sent an insolent letter, which the Westminster 
 Elector gives textually. Another application brought 
 another letter from Mr. Disraeli, which contained 
 his fee, and a request that his name should be with- 
 drawn from the club. This letter the Westminster 
 Elector also gives textually. The committee refused 
 to receive a subscription from one who did not intend 
 to make use of the club : Mr. Disraeli's cheque was 
 returned ; * and so his connection with the West- 
 minster Reform Club ended. 
 
 * The reader will probably find of interest the entire letter from 
 the Westminster Elector: 
 
 " WHAT is HE ? 
 " To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle. 
 
 'Sir, Your journal of to-day, in reporting the election pro- 
 ceedings at Tannton, on Monday last, gives me to understand that 
 Mr. D'IsraeH solemnly declared ' upon his honour ' that he never had 
 been a member of the Westminster Reform Club. This unqualified 
 assertion is, no doubt, a startling one to you, after the information 
 you had from me last week ; and I question much if your surprise 
 at it will in any way cease when I submit to you, as I now do, the 
 following facts and documents. On the 2nd of July last, Mr. 
 D'Israeli was elected a member of the Westminster Reform Club, 
 having been proposed by his friend Henry Lytton Bulwer, Esq.. 
 M.P., and seconded by one of the most honest reformers in the 
 kingdom, Dr. John Elmore. This election was intimated to him 
 in the usual way by the Secretary of the club, with a request to pay 
 his entrance-money and subscription. The latter ceremony, however, 
 he neglected to do ; and after repeated applications for the money, 
 a letter, of which the following is a copy, was received by the 
 Secretary of the club : 
 
 " ' 8, Park Street, Grosvenor Square, Jan. 29. 
 
 " ' Sir, Having received a letter from you this morning, ap- 
 prising me that I am a threatened defaulter in the matter of the 
 Westminster Club, I beg to inform you that I never entered the
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 99 
 
 The reader has now the facts on both sides in the 
 epistolary controversy between Mr. Disraeli and the 
 Westminster Elector. I leave him to form his own 
 judgment. 
 
 The Taunton candidature not only drew upon Mr. 
 
 walls of the club-house but once, and that was with the intention 
 of paying my admission fee and subscription. On that occasion 
 I was informed that the Secretary was absent in Ireland ; and I 
 freely confess to you that I was then unable to obtain any satisfac- 
 tory evidence that the club had a bond-fide existence. If, however, 
 I have been acting under a misapprehension, and I am to understand 
 that the club really exists, without any view of immediate disso- 
 lution, I shall be happy to forward the cheque which you require. 
 
 " ' I am, yours, etc., 
 
 " < B. D'lSBAELI.' 
 
 " So wrote Mr. D'Israeli on the 29th January, in reply to which 
 he was informed (but without reminding him that he had frequented 
 the club, employed its servants, and of other particulars not neces- 
 sary here to mention), that the club not only was in existence, but 
 with certainty of success ; the consequence of which was that on 
 the 8th March he wrote the following letter to the Secretary : 
 
 " ' Sir, I enclose you a draft for the sum you require, and as 
 
 my engagements have not permitted me to avail myself of the 
 
 Westminster Club, I shall feel obliged by your doing me the favour 
 
 of withdrawing my name from the list of the members of the society. 
 
 " ' I am, Sir, yours, etc., 
 
 " ' B. D'ISRAELI.' " 
 
 The cheque, as sent, was immediately returned, with the assurance 
 that if it did not suit him to belong to the club, it was not the 
 wish of the members to have his money. Thus the matter rests; 
 and contrasting the facts now set forth with Mr. D' Israeli's decla- 
 ration at Taunton, it will, I apprehend, be unnecessary for him to 
 write another pamphlet to prove to the world " What is he ? " I should 
 add that the Editor of the Morning Chronicle alleges himself to have 
 seen the originals of the letters of Mr. Disraeli which are quoted in the 
 Westminster Elector's letter. Mr. Fraser Rae, in an article in the 
 Nineteenth Century (May 1878, pp. 912 915) gives some interesting 
 particulars with regard to the club, in addition to those mentioned by 
 the Westminster Elector, prefacing his revelations by the statement 
 that "their authenticity is beyond question, because they are extracted
 
 ioo LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Disraeli numberless attacks from the Liberal press,* 
 but provoked a giant in invective to an ever-memorable 
 reply. 
 
 In the course of his canvass, Mr. Disraeli had taken 
 up against Mr. Labouchere the favourite charge against 
 the Whig Ministers of having formed an alliance with 
 O'Connell. In doing this, he was imprudent enough, 
 as I have already said, to speak of the Irish tribune 
 as an "incendiary" and a "traitor." Apparently, 
 he soon repented of his language, for in his speech 
 on the hustings, as has been seen, he endeavoured 
 
 from the original minute-book of its proceedings which is now before 
 me" (912). Of the members of the club, only three, he says, now sur- 
 vive Mr. Michael Bass, M.P., Mr. Edmond Beales, M.A., and Lord 
 Beaconsfield. He shows the character of the club by giving the 
 names of its founders, among whom were the well-known Alderman 
 Wood, Daniel O'Connell, and Mr. D. W. Harvey; and among its 
 members were Feargus O'Connor, Colonel Perronet Thompson, and 
 Joseph Hume (912). He then still quoting from the minutes 
 confirms the statement of the " Westminster Elector " as to the 
 circumstances of Mr. Disraeli's election and subsequent with- 
 drawal from the club (913). In this controversy, particular attention 
 ought to be paid to the dates. It was on the 8th March that Mr. 
 Disraeli finally withdrew from the Westminster Club ; the speech 
 denying that he had ever belonged to it was made on April 17 a 
 little more than a month after. 
 
 * As specimens, I give two quotations : 
 
 " The learned author of ' Vivian Grey,' " wrote the Morning Chronicle 
 (April 30, 1835), commenting on the letter of the Westminster Elector 
 and Mr. Disraeli's speech, " has some advantages over most people, for 
 he seems to have succeeded in persuading public men, of principles 
 the most opposite, that he shared their opinions, so that no man 
 knows whether his knowledge is derived from private confidence or 
 from sources accessible to all." 
 
 "The 'Vivian Grey' of fiction," wrote the Globe (May 2, 1835), 
 
 " is now the ' Vivian Grey ' of politics If there be anything, 
 
 saya Mr. D'Israeli, in his speech at Taunton, ' onmhich I pique myself, 
 it it my cont'utency.' This may, perhaps, be deemed conclusive.
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 101 
 
 to partially explain his language away.* It is quite 
 possible, then, that the attack on O'Connell was not 
 quite so vehement as was at first thought ; or that 
 the offensiveness of the form in which the attack was 
 clothed was due to the loose-tongued heat of electioneer- 
 ing. I omit no consideration that might extenuate 
 the language of Mr. Disraeli's speech. But though I 
 make every allowance that is fair, or even conceivable, 
 one great fact remains : Mr. Disraeli attacked the man 
 under whose political auspices he had been anxious 
 to enter on political life, three years before. The 
 reader has seen the letter of O'Connell which Mr. 
 Disraeli took care to have placarded over the streets 
 of Wycombe in 1832. Was it honest was it manly 
 was it decent of Mr. Disraeli to attack the writer of 
 that letter ? The castigation which his offence brought 
 down was severe, terribly severe ; but any compassion 
 for his scourged back would be utterly misplaced. 
 
 People are apt to pique themselves on that which they possess least. 
 Besides, Mr. D'Israeli here seems to do himself less than justice. 
 There are many things on which he piques himself quite as justly 
 to say the least as on his great political consistency. He piques 
 himself on his rings, and on his ringlets, his fashionable airs, and his 
 consummate modesty ! " 
 
 * " Perhaps I may take the opportunity of explaining to that 
 honourable gentleman who seconded my opponent, and who laid so 
 much stress on the observation that the Whigs had seized the bloody 
 hand of O'Connell. Is it possible that so elaborate a rhetorician as 
 the hon. gentleman can have literally supposed that Mr. O'Connell 
 was in the habit of going to the House of Commons with his hands 
 reeking with gore, or that the Whig Government crawled upon their 
 knees to embrace it ? I meant they had formed an alliance with one 
 whose policy was hostile to the preservation of the country, who 
 threatens us with the dismemberment of the empire, which cannot take 
 place without a civil war." Dorset County Chronicle, April 30, 1835.
 
 loa LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Before giving O'ConnelPs reply, it is well to notice 
 a letter in the Morning Chronicle from a Mr. D. 
 Ronayne, which, recapitulating the terms Mr. Disraeli 
 was reported to have applied to O'Connell, expresses 
 the strong opinion that Mr. Disraeli must have been 
 misrepresented ; " because," writes Mr. Rouayue, " I 
 can scarcely believe it possible that he could have 
 applied such epithets to Mr. O'Connell, of whom he 
 has within the last month spoken to me in terms of 
 the most extravagant admiration, and at the same 
 time requested of me to communicate to Mr. O'Connell 
 on the first opportunity his kind remembrances to him, 
 which I accordingly did." 
 
 If Mr. Bonayne knew, as well as we do now, in 
 what different terms Mr. Disraeli could speak, in 
 December at Wycombe, and in April at Tauiiton, of 
 such momentous questions as the Irish Church and 
 the Irish Tithes, perhaps he would never have found it 
 BO strange that he should thus have expressed himself 
 so differently within a short space with regard to 
 O'Connell. 
 
 And now for the speech of O'Connell. It was 
 delivered at a meeting of the Trades Unions in 
 Dublin. He began by making allusion to the many 
 attacks which were daily made on him by English 
 speakers and English journals. He then went on : 
 
 " I must confess there is one of the late attacks on 
 me which excited in my mind agreat d.al of astonish- 
 ment. (Hear, hear.) It is this the attack lately made 
 ut Taunton by Mr. D'Israeli. (Hear.) In the annals of
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 103 
 
 political turpitude there is not anything deserving the 
 name of blackguardism to equal that attack upon me. 
 Vv^hat is my acquaintance with this man ? " 
 
 And, then, O'Connell proceeds to tell the story of 
 his having -written a letter of recommendation in 
 favour of Mr. Disraeli to the electors of Wycornbe in 
 1832. The reader has seen the letter in the preceding 
 chapter, on Lord Beaconsfield's first contest. 
 
 " What is my acquaintance with this man ? " said 
 O'Conuell. "Just this. In 1831, or the beginning 
 of 1832, the borough of Wy combe became vacant. 
 I then knew him, but not personally I knew him 
 merely as the author of one or two novels. He 
 got an introduction to me, and wrote me a letter 
 stating that I was a Radical reformer, and as he 
 was also a Radical (laughter) and was going to 
 stand upon the Radical interest for the borough of 
 Wycombe, where he said there were many persons 
 of that way of thinking who would be influenced 
 by my opinion, he would feel obliged by receiving a 
 letter from me, recommendatory of him as a Radical. 
 His letter to me was so distinct upon the subject, that 
 I immediately complied with the request, and com- 
 posed as good an epistle as I could in his behalf. 
 I am in the habit of letter- writing, sir (cheers and 
 laughter) and Mr. Disraeli thought this letter so 
 valuable that he not only took the autograph, but 
 had it printed and placarded. It was, in fact, the 
 ground upon which he canvassed the borough. He 
 was, however, defeated, but that was not my fault.
 
 r04 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 (Laughter.) I did not demand gratitude from him, 
 but I think if he had any feeling of his own he 
 would conceive I had done him a civility at least, if 
 not a service, which ought not to be repaid by atrocity 
 of the foulest description. (Hear, hear.) " 
 
 Then O'Connell proceeds to trace Mr. Disraeli's 
 Career through some of the windings with which the 
 reader has been made familiar, how he started as 
 a Radical for Marylebone, and how, after his defeats 
 as a Radical, he tried the game of Conservatism; 
 and then O'Connell went on : 
 
 "At Taunton, this miscreant had the audacity to 
 style me an incendiary ! Why, I was a greater incen- 
 diary in 1831 than I am at present, if I ever were 
 one (laughter) and if I am, he is doubly so for 
 having employed me. (Cheers and laughter.) Then he 
 calls me a traitor. My answer to this is he is a liar. 
 (Cheers.) He is a liar in action and in words. His 
 life is a living lie. He is a disgrace to his species. 
 What state of society must that be that could tolerate 
 such a creature having the audacity to come forward 
 with one set of principles at one time, and obtain poli- 
 tical assistance by reason of those principles, and at 
 another to profess diametrically the reverse ? His life, 
 I say again, is a living lie. He is the most degraded 
 of his species and kind; and England is degraded in 
 tolerating or having upon the face of her society a 
 miscreant of his abominable, foul, and atrocious nature. 
 (Cheers.)" 
 
 And, finally, there came that terrible allusion
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 105 
 
 to Mr. Disraeli's Hebrew origin, which will never be 
 forgotten : 
 
 "His name shows he is by descent a Jew 
 
 There is a habit of underrating that great nation 
 the Jews I have the happiness of being ac- 
 quainted with some Jewish families in London; and 
 among them, more accomplished ladies, or more 
 humane, cordial, high-minded, or better-educated 
 gentlemen, I have never met. (Hear, hear.) It will 
 not be supposed, therefore, that when I speak of 
 Disraeli as the descendant of a Jew, that I mean to 
 tarnish him on that account. They were once the 
 chosen people of God. There were miscreants 
 amongst them, however, also, and it must have cer- 
 tainly been from one of those that Disraeli descended. 
 (Roars of laughter.) He possesses just the qualities 
 of the impenitent thief who died upon the cross, 
 whose name, I verily believe, must have been Disraeli. 
 (Roars of laughter.) For aught I know, the present 
 Disraeli is descended from him, and with the im- 
 pression that he is, I now forgive the heir-at-law of 
 the blasphemous thief who died upon the cross. 
 (Loud cheers, mingled with laughter.)" 
 
 O'Conneirs attack on Mr. Disraeli found its way 
 into almost every newspaper in the kingdom, and 
 like the attacks by great minds would, even if Mr. 
 Disraeli had then died, have probably secured for him 
 an immortality of infamy. 
 
 Such was the nature of the assault ; we now know 
 enough of the assailed to "judge of its effect. Inordi-
 
 io6 LORD BEACONSF/ELD. 
 
 nately vain, fatally vindictive, conscious of command- 
 ing powers, and yet whipped in the most public 
 pillory, amid the derisive laughter and applause of the 
 world, Mr. Disraeli must have passed, at this period, 
 through a paroxysm of rage, humiliation, and despair. 
 His first step seems to show that his fury had for 
 the moment bereft him of sense. But, before telling 
 what that was, a brief reference is necessary to another 
 political quarrel in which O'Connell was at this time 
 involved. Lord Alvanley having made an offensive 
 allusion to O'Connell, the Irish agitator had replied by 
 calling the noble lord " a bloated buffoon." Lord 
 Alvanley sent O'Connell a challenge; and, not satis- 
 fied with this, and before O'Connell had time to reply, 
 drew up a requisition to Brooks's Club, of which he 
 and the agitator were members, demanding O'Coniiell's 
 expulsion. A challenge to O'Connell was a very safe 
 display of valour. In 1815, he had, as is known, 
 killed in a duel a gentleman named D'Esterre. This 
 catastrophe weighed heavily on his conscience, for, 
 whatever were his faults, he was imbued with a deep 
 and sincere sense of religion ; and, to a man of such a 
 character, duelling could not but appear a great crime. 
 Accordingly, shortly after D'Esterre' s death, O'Connell 
 made a public vow that he would never again accept 
 a challenge. O'Connell's sons, however, were not 
 bound by the vow of their father, and one of them, 
 Morgan O'Connell, determined to punish Lord Alvanley. 
 He wrote a challenge to his father's assailant ; the 
 challenge was accepted, and a meeting took place.
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 107 
 
 Morgan O'Connell fired three, Lord Alvantey two 
 shots ; * but neither of the combatants was wounded. 
 The duel between Lord Alvanley and Mr. Morgan 
 O'Connell was fought on May 4. On the very following 
 day Mr. Disraeli wrote this letter : 
 
 " 31A, Park Street, Grosvenor Square. 
 
 ' Tuesday, May 6th, 1835. 
 
 " Sir. As you have established yourself as the champion of your 
 father. I have the honour to request your notice to a very scur- 
 rilous attack which your father has made upon my conduct and 
 character. 
 
 " Had Mr. O'Connell, according to the practice observed among 
 gentlemen, appealed to me respecting the accuracy of the reported 
 expressions before he indulged in offensive comments upon them, 
 he would, if he can be influenced by a sense of justice, have felt 
 that such comments were unnecessary. He has not thought fit to 
 do so, and he leaves me no alternative but to request that you, as 
 his son, will resume your vicarious duties of yielding satisfaction 
 for the insults which your father has too long lavished with impunity 
 on his political opponents. 
 
 " I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant. 
 
 " B. D'lSRAELI. 
 
 " Morgan O'Connell, Esq., M.P." 
 
 Mr. Morgan O'Connell declined this challenge, 
 explaining that, while he would not allow other people 
 to insult his father, he did not hold himself account- 
 able for what his father might do to other people. 
 He had challenged Lord Alvanley because he " con- 
 ceived he had purposely insulted" his "father by 
 calling a meeting at Brooks's for the purpose of 
 expelling him from the club, he being at the time 
 absent in Ireland." 
 
 * Lord Alvanley did not understand the signal the first time, and 
 young O'Connell alone fired.
 
 io8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 And*/then, Mr. Morgan O'Connell proceeds to deny 
 the right of Mr. Disraeli to insult him,* and requests 
 Mr. Disraeli, accordingly, to withdraw his letter. 
 Some other letters passed, the effect of which was 
 that Mr. Disraeli undertook to write a letter to 
 Daniel O'Connell, in the hope of giving the son a 
 proper ground for a challenge. " I shall take every 
 opportunity,*' wrote Mr. Disraeli to Mr. Morgan 
 O'Connell, "of holding your father's name up to 
 public contempt, and I fervently pray that you, or 
 some of his blood, may attempt to avenge the un- 
 extinguishable hatred with which I shall pursue his 
 existence." 
 
 And now for Mr. Disraeli's letter to O'Connell. t 
 "Although," it begins, "you have long placed your- 
 self out of the pale of civilization, still I am one 
 who will not be insulted even by a yahoo without 
 chastising it." 
 
 Then, recalling the duel O'Connell's son had fought 
 
 * " When I deny your right to call on me in the present instance. I 
 also beg leave most unequivocally to deny your right to address any 
 insulting letter to me, who am almost personally unknown to you, 
 and unconscious of ever having given you the slightest offence." 
 
 f The following quotations from the journals of the day on the 
 controversy between Lord Beaconsfield and O'Connell will be read, 
 perhaps, with interest : 
 
 {Spectator, May 9th, 1835.) " D'Jsraeli 'the Younger' has done 
 much to throw ridicule on the practice of duelling. The fury into 
 which he has plunged, because nobody thinks it worth while to treat 
 his raving with anything but cool contempt, is very ridiculous. How 
 he blusters and fumes I He may challenge every man in the House of 
 Commons, and insult every member of the United Service Club, without 
 the least danger to his valuable life. If any one should gratify Mr. 
 D'Israeh so far as to accept a challenge from him, the man would be
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. 109 
 
 with " another individual on whom you had dropped 
 your filth/' Mr. Disraeli goes on to relate his failure 
 to induce Mr. Morgan O'Connell to accept a similar 
 challenge. He next complains that O'Connell had 
 founded his comments on a "hasty and garbled 
 report," and then he replies to the charge of having 
 been once a Radical and now a Tory. His answer is 
 the same as that he gave at Taunton that he was the 
 opponent of the Whigs at Wy combe in 1832, that he 
 was still their opponent, and that, therefore, he was 
 quite consistent : failing, however, to show why he 
 advocated all the Radical cries in the first period, and 
 
 set down at once as a fit inmate for a madhouse. As a lady of fashion 
 would find it impossible to wear a dress of the same pattern as that of 
 an alderman's wife, so any person, pretending to the possession of 
 common sense, would blush at the idea of sending a challenge 
 after reading Mr. D'Israeli's last epistle to Mr. Morgan O'Connell." 
 {Spectator, same date.) " Another assailant of the agitator has fared 
 no better. Mr. Benjamin D' Israeli chose to commence a war of abuse 
 with the greatest master of abuse ; and then, finding himself worsted, 
 pretends that he is an injured person. He reminds us of the puppy 
 yelping under the pain of a kick from some strong-limbed horse, at 
 whose heels he had been snapping and snarling for miles. He has 
 only received his deserts. Assuredly we approve not of the coarse, 
 vituperative language in which O'Connell sometimes indulges. Our 
 protest against this practice, on the score of policy as well as taste, 
 stands recorded, but it is too much to expect that any man in the pos- 
 session of a powerful weapon should suffer all kinds of assaults and not 
 use it in self-defence. This Mr. D' Israeli too, with matchless effron- 
 tery, accuses O'Connell of injustice in assuming the correctness of a 
 newspaper report of his Taunton speech, while he founds a long letter 
 of vituperation of O'Connell on the faith of a newspaper report of 
 O'Connell's Dublin speech ! It is difficult to believe that the man 
 can be in his right senses. D'Israeli confesses that he he I endea- 
 voured to make a tool of O'Connell, and obtain his assistance under 
 pretence of being a Radical, while all the time he had made up his 
 mind to turn Tory again as soon as it answered his purpose 1 Was
 
 no LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 had dropped all these same cries in the second stage 
 of his career. Then he brings against O'Connell this 
 veiy same charge of inconsistency j contending that 
 O'Connell's abuse of the Whigs in 1832, and his 
 alliance with them in 1835, were irreconcileable an 
 argument the fallaciousness of which I have already 
 exposed; and finally, the letter winds up with this 
 vigorous passage : 
 
 " I admire your scurrilous allusion to my origin. It 
 is clear that the ' hereditary bondsman ' has already 
 forgotten the clank of his fetters. I know the tactics 
 
 there ever such an unblushing avowal of political profligacy ? But 
 Mr. D'lsrneli's conduct has been consistently absurd to the end. 
 Because Mr. Morgan O'Connell had called Lord Alvanley to account 
 for endeavouring to procure his father's expulsion from Brooks's 
 because the son claimed satisfaction on behalf of the father therefore 
 Mr. D' Israeli supposes that he was bound to give him satisfaction, as 
 if he had the same claim upon the son of Mr. O'Connell that Mr. 
 O'Connell himself has ! Finding that Mr. Morgan O'Connell will not 
 indulge him, Ihis pugnacious gentleman declares that he intended to 
 insult Mr. O'Connell, and 'fervently prays ' that some member of that 
 gentleman's family ' will attempt to avenge ' the ' unextinguishable 
 hatred with which he shall pursue his existence. 1 And yet Mr. 
 D'Israeli conceives himself to be possessed of an astounding faculty 
 for statesmanship, and talks of contending with the most powerful 
 orator and versatile politician of the day on the floor of the House of 
 Commons. Impudence and conceit could certainly go no further than 
 this." {True Sun, May 6th, 1835.) " So gross, so vulgar, so imper- 
 tinent, so cowardly an epistle never came from the hands of a literary 
 coxcomb than that which has been written to Mr. Morgan O'Connell 
 by the adventurer who twice brought himself to market, and returned 
 from Taunton and Marylebone with the halter about his neck, but no 
 money for his owners. It may be one of the curiosities of literature, 
 if there be anything curious in the fact, that the son of an indus- 
 trious bookmaker should prove himself both profligate and absurd. 
 Ambitious of newspaper distinction, beyond that which his own insig- 
 nificance could confer upon him, Mr. D'Israeli the younger is fain 'to
 
 REACHING THE NADIR. in 
 
 of your Church it clamours for toleration, ana it 
 labours for supremacy. I see that you are quite pre- 
 pared to persecute. With regard to your taunts as to 
 my want of success in my election contests, permit 
 me to remark that I had nothing to appeal to but the 
 good sense of the people. No threatening skeletons 
 canvassed for me. A death's-head and cross-bones were 
 not blazoned on my banners. My pecuniary resources, 
 too, were limited. I am. not one of those public beggars 
 that we see swarming with their obtrusive boxes in 
 
 hang up his breeks amang men's clothes,' and so he challenges Mr. 
 Morgan O'Connell to a 'vicarious combat.' . . . ." 
 
 The following verses, though somewhat doggrel, give a picture of 
 the ideas of the time with regard to our present Premier. They are 
 taken from a set of verses, headed "Portraits from a Pistol Gallery," 
 which appeared in the Morning Chronicle, May 8, 1835 : 
 
 " This is an author, the first of our day, 
 Who wrote the great novel of ' Vivian Grey,' 
 And another grand and instructive book, 
 How to dine and drink and dress like a duke ; 
 Also an Epick whose sale's at zero, 
 And of these is himself the hero. 
 Though the Fates won't let him just now be glorious, 
 He at least contrives to be ever notorious 
 Sometimes stealing the hearts of the Blues 
 In velvet trousers and crimson shoes, 
 With jewels and chains and rings from Ransom, 
 And a face, oh ! was anything ever so handsome ? 
 Sometimes deigning to teach mankind 
 Such times require one master mind 
 To control this world 'mid the whirl and whiz 
 Of jarring systems such mind being his. 
 At Taunton, a zealot for Lords and Throne, 
 A Republican stout in St. Mary-le-bone ; 
 Spouting alternately Archer and Scrub 
 For my lady and the Carlton Club. 
 But lo ! at a few withering epithets sore, 
 And to live in the newspapers one day more 
 Tais is the man 
 
 Who has challenged the man 
 
 Who challenged the man 
 
 Who challenged the great Agitator."
 
 iia LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the chapels of your creed ; nor am I in possession of 
 a princely revenue arising from a starving race of 
 fanatical slaves. Nevertheless, I have a deep conviction 
 that the hour is at hand when I shall be more suc- 
 cessful, and take my place in that proud assembly of 
 which Mr. O'Connell avows his wish to be no longer a 
 member. I expect to be a representative of the people 
 before the repeal of. the Union. We shall meet at 
 Philippi; and rest assured that, confident in a good 
 cause, and in some energies which have been not 
 altogether unimproved, I will seize the first oppor- 
 tunity of inflicting upon you a castigation which will 
 make you at the same time remember and repent the 
 insults that you have lavished upon 
 
 " BENJAMIN D'!SRAELI." 
 
 O'Connell and Mr. Disraeli did meet at Philippi. 
 How Mr. Disraeli attempted to inflict the promised 
 castigation on the Irish agitator, and what was the 
 result, will soon be seen.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 
 
 THE world had not yet ceased to laugh at O'Connell's 
 unsparing dissection of Lord Beaconsfield, when that 
 gentleman once more claimed its attention. 
 
 More useful, after all, than any gift Nature can 
 bestow upon a man, is the gift of unfailing self-conceit. 
 The man so blessed comes, in his opinion, triumphantly 
 out of every argument is, in his own eyes, covered with 
 glory, when, in the eyes of others, he is bespattered 
 with shame ; imagines himself grossly ill-treated, when, 
 in the opinion of all others, he has received richly- 
 deserved punishment. 
 
 An ordinary man would have felt the shame and 
 failure which fell upon Lord Beaconsfield in 1835 
 so keenly, as to desire nothing better than obscurity 
 for some time to come. But Lord Beaconsfield is not 
 an ordinary man Lord Beaconsfield possesses the gift 
 of unfailing self-conceit. 
 
 It has been already seen that, at an early period in 
 his career, he had, by some means or other, obtained 
 the friendship of Lord Lyndhurst. Mr. Greville has, 
 
 8
 
 114 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 it has also been seen, unkindly suggested that the 
 intimacy was due to that feeling which is said to 
 attract black sheep to black sheep. That early friend- 
 ship of Lord Beacon sfield is certainly one of the most 
 significant and most curious points in his career. 
 How came it that this young man, the son of a 
 Jewish litterateur, made himself the friend of a Lord 
 Chancellor, a great political chief? How many pro- 
 blems of the like kind are we not called upon to solve 
 every day of our lives? Why, of two men born in 
 exactly the same rank of life, is the one admitted 
 to good society, and the other excluded from it? 
 Examine the two men, and you often find that the 
 man of success is the meaner man of the two gifted 
 with less intelligence, poorer in heart, lower in ideal, 
 less truthful in nature. Can it be, then, that social 
 successes, that "big friends" Lord Lyndhurst. for 
 example, are obtained by mean and not by high 
 qualities, by servility and " cheek," by an over-estimate 
 of frivolous aims, and a careful suppression of truth a- 
 to one's real position, which amounts to a gvffgesturfalri? 
 
 One is often set a- thinking on such questions in 
 studying the career of the man who is now called Earl 
 of Beaconsfield. 
 
 " Vindication of the English Constitution, in a Letter 
 to a Noble and Learned Lord, by Disraeli the Younger" 
 such is the title of the work with which Mr. Disraeli 
 challenged public attention towards the end of 1835. 
 It is, indeed, a marvellous production, but its main 
 rharacteristies and its main principles are of a kind
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. US 
 
 with which the reader has already been made familiar. 
 My quotations from this work shall, therefore, be few 
 and brief; and the first shall be one, which has little 
 to do with the subject of the letter, but is illustrative 
 of the personal character of Lord Beaconsfield. In 
 proving one of his philosophic propositions, he lugs in 
 a story about a Pasha of Egypt, who took it into his 
 head that representative institutions would be suitable 
 to his kingdom. 
 
 " It so happened," writes the Vindicator of the Con- 
 stitution, "that a young English gentleman, who was 
 on his travels, was at this period resident in Cairo, and 
 as he had more than once had the good fortune in 
 an audience of engaging the attention of the pacha, by 
 the readiness or patience of his replies, his Highness 
 determined to do the young Englishman the honour 
 of consulting him."* 
 
 The pacha unfolds his plan, and here is how it is 
 met. "The surprise of our countryman, when he 
 received the communication of the pacha, was not 
 unconsiderable ; but he was one of those who had seen 
 sufficient of the world never to be astonished ; not alto- 
 gether untinctured with political knowledge, and gifted 
 with that philosophical exemption from prejudice, which 
 is one of the most certain and most valuable results of 
 extensive travel. Our countryman communicated to 
 the Egyptian ruler with calmness and with precision the 
 immediate difficulties that occurred to him, explained 
 to the successor of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies that 
 * "Vindication," 102-3.
 
 n6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the political institutions of England had been the gradual 
 growth of ages, and that there is no political function 
 which demands a finer discipline or a more regulated 
 preparation, than the exercise of popular suffrage."* 
 
 " God is great!" said Mehemet Ali to the traveller ; 
 "you are a wise man. Allah! Kerim, but you spit 
 pearls : ' and persists in his plan, f 
 
 Of course Lord Beaconsfield himself is the hero of 
 this interesting little story. Even in a treatise on a 
 philosophic subject, the restless and ever-present vanity 
 of the man insists on his introducing his own personality 
 with a flourish of trumpets characteristically loud and 
 unblushing. 
 
 And now for some of the Vindicator's political views. 
 One of the first and most startling is a denial that " the 
 House of Commons is the House of the People, or that the 
 members of the House of Commons are the Representatives 
 of the People." $ 
 
 What, then, the reader will naturally ask, is the 
 House of Commons? "The Commons of England," 
 answers Mr. Disraeli, " form an Estate, and the mem- 
 bers of the House of Commons represent that Estate." 
 And, again, we are told that that Estate " consists of 
 a very limited section of our fellow-subjects, invested 
 for the general advantage of the commonwealth, with 
 certain high functions and noble privileges."! 
 
 This idea of the nation being divided into estates 
 is one for which Lord Beaconsfield has shown an 
 abiding love. It is brought forward, not only in the 
 ''Vindication," but also in "Coningsby" and in "Sybil," 
 
 * Ibid. 103-4. } Ibid. 104-5. J76W.66. Ibid. ||/rf.66-7.
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 117 
 
 in some of his election addresses, and in many of his 
 speeches on Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 And now for Lord Beaconsfield's distinction between 
 the Upper and Lower Houses. The distinction is very 
 small indeed. " The Commons, for their own conve- 
 nience, meet in Parliament by their representatives ; t/ie 
 Lords, from their limited number, meet personally." * 
 
 This, I think, is quite enough of this part of the 
 " Vindication." I don't know whether a man " spits 
 pearls," to use the expression Mr. Disraeli attributes 
 to the Pacha of Egypt, when he attacks everybody 
 whom he had formerly professed to love ; but, if so, 
 Mr. Disraeli's book is a rope of pearls. The " anti- 
 constitutional " writers are denounced in almost every 
 page of this work of 1835 j although in 1832 Mr. 
 Disraeli was glad to receive a letter of recommendation 
 from the political representative of those writers in 
 Parliament. In 1832 Mr. Disraeli sought the aid of 
 O'Connell as well as that of Joseph Hume. In this 
 pamphlet 0' Council is abused in the most violent 
 language.f 
 
 In 1833, Mr. Disraeli sought the representation of 
 Marylebone on what were considered Radical prin- 
 ciples, and in 1834 he was a member of the Westminster 
 Reform Club. In this work of 1835 he speaks of "the 
 kennel orators of Westminster and Marylebone." j 
 
 * Ibid. 142. 
 
 f " Nay, the authorized, agitator of the administration itself is seut 
 upon a provincial tour of treason .... the vagabond and over- 
 rated rebel vomiting his infamous insolence in language mean as 
 Lis own soul !" Ibid. 141. 
 
 t Ibid. 148.
 
 iig LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 But, after all, these things are meant but as a pre- 
 lude to Lord Beaconsfield's swelling theme. All the 
 parade of history and philosophy are but an intro- 
 duction to remarks on the questions which then 
 absorbed the attention of Lord Beaconsfield and of 
 the two English parties. The " Vindication " is really 
 intended to be an indictment of the Whig party. As 
 is not unfrequently the case with Lord Beaconsfield, 
 his anxiety to prove his theme leads him into state- 
 ments which are directly contrary to fact. Thus 
 in page 139 of " The Vindication " we are told : 
 " The Whigs, under George the First, in pursuance 
 of their plan of reducing the English monarch to the 
 character of a Venetian Doge, succeeded in carrying 
 a bill. through the Upper House to deprive the King 
 of his prerogative of creating further Peers, and thus to 
 convert the free and democratic Peerage of England into 
 an odious oligarchy of exclusive privilege ; but the 
 House of Commons, led by the Tory country gentlemen, 
 rejected the proposition with becoming decision." 
 
 Now here is a statement with regard to one of the 
 most important and best-known events in our par- 
 liamentary history. It is a point, then, upon which 
 no English political writer ought to make a mistake. 
 Any inaccuracy he may commit is the result of 
 deliberate misstatenient, or of shameful and inex- 
 cu>able ignorance. What, then, are we to think of 
 Lord Beaconsfield when we find that his whole story 
 is inaccurate from beginning to end ? 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield alludes to the Peerage Bill brought
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 119 
 
 in by Lord Sunderland. The object of that Bill cer- 
 tainly was to limit the King's power of creating peers; 
 and it may be contended that, as Lord Sunderland was 
 the head of a Whig Government, the Whig party share 
 with him the responsibility of the measure. That does 
 not at all follow. The Minister of a party may, and 
 often has, brought in a measure which his own party 
 condemn, and Ministers have, we all know, often for 
 this reason been driven from office by the votes of 
 their own friends. Will it be contended that when 
 a party proves the sincerity of its dislike to a measure 
 by actually throwing out of office the Ministry of its 
 own friends, it does not purge itself absolutely of all 
 responsibility for the measure ? The Whig party in 
 the House of Commons did not turn out the Govern- 
 ment of Lord Sunderland, but it gave it a severe check. 
 I appeal to a Tory historian, the late Lord Stanhope, 
 as to whom the credit of defeating the Peerage Bill 
 belongs. "But by far the most splendid speech," he 
 writes, " on that occasion was that of Walpole, and it 
 may, in fact, be doubted if any harangue of so much 
 eloquence and effect had ever yet been delivered in 
 the House of Commons.* 
 
 In another passage the same Tory historian tells us 
 that the Whigs, having been at first inclined to favour 
 the bill, gradually came to Walpole's " opinions, and at 
 length agreed to act with him in a body." f 
 
 And again, we are told that " on the danger to the 
 
 * History of England, i. 545. 
 f Ibid. i. 544.
 
 120 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 constitution and to freedom he " (Walpole) " enlarged 
 with all the eloquence of truth." * 
 
 " If it be asked," says Lord Stanhope elsewhere, f 
 u if it be asked on whom the blame of having planned 
 it should mainly rest, it will be found stated by most 
 of the later writers, such as Coxe, that the measure 
 was projected by Lord Sunderland. If we next inquire 
 to whom the praise of defeating this measure is most 
 due, there can, I think, be no doubt that it belongs almost 
 solely and exclusively to Walpole." 
 
 The Whigs were at this time in a majority in the 
 House of Commons, and the Whigs, Lord Stanhope 
 'tells us at least, so many of them as followed Sir 
 Robert Walpole's guidance voted against the Bill " in 
 a body." What, then, can be more opposite to the 
 truth than to attribute the defeat of the measure in 
 the House of Commons to the Tories ? Yet, according 
 to Mr. Disraeli, " the House of Commons, led by the 
 Tory country gentlemen, rejected the bill with becoming 
 decision." 
 
 It is not surprising, after this, to find George III. 
 described as a man " of clear sense " and " strong 
 
 fj 
 
 spirit;" Mr. Pitt as a "democratic minister," and the 
 Tory as " the national party." J 
 
 A very amusing part of " The Vindication " is a 
 digression, in which,- while professing to give a sketch 
 of Bolingbroke, Lord Beaconsfield in reality presents 
 us with a sketch of himself. It will be not uninterest- 
 ing to follow Lord Beaconsfield for a moment or two 
 * Ibid. i. 546. f Ibid. i. 542. J " Vindication/' 173.
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 121 
 
 in his remarks under this head. He begins with the 
 statement that "in the early part of the last century, 
 the Tory party required a similar re-organization to 
 that which it has lately undergone ; and," goes on the 
 Vindicator, "as it is in the nature of human affairs 
 that the individual that is required shall not long be 
 wanting, so in the season of which I am treating, arose 
 a man remarkable in an illustrious age, who, with the 
 splendour of an organizing genius, settled the confused 
 and discordant materials of English faction, and re- 
 duced them into a clear and systematic order. This 
 was Lord Bolingbroke. Gifted with that fiery imagina- 
 tion, the teeming fertility of whose inventive resources 
 is as necessary to a great statesman or a great general, 
 as to a great poet, the ablest writer and the most 
 accomplished orator of his age, that rare union that in 
 a country of free Parliaments and a free press, insures 
 to its possessor the privilege of exercising a constant 
 influence over the mind of his country, that rare union 
 that has rendered Burke so memorable \ blending with 
 that intuitive knowledge of his race which creative 
 minds alone enjoy, all the wisdom that can be derived 
 from literature, and a comprehensive experience of 
 human affairs no one was better qualified to be the 
 minister of a free and powerful nation than Henry 
 St. John; and Destiny at first appeared to combine 
 with Nature in the elevation of his fortunes." 
 
 The reader will not have failed to notice the strong 
 likeness which Lord Beaconsfield perceives between 
 * Ibid. 185-6.
 
 122 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Bolingbroke and himself. They are both men of 
 "organizing genius," and of "fiery imagination," and 
 Bolingbroke, like Lord Beaconsfield, was as ready with 
 his pen as with his tongue. But the likeness grows 
 even stronger as the history proceeds. Bolingbroke 
 was " opposed to the Whigs from principle, for an 
 oligarchy is Jiostile to genius" He recoiled " from the 
 Tory tenets, which his unprejudiced and vigorous mind 
 taught him at the same time to dread and to condemn ;" 
 and the result was that " at the outset of his career " 
 he " incurred the commonplace imputation of insin- 
 cerity and inconsistency."* How like was the fata of 
 the candidate alternately for Wycombe and Taunton, 
 and as a Radical in the one and a Tory in the other 
 place. 
 
 " It is probable," continues Lord Beaconsfield, " that 
 in the earlier years of his career he meditated over 
 the formation of a new party that dream of youthful 
 ambition in a perplexed and discordant age;" the same 
 dream, in fact, as Lord Beaconsfield himself had when 
 he returned from Jerusalem in 1832 to save England. 
 " More experienced in political life," Lord Bolingbroke 
 " discovered that he had only to choose between the 
 AVhigs and the Tories;" just as Lord Beaconsfield 
 ceased in 1834 to be " mighty impartial," fearing that 
 the Radical card would not turn up trumps. 
 
 Hark what follows : it would almost look as if Lord 
 Beaconsfield had the gift of second sight, was able at 
 this early stage to forecast his own career: 
 Ibid. 186-7.
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 123 
 
 " From the moment that Lord Bolingbroke, in becoming 
 a Tory, embraced the national cause, he devoted himself 
 absolutely to his party: all the energies of his Protean 
 mind were lavished in their service; .... his inspiring 
 pen .... eradicated from Toryism all those absurd and 
 odious doctrines which Toryism had adventitiously adopted, 
 clearly developed its essential and permanent character, 
 discarded jure divino, demolished passive obedience, threio 
 to the winds the doctrine of non-resistance, placed the 
 abolition of James and the accession of George on their 
 right basis and, in the complete re-organization of the 
 public mind laid the foundation for the future accession 
 of the Tory party to power, and to that popular and 
 triumphant career which must ever await the policy of 
 an administration inspired by the spirit of our free and 
 ancient institutions." * 
 
 So the cat is out of the bag at last ! We now know 
 the secret of Mr. Disraeli's admiration for Boliugbroke. 
 Bolingbroke il eradicated all those absurd and odious 
 doctrines" which make Toryism ridiculous; "discarded" 
 its first and chief dogma; "threw to the winds" the 
 rest, and so " laid the foundation " for " the accession 
 of" the Tory party to power. To sum up, Mr. Disraeli 
 admires Lord Bolingbroke because, being a Tory leader, 
 he induced the Tory party to abandon every single Tory 
 principle, and so brought it to power. 
 
 Now I believe that the principle of party obligation 
 laid down as worthy of imitation in this panegyric of 
 Bolingbroke is utterly false. Hallam tells us that 
 
 t. 187-8.
 
 I2 4 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Lord Bolingbroke's " Dissertations on Parties," and 
 " Letters on the History of England," are written on 
 Whig principles ; and Lord Beaconsfield expresses 
 precisely the same opinion, though his language is 
 not quite so frank. And the result of this adoption 
 of Whig principles by the Tory party was their advent 
 to power. 
 
 Is Lord Beaconsfield right in contending that such 
 a line of conduct in the Tory party is worthy of 
 praise ? 
 
 The question of party obligation, however it may 
 have been complicated by party and personal dis- 
 honesty, and other circumstances, is essentially a simple 
 question. 
 
 First, what is meant by the advent of a party to 
 "power" under a representative Government? Does 
 it not mean that the nation has decided to give the 
 party an opportunity of putting its principles into the 
 form of legislation ? 
 
 Again : is not " power " a pleasant possession ? And 
 must it not be regarded as a reward for political 
 success ? 
 
 If this be the proper view of "power," a Tory 
 Ministry has no right to carry Liberal measures, nor 
 a Liberal Ministry to carry Tory measures. 
 
 But Ministers have frequently acted on a different 
 principle in the history of this country, and tln-ir 
 conduct has found many defenders. It is said, for 
 instance, that a Tory or Liberal Minister may have 
 changed his mind, and have come honestly to believe
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 125 
 
 that the measure he formerly denounced as ruinous 
 to the State, will really be most beneficial. In that 
 case, an honest Minister should surrender his post. 
 The man who had fought and won the battle should 
 also wear the crown. Statesmen who complain of 
 their sad fate in being compelled to retain power by 
 passing measures they had once opposed, appear to me 
 to be talking in the language of canting hypocrisy. 
 
 But these are not the views which Lord Beaconsfield 
 expresses on party obligations in his " Vindication." 
 And he is not satisfied with excusing abandonment of 
 principle by the Tories in the eighteenth century, and 
 by Lord Bolingbroke. He equally admires the 
 abandonment of principle by the Tories of the nine- 
 teenth century, and by Sir Robert Peel. " If," ho 
 writes in the " Vindication," * " in confirmation of 
 the argument which I have been pursuing, I appeal 
 to the measures brought forward by Sir Robert Peel 
 and the Cabinet, in which your Lordship held the 
 Great Seal of England, as evidence that the Tories 
 are not opposed to measures of political amelioration, 
 / shall perhaps be met with that famous dilemma 
 of insincerity or apostasy which was urged during the 
 last general election on the Whig hustings, with an 
 air of irrefutable triumph, Avhich, had it been better 
 grounded, had been less amusing. / will grant that Sir 
 Robert Peel and his colleagues had previously resisted 
 the measures which they then proposed. But, in the 
 interval, the third estate of the realm had been recon- 
 * 199-200.
 
 126 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 structed, and preponderating influence had been given 
 to a small class who would not support any Ministry 
 unprepared to carry such measures. If once the Tories 
 admitted that it was impossible for them to propose tfie 
 adoption of these measures, they simultaneously admitted 
 that they could never again exercise power ; they conceded 
 to the Whigs a monopoly of poioer, under the specious 
 title of a monopoly of Reform ; and the oligarchy against 
 which we had so long struggled, would finally have 
 been established. Was this the duty of Sir Robert Peel 
 and his colleagues f " 
 
 The reader will find, before long, that on abso- 
 lutely the same question raised in these sentences, 
 Lord Beaconsfield pronounces a diametrically opposite 
 opinion ; that he condemns the same man whom he 
 here approves, for precisely similar conduct ; and that, 
 of all voices, his was the loudest in shouting the 
 "famous dilemma of insincerity or apostasy." 
 
 " The Vindication " brought Mr. Disraeli into a 
 new quarrel. 
 
 The Globe published in its issue of Christmas 
 Day, 1835, a very caustic review of Mr. Disraeli's 
 essay. In this review the absurdities of the work 
 were exposed, and, in addition, allusions by no moan* 
 complimentary were made to the political incon- 
 sistencies of the writer's own career. " It may be 
 within the recollection," writes the Globe, " of a few 
 of those by whom the actions of the eminent men 
 of this nether world are observed, that not many 
 months ago Mr. Disraeli professed himself to be an
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 127 
 
 out-and-out democrat, and held Radicalism as an almost 
 perfect embodiment of the democratic principal, to 
 Whiggism and Toryism alike abhorrent. Imbued with 
 these opinions, and influenced no doubt by patriotism 
 of the purest water, the democrat beseeched Mr. 
 O'Connell to permit him the 'high honour' such was 
 the phrase c of becoming a part of his tail.'" 
 
 "Now," continues the Globe, "in his hunt after the 
 residence of the true democratic principle, Mr. Disraeli 
 has somehow or other stumbled upon Lord Lyndhurst. 
 What he wants from the learned ex-Chancellor we do 
 not take upon us to say. But here is a letter of two 
 hundred pages, or thereabouts, addressed to the noble 
 lord for the express purpose of proving, not merely 
 that the author is still a thorough democrat, but that 
 democracy is the genuine and essential principle of 
 Toryism itself! .... Disraeli's asking a seat in Par- 
 liament from O'Connell, and Disraeli suing for the 
 favour of Lord Lyndhurst are identical the democratic 
 principle is the impelling power, nothing else." 
 
 And then the Globe entered into a criticism of the 
 " Vindication " itself. 
 
 It is not usually considered dignified in an author 
 to answer a review of his work. The only case in 
 which he is permitted by strict literary etiquette to do 
 so, is when the review is either extraordinarily violent, 
 or grossly incorrect in its statement of fact. 
 
 But in the sentences just quoted from the review 
 in the Globe there is no great bitterness, and the 
 statements are correct. No ordinary author would,
 
 128 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 therefore, have felt himself justified in making a 
 reply. 
 
 But Mr. Disraeli did not feel himself bound to act 
 with the dignity or reserve which is expected from 
 other men. Partly from his restless vanity, and 
 partly from calculation, he scarcely ever allowed an 
 allusion to him to pass unnoticed. That was part of 
 his plan of always keeping himself before the public 
 eye. 
 
 The very evening the review appeared, Mr. Disraeli 
 wrote a reply, which was addressed to the editor of the 
 Globe. '* Your assertions," wrote Mr. Disraeli in one 
 paragraph of his letter, " that I applied to O'Counell to 
 return me to Parliament, and that he treated that ap- 
 plication with irreverent and undisguised contempt, 
 are quite untrue. I never made any application to Mr. 
 O'Connell to return me to Parliament ; and the only 
 time I ever met Mr. O'Connell, which was in society, he 
 treated me with a courtesy which I trust I returned." 
 
 In reply, the Globe said it had dealt with this 
 passage in Mr. Disraeli's career, *' months ago, without 
 contradiction." Still, although its "' tenderness towards 
 volatile insects disinclines" it "to break a butterfly 
 on a wheel oftener than necessary," it will take up 
 Mr. Disraeli's challenge. Accordingly, in its issue of 
 December 28, it published that speech of O'ConneH's in 
 reply to Mr. Disraeli's attack at Taunton, which the 
 reader has already seen. 
 
 The repetition of O'ConneH's terrible sneer at his 
 nationality provoked Mr. Disraeli into one of those fits
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 129 
 
 of almost insane abuse which were characteristic of his 
 early days. He wrote a letter to the Times,* which 
 is one of the most abusive productions ever written. 
 The writer in the Globe is described as a " thing " 
 who " concocts " " meagre sentences/' and " drivels out" 
 " rheumy rhetoric." " I will not say with Macbeth," 
 writes Mr. Disraeli, u that I shall 'fall by none of woman 
 born,' but this I will declare, that the Whig Samson 
 shall never silence me by ' the jaw of an ass.' ' 
 
 Mr. Disraeli goes on to declare that " every letter of 
 every syllable of the paragraph quoted in its " (the 
 Globe's] " columns from Mr. O'Connell's speech is an 
 unadulterated falsehood, from my novels, which the de 
 facto member for Dublin learnedly informs us are styled 
 the ' Curiosities of Literature,' f to his letter to me, 
 which was never written, and lohich he assures me was 
 lithographed throughout Wycombe" 
 
 This marvellous statement will certainly cause the 
 reader, who has seen the previous chapters, to open his 
 eyes very widely indeed. The letter of O'Connell has 
 been given in an early chapter.} While the writer, it 
 will be remembered, stated that he had no personal 
 acquaintance at Wycombe, he at the same time expressed 
 the utmost confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Disraeli's 
 attachment to Reform, admiration of his abilities, and 
 
 * Dec. 81, 1835. 
 
 f O'Connell, according to the report of his speech quoted in the 
 Globe, made this mistake, confounding the works of the elder and 
 younger Disraeli. No such error occurs in the speech as given in the 
 report quoted ante. 
 
 } See ante, 48-9. 
 
 9
 
 , 3 c LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 an earnest desire for his success. How, then, can Mr. 
 Disraeli assert that " every letter of every syllable " in 
 the Globes quotation from O'Connell's speech is " an 
 unadulterated falsehood " ? 
 
 Here is the explanation he gives in a subsequent part 
 of his letter. " Our contest at Wycombe was a very 
 warm one ; every vote was an object. A friend of mine, 
 interested in my success, knowing that I was supported by 
 that portion of the constituents styled Radicals, applied to 
 Mr. G'Connell and Mr. Hume, with whom he was inti- 
 mately acquainted, to know whether they had any influence 
 in Wycombe, and requested them to exercise it in my 
 favour. They had none; and they expressed their regret 
 in letters to that gentleman, who forwarded them to me 
 at Wycombe; and my committee, consisting of so many 
 Tories and Radicals, printed them. This is the history 
 of my connection with Mr. O Connell" 
 
 Compare this denial with the preface to the denial. 
 Mr. Disraeli was not satisfied with saying that Mr. 
 O'Connell's account contained many inaccuracies, or 
 even with saying that, while a small portion of it was 
 correct, the greater portion of it was grossly incorrect. 
 No : " Every letter of every syllable " in Mr. O'Connell's 
 account was "an unadulterated falsehood." Nothin<- 
 
 D 
 
 less than this would satisfy the calumniated Mr. Disraeli. 
 Yet does not his own account show the substantial 
 accuracy of Mr. O'Connell's statement ? 
 
 O'Connell makes three assertions : (1) that Mr. Disraeli 
 applied to him for a letter; (2) that Mr. Disraeli applied 
 as a Radical reformer ; and (3) that the letter written
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 131 
 
 in obedience to Mr. Disraeli's request was placarded in 
 his interest over Wycombe. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, beginning with the statement that 
 " every letter of every syllable " in this account is " an 
 unadulterated falsehood," ends by making three admis- 
 sions. He admits (1) that a friend of his applied to 
 O'Connell for a recommendation to Wycombe ; (2) that 
 his friend did so for the purpose of gaining some of the 
 Wycombe Radicals; and (3) that his committee had 
 O'Connell's letter, given in obedience to this request, 
 placarded over Wycombe. Compare the three admis- 
 sions of Mr. Disraeli and the three statements of 
 O'Connell : do they not tell practically the very same 
 tale? 
 
 " Even had it been," Mr. Disraeli goes on, " in the 
 power of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hume to have inter- 
 posed in my favour at Wycombe, my political allegiance 
 would not have been the expected consequence of their 
 assistance. Those gentlemen would have aided me 
 from the principles I professed and the measures I 
 advocated in my address, and with a perfect acquaint- 
 ance of the political position I had assumed. They 
 knew at least one of them that I had declined a 
 distinct recommendation to another constituency, where 
 my return would have been secure,* because I avowed 
 my resolution to enter the House of Commons un- 
 
 * The reader will have learned too well by this time to take Mr. 
 Disraeli's assertions cum grano sails, to attach complete belief to this 
 bold statement. If Mr. Disraeli could have been returned so early as 
 1832, why was he unable to gain an entrance to Parliament until 
 1837, and until he had been four times defeated ?
 
 I 3 2 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 shackled. They were perfectly aware that the Tory party 
 supported me in the borough, because some members of 
 the ^finiatry, panting and pale, had actually knocked them 
 up one night to request them to exert tJieir influence against 
 me on that score, and they were well apprised that if I was 
 returned I should offer a hostility, without exception, to 
 every measure proposed by the Government." 
 
 Let us examine these statements* with regard to the 
 terms on which Hume and O'Connell gave him their 
 support. They gave that support, Mr. Disraeli asserts, 
 in the full knowledge that he was hostile to the Whigs, 
 and that he was supported by the Tories. And, in proof 
 of this statement, he relates or invents a story of their 
 having been knocked up one night by " some members 
 of the Ministry, panting and pale," in order that they 
 might withdraw their support 
 
 But see how utterly dishonest Mr. Disraeli's defence 
 is. It does not mention that Mr. Hume did withdraw 
 his support, on learning, whether through Ministers, 
 
 * I should not omit to give this extraordinary passage from this 
 epistle. " I am not surprised, and assuredly not terrified, by the 
 hostility of the Whigs. They may keep me out of Parliament, but 
 they cannot deprive me of one means of influencing public opinion 
 as long as in this country there is a free press a blessing which, had 
 they succeeded in Louis Philipizing the country, as they intended, 
 would not, however, have long afforded HS its salutary protection. I 
 feel that I have darted at least one harpoon in ihe floundering sides 
 cf the Whig leviathan. All his roaring and all his bellowing, his 
 foaming mouth and his lashing tail, will not daunt me. I know it ia 
 the roar of agony, and the bellow of anticipated annihilation, the 
 foam of frenzy, and the contortions of despair. I dared to encounter 
 the monster when he was undoubted monarch of the waters, an'l it 
 would indeed be weakness to shrink from a collision with him now. in 
 this merited moment of his awful and impending dissolution."
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 133 
 
 " panting and pale," or otherwise, Mr. Disraeli's real 
 character. The reader still remembers the second 
 letter of Mr. Hume, in which he revoked his recom- 
 mendation. And Mr. Disraeli will afterwards be found 
 bitterly complaining of the very fact that Mr. Hume 
 retired from his position of friendliness to one of 
 hostility. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli endeavours after a fashion, of which 
 the reader will see many examples, to confound two 
 separate things. He endeavours to confound Mr. 
 Hume's conduct in the first instance and his conduct 
 subsequently. Mr. Disraeli suggests that Mr. Hume 
 supported him when he had a full knowledge of Mr. 
 Disraeli's Toryism. The real fact is that Mr. Hume 
 supported Mr. Disraeli so long as he thought him a 
 Radical, and opposed him the moment he found him 
 to be a Tory. 
 
 There is no proof, it is true, that O'Connell with- 
 drew the support he gave to Mr. Disraeli. But there 
 is no proof that he was warned of Mr. Disraeli's 
 character before the end of the election had made 
 it too late for him to take back his letter. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli says that, among other evidences of his 
 principles, O'Connell and Hume had his address before 
 them. The suggestion evidently is that the address 
 contained Tory declarations. It happens, unfortunately 
 for Mr. Disraeli, that we have other testimony besides 
 his, as to what the character of that address was. Mr. 
 Disraeli has told us that the applications for support 
 to Hume and O'Connell were made by a friend. That
 
 , 34 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 friend was Mr. E. L. Bulwer (Lord Lytton). Mr. 
 Bulwer, on being appealed to as to what was the 
 character in which Mr. Disraeli had asked for his 
 support at Wycombe, declared emphatically that it 
 was as a " Reformer," or, as we now call it, Radical. 
 And he adds the important fact that the ground of 
 this opinion was a "printed handbill," in which 
 Mr. Disraeli explained his opinions. "/ showed that 
 handbill" proceeds Mr. Bulwer, "to Mr. Hume ; hence 
 the letters of that gentleman and others* 
 
 Let us compare this letter with Mr. Disraeli's repre- 
 sentation of his relations with Hume and O'Connell. 
 '' Even had it been in the power of Mr. O'Connell and 
 Mr. Hump," wrote Mr. Disraeli, " to have interposed in 
 
 * From the Globe, Jan. 7, 1836. "The friend in question was 
 Mr. Bulwer. When Mr. Disraeli was standing for Taunton, a soli- 
 cit ir of that town, Mr. Cox, exposed him in two or three really 
 excellently written pamphlets. To this gentleman's kindness we arc 
 indebted for copies of those works, which he forwarded to ns at our 
 request. In the last of these there is a letter from Mr. Bulwer to 
 Mr. Cox. which we now giTe ' London, July 24, 1835. Sir, In 
 answer to your letter, I beg to say that Mr. Disraeli first referred 
 me to a printed handbill of his own, etj^mxhiy short Parluunt-ntji, 
 rote by ballot, and nntaxed knowledge. I conceive these principles to 
 be the polettar of the sincere reformers, and to be tJie reverse of Tory 
 onet. I glioired that handbill to Mr. Hume, hence the Icttcri of that 
 f/t-ntlnntin find otJicrt. Mr. Disraeli does not deny that he professed 
 thode opinions at the time, but he has explained since that he in- 
 tended them for adoption, not against the Tories, but Whirrs. With 
 his explanation I have nothing to do. I question his philosophy, 
 but I do not doubt his honour. When any man tells me that he votes 
 for ballot, short Parliaments, and the abolition of taxes on knowledge, 
 I can only suppose him to be a reformer, and such being my principles, 
 I would always give him my support, and I should never dream of 
 asking whether he called himself a Radical or a Tory. I am, etc., 
 E. L. BULWER. To Edward Cox. Esq.'"
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 135 
 
 my favour at Wycombe, my political allegiance would 
 not have been the expected consequence of their assistance. 
 These gentlemen would have aided me from the prin- 
 ciples I professed and the measures I advocated in my 
 address" Which principles in which address Mr. 
 Bulwer tells us were " the reverse of Tory ones." 
 Yet Mr. Disraeli has asserted that O'Connell and 
 Hume knew him to have been partly a Tory, from 
 his address. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli replied to the Globe's production of 
 Mr. Bulwer's letter by a lengthy and very abusive 
 epistle in the Times* I pass over all parts of this 
 letter, excepting the portion which refers to Mr. Hume. 
 In reference to his relations with that gentleman, Mr. 
 Disraeli makes two statements : 
 
 1. " I repeat that Mr. Hume's letter, to which the 
 editor of the Globe originally alluded, was addressed to 
 a third person." 
 
 2. " All the details about my introduction to Mr. 
 Hume, with a letter from Mr. Bulwer, and my frequent 
 conferences with Mr. Hume at his house, are, as usual 
 with the Globe, utter falsehoods. I never saw Mr. 
 Hume but once in my life, that was at the" House 
 
 * January 9, 1836. Here is a specimen of the style : " It is not, 
 then, my passion for notoriety that has induced me to tweak the 
 editor of the Globe by the nose, and to inflict sundry kicks upon the 
 baser part of his base body ; to make him eat dirt, and his own words, 
 fouler than any filth, but because I wished to show to the world 
 what a miserable poltroon, what a craven dullard, what a literary 
 scarecrow, what a mere thing, stuffed with straw and rubbish, is 
 the soi-disant director of public opinion and official organ of 
 Whig politics."
 
 1 36 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of Commons ; the object of that interview was to 
 request an explanation of the circumstance which I 
 have mentioned, and to that circumstance the inter- 
 view was confined." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli remarks in this last letter, that Mr. 
 Hume had " never attacked " him. It speaks greatly 
 for Mr. Hume's forbearance that he should have kept 
 silent up to this. Here was the man whom he had 
 recommended as a Radical, going about the country 
 as a Tory, attacking with the greatest violence, on 
 the hustings, in the newspapers, and in a pamphlet 
 of more than two hundred pages, the party and the 
 men whose favour he had sought ; yet Mr. Hume 
 never said a word. 
 
 He had, however, been at last provoked from his 
 silence, and one crushing proof more was added to 
 the mass of evidence already given of Mr. Disraeli's 
 tergiversation. 
 
 In its issue of January 11, 1836, the Globe pro- 
 duced two letters one from Mr. Walter Scott, Mr. 
 Joseph Hume's secretary, the other from Mr. Hume 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli declared, as has been seen, that he had 
 not called on Mr. Hume to solicit his support at 
 Wy combe ; Mr. Scott asserts, on the contrary, that 
 he has a distinct recollection of Mr. Disraeli having 
 made such a call. Mr. Disraeli denies that he sought 
 Mr. Hume's support as an adherent of Mr. Hume ; 
 Mr. Scott declares, on the contrary, that Mr. Disraeli 
 made a "general profession of his political principles,
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 137 
 
 which he stated were in accordance with those Mr. Hume 
 is well known to advocate." And then Mr. Scott gives 
 a reason why this particular visit of this particular 
 applicant made an impression on his memory. He 
 might, he says, have forgotten Mr. Disraeli's interview 
 with Mr. Hume, " but for the circumstance of a friend 
 of Mr. Humes stating in a blunt way, on hearing ivhat 
 he had done, that he was very wrong in doing so, as 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was a d d Tory, and that Mr. Hume 
 
 would soon find him so." 
 
 This evidence is surely circumstantial enough, has 
 all the appearance of truth, and would be at once 
 believed if we had not in opposition to it the always 
 trustworthy testimony of Lord Beaconsfield. Let us, 
 therefore, in order to equalise the unequal contest 
 between two such witnesses as Mr. Scott and Lord 
 JBeaconsfield, bring forward another person to Mr. 
 Scott's assistance. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Hume's "impression certainly is that he" 
 Mr. Disraeli " did call on me in Bryanstou Square 
 to solicit my support as a candidate for Wycombe." 
 He then relates the circumstances under which he 
 wrote the letter of recommendation with which Mr. 
 Disraeli approached the Wycombe electors. He wrote 
 it at the request of Mr. Bulwer, who vouched for 
 Mr. Disraeli's principles ; and Mr. Hume encloses the 
 letter of thanks which Mr. Disraeli returned. 
 
 And, now, let us see what Mr. Hume has to say 
 on another point in the controversy. 
 
 "To the second question, 'Whether Mr. Disraeli
 
 138 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 gave me to understand that he was a Tory or a 
 Radical ?' I can state, with perfect confidence, that 
 I understood from Mr. Disraeli that he was an ardent 
 supporter and a zealous advocate of my general poli- 
 tical principles ; and that, if he should obtain a seat in 
 Parliament, he would support them there. If my letter 
 to Mr. Disraeli is not sufficiently explicit as to that 
 point, every person who has watched my political con- 
 duct must be satisfied that I never would have put my 
 pen to paper in any other belief. .... I expressed in 
 my letter to Mr. Disraeli a hope that all the reformers 
 would rally round him as the man who entertained 
 Liberal principles " on every branch of government, 
 and was prepared to support reform and economy in 
 every department." 
 
 So far, Mr. Hume confines himself to his own t-ti- 
 mony ; but next he brings forward evidence supplied 
 by Mr. Disraeli himself. 
 
 " If," he writes, " there had been any doubt in my 
 mind of Mr. Disraeli having professed himself unequi- 
 vocally a Liberal, the following paragraph in a letter 
 of his of the 8th of June to me, announcing the resig- 
 nation of Sir Thomas Baring, must have convinced 
 me. ' I think, after what has passed, I have some 
 claim upon you and your friends, to prevent any split 
 in the Liberal party here, and any stranger from coming 
 down to oppose me.' " 
 
 And, finally, Mr. Hume contradicts the assertion ot 
 Mr. Disraeli that he had not written to him direct, but 
 to a third person on his behalf.
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 139 
 
 Among the enclosures in Mr. Hume's letter was the 
 following letter from Mr. Disraeli : 
 
 " Bradenham House, Wycombe, 
 
 " Tuesday, June 5th, 1832. 
 
 ' Sir, I have had the honour and gratification of receiving 
 your letter this morning. Accept my sincere, my most cordial 
 thanks. 
 
 ' ' It will be my endeavour that you shall not repent the con- 
 fidence you have reposed in me. 
 
 "Believe me, Sir, that if it be my fortune to be returned in 
 the present instance to a reformed Parliament, I shall remember 
 with satisfaction that that return is mainly attributable to the 
 interest expressed in my success by one of the most distinguished 
 and able of our citizens. 
 
 " I have the honour to be, Sir, 
 
 " Your obliged and faithful servant, 
 
 " (Signed) B. DISRAELI. 
 
 "Joseph Hume, Esq., M.P." 
 
 It is needless to comment at any length on an ex- 
 posure so complete. Almost every single one of Mr. 
 Disraeli's assertions is met by a direct negative; and 
 the direct negative is proved. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli said he did not call on Mr. Hume to 
 ask his recommendation to Wycombe ; Mr. Hume, 
 supported by Mr. Hume's secretary, says that he did. 
 Mr. Disraeli asserted that Mr. Hume had written to a 
 third party ; Mr. Hume shows that he had written to 
 Mr. Disraeli direct. Finally, Mr. Disraeli suggested 
 that Mr. Hume knew he was partially a Tory ; Mr. 
 Hume proves that Mr. Disraeli applied to him as a 
 Radical Reformer. 
 
 This last point is very important. I have been at 
 some pains to show in a previous chapter that Lord
 
 I 4 o LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Beaconsfield when he stood for Wy combe in 1832, 
 stood as a Liberal. I argued that his abuse of the Whigs 
 was to be taken as a proof, not of Toryism, but of a 
 more ardent as opposed to a lukewarm Liberalism ; 
 that, in fact, it was to be classed with the talk 
 of men who are Radical as distinct from Whig 
 members of the Liberal party. And I also pointed to 
 the fact that " Reformer " was the political term which 
 in 1832 answered to the term Radical of our days. 
 Still the omission of the distinct term, Liberal, might 
 be made use of by those who are anxious to rind 
 some possible or impossible loophole of escape from 
 the charge of tergiversation against Lord Beaconsfield. 
 The letter of Mr. Disraeli, quoted by Mr. Hume, takes 
 away even that last refuge. " If there had been any 
 doubt," writes Mr. Hume, " in my mind of Mr. Disraeli 
 having professed himself unequivocally a Liberal, the 
 following paragraph in a letter of his of the 8th of 
 June, to me, announcing the resignation of Sir Thomas 
 Baring, must have convinced me : " I think, after 
 what has passed, I have some claim upon you and 
 your friends, to prevent any split in the Liberal party." 
 Here Mr. Disraeli uses one of the recognised and 
 unmistakable terms by which is designated a man's 
 choice between the two political parties of the country. 
 Can any one, after this, deny that when Mr. Disraeli 
 stood as a Reformer at Wycombe, he stood distinctly 
 as a member of the Liberal party? 
 
 It will have been observed that the Globe through- 
 out this controversy, for the most part, confines itself
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 141 
 
 to mere statement of fact. When it has gone into the 
 region of controversy, its tone cannot be described 
 as vehement, and certainly not as abusive. The letter 
 of Mr. Joseph Hume is written in the same spirit. It 
 is an impartial, it might even be called bald narration 
 of fact. 
 
 What, on the contrary, is the tone of Lord Beacons- 
 field's replies ? They are violently abusive ; and they 
 are constantly running away from the facts in dis- 
 pute to the region of personalities. Lord Beaconsfield 
 has evidently been of opinion that if a man can only 
 shout loud enough and often enough, and with a 
 sufficiently bold face, his most baseless assertions and 
 his most absurd arguments will be taken as true by 
 the careless of men ; and his career is certainly strong 
 proof that, in so thinking, he has accurately estimated 
 mankind. 
 
 He replies to the temperate letter of Mr. Hume by a 
 letter addressed, through the Times* to that gentleman 
 himself. The reply is full of violent personal abuse, 
 but there are only one or two assertions which are 
 worthy of attention. 
 
 He reiterates that he only saw Mr. Hume once, 
 and that their meeting took place at the House of 
 Commons. But immediately after, he acknowledges 
 that during his Marylebone canvass he called at Mr. 
 Hume's house ; adding, however, that Mr. Hume was 
 too ill to receive him. These admissions really 
 amount to a practical confirmation, instead of a com- 
 * January 12, 1836.
 
 , 42 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ]>lete reputation, as Mr. Disraeli loudly asserts, of the 
 assertions of the Globe. The locality of the meeting 
 between Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Hume was not, of 
 course, the real point of the controversy between the 
 newspaper and Mr. Disraeli. The essential question 
 was whether a meeting took place at all between the 
 Radical leader and the young aspirant ; and whether the 
 existing prottgd of Lord Lyndhurst should have a few 
 years before been ready to become the protege of 
 Joseph Hume. The introduction, therefore, of the dis- 
 cussion as to the place of meeting is simply another 
 instance of Lord Beaconsfield's favourite expedient 
 the expedient of diverting attention from the main and 
 important to a subsidiary and trifling point. 
 
 I have said that the letter was violently abusive. 
 Mr. Hume is described as a " man who, after having 
 scraped together a fortune by jobbing in Government 
 contracts in a colony, and entering the House of Com- 
 mons as the Tory representative of a close corporation, 
 suddenly becomes the apostle of economy and unre- 
 stricted suffrage, and closes a career, commenced and 
 matured in corruption, by spouting sedition in Middle- 
 sex and counselling rebellion in Canada." And this 
 vehement abuse of Mr. Joseph Hume occurs in the 
 very letter in which Mr. Disraeli acknowledges that 
 he had twice sought Mr. Hume's political patronage ! 
 But this is one of the most curious and one of the 
 worst characteristics in Lord Beaconsfield's career. 
 No sense of past alliance, no memory of favours asked 
 and received, of loud-mouthed and even mean-spirited
 
 OTHER CONTROVERSIES. 143 
 
 eulogium, has prevented him from heaping the most 
 vindictive and usually most unjust attacks on other 
 public men. The air rings with his cries of hate before 
 the echoes of his shouts of praise have died away. 
 Notable instances have already been given of this 
 system of alternately shameless praise and shameless 
 abuse of the very same men ; of savage bites at the 
 same hand that but a short season before was 
 fawniugly kissed. As our narrative proceeds, a still 
 more remarkable, more memorable, and even more 
 shameless instance of this line of conduct towards 
 individuals will be given. What is the only, the in- 
 evitable conclusion from such facts in Lord Beacons- 
 field's life? What, but that all his actions towards 
 others have been solely dictated by his own personal 
 interests ; that his professions of uncalculating affection 
 were mere disguised selfishness ; that his simple and 
 sole desire has been to use all other men for his own 
 purposes ? 
 
 The very day after the appearance of his self-con- 
 fident and insulting letter to Mr. Joseph Hume, Mr. 
 Disraeli was himself compelled to supply the most 
 damning proof of his untrustworthiness as a narrator 
 of facts. One of the many points in dispute between 
 him, the Globe, and Mr. Joseph Hume, was as to whether 
 the letter of the latter was addressed to him direct, 
 or through a third person. Several times over Mr. 
 Disraeli had repeated the assertion that the note reached 
 him indirectly. In a letter to the Times* he has 
 * January 18, 1836.
 
 144 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to unequivocally acknowledge his error, and to admit 
 that Mr. Hume's letter was, as the Globe and Mr. 
 Hume had asserted, directed to himself. 
 
 In the course of this book, we shall be drawn by 
 Lord Beaconsfield into a discussion on the personal 
 veracity and the political consistency of more than one 
 public man. We shall also be asked by Lord Beacons- 
 field to pronounce judgment on the conduct of more 
 than one public man, towards former friends and col- 
 leagues. 
 
 These are the very questions we have just been 
 considering in the case of Lord Beaconsfield himself. 
 Lord Beaconsfield's personal veracity, Lord Beacons- 
 field's political consistency, Lord Beaconsfield's conduct 
 to former friends and colleagues, are all involved in his 
 dispute with the Globe. When he asks us to test other 
 men on those three points, it is not useless to know how 
 he himself came out of a similar examination.
 
 '45 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 
 
 THE last letter of Mr. Disraeli to the Times in his con- 
 troversy with the Globe was published on January 13. 
 On January 19 appeared the first of a series of letters 
 signed " Runnyraede." These letters have never 
 been publicly acknowledged by Lord Beaconsfield ; 
 but they bear a strong resemblance in style to other 
 productions from his pen. The letters are addressed 
 to the leading public men of the day ; and are in two 
 different styles. When they are directed to a Whig, 
 they are grossly abusive ; when to a Conservative, 
 they are as grossly adulatory. 
 
 Lord Melbourne is told that he cannot rouse him- 
 self "from the embraces of that Siren Desidia, to 
 whose fatal influence yon are not less a slave than 
 our second Charles." * " At present/' Runnymede 
 says, writing to Lord Brougham " I am informed that 
 your lordship is occupied in a translation of your 
 treatise on Natural Theology into German on the 
 Hamiltonian system. The translation of a work on a 
 * Times, January 19, 1836. 
 
 10
 
 146 LORD BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 abject of which you know little, into a tongue of 
 which you know nothing, seems the climax of those 
 fantastic freaks of ambitious superficiality which our 
 lively neighbours describe by a finer term than 
 quackery." 1 
 
 Lord John Russell is told that he was "born with 
 a strong ambition and a feeble intellect ; " that he is 
 the author of " the feeblest tragedy in our language," 
 " the feeblest romance in our literature," and " the 
 feeblest political essay on record." He is " cold, in- 
 animate, with a weak voice and a mincing manner ; " 
 and finally, if a traveller were informed that such a 
 man was leader of the English House of Commons, 
 he "may begin to comprehend how the Egyptians 
 worshipped an INSECT." f 
 
 Addressing Lord Palmerston,J " Runnymede" says : 
 " You owe the Whigs great gratitude, my lord, and 
 therefore, I think, you will betray them." 
 
 Let me pause to ask if " Runnymede," when he 
 wrote this, were drawing a general inference from a 
 particular case ? Did he think political betrayal alv 
 followed political obligation, because Mr. Disraeli had 
 been so lately shown to have betrayed O'Connell and 
 Joseph Hume ? 
 
 The letter to Lord Palmerston, towards the end, 
 contains this fine burst : " Oh, my country ! fortunate, 
 thrice fortunate, England ! with your destines at such 
 a moment entrusted to the Lord Fanny of diplomacy ! 
 
 Ibid., January 26. f Ibid., February 1. 
 
 { Ibid., February 22.
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH, 14? 
 
 Methinks 1 can see your lordship, the Sporus of politics, 
 cajoling France with an airy compliment, and menacing 
 Russia with a perfumed cane." 
 
 Sir John Hobhouse, the friend of Byron, was also 
 assailed.* " Runnymede " was inexpressibly shocked 
 at seeing a Radical like Hobhouse sitting on the same 
 bench with an ex-Tory like Palmerston. " Runny- 
 mede " did not, like Mr. Disraeli, think that the Tory 
 party was the really democratic party, and could, 
 therefore, be supported by men of Radical principles. 
 "You have met, indeed," writes the uncompromising 
 and elegant-spoken " Runnymede " " you have met, 
 indeed, like the Puritan and the Prostitute on the banks 
 of Lethe, in Grarrick's farce, with an equally convenient 
 oblivion of the characteristic incidents of your previous 
 careers ; you giving up your annual Parliaments and 
 universal suffrage, he casting to the winds his close 
 corporations and borough nominees ; you whispering . 
 Conservatism on the hustings once braying with your 
 revolutionary uproar, he spouting Reform in the still 
 recesses of the dust of Downing Street ; the one 
 reeking from a Newgate cell, the other redolent of 
 the boudoirs of Mayfair yet both of them, alike the 
 Tory underling and the Radical demagogue, closing 
 the ludicrous contrast with one grand diapason of 
 harmonious inconsistency, both merging in the Whig 
 Minister." 
 
 In striking contrast to the tone of those letters to 
 the Whig leaders is that f to Sir Robert Peel, the 
 
 * fbid., March 2. f Ibid., January 27, 1836.
 
 I 4 g LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Conservative chief. Not only is Peel complimented 
 on his own extraordinary virtues, but allusion is made, 
 in a manner equally characteristic and vulgar, to the 
 great man's material prosperity. " Before you receive 
 this letter," says the enthusiastic and Jenkins-like 
 admirer of the Conservative leader, " Before you 
 receive this letter, you will, in all probability, have 
 quitted the halls and bowers of Drayton ; those gardens 
 and that library where you have realized the romance 
 of Verulam, and where you enjoy the * lettered leisure ' 
 that Temple loved." 
 
 Then the very commonplace incident of Peel's 
 journey to London is described in a manner that 
 might make a penny-a-liner burst with envy. The 
 journey of such a great man is not called a journey 
 at all : it is a " progress to the metropolis." That 
 " progress," Peel is then told, " may not be as pictu- 
 resque as that which you experienced twelve months 
 back, when the confidence of your Sovereign and the 
 hopes of your country summoned you from the 
 galleries of the Vatican and the city of the Cassars. 
 It may not be as picturesque, but it is not less proud 
 it will be more triumphant." 
 
 Rising to a Moanadic frenzy of eulogium as he 
 goes along, the eulogist styles Peel " the only hope 
 of a suffering people." Then, Whiggery is described 
 in terms that one cannot read without laughter. 
 "The mighty dragon is .again abroad, depopulating our 
 fields, wafting our pleasant places, poisoning our foun- 
 tain. , menacing our civilisation"
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 149 
 
 "In your chivalry alone," writes "Runnymede," "is 
 our hope. Clad in the panoply of your splendid talents 
 and your spotless character, we feel assured that you will 
 subdue this unnatural and unnational monster, and 
 that we may yet see sedition and treason and rapine, 
 rampant as they may have of late figured, quail before 
 your power and prowess." 
 
 And thus the Conservative Premier is contrasted 
 with a Whig predecessor : 
 
 " You retained your post until you found you were 
 endangering the King's prerogative, to support which 
 you had alone accepted His Majesty's confidence. What 
 a contrast does your administration as Prime Minister 
 afford to that of one of your recent predecessors ! No 
 selfish views, no family aggrandizement, no family jobs, 
 
 no nepotism Contrast the serene retirement of 
 
 Drayton, and the repentant solitude of Howick ; con- 
 trast the statesman cheered after his factious defeat by 
 the sympathy of a nation, with the coroneted Necker, 
 the worn-out Machiavel wringing his helpless hands 
 over his hearth in remorseful despair, and looking up 
 with a sigh at his scowling ancestors ! Pitt himself, in 
 the plenitude of his power, never enjoyed more cordial 
 confidence than that which is now extended to you by 
 every alleged section of the Conservative ranks." And 
 so on. 
 
 Any comment on the tone and taste of these letters 
 would be altogether out of place. I leave the reader to 
 form his own estimate of the man who could write such 
 letters, with this sole comment : that there is scarcely
 
 1 5 o LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 a single one of the persons named in those letters of 
 whom Lord Beaconsfield did not find it convenient some 
 time afterwards to pronounce a diametrically opposite 
 verdict. I need not, after what I have recently said on 
 this feature in Lord Beaconsfield's career, and in face 
 of the things I shall have to say by-and-by, further 
 dwell on this point here. 
 
 I pass on to the Maidstone election. When Par- 
 liament was dissolved in 1837, in consequence of the 
 death of William IV., the constituency was contested 
 by Mr. Wyndham Lewis and Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Wynd- 
 ham Lewis, a dull but rich man, had represented the 
 place before. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli first issued an address on his own 
 account ; but a few days afterwards, a combination 
 having been formed between Mr. Lewis and himself, a 
 joint proclamation was put forth. In these addresses, 
 Mr. Disraeli appears as a Conservative pur sang, and 
 echoes all the commonplaces of Conservatism in the true 
 tones.* 
 
 At a special meeting of the Maidstone Constitutional 
 Society, which took place on July 11, Mr. Disraeli made 
 a long speech, in which he further enlarged on his 
 political principles, and gave a version of his former 
 
 * Let us laugh for a moment at the comedy of these addresses. 
 Hear the man who described himself as an " adventurer, alike uncon- 
 nected with " the English people " in blood or in love," declare him- 
 self " an uncompromising adherent to that ancient constitution which 
 once was the boast of our fathers," "our fathers" is very fine, 
 " and is still the blessing of their children." Let us also reverentially 
 uncover our heads as this descendant of unbroken generations of
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 151 
 
 relations with O'Connell. With this account of an 
 unfortunate episode in his career I cannot cumber the 
 main body of my narrative, further than to say that 
 it is grossly and palpably incorrect ; that it disagrees 
 with admitted facts ; and that it is in direct contra- 
 diction, not only to what other people had said on the 
 same subject, but with what Mr. Disraeli had actually 
 himself written on previous occasions.* 
 
 The opponent of Mr. Disraeli was Colonel Perronet 
 Thompson, the once famous author of the " Corn Law 
 
 Hebrews declares his conviction that " the reformed religion, as by 
 law established in this country, is at the same time the best guarantee 
 for religious toleration and orthodox purity " 1 And, finaUy , how rustic 
 and solid in his sympathies is this urban literary adventurer, as he 
 proclaims his intention to " on all occasions watch with vigilant 
 solicitude over the fortunes of the British farmer, because," goes on 
 Mr. Disraeli, " I sincerely believe that his welfare is the surest and 
 most permanent basis of general prosperity." 
 
 * " In consequence," said Mr. Disraeli at this meeting. " of my 
 violent opposition" to the Whigs "the son of the Premier was 
 sent down to contest the borough with me, and it happened that, 
 hearing of the circumstance, Mr. O'Connell wrote a letter to a gentle- 
 man in London expressing his interest in the result." By this narra- 
 tive O'Connell's action at Wycombe is placed in quite a new light. 
 He is represented (1) as giving his support unsolicited, and (2) as 
 having done so because Colonel Grey was sent down as a Whig to 
 oppose Mr. Disraeli. Let us compare these statements with admitted 
 facts. First, O'Connell, according to Mr. Disraeli, wrote his letter 
 unsolicited. Here is the first sentence of O'Connell's letter : " My 
 dear Sir, In reply to your inquiry, I regret to say that I have no 
 acquaint since at Wycombe to whom I could recommend Mr. D' Israeli." 
 And the letter winds up with the remark : " I have no claim on 
 Wycombe, and can only express my surprise thai it should be thought 
 I hod any." Is this the letter of a man who wrote unsolicited ! 
 The second assertion is that O'Connell interfered, after he had heard 
 that Colonel Grey had gone down to contest Wycombe with Mr. 
 Disraeli. A look at dates will show that this statement is at least im- 
 probable. Mr. Disraeli, it will be remembered, was first in the field.
 
 152 LORD BEACONS FIELD. 
 
 Catechism," and for a time proprietor of the Westminster 
 Jteview. 
 
 " Here I am, gentlemen," said Mr. Disraeli at the 
 meeting of the Constitutional Society, " filling the 
 same place, preaching the same doctrine, .supporting 
 the same institutions as I did at Wycombe." 
 
 It may, I think, be taken for granted that men 
 
 The reader will also remember that Mr. Hume wrote two letters on 
 the Wycombe election, the one recommending Mr. Disraeli, and 
 the other declining to interfere with the sitting members. Now, 
 Mr. Hume's second letter addressed to the Hon. Mr. Smith and 
 Sir Thomas Baring was dated June 6. It was by the retirement of 
 Sir Thomas Baring that the vacancy was made in Wycombe. It is, 
 therefore, evident that the vacancy did not occur till after June 6. 
 Now, O'Connell's letter is dated June 3, that is to say, in all proba- 
 bility before the candidature of Colonel Grey was heard or thought 
 of. It was on the 13th of June, eleven dayt after O'Connell's letter 
 was written, that Colonel Grey made his public entry into Wycombe. 
 Does that fact bear out the statement that O'Connell's recommen- 
 dation of June 3 was in consequence of Colonel Grey's candidature ? 
 These known and incontrovertible facts are in direct contradiction 
 with Mr. Disraeli's account of his relations with O'Connell. But 
 this is not the whole case against him. His narrative of 1837 is in 
 contradiction, not only with undisputed facts, not only with the 
 narrative of O'Connell, not only with the narrative of the Globe, but 
 with the narrative of Mr. Disraeli himself on another occasion. 
 
 Here is Mr. Disraeli's account in his letter to the Times (December, 
 1835), which is quoted in the chapter on the Globe controversy. 
 [See ante, 130.] " Our contest at Wycombe was a very warm one ; 
 every vote was an object. A friend of mine, interested in my 
 success, knowing that I was supported by that portion of the con- 
 stituency styled Radicals, applied to Mr. O" 1 Co nimll and Mr. Hume, 
 with whom he was intimately acquainted, to know whether they 
 had any influence in Wycombe, and requested them to exercise it 
 in my favour. They had none, and they expressed their regret in 
 letters to that gentleman, who forwarded them to me at Wycombe. " 
 How different is this version from that at Maidstone 1 And the 
 difference is material, not merely as regards the facts, but also as 
 regards the inferences intended to be drawn. To ask a man for
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 153 
 
 " filling the same place," and " preaching the same 
 doctrine," do not stand as rival candidates for the 
 same constituency. How, then, reconcile Mr. Disraeli's 
 claim to be exactly the same in principle as he was 
 at Wycombe, when the man whom he now opposes 
 professes the very same opinions which Mr. Disraeli 
 professed at Wycombe ! 
 
 Colonel Thompson promises to act with Mr. Hume as 
 Mr. Disraeli promised at Wycombe.* He is in favour 
 of Triennial Parliaments, as Mr. Disraeli was.f He 
 is in favour of the Ballot, as Mr. Disraeli was. \ Yet 
 
 his support is one thing, to receive it without asking is another. 
 Mr. Disraeli wanted the electors of Maidstone to infer that O'Connell, 
 as it were, obtruded, his aid on him, and that if, therefore, 
 O'Connell afterwards was attacked by Mr. Disraeli, he could make 
 no complaint. He sought Mr. Disraeli ; Mr. Disraeli had not sought 
 him. The reader now sees, not only from the overwhelming evi- 
 dence of facts, but from the words of Mr. Disraeli himself in 1836, 
 that this representation was the very reverse of the truth. It 
 was Mr. Disraeli who sought O'Connell, not O'Connell Mr. Disraeli. 
 " Here I am, gentlemen," says Mr. Disraeli, characteristically, im- 
 mediately after he had finished this utterly incorrect retrospect, 
 " filling the same place, preaching the same doctrine, supporting the 
 same institutions as I did at Wycombe." 
 
 * (i The briefest description I can give of the section with which, 
 with inconsiderable exceptions, I have voted, is that it if the section 
 of Mr. Hume. I accept the unpopularity which this may procure to 
 me in some directions, for the sake of the confidence it will obtain for 
 me in others." Extract from Colonel Thompson's address. Maidstone 
 Journal, August 1, 1837. 
 
 f " Shortening the duration of Parliaments," writes Colonel 
 Thompson in his Maidstone address, "appears to be the readiest 
 mode of settling all differences between an honest representative 
 and his constituents. ... In the actual position of things, Triennial 
 Parliaments appear to be the step within reach" Ibid. 
 
 J " On the subject of the Ballot, I beg leave to state that I have 
 been upwards of thirty years an officer in the army, and, when giving
 
 154 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, thus standing before the Maidstone electors 
 as a rival candidate to the man who professes all the 
 articles of his own creed of Wycombe in 1832, claims 
 to be completely consistent ! 
 
 The nomination took place on Wednesday, July 2(5. 
 It is unnecessary to make any quotation from Mr. 
 Disraeli's speech, which was clever, egotistic, and 
 violently abusive. At the close of the poll the numbers 
 wore 
 
 Lewis 782 
 
 Disraeli .... 6G8 
 
 Thompson .... 629 
 
 Perry 26 
 
 And so, after five years of incessant struggle, and 
 oft-repeated defeat, Mr. Disraeli obtained the object 
 of his ambition at last. He will not keep us long 
 waiting to see what use he made of his newly-gained 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli addressed the House of Commons for the 
 tii-.-t time on the 7th of December, 1837. 
 
 Let us take a glance at the House he rose to address. 
 Lord John Russell is the leader of the Whig party, and, 
 at the moment, Secretary of the Home Department. 
 Some doubts are still entertained as to his ability to 
 
 my vote and opinion at a court-martial, had always the protection of 
 secrecy, without anybody's calling me a ' skulking coward, 1 which I 
 believe was the term applied in Parliament to such voters as may be 
 desirous of the Ballot. Why there should be one rule of cowardir.- 
 for the captain and another for the common man, I am unable to per- 
 ceive. If asked why the Ballot was provided for me by the Mutiny 
 Act, I must suppose it was because I had a public trust to execute. 
 irntH of the Ballot say that it is because the voter has a 
 public trust that he ought not to have the Ballot."
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECff. f$5 
 
 fill the post of leader, which he has but recently 
 assumed ; and the stranger in the House cannot but 
 feel these doubts confirmed when he looks at Lord 
 John seated in his place on the Treasury Bench. For 
 Lord John is small in stature and fragile in build ; his 
 face is not lit by any intellectual fire, and its small 
 features are almost concealed by a broad-brimmed hat, 
 pressed over the eyes. A black frock-coat, somewhat 
 antique in cut, and a neckerchief snow-white in colour 
 and of large dimensions, confirm the idea of mediocrity, 
 if not more shallowness, hidden beneath the out wan I 
 trappings of respectability. When he rises to speak, 
 however, all these ideas vanish; and in the power of the 
 orator, one altogether forgets the physical insignificance 
 of the man. Quite close, if not next to Lord John 
 Russell, sits Lord Palmerston, who is Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs. Lord Palmerston is in every 
 respect a contrast to his chief: tall, large-featured, 
 broad in chest, and with a complexion that shows rude 
 health. His air and his dress are the very opposite 
 of the air and dress which respectability dons and 
 enjoins ; the air is jaunty, and the clothes are cut after 
 the newest fashion. Smaller in stature, but equally well 
 dressed, with a face similarly lit up by a mind that seizes 
 the humorous, and a disposition inclined to the creed of 
 Epicurus, Lord Morpeth takes care not to be far off 
 from the Foreign Minister. Not improbably, the two 
 exchange anecdotes, the one of foreign diplomatists, the 
 other of Irish elections ; for we know that at this time 
 Lord Morpeth rules Ireland as Chief Secretary he
 
 156 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 afterwards ruled her as Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Spring 
 Rice sits close by, staid as you would expect a Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, but not lively as you would expect 
 a native of Limerick ; and Mr. F. T. Baring dashes 
 from the Treasury Bench to the lobby, and back again 
 from the lobby to the Treasury Bench for Mr. Baring 
 is the senior Liberal Whip. 
 
 On the front Opposition bench, the most notable 
 figure in physique, as well as in manner, is a tall man 
 with a full chest; a face with features large, regularly 
 carved ; and eyes grave and intellectual. This man sits 
 in complete isolation; speaks rarely to any one, and 
 is still more rarely spoken to. It is Sir Robert Peel, 
 two years ago Prime Minister, and now leader of the 
 Opposition. Lord Stanley is not far away : somewhat 
 harsh in feature, and rough in appearance ; carelessly 
 dressed ; when silent, lounging indolently ; when in 
 conversation, rapid and impetuous. 
 
 Not far away from the Ministerial bench, but still 
 closer to the Radical section, sits Mr. E. Lytton- 
 Bulwer. Mr. Bulwer, at this time, gives no indication 
 of opinions that would bring a Secretaryship of State 
 for himself from one Tory Government, and the 
 Viceroyalty of India for his son from another Tory 
 Government. On the contrary, he is a pronounced 
 Radical, and his victory at Lincoln has been won by 
 mighty Radical exertions and some Radical sacrifices, 
 ('lose to Mr. Bulwer is a young man he might 
 almost be called a boy who has fair hair and features 
 delicate almost to femininity. This is Lord Leveson,
 
 THE MAIDEN' SPEECH. 157 
 
 who but a week or two ago proposed the reply to 
 the Address from the Crown in a speech that is said to 
 give promise of ability and of a high position in the 
 future. He who was Lord Leveson then, is Earl Gran- 
 ville now. 
 
 Of all groups in the House, the one that strikes you 
 as containing the youngest and best-dressed men is the 
 Radical group. At their head sits Sir William Moles- 
 worth, who does not look more than eight-and-twenty ; 
 a dandy in dress, and somewhat Dundrearyish in de- 
 livery ; fair in complexion, and with hair " approaching 
 in colour to red ; " eye-glassed, and altogether like a 
 Radical leader who has a rent-roll of 12,000 or 14,000 
 a year. Mr. Leader, who sits next to Sir William, and 
 is constantly consulting with him for they are bosom 
 friends looks still younger, and, though plainer in 
 dress, has also the appearance of the politician who is 
 at once Radical and rich. Mr. Leader has recently 
 given strong proof of both the wealth and the Radi- 
 calism, for twice in three years he has contested 
 Westminster, one of the most expensive constituencies 
 of that as well as of the present time. In this group 
 also sits a man who, even more than Sir William 
 Molesworth, is the paragon of fashion gloved in 
 lavender or straw-coloured kid, with boots of the 
 brightest hue, and a hat of the make that Count 
 
 * ' 
 
 d'Orsay approves. As to person, tall and well pro- 
 portioned ; and in deportment frank, manly, and freer 
 from affectation than one might expect. This is the 
 Member for Finsbury " honest Tom Duncombe," as
 
 I 5 8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that age calls him, whom, however, we, guided by Mr. 
 Greville, may not wholly regard as so honest or so 
 clever as his contemporaries believed. In this same 
 group is also Mr. Joseph Hume, a contrast to his com- 
 panions : staid in manner, plain in dress, and no longer 
 young. Mr. Hume may look a little depressed, for he 
 has been defeated by the Tories in his own constituency 
 of Middlesex, and is now a Member of the House 
 through the gracious pleasure of the electors of Kil- 
 kenny. 
 
 The great Irish agitator, of course, sits close to the 
 Radicals, for he is for the time a supporter, and, 
 indeed, according to the Times, one of the pillars of 
 the Ministry. In this year he is still in the fulness 
 of his health and power. He is ruddy in face, his 
 form is still Herculean in strength, and with hat 
 jauntily placed on the side of his head, he looks around 
 with a broad smile that shows brightness of spirits and 
 consciousness of power. Next to him is a man small 
 in stature, and delicate in frame, apparently coii-mned 
 by a restless energy ; pallid ; with an eye small, unquiet, 
 and piercing, a prominent nose, and a small, thin-lipped 
 mouth. This is O'Connell's chief lieutenant. l\ic-l:ard 
 Lalor Shiel. In the same group are the two sons of 
 the great Henry Grattan : James, heavy and stolid ; 
 and Henry, slight and excitable. 
 
 The House also contains Mr. Charles Villiers, who 
 has already distinguished himself on the question of 
 the Corn Laws, a question rapidly rising in national 
 importance. The present Earl of Shaftesbury sits in the
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 159 
 
 Commons as Lord Ashley, and the chroniclers * from 
 whom I derive the description of the House describe 
 him as tall and handsome, with black hair, usually 
 worn rather long. Mr. Bernal. father of Mr. Bernal 
 Osborne, is Member for Rochester and Chairman of 
 Committees ; a tall, robust man, with a splendid figure, 
 which ill-natured people say he is overproud of dis- 
 playing. The late Lord St. Leonards is at this time 
 Sir Edward Sugden ; compactly made, rosy in com- 
 plexion, and free from wrinkles at fifty-five. We, at 
 first sight, cannot find Sir Francis Burdett, for we 
 naturally look for him among the Radicals, or, if not 
 there, somewhere at least on the Whig benches. But 
 Sir Francis is to be found in an obscure and remote 
 seat on the Tory benches ; for within the last year 
 he has definitely announced his abandonment of the 
 principles of his youth, and is now as ardent in the 
 creed of the Conservatives as he was formerly in that 
 of the Radicals. If changed in opinions, he is not, 
 however, much changed in appearance. Though old, 
 his form is still erect, or, to quote the grandiloquent 
 description of Shiel, he still looks " a venerable relic 
 of the temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened 
 birds now build their nests and find shelter in that 
 once noble edifice." In attire, too, Sir Francis sticks 
 to the habits of his youth, and still deserves, as Lady 
 Hester Stanhope insisted years ago, to be considered 
 the best-dressed man in England. 
 
 * Mr. James Grant, "The Senate of 1838;" and Mr. G. H. 
 Francis, " The Orators of the Age."
 
 160 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 There are, too, the usual supply of one-idea'd Mem- 
 bers. Mr. Brotherton has a motion to regulate the 
 hours of the House ; the Hon. Grantley Berkeley is 
 anxious that ladies should be admitted to hear the 
 debates ; Mr. Ward wants the repeal of the rate- 
 paying clause in the Reform Act ; Mr. Grote annually 
 proposes a motion in favour of the Ballot, which is 
 of course ignominiously rejected ; and Mr. Plumptre, 
 tall, lank, gloomy in air and countenance, watches 
 Newdegate-like the interests of Protestantism and 
 the foul intrigues of the adherents of "the Scarlet 
 Lady." 
 
 Finally, we see two other men who attract notice, 
 and appear to be about equal in years. One is Charles 
 Buller, lively almost to mischievousness ; when he 
 speaks, tearing through Tory fallacies with a merciless 
 sense that foreshadows the style of Mr. Lowe, and a 
 power of playful illustration that strongly resembles 
 the style of Sydney Smith. At this time everybody 
 expects that Mr. Buller has a great future before 
 him ; and who, looking at his bright face, his vivid 
 manner, his gay air, can foretell for him an early 
 death ? 
 
 The other young man who catches our eye sits on 
 the Tory benches. He has a singularly handsome 
 face ; a modesty of manner that at once prepossesses; 
 and you observe that, when he rises, his words are 
 listened to with an amount of attention almost out of 
 proportion to his youthful years. He has to quote 
 iho words of a writer of the time "a fine head of
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 161 
 
 jet black hair," that "is always carefully parted from 
 the crown downwards to his brow, which it tastefully 
 shades." The features are regular, and, says the 
 writer, " his complexion must be a very unworthy 
 witness if he does not possess an abundant stock of 
 health." This is Mr. W. E. Gladstone, the Member 
 for Newark, who is at this time a Tory among Tories, 
 is writing, or has just written, an able defence of the 
 Irish Church, and two years ago acquired some dis- 
 tinction as Under-Secretary for the Colonies. 
 
 We miss from the House several persons of note. 
 Sir James Graham is not there, for he has just been 
 defeated in Cumberland. Mr. T. B. Macaulay is away 
 in India, adding many thousands to his fortune, and 
 subtracting many years from his life. But where is 
 Mr. Roebuck, he whose Radical opinions and tongue of 
 venom have, during the last few Sessions, lashed the 
 timid Whigs, who form the Government, into paroxysms 
 of rage and fear? Where is Roebuck, the chosen 
 champion of the Canadians, who has held language 
 that less ardent friends consider almost rebellious ? 
 Where is Roebuck, who has sounded the tocsin at a 
 dozen Radical banquets throughout the year ? Alas I 
 the " rising hope " of the Radicals has been rejected 
 by the faithless Bath,; and, when now he listens to 
 a, debate, secretes himself in one of the strangers 1 
 galleries, his small body enveloped in a huge cloak, 
 and his features scarcely visible. Mr. Roebuck at 
 this time looks, we are told, "just like a boy out of 
 his teens." 
 
 11
 
 162 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The present Lord Derby is in his eleventh year : 
 Lord Salisbury, who is in his eighth, has just been 
 left motherless. Lord Cairns is working hard as a 
 student in Trinity College, Dublin ; and Mr. Lowe 
 is drudging as a tutor in Oxford. Mr. Bright is 
 unknown ; Mr. Cobden has just been defeated at 
 Stockport. 
 
 A word or two as to the political situation. Though 
 the Whigs were in office, they could scarcely be said 
 to be in power. The Reform Bill of 1832, which was 
 intended to give them a lease of Downing Street for 
 generations, had not secured them from defeat for 
 even two short years, for, by December, 1834, Sir 
 Robert Peel had received an offer of the Premiership. 
 The successors of Lord Grey were not likely to suc- 
 ceed when he so disastrously failed. Lord Melbourne 
 was a clever tactician, and was not afflicted by that 
 thinness of skin which unfitted Lord Grey for the 
 coarse contests of politics ; but he had not Lord 
 Grey's high character. Lord John Russell was able, 
 but public opinion of that time regarded him as in- 
 finitely inferior in statesmanship to the leader of the 
 Tories. And what had become of the other great 
 leaders who had helped to pass the Reform Bill? 
 Durham was gone ; Brougham, refused the Chancel- 
 lorship, had become that most dangerous enemy 
 the candid friend ; and Lord Stanley had openly gone 
 over to the Tories. 
 
 There was division in the ranks as well as weak- 
 ness in the leaders. The small knot of Radicals were
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 163 
 
 impatient for new changes, and were almost at open 
 war with the Ministers, of whom some had absolutely 
 refused to go farther, and some had declared the time 
 
 O ? 
 
 not yet ripe. The Irish section, it was true, lent 
 support to the Ministry, but that support was un- 
 certain, and might at any moment demand a return 
 which no English Minister could safely bestow. 
 
 And it was this alliance with the Irish section which 
 partly accounted for the general unpopularity of the 
 Ministers. In the first place, England was disgusted 
 with the prominence which purely Irish questions had 
 for some time obtained, and looked with distrust on any 
 alliance between the Government and a man who, like 
 O'Connell, was pronouncedly Catholic, and, in English 
 eyes, not far from rebellious. The Tories, of course, had 
 made good use of these popular prejudices. Highly 
 coloured accounts of agrarian murders in Ireland were 
 daily published, and the Protestant Church was for the 
 hundredth time declared to be in danger. 
 
 While the Tories were lookino- forward with confi- 
 
 o 
 
 dence to a dissolution, the King suddenly died, and a 
 new Parliament had to be hurriedly called together. 
 When the calculations were made out, it was found 
 that the Ministers could count on 337, and the Oppo- 
 sition on 321 votes. The Whigs had gained a Pyrrhic 
 victory. 
 
 During the recess, much attention had been attracted 
 by a subscription which had been started by Mr. Andrew 
 Spottiswoode, the Queen's printer. The subscription 
 had two objects : to supply Protestant candidates with
 
 1 64 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 money to fight for the Irish constituencies ; and, 
 secondly, when these candidates were defeated, to again 
 supply funds for prosecuting petitions against the 
 Catholic Members returned. A subscription of this 
 kind appeared to the Liberals nothing less than a con- 
 spiracy against the political and religious liberties of 
 Ireland. It was vehemently denounced for months in 
 hundreds of Liberal speeches and Liberal articles ; and, 
 of course, the Tory politicians and writers were quite as 
 vehement in its defence. 
 
 It was not, however, the general body of those who 
 gave their adhesion to the " Spottiswoode Subscription " 
 as it came to be called who most excited Liberal 
 indignation. Some Members of Parliament were among 
 the first and the most munificent subscribers ; and it was 
 represented that, as these gentlemen would afterwards 
 have to decide on the election petitions, they were 
 assuming the double role of accuser and judge. Among 
 the Members thus denounced, Sir Francis Burdett was 
 subjected to the chief part of the Liberal denunciation. 
 As already mentioned, Sir Francis had at this time 
 definitely abandoned the Liberal creed of his youth, ;md 
 had been returned as a Tory Member for North Wilts. 
 He had taken a peculiarly ostentatious form of an- 
 nouncing his approval of the Spottiswoode Subscription, 
 and was, of course; more fiercely assailed because of his 
 Radical antecedents. 
 
 On the 7th of December, 1837, Mr. Smith O'Brien 
 brought the conduct of Sir Francis Burdett before the 
 notice of Parliament, and it was in the discussion on
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 165 
 
 this motion that Mr. Disraeli made his first speech. 
 The debate, as is usually the case with debates on 
 personal questions, was extremely lively. 
 
 The passage of arms between O'Connell and Sir 
 Francis Burdett was particularly severe. Addressing 
 O'Connell, who had durino 1 the vacation hurled denun- 
 
 * O 
 
 ciations of characteristic vehemence against the deserter 
 from the Liberal ranks, Sir Francis accused him of 
 " driving, in conjunction with a set of priests, Irish voters 
 to the poll, to vote for their god." He even accused the 
 Irish agitator of encouraging assassination; and declared 
 that many people were then living in Ireland under a 
 system of terrorism " more powerful and terrible than 
 that which existed under Rdbespierre in France." 
 
 Of course O'Connell's reply was equally unsparing. 
 But I can quote only one passage, and that I select, 
 because, while it gives some idea of the style of lan- 
 guage used at that time, it also contains O'Connell's 
 defence of his position as a paid agitator. " The honour- 
 able baronet opposite me/' said O'Connell, "calls me 
 the paid patriot of Ireland. I am so, and will be so 
 with this new stimulus. I stand in this unexampled 
 position : I sacrificed the largest professional emolument 
 known in Ireland just at the period when Catholic 
 Emancipation was carried just at the time when I had 
 every prospect of enjoying the leisure and dignity of 
 the judicial bench, provided I abandoned politics. Is 
 it for that sacrifice that I am now vilified and traduced 
 by an old renegade ? " 
 
 The moment O'Connell sat down, Mr. Disraeli rose.
 
 1 66 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Between Mr. Disraeli and O'Connell there had been, as 
 the reader now knows, the deadliest hate for years. 
 They had exchanged the most opprobrious terms ; one 
 of them had even sought to decide their feud at the peril 
 of his life. But, up to this moment, the victory had 
 remained with O'Connell. He was the head of a great 
 party ; he had a hundred platforms, and his place in thi 
 House of Commons, to speak from ; he had the prestiyt 
 of many political victories. On the other hand, Mr. 
 Disraeli's life had been, np to a few months ago, an 
 almost uninterrupted career of follies and defeats. Ho 
 had written novels and a poem, at which the whole 
 world laughed ; he had sought election to Parliament 
 four times, and had been four times defeated ; he had 
 asked the favour of many political parties, and had, 
 accordingly, been distrusted by all. 
 
 But now, fortune had at last turned. Mr. Disraeli 
 had two years before written to O'Connell that he 
 would castigate him for the insults heaped upon him 
 when once he was in Parliament. Well, he was now 
 a Member of Parliament. O'Connell had just spoken ; 
 and he was on his feet to reply to his mortal enemy. 
 Mr. Disraeli's hour had come. 
 
 He began modestly enough by the usual claim for 
 indulgence ; but had not uttered more than a few 
 sentences when he showed his hand by beginning an 
 attack on O'Connell. He accused the Irish agitator of 
 having wandered from the subject, and of having intro- 
 duced the Poor Law, among other irrelevant matter. 
 
 " Not a word was said about the Poor Law," here
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 16? 
 
 interrupted Mr. Joseph Hume.* Thus corrected, Mr. 
 Disraeli made an awkward attempt to retrieve himself, 
 which produced loud laughter. The laughter was 
 increased when, a few sentences further on, he treated 
 the House to the strange phrase, "magnanimous 
 mendicancy." He got on somewhat better when he 
 entered into a defence of the Spottiswoode subscription ; 
 but after a while the interruptions were repeated, and 
 he had to piteously promise that he would not trouble 
 the House at any length. 
 
 '' I do not," he said, amid rather cruel laughter, 
 " affect to be insensible to the difficulty of my position. 
 (Renewed laughter.) I am sure I shall receive the in- 
 dulgence of hon. gentlemen (continued laughter, and 
 cries of ' Question'); but I can assure them that if 
 they do not wish to hear me, I, without a murmur, will 
 sit down. (Cheers and laughter.) I must confess I 
 wish to bring the subject of the debate back to the 
 proper point. (Renewed laughter.) " 
 
 After this, he was allowed again to proceed without 
 interruption for some time. When, however, he wan- 
 dered off into a dissertation on the Reform Bill, the 
 cries of " Question " once more became loud. 
 
 " I wish," said Mr. Disraeli, " I really could induce 
 the House to give me five minutes more. (Roars of 
 laughter.) I stand here to-night, sir, (here the 
 noise in the House became so general that the hon. 
 gentleman could not proceed for some time; when the 
 
 * I quote the account throughout from the Morning Chronicle of 
 Decembers, 1837.
 
 168 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 confusion had somewhat subsided, he said) I stand 
 here to-night, sir, not formally, but in some degree 
 virtually, the representative of a considerable number 
 of Members of Parliament." 
 
 This amusingly cool assumption of speaking in the 
 name of others on the part of one in so to speak 
 the infancy of his membership, was considered won- 
 derfully amusing, and naturally was received with 
 " Bursts of laughter." Mr. Disraeli went on, 
 
 " Now, why smile ? (Continued laughter.) Why 
 envy me? (Here the laughter became loud and general.) 
 Why should I not have a tale to unfold to-night? 
 (Roars of laughter.) " 
 
 In these sentences there appears some tendency on 
 the part of Mr. Disraeli to conciliate his ridiculers 
 by pretending to join in the laugh against himself. 
 But even this humble form of appeal did not succeed, 
 and his strange phraseology once more got him into 
 trouble. Let me again quote the report : 
 
 "Do you forget that band of a hundred and fifty-eight 
 members those ingenuous and inexperienced youths to 
 whose unsophisticated minds the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, in those tones of winning pathos (excessive 
 
 laughter, and loud cries of ' Question ') About 
 
 that time, sir, when the bell of our cathedral announced 
 the death of the monarch (Oh, oh ! and much laughter) 
 we all read then, sir (groans and cries of Oh I) we 
 all then read (laughter and great interruption). ... I 
 know nothing which to me is more delightful than 
 to show courtesy to a new member, particularly if
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 169 
 
 he happens to appeal to me from the party opposed 
 to myself. (Hear hear.) At that time we read that 
 it was the death-knell of Toryism, that the doom of 
 that party was sealed, that their funeral obsequies 
 were' about to be consummated. (Laughter.) We 
 were told that, with the dissolution of that much vili- 
 fied Parliament which the right hon. Baronet had 
 called together, the hopes and prospects of the Tories 
 would be thrown for ever to the winds (laughter) 
 and that affairs were again brought exactly to what 
 they were at the period when the hurried Mr. Hudson 
 rushed into the chambers of the Vatican. (Immense 
 laughter.) " 
 
 And so he went on amid continually repeated marks 
 of impatience by the House until he had again to 
 appeal for indulgence. 
 
 " If hon. members think it is fair to interrupt me, 
 I will submit. (Great laughter.) I would not act 
 so towards any one, that is all I can say. (Laughter, 
 and cries of 'Go on.') But I beg simply to ask 
 (Oh, and loud laughter.) Nothing is so easy as to 
 laugh. (Roars of laughter.) I really wish to place 
 before the House what is our position. When we 
 remember all this when we remember that in spite 
 of the support of the honourable and learned gentle- 
 man the Member for Dublin, and his well-disciplined 
 phalanx of patriots, and, in spite of all this, we re- 
 member the amatory eclogue (roars of laughter) 
 the old loves and the new loves that took place between 
 the noble lord, the Tityrus of the Treasury Bench,
 
 j 7 o LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 and the learned Daphne of Liskeard (loud laughter, 
 and cries of ' Question ') which appeared as a 
 fresh instance of the amoris redinteyratia (excessive 
 laughter) when we remember at the same time that, 
 with emancipated Ireland and enslaved England, on 
 the one hand a triumphant nation, on the other a 
 groaning people, and notwithstanding the noble lord, 
 secure on the pedestal of power, may wield in one 
 
 hand the keys of St. Peter, and (Here the hon. 
 
 Member was interrupted with such loud and incessant 
 bursts of laughter that it was impossible to know 
 whether he really closed his sentence or not.) The 
 hon. Member concluded in these words : Now, Mr. 
 Speaker, we see the philosophical prejudices of man. 
 (Laughter and cheers.) I respect cheers, even when 
 they come from the lips of political opponents. (Re- 
 newed laughter.) I think, sir (Hear, hear, and 
 
 repeated cries of l Question, question.') I am not 
 at all surprised, sir, at the reception which I have 
 received. (Continued laughter.) I have begun several 
 times many things (laughter) and I have often 
 succeeded at last. (Fresh cries of ' Question.') Ay, 
 sir, and though I sit down now, the time will come 
 when you will hear me. The hon. Member delivered 
 the last sentence in a very loud tone, and resumed 
 his seat amidst cheers from the Opposition, and much 
 hmuliter from the Ministerial benches." 
 
 It will be seen from this report that Lord Beacons- 
 Held did use the words prophetic of future greatness 
 which have been attributed to him. We have grown
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 171 
 
 so accustomed to discovering that great phrases have 
 been the invention of the historian, and not the real 
 utterance of real persons in great crises, that some 
 doubt may have been felt as to whether Lord Beacons- 
 field had spoken the remarkable phrase with which 
 he was said to have ended his maiden speech. But 
 I have found the words in the reports published the 
 next morning in all the daily London papers. And 
 not only this ; but, curiously enough, the words seem 
 to have attracted a good deal of attention. The 
 Morning Chronicle has, it will be remarked, spoken of 
 them in its report as being uttered in a particularly 
 loud voice. And Mr. James Grant, writing in 1838, 
 says of the conclusion of Mr. Disraeli's speech : " At 
 last, losing all temper, which until then he had pre- 
 served in a wonderful manner, he paused in the midst 
 of a sentence, and looking the Liberals indignantly 
 in the face, raised his hands, and opening his mouth 
 as wide as its dimensions would permit, said in a 
 remarkably loud and almost terrific tones," * the 
 words already quoted. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Mr. Disraeli's appear- 
 ance had a good deal to do with the failure of his 
 debut in the House. The general conviction of the 
 Liberals that they were listening to a conceited and 
 theatrical charlatan, who only sought notoriety, could 
 not have been but strengthened by an exterior thus 
 described : u He (Mr. Disraeli) was very showily attired, 
 being dressed in a bottle-green frock-coat and a waist- 
 * " Sketches in London," new edition, p. 67.
 
 172 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 coat of white, of the Dick Swivel! er pattern, the front 
 of which exhibited a network of glittering chains; large 
 fancy-pattern pantaloons, and a black tie, above which 
 no shirt collar was visible, completed the outward 
 man. A countenance lividly pale, set out by a pair 
 of intensely black eyes, and a broad but not very high 
 forehead, overhung by clustered ringlets of coal-black 
 hair, which, combed away from the right temples, fell in 
 bunches of well-oiled small ringlets over his left cheek." 
 
 "Mr. D'Israeli's appearance and manner," writes 
 Mr. James Grant, " were very singular. His dress 
 also was peculiar ; it had much of a theatrical aspect. 
 His black hair was long and flowing, and he had a 
 most ample crop of it. His gestures were abundant : 
 he often appeared as if trying with what celerity ho 
 could move his body from one side to another, and 
 throw his hands out and draw them in again. At 
 other .times he flourished one hand before his face, and 
 then the other. His voice, too, is of a very unusual 
 kind : it is powerful, and had every justice done to 
 it in the way of exercise ; but there is something 
 peculiar in it which I am at a loss to characterise-. 
 His utterance is rapid, and he never seemed at a loss 
 for words. On the whole, and notwithstanding the 
 result of his first attempt, I am convinced he is a 
 man who possesses many of the requisites of a good 
 debater. That he is a man of great literary talent 
 few will dispute." * 
 
 It may be doubted whether the speech deserved to 
 * " The British Senate in 1838," ii. 835-6.
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 173 
 
 be visited with such failure. The speech appears to 
 me far above the Parliamentary average. Many of 
 its points are clearly and sharply put ; it has clever 
 retorts and happy phrases. The phrases, it is true, 
 are unusual and eccentric, and not in the best of 
 taste ; but they are not unlike several which, in 
 speeches delivered by Lord Beaconsfield in more 
 fortunate days, were cheered to the echo and praised 
 to the skies. What sentence in the whole speech is 
 worse constructed or more tasteless than that in 
 which on a memorable occasion Lord Beaconsfield de- 
 scribed Mr. Gladstone? Indeed, I think one would look 
 through the speech in vain for any phrase so bad as 
 " inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity." 
 On the whole, the impression this maiden speech 
 makes on me is that it is wonderfully like the general 
 run of ah 1 Lord Beaconsfield's speeches down to his 
 latest years. It has the characteristic virtues and 
 the characteristic faults of all his oratory ; it is 
 neither better nor worse than his other addresses : 
 it is just the same. The real secrets of its failure 
 were probably the appearance and manner of the 
 speaker ; but more than even these, the hate and con- 
 tempt produced in one, and distrust produced in the 
 other party, by the absurdities and contradictions of 
 his past career. It would, therefore, probably be more 
 correct to say that Mr. Disraeli failed to obtain a 
 hearing from the House, than that he made a bad 
 speech. 
 
 Of the London papers, the Herald and Standard
 
 1 74 LORD BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 pass the speech over in silence ; the Morning Port 
 complains that it was delivered " amid discourteous 
 interruptions from the Radicals." 
 
 In those days, the Timts was a strongly Tory, and 
 the Globe a strongly Liberal, paper. The one was 
 always ready to praise, and the latter, as the reader 
 has already seen, even readier to abuse, Mr. Disraeli 
 during the earlier years of his career. Their verdicts 
 correspond in difference to their difference in opinion. 
 "Mr. O'Connell," wrote the Times of the debate, 
 "made his usual tirade about 7,000,000 of sufferers, 
 and the seven centuries of oppression, and complained 
 that this subscription was but a continuance of tyranny 
 got up by the Protestants to assail the Catholics ; but 
 Mr. Disraeli, who followed him in an eloquent speech, 
 well observed that the Protestants gave their sul>- 
 scriptions, not to assail, but to defend." 
 
 " The dtbut of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli," wrote the 
 Globe, " last night in the House of Commons was one 
 of the most lamentable failures of late years, as is, 
 indeed, admitted in all the reports. Even the Times 
 could not altogether suppress it, and, therefore, in its 
 report has softened down the laughter, shouts, etc., 
 which accompanied the honourable and extinguished 
 Member's first attempt in Parliamentary oratory. In 
 its leader, where the Times has so often proved that 
 it will venture to say anything, however inconsistent 
 with fact, it described this abortion as an eloquent 
 speech. Eloquent speech I Bah ! " 
 
 Let me conclude my extracts by the comments of
 
 THE MAIDEN SPEECH. 175 
 
 the Morning Chronicle. " The * unextinguishable hate 
 of Mr. Disraeli for Mr. O'Conneil found vem last 
 night in a maiden but not very modest speech, which 
 even his nearest friends will tell him was a ridiculous 
 failure. We call it ridiculous, because the laughter of 
 the House was continuallv excited by its extravagance 
 
 * V 
 
 of thought, phrase, and gesture. The honourable 
 Member may in time prune some of his luxuriances, 
 and then he may stand a chance of being heard with 
 about as much patience as the House usually shows to 
 Mr. Borthwick. Last night he was even worse treated 
 than that ordinarily ill-used gentleman, and sat down 
 without being able to complete his sentence." 
 
 Two facts, finally. The speech was heard by Lord 
 Stanley and Sir Robert PeeL Lord Stanley, who 
 immediately followed Mr. Disraeli, passed over the 
 speech of the new Member with contemptuous, and. 
 under the circumstances, ungenerous silence. Sir 
 Robert Peel received it with expressions of enthusiastic 
 admiration, very unusual, if not almost unprecedented 
 hi him. With respect to this point, Mr. Grant says. 
 ' it is particularly deserving of mention that even Sir 
 Robert Peel, who very rarely cheers any honourable 
 gentleman, not even the most able and accomplished 
 speaker of his own party, greeted Mr. D'Israeli's speech 
 with a prodigality of applause which must have been verv 
 trying to the worthy baronet's lungs. Mr. D'Israeli 
 spoke from the second row of benches immediately 
 opposite the Speaker's chair. Sir Robert, as usual, 
 sat on the first row of benches, a little to the left of
 
 176 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 M r. D'Israeli ; and so exceedingly anxious was the right 
 honourable baronet to encourage the debutant to pro- 
 ceed, that he repeatedly turned round his head, and, 
 looking the youthful orator in the face, cheered him in 
 the most stentorian tones." * 
 
 * "British Senate in 1838," ii. 334. The picture which Mr. Grant 
 gives of Mr. Disraeli after his failure is worth quoting. " He seemed," 
 writes Mr. Grant, " to feel deeply mortified at the result of his maiden 
 effort. He sat the whole evening afterwards namely, from ten till 
 two o'clock in the morning the very picture of a disappointed man. 
 He scarcely exchanged a word with any honourable gentleman. He 
 did not cheer when his party cheered Lord Stanley and Sir Robert 
 Peel ; neither did he laugh when they laughed. He folded his arms 
 on his breast for a considerable part of the evening, and seemed to be 
 wrapped up in his own unpleasant reflections." Sketches of London, 
 new edition, 158. Was it of this niauvais quart d'heure Mr. Disraeli 
 was thinking when he spoke in one of his works of the "hell of 
 failure " I
 
 177 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT.'* 
 
 THE reader who has followed this narrative so far will 
 be able to fully appreciate the significance of the utter 
 fiasco in which Lord Beaconsfield's maiden speech ended. 
 It has been seen how Lord Beaconsfield had for years 
 forced himself, in season and out of season, into public 
 notice, and that he had thus always occupied a promi- 
 nent, if not always a creditable place in the public eye. 
 "VVe know that he had contrived to pick more personal 
 quarrels than almost any man of his time, and that, as a 
 consequence, his political opinions and political conduct 
 had been as frequently and hotly discussed as those of 
 a leading Minister. 
 
 The reader has also had an opportunity of seeing 
 the many examples Lord Beaconsfield had given the 
 world of overweening conceit. He has learned how 
 Lord Beaconsfield had proclaimed himself a great 
 statesman, a great novelist, and a great poet. The 
 feeling of the public can then be well understood 
 when the papers of the day following December 7, 
 
 12
 
 1 78 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 1837, were read. What ! had the brazen-trumpeted 
 boast of years ended in that ? 
 
 Moreover, as has also been seen, Mr. Disraeli had 
 himself specially invited attention to this especial event 
 in his life. In the " Young Duke," Mr. Disraeli had 
 written " One thing is clear, that a man may speak 
 very well in the House of Commons, and fail very 
 completely in the House of Lords. There are two 
 distinct styles requisite: I intend in the course of 
 my career, if I have time, to give a specimen of both. 
 In the Lower House, ' Don Juan ' may perhaps be our 
 model; in the Upper House, ' Paradise Lost.' "* 
 
 But besides this we have in " Vivian Grey " the 
 toast " Mr. Vivian Grey, and success to his maiden 
 speech." f In another way, too, had Mr. Disraeli 
 drawn the eyes of the world to his maiden speech. 
 In the course of his quarrel with O'Connell, he had 
 warned the agitator that they would meet at Philippi, 
 and that then O'Connell would be properly punished.^ 
 Mr. Disraeli took care to remind his audience of his 
 former boast by rising the moment after O'Connell 
 had sat down. The meeting at Philippi had taken 
 place ; and this ridiculous and terrible failure had been 
 the result 
 
 These facts are recapitulated for the purpose of 
 pointing out how inexhaustible was the fund of Mr. 
 Disraeli's self-conceit. A man of even ordinary srii-i- 
 tiveness would have felt this catastrophe so seriously 
 as to hide his head, if not for ever, at least for a con- 
 
 * New edition, p. 287. f See antr,37. + S nntr t 110.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 179 
 
 siderable period. Not so Mr. Disraeli: seven days 
 after his first calamitous effort, he again addressed the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 He was wise enough, however, to alter his plan of 
 operations. In place of making a long and set speech, 
 he spoke but a few sentences, which cannot have 
 occupied more than a few minutes in delivery. The 
 occasion was the introduction of Serjeant Talfourd's 
 Bill to amend the law of copyright. Mr. Disraeli 
 spoke in favour of the Bill. 
 
 He spoke on but three or four other occasions during 
 this first session of his, and always with brevity. 
 
 In the following session, he adopted a somewhat 
 bolder tone ; his speeches, though not frequent, were 
 tolerably long, and were on leading, not subsidiary 
 subjects. He joined in the opposition of the Con- 
 servative party to the wretched grant of 20,000 in 
 aid of education, which Lord John Russell proposed 
 in 1839; but signalised himself by going out of the 
 beaten track of the Conservative orators into a long 
 eulogium of the doctrine of laissez-faire in education. 
 
 Some time after this, he delivered an address in 
 which we find the first germs of the principles which 
 afterwards became those of the " Young England " 
 party. 
 
 In the course of 1839 the Chartists had organised 
 their forces and formulated their demands. On the 
 14th of June in that year, the famous National Petition 
 was presented to the House. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, on this occasion, preached the doctrine
 
 i go LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that the poor can only obtain their rights through 
 the aristocratic classes ; * and declared that he was not 
 ashamed to say, however much he disapproved of the 
 Charter, he sympathised with the Chartists. 
 
 Some critics have discovered a certain amount of 
 generosity in the attitude which Lord Beaconsfield 
 assumed on this occasion. It appears to me, however, 
 that his friendliness to the Chartists was of a very safe 
 character. Of what avail was it to profess sympathy 
 with these people when he joined in the rejection of 
 every single one of their demands ? 
 
 Mr. Disraeli " sympathised with the Chartists.'* 
 Well, the National Petition presented by the Chartists 
 demanded universal suffrage. When Mr. Hume pro- 
 posed a motion in favour of household suffrage, on 
 March 21, 1839, the gentleman who "sympathised with 
 
 * " Great duties could alone confer great station, and the new class 
 which had been invested with political station had not been bound up 
 with the great mats of the people by the exercise of social duties. 
 Those who thus possessed power without discharging its conditions and 
 duties were naturally anxious to put themselves to the least possible 
 expense and trouble. Having gained that object, for which others 
 were content to sacrifice trouble and expense, they were anxious to 
 keep it without any appeal to their pocket, and without any cost of 
 their time." And again : " He believed that in this country the 
 exercise of political power must be associated with great public 
 duties." " The English nation would concede any degree of political 
 power to a class making simultaneous advances in the exercise of the 
 great social duties." " The noble lord had answered the speech of 
 the honourable Member for Birmingham, but he had not answer- <1 
 the Chartists." " They complained only of the government of the 
 middle class. They made no attack on the aristocracy, none on the 
 Corn Laws, but upon that newly enfranchised constituency; not on 
 the old, but upon that peculiar constituency which was the basis of 
 the noble lord's Government." Hansard, July 12, 1839.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 181 
 
 the Chartists " spoke and voted against the motion. The 
 National Petition demanded the ballot When, on 
 June 18, in this same year of 1839, Mr. Grote proposed 
 a motion in favour of the ballot, Mr. Disraeli forgot 
 his sympathy with the Chartists, and forgot as well his 
 own vehement support of the ballot at the Midsummer 
 election in Wycombe in 1832, at the December election 
 in the same place in the same year, forgot his support 
 of the ballot in his address to the Marylebone electors in 
 1833, and was found in the list of those who went into 
 the lobby against Mr. Grote. The National Petition 
 demanded annual Parliaments ; and Mr. Disraeli, notwith- 
 standing his sympathy with the Chartists, notwithstand- 
 ing his strong and frequent support of Parliaments of 
 shorter duration, implied disapproval. 
 
 But why did Mr. Disraeli express sympathy with 
 the Chartists at all ? The first explanation of his con- 
 duct appears to me that such an attitude was singular ? 
 and therefore presented the hope of notoriety. It 
 probably likewise appeared to Mr. Disraeli that the 
 Chartists, who were then a powerful party, might be 
 used for his interests in some way or other. They 
 belonged to what Conservatives call the mob, it 
 is true ; but the more insensate a political party is, 
 the more foolish its aims and its leaders, the better 
 Lord Beaconsfield likes it. Vivian Grey places his 
 highest hopes of achieving success on the meanness 
 and the folly of men ; and the creator of Vivian 
 Grey has justified these hopes. It is quite possible, 
 then, that Lord Beaconsfield may have entertained the
 
 182 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 idea of turning the folly of Chartism, as he afterwards 
 turned the lunacy of " Jingoism," to his own account. 
 But it requires little reflection to see that these pro- 
 fessions of sympathy were more insincere in Mr. 
 Disraeli than in almost any other man. I am not 
 judging him, of course, by the standard of the bour- 
 geois, who regards " the poor in a loomp " as bad ; 
 for, of course, he has too much intelligence, and is too 
 free from bigotry and ties, to have such narrow notions. 
 But what I mean is that his craving for title and 
 wealth, lofty position and splendid mansions, necessarily 
 exclude any true sympathy vrith the real democratic 
 spirit, which hates distinctions of class, and sincerely 
 feels for the humiliations of the poor. 
 
 Chartism, as everybody knows, ended in violence. 
 A town in Wales was taken possession of by a 
 mob ; * in Birmingham there was a riot and blood- 
 shed ; and in London, a Chartist Convention for some 
 time bearded the House of Commons. When Lord 
 John Russell proposed the obvious expedient of in- 
 creasing the police force, Mr. Disraeli joined in a 
 minority of five, including tellers, by which the measure 
 was opposed. By his opposition to this and a similar 
 measure subsequently, Mr. Disraeli had the good luck 
 to be attacked by two members of the Government 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Fox Maule, 
 then an Under-Secretary. The latter gentleman de- 
 scribed Mr. Disraeli as an "advocate of riot and con- 
 fusion." 
 
 Irving: "Annals of Our Times," 40.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 183 
 
 Here Lord Beaconsfield was given by the enemy his 
 own choice of the field of battle ; for what challenge 
 could better suit Lord Beaconsfield's purposes and 
 Lord Beaconsfield's peculiar gifts than a challenge to 
 a combat in personal vituperation ? He retorted on 
 Mr. Fox Maule that Under- Secretaries were "coarse, 
 vulgar, and ill-bred ; " and then, bringing in his other 
 antagonist, went on to say that "from a Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer to an Under-Secretary of State was 
 a descent from the sublime to the ridiculous, though 
 the sublime was, on this occasion, rather ridiculous, 
 and the ridiculous rather trashy." lC How," said the 
 orator, finally, " he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 and how the Government to which he belonged became 
 a Government, it would be difficult to tell. Like flies 
 in umber, ' one wondered how the devil they got 
 there.' " * 
 
 As the House was about to adjourn, Mr. Disraeli 
 seized another opportunity of making a speech, in 
 which the favourite theme of the necessity for an 
 alliance between the aristocracy and the Chartists 
 was again dwelt upon. 
 
 The session of 1840 had hardly begun when Mr. 
 Disraeli again demanded the attention of the House. 
 During the recess a number of changes had taken 
 place. Among other things, Mr. (afterwards Lord) 
 Macaulay was made Secretary for War. On the motion 
 for a new writ for Edinburgh, in consequence of the 
 vacancy thus created, Mr. Disraeli, in a question of 
 * Hansard, 3 S. xxxix. 740.
 
 i8 4 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 some elaboration and length, demanded or rather 
 prayed, for the tone of the query is humble in the 
 extreme to know the meaning of these changes. But 
 the elaboration, the length, and the humility of the 
 interrogation were thrown away. " No reply was 
 given," says the heartless Hansard.* " Motion agreed 
 to." Mr. Fox Maule and the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer had taken to heart the lesson Mr. Disraeli 
 had taught them in the previous session ; and pro- 
 bably the House was beginning to resent the growing 
 demands of Mr. Disraeli on its patience. But little 
 they knew Mr. Disraeli, if they imagined that any 
 degree of snubbing would put him do\f n. 
 
 He took part in the debate on Sir C. Yarde Buller's 
 motion of want of confidence, speaking of Sir Robert 
 Peel as "the Right Hon. Baronet whom he was proud 
 to follow ; " t opposed Mr. Villers's motion in favour 
 of the repeal of the Corn Laws ; \ and supported Mr. 
 Thomas Duncombe in his appeal for better treatment 
 of the Chartist prisoners. 
 
 The events of the succeeding session of 1841 called 
 upon Mr. Disraeli for still greater efforts, and he 
 made them. 
 
 In the session of 1841 Mr. Disraeli played a very 
 prominent part. What was the action of Mr. Disraeli ? 
 We can answer that question when we have answered 
 another What action was it the interest of Mr. 
 Disraeli to take ? 
 
 * Ihi,/. :\ s. li. 44. J Ji,i<I. lii. 380. 
 
 t Jlld. 726. Ibid. Iv. 637.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 185 
 
 The Ministry of Lord Melbourne had by this time 
 been reduced to a state of thorough debility. The bills 
 brought it by Lord John Russell in the House of 
 Commons were usually carried by miserable majorities 
 majorities usually not reaching a dozen. A hostile 
 House of Lords was of course able to reject measures 
 which the House of Commons had so feebly supported. 
 So bill after bill was dropped, and England was ruled 
 by a Government that did not govern. It was plain 
 that the days of Lord Melbourne's Government were 
 numbered. The successor to power was quite as 
 plainly indicated : beyond all question, Sir Robert Peel 
 was the rising sun. It behoved all those who hoped 
 for place in the near future to be respectful to the 
 Member for Tamworth. 
 
 Of course, Mr. Disraeli saw this ; for, however 
 fantastic, absurd, and unreal be his views of other 
 things, he can claim to have an invariably clear per- 
 ception of his own interests. 
 
 On May 7, 1841, began a prolonged and important 
 debate on the sugar duties. On May 14, Mr. Disraeli 
 spoke. We pass over such portions of the speech as 
 argue, or profess to argue, the main question as at 
 issue, and quote only the passages in which Mr. Disraeli 
 alludes to Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 " He was surprised/' said Mr. Disraeli, " that the 
 noble leader of the Administration in this House had 
 thought fit to impute what ? Faction, to the right 
 hon. Member for Tamworth. Whatever might be the 
 attributes of the right hon. Baronet, he never believed
 
 iS6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that faction would be charged against him, and, of 
 all persons in the world, it came with the worst grace 
 from the noble Lord ; he was, of all persons, the last 
 who should have made it." * 
 
 And then he proceeded to abuse Sir Robert Peel's 
 rival as roundly as he had praised Sir Robert himself. 
 
 The debate on the Sugar Duties still further weakened 
 the position of the Government, and strengthened that 
 of Sir Robert Peel. So emboldened was the right 
 hon. baronet by the turn things had taken, that a 
 fortnight after he proposed a vote of want of confidence 
 in the Ministry. 
 
 Watch the course of Lord Beaconsfield. He had 
 spoken in favour of Sir Robert Peel in the debate on 
 the Sugar Duties; but the praise was comparatively 
 mild. Sir Robert Peel has now taken the final step, 
 and is probably advancing to victory; the flattery must 
 evidently be put on more thickly by a young politician 
 " with expectations." 
 
 *' Placed," said Mr. Disraeli of Sir Robert Peel, " in 
 an age of rapid civilization and rapid transition, he hatl 
 adapted the practical character of his measures to the 
 condition of the times. When in power, he had never 
 proposed a change which he did not carry ; and when 
 in opposition, he never forgot that he Avas at the head of 
 the Conservative party." f 
 
 "He had never employed," Mr. Disraeli went on, 
 ' his influence for factious purposes, and had never been 
 stimulated in his exertions l>y a disordered desire of 
 Ibid. Iviii. 460. t Mid. Iviii. 836.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 187 
 
 oDtaininy office ; above all, he had never carried himself 
 to the opposite benches by making propositions by 
 which he was not ready to abide. Whether in or out 
 of office the right hon. Baronet had done his best to 
 make the settlement of the new constitution of England 
 work for the benefit of the present time and of 
 posterity." * 
 
 After a digression of vehement attack on the Govern- 
 ment, Mr. Disraeli again turns to Sir Robert Peel : 
 no Persian could be a more devout worshipper of the 
 rising sun ! 
 
 When the division came to be taken, the Government 
 was defeated by a majority of one; and an appeal to 
 the country was at once decided upon. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was wise in supporting Sir Robert Peel 
 so strongly ! 
 
 The Ministers appeal to the country; the battle of the 
 constituencies begins; and we shall hear how loudly 
 Mr. Disraeli preaches the gospel of Conservatism, with 
 Sir Robert Peel as its chief prophet. 
 
 Surely Sir Robert must do something for him ! 
 
 Before I proceed further, let me make a brief allusion 
 to one of the chief events in Mr. Disraeli's life. Mr. 
 Wyndham Lewis, who was returned, as the reader will 
 remember, along with Mr. Disraeli for Maidstoue, died 
 in the March of 1838. In the August of the following 
 year 1839 Mr. Lewis's widow married Mr. Disraeli, 
 who was then thirty-five years of age. Mrs. Lewis, 
 who possessed a large fortune, was fifteen years older. 
 * Ibid.
 
 188 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, for some reason or other, did not 
 again seek the confidence of his Maidstone constituents 
 In company with Mr. Tomline, Q.C.. he contested 
 Shrewsbury. He and his fellow-candidate made their 
 entrance into the town on Monday, June 14. From 
 the speech which Mr. Disraeli made on this occasion, I 
 find it necessary to make but one extract. I quote from 
 the Shrewsbury Chronicle* the Liberal organ. 
 
 " He " Mr. Disraeli is meant " then proceeded to 
 astound, his Tory hearers with the immense sacrifice he 
 had made for their sakes; namely, that he was born at 
 High Wy combe a borough the property of his father, 
 and that he had been defeated there by only 15 votes at 
 the time of the Reform mania. Such a favourite was he 
 there, that only a week ago ALL PARTIES IN THE BOROUGH! 
 Tory, Whig, and Radical ! had not only offered to 
 place him at the head of the poll, but also to return ANY 
 second member he might name ! ! ! " 
 
 Can Mr. Disraeli have uttered those words? I asked 
 myself in astonishment when I first read them. As to 
 his assertion about his place of birth, every authority I 
 have consulted is agreed in saying that it was London 
 not High Wycombe. 
 
 The assertion about his relations with the people of 
 Wycombe would be as astounding, if we had not been 
 made familiar by Mr. Disraeli in the course of our 
 narrative with statements about himself quite as strange. 
 If Mr. Disraeli were so popular in High Wycombe 
 liis native town ! why did he seek election at Shrews- 
 * June 18, 1841.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 189 
 
 bury ? Surely a man of Mr. Disraeli's good sense 
 would have preferred certainty of success, even in the 
 humble Wycombe, to the glorious uncertainty of the 
 larger Shrewsbury. Surely Mr. Disraeli knew that, 
 once elected, the member for a small borough was, 
 cceteris paribus, quite as influential as the member 
 for a large constituency. And if Tamworth was good 
 enough for Sir Robert Peel, was not Wycombe quite 
 equal to the dignity and the then position of Mr. 
 Disraeli ? 
 
 And, again, if Wycombe were the property of Mr. 
 Disraeli's father if Wycombe were the birthplace of 
 Mr. Disraeli if all parties were willing to place him at 
 the head of the poll, and any person he chose to name 
 beside him, when did this extraordinary affection begin? 
 Mr. Disraeli, the reader knows, stood for High Wycombe 
 three times. He stood for Wycombe in June, 1832 ; he 
 stood for Wycombe in December, 1832 ; he stood for 
 Wycombe in December, 1834 ; and Wycombe on every 
 single one of those occasions rejected him. Surely Mr. 
 Disraeli is misrepresented by the reporter of a hostile 
 paper. 
 
 I turn, then, to another newspaper to the Shrop- 
 shire Conservative, which at this election is vehemently 
 favourable to Conservatism, and to Mr. Disraeli as one 
 of its exponents ; and I find the very same statements 
 reported in almost the very same words.* 
 
 * Here is a quotation from the report in the Shropshire Conservative, 
 June 19, 1841 : "He well knew that charges had been made against 
 himself personally, but he was here to meet them, and would meet
 
 ,go LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 This is not the only instance Lord Beaconsfield 
 gave during this election of what shall I call it? 
 Unwilling to employ ugly language, I resort to the 
 phrase "constitutional inaccuracy." Well, then, for 
 another specimen of Lord Beaconsfield's " constitutional 
 inaccuracy." 
 
 Among the signatures to the requisition inviting Mr. 
 Disraeli to stand for Shrewsbury, was that of Dr. 
 Kennedy, head master of the Shrewsbury Free Schools. 
 On the Tuesday following Mr. Disraeli's entry into the 
 town, the annual speech day of those schools took place, 
 and of course Dr. Kennedy, staunch Conservative that 
 he was, " trotted out" the Conservative candidates on 
 the occasion. We all know the character of speech 
 days. The guests, recalled for the moment to their day? 
 
 them with pleasure, because he was speaking to a popular assembly. 
 (Cheers.) They had been made in Parliament, and industriously re- 
 peated in provincial journals. He would quote the very words that 
 some years ago, on the hustings of his native town (Wycombe. in 
 Buckinghamshire) it was his fortune to have been proposed by a Tory 
 and seconded by a Radical. He pleaded guilty to the charge, and he 
 would cheerfully add that if any Radical present wished to support 
 him he would be most happy to receive their votes. (Cheers and 
 laughter.) But it was said, secondly, that he had gone to the poll 
 supported by Mr. O'Connell. (Laughter.) Why. that borough not 
 the property of hit father there he itas born there he hoped to die 
 --and there, where every one had known him since infancy, he trusted 
 that he needed not the recommendation of anyone. (Cheers.) In 
 that borough, during the height of the Reform mania, opposing the 
 son of the Prime Minister, he was defeated by only fifteen vc>U:s. 
 (Applause.) fiay, not a week ago, all parties in the borough met and 
 solicited him to represent them. Whigs, Radicals, and Tories united 
 in thit request, and offered not only to place him at the head of the 
 poll (Cries of 'So yon shall be here') but offered to return any 
 ' wan hr wight name. (Cheers.)"
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 191 
 
 of boyhood and youth, talk of nothing but their school 
 or college. The public learns that such a man, whom 
 it has long known as a successful lawyer, wrote the best 
 Greek verses at Eton ; that this other man, who is now 
 a grave politician, rowed " stroke " at Oxford, and so 
 on. 
 
 The speech day at Shrewsbury School on this 15th 
 June, 1841, was like that in other schools at other 
 times. Thus Dr. Kennedy, who presides, proposes the 
 health of Mr. Tomline, Mr. Disraeli's colleague, as 
 "a gentleman educated at Eton;" and Mr. Tomline, 
 naturally, in reply, declares that " as a pupil of Eton 
 school he felt proud of its good name, and gloried in 
 the honours obtained by its scholars." 
 
 Now, the reader can understand the embarrassing 
 position in which Mr. Disraeli was placed on this 
 occasion. One of his biographers* has remarked that 
 he was never an inmate of the aristocratic schools or 
 universities in which he always places his heroes. And 
 this fact has been fully set out in the second chapter 
 of this book. Here, then, was Mr. Disraeli, who never 
 had been at one of the fashionable schools, called upon 
 to speak among those fashionable scholars. What was 
 he to do ? Confess ? No : it was not Mr. Disraelf s 
 habit to ever acknowledge any fact that would tend 
 to show that he was not quite as aristocratic as any 
 of his neighbours. Mr. Disraeli preferred to be " con- 
 stitutionally inaccurate." 
 
 " The chairman," says the report, " then proposed 
 * J. C. Joaffreson, " Novels and Novelists."
 
 1 93 LORD BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 the health ot' Mr. Benjamin D" Israeli, as a Winchelser 
 scholar." * 
 
 . Now, as everybody knows, there is a fashionable 
 school at Winchester ; and the chairman plainly im- 
 plied that Mr. Disraeli had been a scholar of this 
 fashionable school. If we talk of a man as an Eton 
 scholar, we, of course, mean that he was u scholar 
 of the great public school of the town, and not of a 
 school under private management, which may happen 
 to be in the same place. And the same thing holds 
 good of Winchester. Therefore, when Dr. Kennedy 
 instructed, of course, by Mr. Disraeli called that 
 gentleman a Winchester scholar, he meant that he 
 was educated at the great public school. But all the 
 authorities we have consulted agree that Mr. Disraeli 
 was not educated at the great public school in Win- 
 chester, but at a private school there ! 
 
 Nor should I pass over the reply Mr. Disraeli made to 
 the proposal of his health as a '* Winchelser scholar;" 
 for he managed to pay an extravagant compliment to 
 poor Dr. Kennedy and Sir Robert Peel, and at the 
 same time to represent himself as on terms of touching 
 intimacy with the Conservative chief. In fact, to 
 believe Mr. Disraeli during this Shrewsbury campaign, 
 Sir Robert Peel and he stood to each other almost 
 
 * So Mr. Disraeli is described in the report of the Shrewsburj 
 yeni (Saturday, June 19th, 1841), probably through a misprint. 
 The report of the Salopian Journal (Wednesday, June 16th, 1841) 
 appears more accurate. It writes: "The health of Mr. Disraeli, 
 M.I'., was next given in connexion with Winchester Schools, where 
 he had been educated."
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 195 
 
 in the tender relation of political father and son. The 
 loving Peel is constantly advising young Mr. Disraeli, 
 chiding his innocent gambols, and patting his little 
 head ; and the affectionate Mr. Disraeli, in return, 
 looks up to Peel with reverent eyes, humbly begs 
 his counsel, mildly accepts his rebukes, and proudly 
 tells him of his own little triumphs. 
 
 " Vivian Grey " at thirty-seven had, in fact, become 
 a confiding boy. 
 
 "It was a singular circumstance, too," said Mr. 
 Disraeli, " that during the last great debate in the 
 House of Commons, on the education of the people, 
 the greatest statesman of his age. Sir Robert Peel, had 
 placed in his hand the letter of Dr. Kennedy on that 
 important subject, and recommended him to study it 
 carefully as a guide which way to vote.* 
 
 All the papers of the period are agreed in repre- 
 senting Shrewsbury as most corrupt ; and this led to 
 a violent and prolonged controversy as to the state of 
 Mr. Disraeli's finances. One of the consequences of 
 this was that he was challenged by Mr. William 
 Yardley, who took a prominent part in this dispute ; 
 and both he and Mr. Yardley were bound over to 
 keep the peace. t 
 
 In this election we find Lord Beaconsfield's late wife 
 
 * Shrewsbury Ncrcs (June 19, 1841). This Dr. Kennedy, whom 
 Mr. Disraeli so compliments, had, according to the Shrervslniry 
 Chronicle, about a year previously assisted in getting up a petition 
 against the removal of Jewish disabilities. 
 
 f Salopian Journal, June 30, 1841. 
 
 13
 
 194 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 give proof of that wifely devotion for which she will 
 always be remembered with deep respect. 
 
 " His " Mr. Disraeli's " wife assists at his can- 
 vass," writes the Globe* " with all the energy of 
 despair." 
 
 And thus with a certain touch of malice another 
 Liberal journal refers to Mr. Disraeli's share in the 
 election : " At the conclusion of their harangues, Mrs. 
 D'Israeli was introduced to the crowd by Mr. Burton, 
 and her successful canvass was rewarded by reiterated 
 cheers." f 
 
 Of the nomination I need only mention one incident 
 On this occasion, for the first time so far as I have 
 seen, Lord Beaconsfield displayed his crest, and the 
 now well-known motto, Forti nihil difficile. On this 
 motto the rival journals make different comment-. 
 In the opinion of the Tory organ, J it " was taken as 
 indicative of the character of the honourable candi- 
 date." " There were several flags on the Tory side," 
 writes the Liberal journal, "some of them rather 
 tastefully ornamented, and one bearing a surprising 
 proof of the industry and research of Norry King-ar- 
 Arms namely, a thing that purposed to be the crest 
 of D'Israeli ! ! I and bearing beneath it the motto 
 * Forti nihil difficile,' which, being translated, means 
 that the impudence of some men sticks at nothing." 
 
 The polling took place on June 28 and 29. The 
 
 Jane 25, 1841. 
 
 f Shreicfbnry Chronicle, July 2, 1841. 
 % Salopian Journal, June 30, 1841. 
 Skrentbvry Xent, July 3, 1841.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 195 
 
 result of the poll was the return of Mr. Tomline and 
 Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's election was celebrated, of course, by a 
 dinner, and the report of his speech on the occasion is 
 strange reading nowadays. The speech was one long 
 and fulsome eulogium of Sir Robert Peel. Before the 
 sight of Peel's dazzling greatness, Mr. Disraeli professes 
 to stand aghast: there never, in fact, was such a wonder 
 of a man. Amid " the tumult of faction and popular 
 malice," when " public feeling was excited to a state of 
 frenzy," Peel, preserving his colossal, calm, and gigantic 
 sense, "laid the great foundation of the great Con- 
 servative party." Peel was "a great man;" his 
 "talents " were " great; " his " foresight" " matchless." 
 And Mr. Disraeli also favours us with another scene 
 in the pretty little domestic drama, in which Peel plays 
 the benignant father and Mr. Disraeli the duteous 
 child. For it is pointed out, as a marvellous coin- 
 cidence, that " Sir Robert Peel was returned to Par- 
 liament on the same day on which two of his humble 
 but fervent supporters had been returned by the electors 
 of Shrewsbury." But there is something still better 
 than this; for Mr. Disraeli went on to state that the 
 moment he was elected he hastened to personally 
 communicate the fact to the great man. 
 
 " On the day of election, at twelve o'clock, he (Mr. 
 Disraeli) had the satisfaction of writing to Sir Robert 
 Peel to inform him the electors of Shrewsbury had 
 done their duty. (Cheers.) If that intelligence had 
 reached the hon. baronet on the hustings, he (Mr.
 
 196 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Disraeli) was certain it would have revived his hopes, 
 and added to his confidence, to know the ancient town 
 of Shrewsbury had responded to his call. (Loud 
 
 cheers.)"* 
 
 It is tolerably certain that the public newspapers 
 would have informed Sir Robert Peel of the result 
 of the Shrewsbury election quite as soon as he cared 
 to know. There was, therefore, no necessity for this 
 letter, unless Mr. Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel had 
 been on terms of such close and such friendly intimacy 
 that their respective fortunes were a matter of keen 
 interest to each other. What would Lord Beaconsfield 
 think of one of his "humble but fervent supporters," 
 who, at a general election, put him to the trouble of 
 reading in a letter news which he might learn at his 
 club, or from his newspaper ? We can imagine the 
 cynic smile with which the author of " Vivian Grey " 
 would peruse such a plain intimation that there was 
 somebody who was badly in want of something, 
 and who, to gain that end, was willing to do a very 
 considerable amount of flunkeyish worship of the 
 powerful. 
 
 But what makes this act of Mr. Disraeli's the more 
 remarkable is that not only were Sir Robert Peel and 
 he not on terms of close friendship, but that, in all 
 probability, the Conservative chief kept his "humble 
 but fervent " supporter at a very long arm's length. 
 Subsequent events will pretty clearly show that even at 
 this period Sir Robert Peel disliked Mr. Disraeli ; and 
 * Shropihwre Contercativc, July 3, 1841.
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." I9? 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was too keen a man, and too alive to his 
 own interests, not to know who loved and who loved 
 him not. It is very likely, then, that he -was perfectly 
 aware that he was not an object of liking to Sir Robert 
 Peel. It is bad enough to force oneself, by means of 
 abject flattery, on the attention of any man; but to do 
 this on a man whom you know to be your enemy, 
 shows a more than ordinary degree of thickness of skin 
 and bluntness of feeling. But that is the way these 
 coarse-grained and pushing men of the world get on. 
 What do they care for your significant frowns and your 
 pained shrinking away? You are weak, or good- 
 natured; hate to be bored, or don't like to look unkind; 
 and so the rude and calculating obtruder of self forces 
 you to his wishes, and uses you to his ends. 
 
 Before passing from this part of my narrative, 
 let me make a few brief observations on some of the 
 literary productions of Lord Beaconsfield during the 
 period the political history of which I have just given. 
 In 1837 he published "Henrietta Temple" and 
 " Venetia." " Henrietta Temple " is a love story, and 
 has received a large amount of praise even from some 
 critics who otherwise have little to say in favour of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's literary skill. Indeed, one of those 
 writers has gone so far as to declare it to be one of 
 the most charming love tales in the language. This 
 appears to me a most extraordinary verdict The stoiy 
 is exaggerated, hysterical, and long-drawn-out. Many 
 of the scenes remind one of the stilted rhetoric in 
 which the lovers of some antiquated novelists used
 
 198 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to indulge ; and others bear a resemblance to the more 
 modern fiction of which the Family Herald is the 
 best type. The book is inscribed to Count D'Orsay, 
 who, under a fictitious name, figures as one of the 
 characters. 
 
 "Venetia," Lord Beaconsfield dedicated to Lord 
 Lyndhurst. In his preface he announces his intention 
 to be " to shadow forth, though ' as in a glass darkly, 
 two of the most renowned and refined spirits that 
 have adorned these our latter days." The " renowned 
 and refined" spirits are Shelley and Byron, the former 
 of whom is described under the name of Marmion 
 Herbert, and the latter under that of Lord Cadurcis. 
 This was certainly an extremely ambitious attempt, and 
 the courage of Mr. Disraeli went so far that, in order 
 to make his picture of these two remarkable men more 
 real, he wrote some poetry meant to pass as theirs. It 
 certainly required all Lord Beaconsfield's boldness to 
 attempt to produce verses equal to those of two of 
 the most extraordinary poetic geniuses that have ever 
 appeared in English or in any other literature. The 
 effort, as might be expected, is creditable to Lord 
 Beaconsfield's courage only. The verses bear the same 
 resemblance to the poems of Shelley and Byron as 
 the rhymes of a clever schoolboy who had diligently 
 learnt the images' most common in poetic writing, and 
 was not devoid of the tricks of "jingling sounds." 
 However, a man who was bold enough to class his 
 bathetic and impotent epic with the productions of 
 Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Milton, might be excused for
 
 M HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 199 
 
 indulging in the minor ambition of writing poetry equal 
 to that of the authors of " Queen Mab " and " Don 
 Juan." 
 
 The reader will also see how like real life Mr. Disraeli's 
 conception of these two men was, when he learns that 
 Shelley is made a distinguished general in the American 
 war of independence, and Byron an active political 
 intriguer during the period subsequent to the Coalition 
 Ministry of Lord North ! " Venetia " is indeed a very 
 mediocre performance ; and in reading some of its pages 
 of dreary inanity its long-drawn-out descriptions of 
 the most commonplace occurrences, its unspeakably 
 vapid conversations, one does not know whether to 
 swear or smile, when one compares the pitiful result 
 with the impudently bold project. Occasionally Lord 
 Beaconsfield is successful in imitating something of 
 the affected cynicism and gay flippancy with which 
 Lord Byron used to talk and write ; but the author of 
 " Don Juan " would have smiled in derision or raved 
 in fury had he been able to read the commonplace and 
 poor stuff which his delineator puts into his mouth. 
 Marmion Herbert is still more unlike the character it 
 attempts to portray ; and if it had any resemblance to 
 Shelley, we should take him to have been a poor crea- 
 ture who was given to very prolix harangues and to 
 very washy sentiment. 
 
 Happily for both Byron and Shelley, we know too 
 much of their natures and lives to take Lord Beacons- 
 field's wretched caricatures as in the least degree 
 resembling them. But if posterity were to think of
 
 200 LORD BEACONSFIELD. - 
 
 them as being such as are imaged forth in " Venetia/' 
 they might, even in their homes beyond the skies, 
 wring their hands over the joy of the Philistines whom 
 Lord Beaconsfield had so triumphantly avenged, and the 
 wild delight of Little Bethel, whose worst judgments 
 on Shelley and Byron Lord Beacon sfield's portraits 
 would justify. 
 
 Undeterred by the conspicuous failure of "Veuetia," 
 Lord Beaconsfield two years after announced another 
 project equally ambitious. In that year he published 
 "Alarcos," which, in the dedication to Lord Francis 
 Egerton, he calmly described as " an attempt to con- 
 tribute to the revival of English tragedy." The work 
 that was to perform this great exploit was scarcely 
 heard of after its production, and would by this time 
 have been completely forgotten, were it not for the 
 political eminence to which its author has attained. 
 But even the adventitious accessory of the writer's rank 
 could not give it even the semblance of life. When 
 Mr. Disraeli was Prime Minister for the first time, 
 an enterprising manageress thought it might draw. 
 It was not, however, in any of the theatres identified 
 either with the classic drama or refined comedy, or 
 with anything whatever of even a decent reputation, 
 that Mr. Disraeli's work was produced. This attempt 
 to revive English tragedy this dramatic masterpiece 
 of the chief ruler of this vast empire made its appear- 
 ance on the boards of a house devoted to tame elephants 
 antl chained lions, waltzing horses, performing monkeys, 
 and the equestrian drama ; but even in this humble
 
 "HUMBLE, BUT FERVENT." 201 
 
 asylum of the houseless playwright, " Alarcos " was 
 laughed off the stage after a few nights. 
 
 It is not uninstructive to pause for a moment to con- 
 trast the difference in the verdict pronounced upon Lord 
 Beaconsfield's political and that on his literary and 
 dramatic achievements. Pretentious inanity can make 
 muddle-headed agriculturist or dining alderman admire 
 and cheer, but it cannot obtain a decent run for the 
 worthless drama of even a Prime Minister. The arbiters 
 of literature, too, are happily of somewhat brighter 
 material than the fatuous aristocrat, or the dull farmer, 
 or the rabid Jingo that lift political impostors to power. 
 In the world of literature, as in the world of politics, 
 Lord Beaconsfield has sought to succeed by continu- 
 ally shouting at the top of his voice that of all literary 
 men he was the greatest. But literary, unlike political 
 arbiters have refused to take him at his own exag- 
 gerated estimate of his powers; and by them, the 
 writer who ranked his epic beside that of Homer, 
 Virgil, Dante, and Milton, who saw in his " Alarcos " 
 a revival of the English drama, and who places his 
 novels among the highest efforts of the human mind, 
 is consigned to the region of poetasters, wrecked 
 playwrights, and fifth-rate novelists.* 
 
 * It was not an English theatrical authority that ventured to put 
 " Alarcos " on the stage ; this bold exploit was reserved to what the 
 Pall Matt Gazette (July 29, 1868.) calls a "venturesome American 
 actress, one Miss Agnes Cameron." For an excellent critique of the 
 tragedy itself, see the number of the PaU Matt Gazette just quoted ; 
 the issue of August 3, following, gives a most amusing description of 
 how the play was " damned."
 
 202 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 
 
 WHEN Parliament reassembled after the general election, 
 there could be no doubt that the Government of Lord 
 Melbourne was in a minority. The Conservative 
 leader at once took decisive action, and, a few nights 
 after the opening of the session, proposed a want of con- 
 fidence motion. In the ensuing debate, Mr. Disraeli, 
 of course, was one of the speakers. 
 
 During the election, Protection and Free Trade 
 were one of the many issues contested, and the Whig 
 Cabinet had not obscurely hinted that they were 
 ready to make some advances in the direction of Free 
 Trade. The body of the Conservative party, of course, 
 still adhered to Protection ; but their discreet leader 
 had taken care to leave himself unpledged on the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, naturally, took the cue from his leader. 
 His speech, therefore, on Peel's motion, was directed 
 to show two things : (1) that Free Trade was not a 
 monopoly of the Whigs; and (2) that a Ministry under 
 SMT Robert Peel would be far more likely to carry
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 203 
 
 efficient Free Trade measures then the Ministry of 
 Lord Melbourne. Such a line of argument, however 
 inconsistent with Mr. Disraeli's expression of opinions 
 on the same question a few years later, was yet in 
 perfect consistency with his general plan of private 
 and public life. The chief article of his own creed of 
 conduct was that he should flatter those who could be 
 useful to him, and Peel was one of those. His chief 
 article of belief on the conduct of political parties was 
 that the Tories should filch all the cries and measures 
 of the Liberals. Free Trade had the appearance, in 
 1841, of becoming a popular cry, which might be taken 
 up very advantageously by a political party. And 
 Mr. Disraeli may have thought that the Free Traders 
 might be used for Tory purposes, just as he had 
 formerly thought that the Radicals and the Chartists 
 could be played off against the Whigs. Mr. Disraeli, 
 of course, had taken very good care to watch Peel's 
 conduct during the elections ; and a keen observer like 
 him would not fail to observe that Peel's reticence on 
 the subject pointed to the probability of his proposing 
 Free Trade measures. The influence of those ideas 
 may be easily traced in Mr. Disraeli's speech. 
 
 He began by completely denying that the policy of 
 Free Trade would be retarded by the accession of a 
 Tory Ministry. The Tories, not the Whigs, he con- 
 tended, were the true Free Traders. "Why," he 
 exclaimed, " the progress of commercial reform was only 
 arrested by the Reform Act" * That is to say, the 
 * Hansard, 3 S. lix. 173.
 
 204 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 movement in favour of Free Trade would have been 
 advanced by the virtuous Tories, had not the wicked 
 Whigs intervened with their Reform Bill. 
 
 Then he went on to make another and perhaps still 
 more important declaration. It will afterwards be 
 found that one of the main assertions in Mr. Disraeli's 
 philippics against Peel was that the Conservative chief 
 had been elected as the champion of Protection. Mr. 
 Disraeli also was most distinct in declaring over and 
 over again that he himself had been returned to Par- 
 liament as an advocate of Protection. Such was his 
 representation of the 1841 election in 1846 : mark 
 what his representation of it was in 1841. 
 
 "No man could pretend," said Mr. Disraeli, "that 
 the late dissolution of Parliament, or the want of 
 confidence which the country had expressed in the 
 Government, was in consequence of any sympathy in 
 respect of the import duties ; but it was because the 
 Government was weak inefficient incapable of carry- 
 ing those measures which they themselves believed to be 
 necessary for the country" * 
 
 Can anything be plainer than the meaning of this 
 }>aage? What can it mean but this that the verdict 
 of the constituencies had gone against the Whigs, 
 and in favour of the Conservatives, not because the 
 Whigs were in favour of Free Trade, but because 
 they could not carry such efficient Free Trade measures 
 as the Conservatives? f 
 
 Ibid. 174. 
 
 t It is not necessary to overload my text with quotations in proof
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 205 
 
 There is another passage in this speech which it may 
 be worth while to notice. In the "Vindication," one 
 of Mr. Disraeli's favourite ideas was that the power of 
 the Crown had been unduly diminished. This is an 
 opinion, which as will soon be seen he took the 
 trouble of preaching in several books, and which was 
 one of the main principles of a political school he 
 founded, And this is an opinion which, as Lord 
 Beaconsfield and Prime Minister, he carried into most 
 daring and far-reaching practice when he annexed 
 Cyprus and assumed the protectorate of Asia Minor. 
 It will not be forgotten that he justified the execution 
 of these extraordinary measures without the consent of 
 Parliament by pointing, among other things, to the 
 confidence of the Sovereign in him and his adminis- 
 tration. Well, during the election of 1841, as during 
 the election of 1837, and in the debates in Parliament 
 afterwards, the notorious preference of the Queen foi 
 the Cabinet of Lord Melbourne was brought forward as 
 an argument in favour of Whig candidates. Mark how 
 Lord Beaconsfield commented on the carrying out 
 of his, own principles by other persons. He declared 
 that in former times, " when, if the name of the 
 
 of this interpretation of Mr. Disraeli's position in 1841 ; but I will 
 append one more. It follows the one just given. "This, then," 
 Mr. Disraeli went on, " brought him to the consideration of the real 
 question before the House : the question was, not whether the pro- 
 posed measures mere necessary, but mh ether a discussion of those 
 measures ought to be invited or entered iipon tinder the auspices of 
 the present possessors of official power ." Hansard, lix. 174. Among 
 the measures of the Ministry was a reduction of the duty on Corn to 
 eight shillings.
 
 206 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Sovereign had been mentioned as lately it liad fre- 
 quently been used and resorted to in the House in 
 order to control and influence Parliament, such an 
 attempt would have been held up to public scorn and 
 indignation" * 
 
 Then he went on to denounce with violence the idea 
 of a Minister defying the House of Commons "by 
 declaring the Government was supported by the 
 Crown." Such language amounted to "profaning the 
 name of the Sovereign, as if the Majesty of England 
 was a second candidate upon some paltry pollj 
 
 The vote of want of confidence in the Government 
 was carried by the enormous majority of 90, and Sir 
 Robert Peel was called to power. We have seen the 
 pains Mr. Disraeli had taken to please the Conservative 
 leader; how slavishly he had flattered him in the 
 " Runnymede " letters ; how loudly he had sung his 
 praises on the hustings ; how incessant he was in 
 defending him from every assault in the House of 
 Commons. We have seen how he had even con- 
 descended to write to Sir Robert Peel of his success 
 at Shrewsbury. Vain labour ! Sir Robert Peel would 
 have none of him. When the list of the Ministry was 
 made out, Mr. Disraeli was not nominated even to an 
 Under-Secretaryship. 
 
 However poignant may have been Mr. Disnu-l's 
 disappointment, he was able for the present to com- 
 pletely conceal his feelings. He continued to work 
 with undiminished industry, and he continued to laud 
 Hansard, lix. 175. t Ibid. 176.
 
 IOUNG ENGLAND. 2O7 
 
 Sir Robert Peel with unabated zeal. On March 8, 
 1842, he delivered a long and clever speech, filled 
 with spicy personalities, and making an impracticable 
 proposal to unite the diplomatic and consular services.* 
 Some of his attacks on individuals were unjust and 
 ungenerous, and drew down upon him a biting rebuke 
 from Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston added sting 
 to his remarks by twitting Mr. Disraeli with his dis- 
 appointed hopes of office, f Mr. Disraeli, of course, 
 had no scruples then, or at any other period of his 
 life, in assailing individuals, so long as he thus 
 made his speech more palatable ; and he replied to 
 the sarcasm of Lord Palmerston with sarcasm quite as 
 
 effective.^ 
 
 It was much more disappointing to him to find his 
 
 * Hansard, Ixi. 219. 
 
 t " The hon. gentleman," said Lord Palmerston, " had indeed 
 affirmed the general principle that political adherents ought to be 
 rewarded by appointments, and he regretted to observe an exception 
 to that rule in the person of the hon. member himself. After the 
 proof, however, of talent and ability which the hon. gentleman had 
 afforded, although, perhaps, not of great industry in getting up the 
 details of his case, he trusted that before the end of the session 
 the Government would overlook the slight want of industry for the 
 sake of the talent, and that the House would see the maxim of the 
 hon. member practically applied to his own case." Hansard, Ixi. 
 264. 
 
 \ Thus Mr. Disraeli replied to this taunt : " Mr. Disraeli, in reply, 
 said that he must offer his acknowledgments to the noble viscount 
 for his courteous aspirations for his political promotion. Such 
 aspirations from such a quarter must be looked upon as suspicious. 
 The noble viscount was a consummate master of the subject j and if 
 the noble viscount would only impart to him the secret by which he 
 bad himself contrived to retain office during seven successive adminis- 
 trations, the present debate would certainly not be without a result." 
 Hinsard, Ixi. 280.
 
 208 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 proposal treated with as scant courtesy by Peel as by 
 Palmerston. But he smothered his feelings; and on the 
 next great opportunity came forward as one of the most 
 earnest supporters of the Prime Minister. 
 
 It was on the 9th February, 1842, that Sir Robert 
 Peel unfolded his plan for dealing with the Corn Laws. 
 The speech which he delivered on this occasion, and 
 on other occasions during this session, are somewhat 
 astonishing. In those speeches Free Trade doctrines 
 are distinctly enunciated, and the policy of 1846 which 
 seemed to fall upon the political world like a summer 
 cloud is clearly foreshadowed. Thus, in the course of 
 this speech of February, he bursts forth frequently into 
 sentences which are as distinct an enunciation of Free 
 Trade doctrines as we could find in the addresses of 
 Mr. Cobden. "It M," he exclaims, " uttei'ly beyond your 
 power, and a mere delusion, to say that, by any duty, fixed 
 or otherwise, you can guarantee a certain price to the pro- 
 ducer. It is beyond the reach of the Legislature." * And 
 in another place he cries out, "/ believe that on the 
 general principle of Free Trade there is now no great 
 difference of opinion, and that all agree in the general 
 rule that we should purchase in the cheapest market and 
 sell in the dearest" 
 
 It is when, however, we come to examine what P !'- 
 proposals were, we perceive still more clearly their 
 thoroughly Free Trade character. Indeed, one cannot 
 help wondering that the Prime Minister should have 
 been able to pass at such a date measures so sweeping. 
 * Annual Register, Ixxxiv. 24.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 209 
 
 The duty was removed of more than a hundred and fifty 
 articles of food,* among them bacon and ham. But this 
 was not the part which showed most the boldness of Peel. 
 He dared also to interfere with the three commodities in 
 which the Protectionists were most deeply interested. 
 The duty on live cattle, from being prohibitive, was 
 reduced to 1 per head ; fresh beef, which also was 
 practically excluded from the home market by the high 
 tax, was admitted at 8s. per hundredweight; and the 
 duty on corn on corn, the very heart and essence of 
 the Protectionist interest was reduced by considerably 
 more than one-half ! f 
 
 The effect of those proposals on the supporters of Sir 
 Robert Peel also plainly indicates that they were essen- 
 tially regarded as a partial adoption of Free Trade, and 
 a partial abandonment of Protection. They produced a 
 split in the Cabinet, the Duke of Buckingham retiring 
 from his office ; and they were " not effected," to use 
 Peel's own words, " without great murmuring and some 
 open opposition to the Government on the part of many 
 
 * Prentice, " History of the Anti-Corn Law League," i. 334. 
 
 f Sir Robert Peel thus himself described the changes made by his 
 sliding scale: "When corn is at 59*. and under 60*., the duty at 
 present is 27s. 8d. When corn is between those prices, the duty I 
 propose is 13*. When the price of corn is at 50*., the existing duty 
 is 36*. 8d., increasing as the price falls ; instead of which, I propose, 
 when corn is at 50*., that the duty shall only be 20*., and that that 
 duty sluill in no case be exceeded. (Hear, hear.) At 56*. the existing 
 duty is 30.5. 8d. ; the duty I propose at that price is 16*. At 60s. the 
 existing duty is 26*. 8d. ; the duty I propose at that price is 12*. At 
 63s. the existing duty is 23*. 8d. ; the duty I propose is 9*. At 64*. 
 the existing duty is 22*. 8d. ; the duty I propose is 8*. At 70*. the 
 existing duty is 10*. 8d. ; the duty I propose is 5." Annual 
 Register, Ixxxiv. 25. 
 
 14
 
 aio LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of their supporters."* A measure of the extent to 
 which this dissatisfaction went is afforded by the fact 
 that the measures were openly denounced by the Duke 
 of Richmond, one of the pillars of Conservatism, in 
 the House of Lords, f and by several staunch Tories, 
 amongst the rest by Mr. Christopher, of whom we shall 
 hear more by-and-by, J in the House of Commons; and 
 that in one violently Protectionist district Sir Robert 
 Peel was burned in effigy. 
 
 Another proof of the real character of Peel's measures 
 is the reception which it met with in the press. It was 
 highly praised in the Liberal, and as vehemently abused 
 in some of the Protectionist organs. || 
 
 So far, I have quoted from purely contemporaneous 
 evidence as to the nature of Sir Robert Peel's proposal 
 in 1 842 ; but that is not the only testimony on the 
 point. One of the main pleas in the apology which 
 
 " Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel," by Lord Stanhope and the Right 
 Hon. E. Cardwell, M.P. Parts ii. and iii., 100-101. 
 
 f Hansard, 8 8. Ixiii. 680 and 598. 
 
 I Ibid. Ixmv. 144. 
 
 " Longtown, within some stone's- throw of the country seat of Sir 
 James Graham, has shown its detestation of the new Corn Law by 
 burning Sir Robert Peel in effigy." Quoted in the Examiner (March 12, 
 1842) from the Fyne Mercury. 
 
 | " It moves," writes the Examiner (March 12, 1842) ; " the 
 monopoly is on the slide ; the pending Corn Bill, as Lord Howick 
 says, is the precursor of more important changes ; what it will do 
 may be inconsiderable, but what it may undo is of vast moment. The 
 scale is shrinking, and if Sir Robert Peel be suffered in power so long, 
 next session, or the session after, he may propose another modifi- 
 cation, ' small by degrees, and beautifully less.' " Among the Protec- 
 tionist organs which denounced the proposals of Peel was the Shrop- 
 thire Cunxervative, one of the Tory papers of Shrewsbury. Thus 
 the hostility to Peel's measures by the ultra- Protectionist party was
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 211 
 
 Sir Robert Peel and his friends put forward for his 
 action in 1846, is that it was simply the development 
 of principles which he had professed throughout the 
 entire course of his life. In the Memoir which Sir 
 Lawrence Peel has published of his great kinsman, it 
 is distinctly stated that Sir Robert Peel was always a 
 Free Trader ;* and this is, to a very considerable 
 extent, the inference which Sir Robert Peel wishes us 
 to draw from his own Memoirs, t Apart altogether, 
 however, from these Memoirs, I have shown, from Par- 
 liamentary reports published in 1842 itself, at a time 
 when any future changes could not have been con- 
 templated, that Sir Robert Peel did, as a matter of 
 fact, make in that year a considerable step in advance 
 towards Free Trade and from Protection, and that his 
 measures were so regarded by himself, his friends, and 
 his foes. 
 
 brought in the most distinct manner to Mr. Disraeli's knowledge. 
 It will be seen further on that he, however, was so well satisfied with 
 the partial abandonment by Peel of Protection that he vehemently 
 defended him from the Conservative journalist in his constituency. 
 See note to 257, further on. 
 
 * " A Sketch of the Life and Character of Sir Robert Peel." By 
 Sir Lawrence Peel. 283. 
 
 f The Memoirs were written after both 184:6 and 1842, and there- 
 fore are open to the suspicion of containing afterthoughts meant to 
 explain an ambiguous past. In the Memoirs, however, Sir Kobert 
 Peel quotes memoranda which he submitted to the Cabinet in 1842, 
 and which plainly show that the measures in that year were of a 
 Free Trade character. Thus in one of the memoranda placed before 
 the Cabinet occurs this noteworthy sentence : " We must assume, I 
 think, that the import of foreign corn is necessary for the subsistence 
 of the people, excepting in years of extraordinary abundance, or 
 after a succession of favourable harvests." (" Memoirs," Part iii., 
 Appendix, 331.)
 
 212 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Now, everybody is aware that Mr. Disraeli owes 
 his advancement in a very considerable degree to his 
 denunciations of Sir Robert Peel for that Minister's 
 abandonment of Protectionist principles in 1846. As 
 Mr. Disraeli was so furious in his zeal for Protection 
 in 1846, we should naturally assume that he would be 
 found among the opponents of Sir Robert Peel's partial 
 desertion of Protection in 1842. And this we should 
 be the more inclined to expect from the fact that the 
 very men with whom Mr. Disraeli acted in 1846 were 
 prominent in their opposition to the policy of 1842. 
 It lias been seen that the Duke of Richmond was one 
 of the most vehement opponents of Sir Robert Peel in 
 1842. It will be seen afterwards that the Duke of 
 Richmond was one of the most vehement of Sir Robert 
 Peel's opponents in 1846. And Mr. Disraeli could 
 have done little in 1846 without this same Duke of 
 Richmond. 
 
 What will the reader say when he finds that 
 these measures of 1842, which began the abandon- 
 ment of Protection and the adoption of Free Trade, 
 found Mr. Disraeli among their most enthusiastic sup- 
 porters ? 
 
 In his speech on the Premier's proposals, Mr. Disraeli 
 began by repudiating the idea that the present action 
 of Peel was a violation of his former opinions. He 
 declared,' 4 with reference to the accusation made on the 
 other side of the House, that the right hon. Baronet at the 
 head of the Government had repudiated principles when 
 ,n ,'j '/'".- if ifii which hi- IKK! adopted when in office, that
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 213 
 
 that charge had been made without due examination of 
 the facts of the case.""* 
 
 And then he went on to give his version of " the 
 facts of the case." Whenever Lord Beaconsfield under- 
 takes to state " the facts of the case," we may always 
 expect something which is very amusing and very 
 startling. We are not disappointed in this instance, 
 for the theme of his speech is that the Tories were the 
 originators and consistent advocates of Free Trade. 
 Mr. Pitt was the father of Free Trade principles. It 
 was he " who first promulgated them in 1787. "t " The 
 principles of Free Trade," went on Mr. Disraeli, pur- 
 suing this theme, " were developed and not by Whigs 
 fifty years ago ; and how was it that the Whig party 
 now came forward and contended that they were the 
 originators of these opinions?" J 
 
 And then, turning to the measures then before the 
 House, here is what Mr. Disraeli declared : " The con- 
 duct pursued by the right hon. Baronet was in exact 
 harmony in perfect consistency with the principles in 
 reference to Free Trade laid down by Mr. Pitt; and his 
 reason for saying thus much, was to refute the accu- 
 sations which had been brought against the present 
 Government, that, in order to get into, and, being in, 
 to keep office, they had changed their opinions on 
 these subjects." 
 
 During the greater portion of the session of 1843, 
 Mr. Disraeli continued to be a zealous supporter of Sir 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixiii. 390. J Ibid. 391. 
 
 t Ibid. 390. Ibid. 392.
 
 214 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Robert Peel ; and on nothing in the policy of the 
 Conservative Prime Minister was he more lavish in 
 his praise than on his commercial measures. He 
 maintained, as in 1841 and 1842, the double thesis, 
 that Free Trade was a Tory principle ; and that, in 
 passing Free Trade measures, Sir Robert Peel was 
 following in the footsteps of his Tory predecessors. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, however, continued to take no 
 notice of this constant and persistent support ; and at 
 last Mr. Disraeli began to see that there was no hope 
 for him in that quarter. He accordingly changed 
 from friendship to hostility, from lavish praise to 
 lavish abuse ; but how that change came about, and 
 went on, I must defer telb'ng for a time. This will be 
 the proper moment for referring to another movement, 
 half literary, half political, in which Mr. Disraeli was 
 engaged during the years, the Parliamentary history 
 of which I have just sketched. 
 
 Among the members returned to the Parliament of 
 1841, were Lord John Manners, and Mr. George 
 Sydney Smyths. With these and a few others, Mr. 
 Disraeli formed what was called the "Young England" 
 party. 
 
 Lord John Manners gave the world, in 1841, an 
 opportunity of learning some of the tenets of the new 
 school. In that year he published " England's Trust, 
 and other Poems." The views expressed in these 
 poems are, in religious matters, what we should now 
 call Ritualistic ; in questions between Church and 
 State, what we term Ultramontane ; and in politics,
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 215 
 
 the writer believes in the divine right of kings. 
 Lord John, for instance, talks with deep regret of 
 the days 
 
 " When mother-Church her richest stores displayed, 
 And sister-State on her behalf arrayed 
 The tempered majesty of sacred law, 
 And loved to reason, but at times could awe ; 
 When kings were taught to feel the dreadful weight 
 Of power derived from one than Icings more great, 
 And learned with reverence to wield the rod 
 They deemed entrusted to their hand by God."* 
 
 Lord John, that is to say, is deeply moved that the 
 time is past when the Church controlled the State, and 
 could use the arm of the State in enforcement of its 
 beliefs. 
 
 In other passages those ideas are again expressed. 
 We are brought back with admiration to the times 
 when, 
 
 "haughtiest kings have stooped to kiss the rod 
 Wielded by some poor minister of God." f 
 
 The following passage sufficiently indicates that 
 leaning towards Roman Catholic doctrine, as well as 
 Ultramontane theories, which was a characteristic of 
 the Tractarian school. Speaking of Roman Catholic 
 countries, Lord John Manners writes : 
 
 " What tho' excess of faith commands them see, 
 Where we may not, a present Deity ? 
 Still are our hopes, our fears, our creeds the same, 
 Still do we triumph in our world- wide name ; 
 And each true Christian fondly hopes to see 
 The Holy Church once more at unity." J 
 
 *" England's Trust," 3-4. f Ibid. 16. J Ibid. 22.
 
 216 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 And, again, the idea of a universal and omnipotent 
 Church is put forward thus : 
 
 " Yea, through the Church must come the healing power, 
 To bind our wounds in this tumultuous hour ; 
 From her old courts and altar-steps must flow 
 The streams of grace that shall assuage our woe." * 
 
 And, finally, on this question of the relation of Church 
 and State, our poet writes : 
 
 " The State, alas ! enervate and effete, 
 Feels now no more that all-productive heat 
 Which in her noontide prime she erst received, 
 Fresh from the Church, believing and believed." f 
 
 In the first passage quoted, the author of " England's 
 Trust," it has been seen, openly avows the creed of the 
 divine right of kings. He spoke, it will be remembered, 
 of kingly power as " derived from one than kings more 
 great," and as " entrusted to their " the kings' " hand 
 by God." 
 
 This idea of divine right recurs several times in the 
 course of the volume. We are told of the " Lord's 
 anointed in a sceptred king." Charles I. receives a 
 poem all to himself: 
 
 " Thou monarch martyr ! " 
 writes Lord John' Manners 
 
 " fain would 1, 
 In meet expression, own 
 Thy boundless sovereignty, 
 Thou captive on a throne, 
 
 Ibid. 26. f H>M- 27 -
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 217 
 
 O'er my soul's pulses ; but in vain 
 The attempt, too grand, 1 make ; 
 My feeble-hearted strain 
 Trembles to undertake 
 
 A therne so sacred," etc., etc.* 
 
 Lord John also admires the churchmen and politicians? 
 who stood by "the Martyr." Laud is praised; Lord 
 Stafford is the subject of a poem : 
 
 "And he," 
 writes the poet 
 
 " who 'bove each earthly thing, 
 Doth seek, with purpose high, 
 To do the bidding of the king, 
 Need never fear to die." t 
 
 This admiration of the past of course leads Lord 
 John to have but a poor opinion of many modern things. 
 For instance, the poet tells us that 
 
 " In many a hamlet, yet uncursed by trade, 
 
 Bloom Faith and Love all lightly in the shade." $ 
 
 And then there is the noble outburst which has made 
 Lord John's poem immortal : 
 
 " No ! by the names inscribed in History's page 
 Names that are England's noblest heritage, 
 Names that shall live for yet unnumbered years, 
 Shrined in our hearts with Crecy and Poictiers 
 Let wealth and commerce, laws and learning die, 
 But leave us still our old Nobility !'' 
 
 Finally, Lord John, with commendable boldness, 
 expresses the fullest approval of the indiscriminate 
 
 * " King Charles the Martyr," 65. J " England's Trust," 37. 
 t " Thorow," 99. Hid. 24.
 
 2I g LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 alms-giving fashionable in the good old times. The 
 "purer faith of purer days" has begun to peep 
 " through the mould that hides the good old ways ; " 
 and so we have begun to recall, with deep approval, 
 among other things, 
 
 " The daily beadsman, waiting for his bread, 
 Where good and bad were att, unquestioned, fed, 
 For then it was not to our rulers known 
 That God was mindful of the first alone; 
 The monks still practised their dear Lord's command, 
 And rained their charity throughout the land." * 
 
 George Sydney Smythe was a very different being 
 from the writer of all this poor trash. 
 
 He was the son of the sixth Lord Strangford, and 
 was born in 1818, at Stockholm, where his father 
 resided as English Minister. At Eton he attracted some 
 attention by his English verses ; and at Cambridge, 
 
 Ibid. 16. These passages I have quoted principally with a view of 
 showing what were the opinions of Lord John Manners at this stage 
 in his career. The extracts will, perhaps, also help the reader to form 
 some idea of the literary merit of the poems. By way of aiding 
 the judgment on this point, I think it well to add the three following 
 extracts. In page 4 of " England's Trust," are these two lines : 
 
 " My faith in my dear Mother-Church I fix, 
 And scorn Religion's modern politics ; " 
 
 and in page 13, 
 
 " A plaintive melancholy note is mine, 
 Such as was wont to float around the shrine, 
 In days when faith, thro* ignorance, could hear 
 The voice divine, and own a Godhead near." 
 
 In a poem entitled " A Night Storm " (page 57) occurs this passage : 
 
 " I thought of sinners' awful doom, 
 My flesh began to creep, 
 I wished myself again at home, 
 I wished I were asleep."
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 219 
 
 where the late Lord Lyttelton, Lord Penzance, Lord 
 John Manners, and Mr. Beresford Hope were his con- 
 temporaries, he was a highly successful speaker at the 
 students debating society. In 1841 being then twenty- 
 three years of age he entered Parliament as a repre- 
 sentative for Canterbury. 
 
 " At this time," writes Lady Strangford, from whose 
 graceful memoir of her late husband I take the account 
 of his career, " he allied himself closely with Mr. Disraeli. 
 .... These were the days of the ' Young England 
 party,' a little party formed by identity of sentiment in 
 the very heart of the Conservative ranks. The leader, 
 Mr. Disraeli, no doubt discerned the usefulness of the 
 youngest of the three, for he described him (nearly 
 thirty years later) as not only ' remarkable for his 
 influence over youth,' but also as having a great 
 power of 'promulgating a new faith with graceful 
 enthusiasm.' " * 
 
 The same lady analyses very clearly the reasons 
 which won the support of Mr. Smythe to the new party. 
 " In fact," she says, " the aspirations and sweetness 
 of this school were entirely in harmony with the 
 romantic turn of his mind. Romance tinged equally 
 his politics and his religion. He loved to recall the 
 grandeur of the ancient nobility of England and 
 of France ; to sing the days of chivalry, of Catholic 
 kings and cavaliers, of the picturesque splendour of 
 ecclesiastical ceremonial ; writing many polished and 
 beautiful verses upon these subjects, while yet he turned 
 * Memoir, xiii.-xiv.
 
 220 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 almost as warmly to throw the halo of poetry ovei 
 ' the merchants of old England ; ' and together with his 
 friend, Lord John Manners, he dreamed of a powerful 
 aristocracy and an almsgiving Church, protecting and 
 cultivating the affections of a dependent peasantry." * 
 
 Before he had been many years in Parliament, how- 
 ever, Mr. Smythe parted company with Mr. Disraeli 
 and Lord John Manners. " George Smythe," writes 
 his widow, " was too liberal to agree with them in most 
 things : they were for Protection, and he was for Corn 
 Law Repeal." t 
 
 In Parliament, Mr. Smythe justified at first the 
 hopes of his friends, for he spoke with grace and effect. 
 He seems, however, to have been wanting in those 
 particular qualities to which Mr. Disraeli, in great part, 
 owes his success. He was not gifted with much 
 energy, much ambition, or much "cheek." We have 
 already seen how constantly Mr. Disraeli put himself 
 forward in the session of 1841, when Sir Robert Peel 
 was gradually approaching power. And it has been 
 seen also how persistently, and it may be said slavishly, 
 he flattered the coming man. Mark how different was 
 the conduct of Mr. Smythe. 
 
 " Sir Robert Peel," writes Lady Strangford, " suc- 
 ceeded Lord Melbourne in the month of September. 
 Had George Smythe then come forward and spoken on 
 the discussion which ushered in the change of Govern- 
 ment had he then but amplified his provincial speeches, 
 giving them more solidity and detail, he would have 
 * Ibid, xiv.-xv. f Hid. xiv.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND, 221 
 
 secured for himself some employment in the Conserva- 
 tive administration ; and it is scarcely too much to say 
 that all the mistakes and misfortunes of his after-life 
 would probably have been avoided. His talent would 
 be admitted on all sides ; he was young, bright, and 
 winning; nothing was wanting but that solidity and 
 weight which an official position affords, to stir up the 
 power and ability, which incontestably existed, into 
 action." * 
 
 And in another passage, Lady Strangford writes : 
 " One more opportunity of retrieving the mistakes of 
 his past life then occurred to him. Lord Aberdeen, in 
 January, 1853, offered him a place in his Government, 
 The fatal, because now irreparable error, was, and for 
 the last time, again committed. In accepting office he 
 would have avoided the abyss of inaction, so inevitably 
 destructive to a temperament such as his." f 
 
 These few passages give us a pretty clear idea of Mr. 
 Smythe's character. And we can now well understand 
 why Mr. Disraeli " discerned the usefulness " to borrow 
 Lady Strangford's words of Mr. Smythe. In the 
 choice of friends who may be useful to him, and rather 
 useless to themselves, Mr. Disraeli has been all his life 
 a man of much " discernment." George Smythe was 
 evidently such a friend. We have seen how careless he 
 was with regard to his own interests ; it is quite likely 
 that he was at least before the disillusion came quite 
 as active in the interests of Lord Beaconsfield. 
 
 Most people have, I suppose, observed that men who 
 * Ibid, x.-xi. f Ibid, xxviii.
 
 22 2 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 will do nothing for themselves, will often do everything 
 for another person ; that men who, to gain a great 
 advantage, will not write a short letter or keep an 
 appointment, will write pages and walk miles to do a 
 trifling service to somebody else. And it very often, 
 indeed usually happens, that the persons whom those 
 beings, useless to themselves, so eagerly serve, are 
 men who would not move a hair's breadth outside 
 their own selfish purposes. This vicarious activity is 
 not always a sign of generosity of nature ; it is some- 
 times the result of subserviency. I do not mean the low 
 kind of subserviency the subserviency that calculates 
 on future reward, such as that of Mr. Disraeli to Sir 
 Robert Peel. I mean the subserviency of weak natures 
 to strong, of indolent natures to active. 
 
 What is the great secret of the success of men liko Mr. 
 Disraeli ? It is this : that in a world of men, who are 
 in the vast majority willing to pass life listlessly, with- 
 out effort, without calculation, without object, there are 
 some beings spurred to incessant activity by consuming 
 selfishness and vanity. Men for the most part are 
 anxious to be used ; the man who sets out with the idea 
 of using them has the first great requisite of success.* 
 
 * In a recently published and very interesting work on the Lords 
 Strangford, by Mr. E. B. de Fonblanque, we get some glimpses of the 
 disgust with which the parents of Lord John Manners and Mr. 
 Smythe regarded their alliance with Mr. Disraeli. " I lament," 
 writes the Duke of Rutland, father of Lord John Manners, to Lord 
 Ktrangford, father of Mr. Smythe, on September 6, 1844, " I lament 
 as much as you can do the influence which Mr. Disraeli has acquired 
 over several of the young British senators, and over your son and 
 mine especially. I do not know Mr. Disraeli by sight, but I have
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 223 
 
 We can see of what service Mr. Smythe could be 
 to Mr. Disraeli. He was nobly born, and had troops 
 of powerful friends. Then he was evidently highly 
 cultured, enthusiastic, and honest ; in short, the very 
 ideal of the cloak behind which the cunjuror could 
 prepare his apparatus and tricks of political legerdemain. 
 
 When the Morning Chronicle was purchased by the 
 friends of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Smythe became one of 
 its most frequent contributors. Probably he found that 
 he was more adapted by nature for literature than for 
 politics. Anyway, he appears to have become more and 
 more taciturn in Parliament as he increased his literary 
 activity. " Mr. Disraeli," writes Lady Strangford,* 
 
 respect only for his talents, which I think he sadly misuses. " 224. 
 " It is grievous," writes his lordship again, " that two young 
 men such as John and Mr. Smythe should he led by one of whose 
 integrity of purpose I have an opinion similar to your own, though 
 I can judge only by his public career. The admirable character 
 of our sons only makes them the more assailable by the arts of a 
 designing person. I will write to John to-morrow, and I shall inquire 
 of him whether there is any truth in the report of his having engaged 
 himself to a great dinner at Manchester under the presidency of 
 Mr. Disraeli." Ibid. 225. The meeting alluded to was that of the 
 Manchester Athenaeum (October 3, 1844), at which Mr. Disraeli 
 delivered the inaugural address. Both Lord John Manners and Mr. 
 Smythe had promised to support him by their presence there. The 
 foregoing letter shows the efforts made to keep the one away. The 
 following from Mr. Smythe shows that equal trouble was taken to 
 induce him to have nothing to do with the glorification of Mr. 
 Disraeli : " My solemn word of honour is pledged to this Manchester 
 meeting to Disraeli, and my place is taken by the diligence for 
 two o'clock to-day ; but you shall decide if, having given my word 
 of honour to a man to whom I am under obligations, who knows 
 many of my secrets, and who .... whether I can get out of this 
 pledge and covenant." 1 bid. 226. 
 * Memoir, xxviu
 
 224 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 " regretted, or appeared to regret, this misplaced in- 
 dustry, for unhappily, from 1847 to 1852, his old friend 
 and pupil committed a sort of Parliamentary suicide, 
 and but rarely rose to speak." 
 
 In May, 1855, Mr. Smythe's father died, and he 
 became Lord Strangford the name by which he is 
 now remembered. During his later years he dropped 
 almost completely out of the political world; he did 
 not, I believe, speak even once in the House of Lords. 
 His health was always rather delicate; and he died 
 in November, 1857, when he had reached about his 
 fortieth year. 
 
 " Perhaps," writes Lady Strangford, " the best 
 summing-up of his life is the expression used by one of 
 the most worthy and now distinguished of his college 
 friends : ' George Smythe was a splendid failure? "* 
 
 As much of what Mr. Smythe wrote appeared anony- 
 mously, or treated of passing subjects, the world knows 
 but little of the work he has done. 
 
 A volume of essays and poems, and a novel pub- 
 lished gome years after his death are all that one can 
 find in the catalogues. 
 
 Angela Pisani," the novel, was praised with, I 
 believe, unanimity. " Historic Fancies," published in 
 1844, was the title of Mr. Smythe's contribution to the 
 literature of " Young England." The volume con 
 partly of verse, and partly of prose. This book is now 
 best remembered by a foolish reference to the old custom 
 of touching for the king's evil; but posterity thus does in-
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 22? 
 
 justice to one of the most interesting works ever written. 
 The verse and prose are both of a very high order of 
 merit. The analysis of character is strikingly acute ; 
 and the language frequently has a dramatic force and a 
 majestic flow that make it sound like an echo of Shake- 
 speare. Mr. Smythe's name is now almost forgotten, and 
 his works are unread ; but, in my judgment at least, 
 he was, as a literary artist, as immeasurably superior to 
 Lord Beaconsfield as Lord Beaconsfield is to Lord John 
 Manners. I have not space to give quotations in support 
 of this estimate; but those who may think it exagge- 
 rated I refer to Mr. Smythe's sketch of Mirabeau,* and 
 to the " Opposition Scene in the Last Century." f 
 
 The extracts I have given from Lady Strangford's 
 Memoir show sufficiently the hopes and aims with which 
 her husband joined the Tory party. Those hopes, as 
 probably nearly all the hopes of his life, were bitterly 
 disappointed. When Sir Robert Peel abandoned the 
 stupid and destructive creed of Protection, the Tory 
 party, in whose wisdom and popular leanings Lord 
 Strangford had so fondly believed, turned on its chief 
 and hooted him from power. What, we wonder, did 
 Lord Strangford think of the leader of the attack on 
 the converted statesman ? Let us hope that, among 
 Lord Strangford's papers, may be some day found an 
 analysis of the character of Lord Beaconsfield equal in 
 penetration of motive to his article on Mirabeau. 
 
 If there ever were a man whose training and ante- 
 cedents were calculated to give him opinions very much 
 " Historic Fancies," 197-8. t MM. 123-4. 
 
 15
 
 226 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the opposite of the opinions of Young England, that man 
 was Mr. Disraeli. We of this generation open our eyes 
 in sheer wonderment at the mere existence of persons 
 who could seriously hold and preach doctrines so fan- 
 tastic. But we are bound to make allowance for the 
 strange surroundings, times, and position of- some of 
 the Young Englanders. These were the days when 
 the religious, and, indeed, political world of England, 
 was stirred to its deepest depth by the then novel 
 portent of Tractarianism. The upheaval of accepted 
 doctrines in religion or politics has always led, we all 
 know, to extravagances. Luther produced the Ana- 
 baptists; the French Revolution produced a dozen 
 varieties of political insanity; and, similarly, Tracta- 
 rianism begat Yonng-Englandism. 
 
 But while this explains sufficiently the views of men 
 like Lord John Manners and George Smythe, it leaves 
 us still as much as ever in the dark about Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 We can understand how Lord John Manners could 
 have come to believe in the restoration of feudal rela- 
 tions between the landlord and the occupiers of the 
 soil. He was a nobleman, and the descendant of noble- 
 men ; he was the owner of acres, and the descendant of 
 owners of acres. It is intelligible that a man bred 
 in the stately halls of Belvoir Castle should, with the 
 self-confidence and kindliness of youth, have beli< i vo<l 
 in the vision of a return to olden, and, seen from the 
 heights above Grantham, more picturesque ways. 
 
 But Mr. Disraeli's training was almost the antithesis 
 of all this. He was the son of a Hebrew litterateur;
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 227 
 
 had sat at the desk in an attorney's office ; and had 
 passed through a youth of comparative poverty, if not 
 pecuniary embarrassment. 
 
 Again, we can understand the religious leanings of 
 Lord John Manners, when we remember his early sur- 
 roundings. Lord John Manners was a university 
 student at the time when some of the greatest minds 
 England has produced were teaching the Tractarian 
 gospel. Even a man of Lord John's lofty mental 
 calibre need not be ashamed of having been carried 
 away by the tide which swept along with it Pusey and 
 Keble, Froude and Williams, Newman and Manning. 
 The doctrines of those men, besides, were most per- 
 suasively recommended by their lives. Who could 
 believe that anything pernicious could issue from men 
 whose existence was devoted to the practice as well as 
 the teaching of virtue to whom their ideas were a 
 more prized possession than anything the world could 
 give? 
 
 Lord John Manners and Mr. Smythe were not, it is 
 true, brought under the direct influence of the foremost 
 apostles of Tractarianism, having been educated, not 
 at Oxford, but at Cambridge. But, of course, the in- 
 fluence of the words and acts of the leaders of a great 
 
 o 
 
 religious movement reached with almost its original 
 force from the one University to the other. 
 
 The teachers of Mr. Disraeli's early youth were very 
 different from those of the University students in Trac- 
 tarian days. Mr. Disraeli's earliest teacher was his 
 father ; and his father, we have seen, had a strong lean-
 
 228 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ing towards mere indifference in religion. But if he 
 were as zealous about the religious belief of his son, 
 as he appears to have been indifferent, would he have 
 taught his son the religious creed of Young England ? 
 A leaning towards Roman Catholic doctrine and Roman 
 Catholic ritual is the very last thing a Jewish father 
 would be inclined to give his child. 
 
 We know, too, that the character of many of Mr. 
 Disraeli's early teachers, as well as the moral atmo- 
 sphere he first breathed, were as different as possible 
 from those of the pupils of Pusey and Newman, and 
 their Cambridge followers. I have already, in an early 
 chapter, remarked upon the early influences to which 
 Mr. Disraeli was subjected, and will not again dilate 
 on that poini I will but observe that Mr. Disraeli was 
 brought in contact with the hardest and worst realities 
 of life from an early age ; that his father in God was 
 Samuel Rogers ; and that Lady Blessington, Count 
 D'Orsay, M. de Moray, Mr. Tom Duncombe, and Lord 
 Lyndhurst were not exactly the same kind of teachers 
 as Pusey, Newman, Keble, and Manning. 
 
 Finally, one of the foremost doctrines of Young 
 England as the name implies was that the salvation 
 of the country should come from its youth. That, 
 again, is a doctrine intelligible in Lord John Manners, 
 who in 1842 was but twenty-four years of age, and in 
 George Sydney Smythe, who in the same year was just 
 the same age. 
 
 In the case of Mr. Disraeli, however, it is more diffi- 
 cult of comprehension. The chief apostle of the gospel
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 229 
 
 of youth was no longer young. However, it will be 
 seen that this son of a plebeian taught feudalism, this 
 son of a Jew taught Ritualism, this man of thirty-seven 
 taught the creed of youth with as much zeal as the 
 most noble, the most Christian, and the youngest among 
 the Young Englanders. 
 
 " Coningsby," published in 1844, was the work in 
 which Lord Beaconsfield proposed to explain to the 
 world the dogmas of the new creed. It is a strange 
 book. Passages of brilliant wit alternate with pas- 
 sages of portentous dulness, and sometimes incredible 
 vacuity ; grave political discussions are jostled by 
 personal scandal ; and outrageously fashionable people 
 chatter in the same breath of the most sacred truths of 
 religion and the most frivolous topics of society. Mr. 
 Disraeli knew his market ; adapted his wares to it ; and 
 the book succeeded enormously. 
 
 Among the first personages we are introduced to are 
 Lord Monmouth and Mr. Rigby. Everybody knew 
 that Lord Hertford and Mr. John Wilson Croker were 
 portrayed under these names. The scandal-loving 
 world was of course delighted with an author who thus 
 gave them glimpses into the private life of a great 
 nobleman, who was immensely rich, terribly vicious, 
 and lived in a sort of Oriental privacy. And equally 
 great was the delight of malicious gossips, when, under 
 a fictitious name, they could see a well-known and not 
 much-loved politician receive the sharpest stabs at his 
 private and public character. 
 
 Those who wish to be helped in their estimate of
 
 330 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield as an artist and as a man, will ilo 
 well to read "Vanity Fair" immediately after they 
 have read " Coningsby." As everybody knows, Lord 
 Hertford sat for Thackeray as well as for Lord Beacons- 
 field : the Marquis of Steyne and Lord Monmouth 
 are meant to represent the same being. Lord Mon- 
 mouth is one of Lord Beaconsfield's most finished and 
 most successful creations ; but what a poor, unreal 
 puppet he is by the side of Lord Steyne ! And still 
 more remarkable is the difference between the manner 
 in which the two authors view the vices of their crea- 
 tions. Where in Lord Beaconsfield's work is that sceva 
 indignatio, that loathing of vice and selfishness, which 
 burn through the words of Thackeray ? You can see 
 that Thackeray, who was a man of heart, of earnest and 
 true nature, as well as an artist, hates, and means you 
 to hate, the thing he describes. So far as you can 
 judge from " Coningsby," Lord Beaconsfield might 
 have considered Lord Monmouth rather an estimable 
 person. 
 
 The satirist who has a bitter word for everybody, is 
 not an agreeable person, but he may be very honest 
 and very independent ; and honesty and independence 
 cover a multitude of sins. But the man is a very 
 different kind of being who, while he assails merci- 
 lessly the weak, and those he dislikes, at the same time 
 lawns upon the powerful and those who can serve 
 him. When "Coningsby" was written, Mr. Wilson 
 Croker had for many years retired from political life; 
 he was thus a tolerably safe target for attack, and
 
 \OUNG ENGLAND. 231 
 
 accordingly we find Lord Beaconsfield lavishing his 
 satire upon him with an unsparing hand. But Lord 
 Lonsdale was a great nobleman, of vast wealth, long 
 lineage, and in 1844, as throughout the greater part 
 of his life, one of the most influential leaders of the 
 Tory party. To Lord Lonsdale, accordingly, Lord 
 Beaconsfield unceasingly offers incense. We are told 
 of Lord Lonsdale who is disguised under the name 
 of Lord Eskdale that he was "a noble Croesus, ac- 
 quainted with all the gradations of life ; " "a voluptuary 
 who could be a Spartan ;" that he wa.s "clear-sighted, 
 unprejudiced, sagacious;" "a quarrel about a bet or 
 a mistress was solved by him in a moment, and in 
 a manner which satisfied both parties;"* and so on 
 through several sentences more of abject, though artisti- 
 cally arranged flattery. 
 
 It will not be necessary to more than briefly allude 
 to many of the political discussions in " Coningsby." We 
 have the condemnation of the Reform Act, with which 
 the reader is now familiar : many of the subterfuges 
 and fallacies of the " Vindication " reappear under a 
 different garb. Our old friend the " Estate " again 
 advances to us; we have once more the audacious 
 argument that the House of Lords and the House of 
 Commons are equally representative of the country; and 
 we have pages about "perverted views of Toryism,"f 
 " pseudo-Tories," J and the rest. 
 
 On all the Tory leaders of the early part of this 
 century Mr. Disraeli pours forth unmeasured abuse. 
 
 * " Coningsby," new edition, 25. f Ibid. 66. J Hid. 68.
 
 232 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Mr. Vansittart is ridiculed,* so are Lord Sidmouthf and 
 Lord CastlereaghjJ and Lord Liverpool is dismissed 
 as an arch-mediocrity. But amid all this desert of 
 abuse there is an oasis of eulogium. The bare mention 
 of Sir Robert Peel is sufficient to send Mr. Disraeli 
 into an ecstasy of praise. He is a "distinguished 
 personage ;" || those who attribute to him sinister 
 intentions in 1834, make these charges, "not only 
 in ignorance of the personal character but of the 
 real position of the future Minister."1T "At last he 
 came," writes the author of "Coningsby," speaking 
 of Peel's accession to office in 1834; "the great man 
 in a great position, summoned from Rome to govern 
 England." ** And so Mr. Disraeli proceeds in untiring, 
 unsparing, indecent adulation. 
 
 One of the chief characters in " Coningsby " is a Jew 
 named Sidonia. It is not exactly known whom Lord 
 Beaconsfield meant to describe, but we are asked io be- 
 lieve that he is a wonderful person indeed ; and so there 
 is an impression that Lord Beaconsfield wished Sidonia 
 to stand for himself. Of the many harangues which 
 Sidonia delivers, I can only give the merest sketch. 
 In one famous discourse, he proves by a long catalogue 
 of names that all men of genius had attained greatness 
 in youth ; ft in another passage, it is demonstrated in 
 an equally satisfactory manner that all men of genius 
 were Jews. \\ A remarkable feature in Sidonia is 
 
 Ibid. 70. J Ibid. (I Ibid. 66. ** Ibid. 94. 
 
 t Ibid. Ibid. 71. j Ibid. 67. ft Ibid. 118120. 
 
 ^ IbM. 249253.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 233 
 
 his dissatisfaction with the most cherished English 
 institutions. For Parliamentary government, in par- 
 ticular, he has the most unspeakable scorn. " Parlia- 
 mentary representation," he declares, "was the happy 
 device of a ruder age, to which it was admirably 
 adapted, an age of semi-civilization, when there was 
 a leading class in the community; but it exhibits 
 many symptoms of desuetude." * 
 
 This was written in 1844, and was apparently wildly 
 untrue. It is one, however, of the many advantages we 
 have reaped from the Premiership of Lord Beaconsfield, 
 that some of the wildest and worst prophecies of Mr. 
 Disraeli have been fulfilled to the letter. The annex- 
 ation of Cyprus and the assumption of a protectorate 
 in Asia, without any consultation of Parliament, cer- 
 tainly show that, in the eyes of one man at least, 
 Parliamentary representation is the "happy device of 
 a ruder age ; " and the fact that the Parliament, so con- 
 temned, approved of its humiliation, certainly raises the 
 suspicion that Parliamentary representation "exhibits 
 many symptoms of desuetude." 
 
 A natural consequence of disbelief in the virtues of 
 Parliament is an equally strong admiration of absolute 
 government. 
 
 "In an enlightened age," exclaims Sidonia in one 
 passage, "the Monarch on the throne, free from the 
 vulgar prejudices, and the corrupt interests of the 
 subject, becomes again divine." f 
 
 " The only power," says Mr. Disraeli, through 
 * Ibid. 355. f IMd. 303.
 
 234 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Coningsby, the hero of his book, " that lias no class 
 sympathy is the Sovereign." * 
 
 " The proper leader of the people," declares this same 
 character elsewhere, "is the individual who sits upon 
 the throne." f 
 
 In order to explain to us some of the other points in 
 the "Young England" creed, the author of "Coningsby" 
 introduces us to the family of the Duke of Beaumanoir. 
 Under this title the Duke of Rutland was represented, 
 and Belvoir Castle is disguised nnder the name of Beau- 
 manoir. We are introduced, besides, to Lord John 
 Munners, under the disguise of Lord Henry Sydney; 
 and we also make the acquaintance of several female 
 members of the Duke's family. 
 
 Here, again, let us remark what an advantage it was 
 to our nobility that Mr. Disraeli was their friend. We 
 have seen how Mr. Disraeli clothes gome noblemen in 
 more than earthly beauty how he endows them with 
 intellects of superhuman sagacity, and with that un- 
 shakeable equanimity which the nobleman so fondly 
 loves to affect, and will, therefore, most gladly hear he 
 possesses. 
 
 Nay, Mr. Disraeli has done more; he has even told 
 the world how wicked these lords of creation are: thus 
 at a double stroke gaining the hearts of the noblemen, 
 who don't object to the reputation of viciousuess, and of 
 the shopboys and milliners, whose dearest delight is to 
 have glimpses of the bad doings of the aristocrats. In 
 some other passages in " Coningsby " and others of hi" 
 Ibid. 353. t Ibid. 854.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 235 
 
 works, Mr. Disraeli ventures further into the literary 
 arena of Jenkins and the London Journal. Not satis- 
 fied with describing the male nobility, our author draws 
 with fervour the beauty, the grace, the tenderness, etc., 
 etc., etc., of the female members of our noble families. 
 What a delightful creature dear Mr. Disraeli must have 
 appeared to Lady Julia, whose brow he had described 
 as whiter than Parian marble! And then, too, the 
 wicked man, to make her the heroine of a romance ! 
 What right had he to say all the men were in love with 
 her, etc., etc., etc. Why, where was poor Jenkins now, 
 since this rival vendor of printed flattery had come into 
 the market. Get thee hence, Jenkins ! you can only 
 give us a plain paragraph in the Morning Post, while 
 our dear Mr. Disraeli 
 
 And, of course, Mr. Disraeli gained the hearts of the 
 fathers, husbands, and brothers of those ladies. Though 
 Mr. Disraeli's dukes were clothed in the Sphinx-like 
 impenetrability that he attributes sometimes to them, 
 and generally assumes himself, yet would their vanity 
 be reached by the delicate compliments paid to their 
 female belongings. 
 
 In any case, Mr. Disraeli was determined that our 
 nobility, however it was done, should be got at. We 
 are, therefore, favoured not only with a description of 
 the merits of our nobles, male and female we also have 
 pages devoted to glowing accounts of the extent of their 
 ancestral acres and the splendour of their ancestral halls. 
 Their furniture is described with the lingering delight 
 and the pathetic extravagance of a George Robins, and
 
 236 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the glories of their dinners are sung with the gusto of a 
 pastrycook. 
 
 I think I can leave the reader to form his own esti- 
 mate of a nature that delights in such work. 
 
 The chief object of flattery in " Coningsby " is, as 
 I have said, the Beaumanoir or Rutland family. It is 
 strange that Mr. Disraeli should have chosen the Duke 
 of Rutland, above all others, for the object of his adu- 
 latory description. We have seen that the feelings of 
 his lordship to Mr. Disraeli were those of dislike and 
 distrust. The Duke, to use the words of one of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's ablest critics,* "deplores to one corre- 
 spondent the connection of Lord John Manners with 
 Lord Beaconsfield, much as the father of Lord Frederick 
 Verisopht might have lamented his son's addiction to 
 the society of Sir Mulberry Hawk." Of course Mr. 
 Disraeli was perfectly aware of the repulsion he excited. 
 One can fancy how poor Lord John Manners must have 
 whispered, with blushes and sighs, into the eager ears 
 of Mr. Disraeli, who was using him and laughing at 
 him, the lectures he had to endure at home for his 
 intimacy with "a designing person." But, as I hav<> 
 noted already, the only effect upon Mr. Disraeli of 
 finding that a useful person disliked him was to make 
 him lay on the flattery still more thickly. Their love 
 or loathing was all the same to him, provided he could 
 flatter, or shame, or bully them into helping him. 
 
 And now let us give an extract or two from the 
 
 " The Political Adventures of Lord Beaconsfield." Fortnightly 
 Review, N. S., cxzxviii. 883-4.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 237 
 
 conversations at Beaumanoir, which enunciate the 
 doctrines of " Young England/' 
 
 " ' Henry thinks,' said Lord Everingham, 'that the people are 
 to be fed by dancing round a May-pole.' 
 
 " ' But will the people be more fed because they do not dance 
 round a May-pole ? ' urged Lord Henry. 
 
 " 'Obsolete customs ! ' said Lord Everingham. 
 
 " 'And why should dancing round a May-pole be more obso- 
 lete than holding a Chapter of the Garter? ' asked Lord Henry. 
 
 " The Duke, who was a blue ribbon, felt this a home-thrust. 
 * I must say,' said his Grace, ' that I for one deeply regret that 
 our popular customs have been permitted to fall so into de- 
 suetude. ' 
 
 "'The spirit of the age is against such things,' said Lord 
 Everingham. 
 
 ' ' ' And what is the spirit of the age 1 ' asked Coningsby. 
 ' " ' The spirit of utility,' said Lord Everingham." * 
 
 This Lord Everingham is a Whig, and is meant to 
 represent the odious and prosaic sense of that party 
 in opposition to the high-souled and poetic gospel of the 
 party to which Mr. Disraeli and his friends belonged. 
 Mr. Lyle, a Roman Catholic, is another representative 
 of " Young England ; " mark what this fellow-believer 
 of Mr. Disraeli has done : 
 
 "As they approached the brow of the hill that hung over St. 
 Genevieve, they heard the great bell sound. 
 
 " ' What is that ? ' asked the Duchess. 
 
 "'It is almsgiving day,' replied Mr. Lyle, looking a little 
 embarrassed, and for the first time blushing ; ' the people of the 
 parishes with which I am connected come to St. Genevieve twice 
 a week at this hour.' " f 
 
 * " Coningsby," new edition, 134. Ibid. 144.
 
 238 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 And here is another delicious passage : 
 
 " ' Eoerything has gone by that is beautiful,' said Lord Henry. 
 
 " ' Life is much easier,' said Lord Everingham. 
 
 " ' Life easy ! ' said Lord Henry. ' Life appears to me to be a 
 fierce struggle.' 
 
 " 'Manners are easy,' said Coningsby, ' and life is hard.' 
 
 " ' And I wish to see things exactly the reverse.' said Lord 
 Henry, ' the means and modes of subsistence less difficult, the 
 conduct of life more ceremonious.'" * 
 
 I have remarked that one of the characteristics of 
 " Coningsby," and, indeed, of most of Lord Beacons- 
 field's works, is the facility with which people pass 
 without a second's interval from the most sacred to 
 the most frivolous subjects. A discussion on a now 
 religion is followed by a discussion on a new fashion 
 in bonnets; and a ponderous dissertation on political 
 philosophy is interrupted by an invitation to dance. 
 The conversation just quoted is a specimen of this 
 feature in Mr. Disraeli's style. We will give another: 
 
 " 'One sees our host to great advantage in his own house. 1 
 said Lady Everingham. ' He is scarcely the same person. I 
 have not observed him once blush. He speaks and moves 
 with ease. It is a pity that he is not more graceful. Above all 
 things, Hike a graceful man.' 
 
 " ' That chapel,' said Coningsby, ' was a fine thing.' 
 
 " ' Very,' said Lady Everingham. ' Did you observe the picture 
 over the altar the Virgin witii blue eyes ? I never observed blue 
 eyes before in such a picture. What is your fawnirite colour for 
 eyesf 
 
 " Coningsby felt embarrassed ; he said something rather point- 
 less about admiring everything that is beautiful. 
 
 " But every one has a favourite style ; I want to know yours. 
 
 * Ibid. 141-2.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 239 
 
 Regular features do you like regular features ? Or is it ex- 
 pression that pleases you ? ' 
 
 " ' Expression ; I think I like expression. Expression must 
 be always delightful.' 
 
 '"Do you dance?' 
 
 " ' No ; I am no great dancer. I fear I have few accomplish- 
 ments. I am fond of fencing.' " * 
 
 And so on. One quotation more : 
 
 " ' I have immense faith in the new generation,' said Millbank 
 eagerly. 
 
 " ' It is a holy thing to see a State saved by its youth,' said 
 Coningsby ; and then he added, in a tone of humility, if not of 
 depression, ' but what a task ! What a variety of qualities, 
 what a combination of circumstances, is requisite ! What bright 
 abilities, and what noble patience ! What confidence from the 
 people, what favour from the Most High ! ' 
 
 "'But He will favour us,' said Millbank. "And I say to 
 you, as .ftii f han said unto David, "Thou art the man ! ' . ... 
 
 " ' Heaven is above all,' said Coningsby." f 
 
 This, then, was the way in which England was to be 
 regenerated: a docile people was to be led by a uni- 
 versally benevolent aristocracy; alms were to be dis- 
 tributed freely; the Government of the State was to be 
 transferred from old age and experience to youths of 
 genius; and everybody was to be pious and gentle, and 
 smiling and prosperous. The phantasmagoria is more 
 like the topsyturvy dream of one of Mr. W. S. Gilbert's 
 ingenious comedies than anything in real life. Stranger 
 than everything else in the ridiculous farce is the figure 
 by whom it is put on the stage. Fancy Mr. Disraeli, 
 of all men, preaching a gospel of Christianity and 
 feudalism, of lofty piety and trustful youth ! The pio 
 * Ibid. 143. f EM. 359-60.
 
 240 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ture is certainly one of the strangest in all the annals of 
 mountebankery. 
 
 I now gladly take farewell of " Coningsby." * There 
 is in the course of the novel a love story, told with much 
 rhodomontade. With this I have not thought it neces- 
 sary to trouble the reader. 
 
 * The following critique on " Coningsby," which I have the best 
 authority for stating was written by Thackeray, will be read with 
 interest. It appeared in the Pictorial Times of May 25, 1844. 
 Coningsby; or, Tlus New Generation. By B. Disraeli. Esq., M.P. 
 Colburn. " If this book do not become popular, what other novel 
 has a chance ? ' Coningsby ' possesses all the happy elements of popu- 
 larity. It is personal, it is witty, it is sentimental, it is outrageously 
 fashionable. Charmingly malicious, exquisitely novel, seemingly very 
 deep, but in reality very easy of comprehension, and admirably absurd; 
 for you do not only laugh at the personages whom the author holds 
 up to ridicule, but you laugh at the author too, whose coxcombries are 
 incessantly amusing. They are quite unlike the vapid, cool cox- 
 combries of an English dandy ; they are picturesque, wild, and out. 
 rageous; and as the bodily Disraeli used to be seen some years ago 
 about town arrayed in green velvet inexpressibles with a gold stripe 
 down the seam, an ivory cane, and for what we know a peacock's 
 feather in his hat Disraeli the writer in like manner assumes a mag- 
 nificence never thought of by our rigid northern dandies, and astonishes 
 by a luxury of conceit which is quite oriental. He paints his own 
 portrait in this book in the most splendid fashion. It is the queerest 
 in the whole queer gallery of likenesses : he appears as the greatest 
 philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest horseman, the greatest 
 statesman, the greatest rouS in the world ; with all the qualities of 
 Pitt, and Byron, and Burke, and the great Mr. Widdicomb, of Batty's 
 amphitheatre. Perhaps one is reminded of the last-named famous 
 individual more than of a.ny other. The book has kept the town in talk 
 for a whole week past. The circulating libraries are dunned for copies ; 
 the volumes are snatched off the tables of the club reading-rooms, and 
 everybody recognizes everybody's portrait. The chief character of 
 the book, after the author's own, is that of the late Lord Hertford, 
 here figuring under the tide of the Marquis of Monmouth ; his friend 
 Lord Eskdale is no other than Lord Lonsdale ; Lord John Manners 
 apptft.-s as Lord Sydney ; and the house of the Duke of Rutland at
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 241 
 
 The second book in which Mr. Disraeli sought to 
 explain the doctrines of "Young England," was 
 Sybil." 
 
 " Next year (1845)," writes Mr. Disraeli, in the 
 General Preface to his works,* " in ' Sybil, or the Two 
 Nations,' I considered the condition of the people, and 
 
 Belyoir is recognized by everybody in the novel under its title of 
 Beaumanoir ; above all there is the great character of Rigby, in which 
 the Right Honourable John Wilson Croker is shown up in such a way 
 as must make him happy in his retirement to find that all the world 
 is so much amused by him. The way in which all the newspapers 
 have extracted the passages relative to Mr. Wilson Croker is quite 
 curious. The Chronicle began on Monday ; on Wednesday the Times 
 charitably followed ; on Thursday the Post gave the selfsame extracts ; 
 so that by this time every newspaper reader in the British empire has 
 perused the history of Mr. Rigby, and knows how he writes slashing 
 articles against women for preference, and how convenient a friend 
 he is to a great man. A better portrait of a parasite has never been 
 written since Juvenal's days, and we can fancy that even ages hence 
 people will read his book as a singular picture of manners and society 
 in our times. Brummel's life, lately published, will help the historian 
 to an acquaintance with the period, a couple of score of years previous ; 
 and the real history and the fictitious one will be found, we think, 
 alike profitable. What person is there in town or country, from the 
 squire down to the lady's maid, who will not be anxious to peruse a 
 work in which the secrets of high life are so exposed ? In all the 
 fashionable novels ever published, there is nothing so piquant or so 
 magnificently genteel. Every politician will read with avidity the 
 details are so personal. Whigs and Conservatives are abused with 
 such equal bitterness and truth, that in consideration of the manner 
 in which his neighbour is attacked, a man of either party will pardon 
 the onslaught made on his own friends. Lord John and Sir Robert 
 are both brought forward by this unblushing critic, and praised or 
 bullied, according to his notions, right and wrong. We shall not fore- 
 stall the reader's interest by extracting a single line from the volumes, 
 which, with all their philosophy and pertness. their wisdom and 
 absurdity, are such as cannot fail to interest him, and to make him 
 think and laugh, not only with the author but at him. Surely nothing 
 more ought to be requisite to make any novel popular." 
 * P. xiii. 
 
 16
 
 242 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 the whole work, generally speaking, was devoted to 
 that portion of my scheme. At that time the Chartist 
 agitation was still fresh in the public memory, and its 
 repetition was far from improbable. I had mentioned 
 to my friend, the late Thomas Duncombe, and who 
 was my friend before I entered the House of Com- 
 mons, something of what I was contemplating ; and he 
 offered and obtained for my perusal the whole of the 
 correspondence of Feargus O'Connor when conductor 
 of the Nortlwrn Star, with the leaders and chief actors 
 of the Chartist movement. I had visited and observod 
 with care all the localities introduced ; and as an 
 accurate and never exaggerated picture of a remark- 
 able period in our domestic history, and of a popular 
 organisation which in its extent and completeness lias 
 perhaps never been equalled, the pages of ' Sybil ' 
 may, I venture to believe, be consulted with con- 
 fidence." 
 
 The principal dramatis personoe in " Sybil " are 
 Gerard, a Chartist working man ; Sybil, his daughter ; 
 Mowbray, a Chartist editor ; Lord Marney, a typical 
 aristocrat ; and Egremont, Lord Marney's brother. 
 Egremont plays the same part in "Sybil" as Harry 
 Coningsby in the novel to which he gives his name. 
 He is the representative of Young-Englandism, and is, 
 as a natural result, handsome, chivalrous, enthusiastic, 
 profoundly philosophic, and also a natural result of 
 professing the creed of Young England he is young 
 and noble. Strangely enough, Mr. Egremont professes 
 exactly the same ideas, in almost exactly the same
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 243 
 
 words, as Mr. Disraeli. Therefore, those who did not 
 know Mr. Disraeli were quite at liberty to conclude that 
 he also was handsome, chivalrous, enthusiastic, pro- 
 foundly philosophic, young, and noble. 
 
 In " Sybil," even more than in " Coiiingsby," Mr. 
 Disraeli frequently falls into the melting mood of tender 
 regret for the past. Many of the passages vividly recall 
 verses from the immortal poem of Lord John Manners. 
 Thus, speaking of an abbey which had become the 
 property of Lord Marney, he exclaims : "And the 
 hymn was no more to be chaunted in the Lady's chapel ; 
 and the candles were no more to be lit on the high altar ; 
 and the gate of the poor was to be closed for ever ; and 
 the wanderer was no more to find a home." * 
 
 " Were there any rick-burners," asks Mr. Disraeli, " in 
 the times of the lord abbots ? And if not, why not ? 
 And why should the stacks of the Earls of Marney be 
 destroyed, and those of the abbots of Marney spared ? "f 
 
 Mr. Disraeli shows, in one of the passages quoted, 
 that love for a richer ritual, for greater independence 
 in the Church of State control, which were among the 
 most distinctive features of the Tractarian movement. 
 Again and again he recurs to the idea that the old 
 relations of Church and State were better than those of 
 modern days ; and again and again he expresses him- 
 self, and through the mouth of one of his favourite 
 characters a Ritualistic clergyman, St. Lys by name 
 a preference for the older forms of public worship. 
 
 " And even in the parish church" he writes, " the 
 * 68. New edition. t **"* 69
 
 244 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 frigid spell of Erastian self-complacency fatally pre- 
 vailed" * 
 
 " The Church deserted the people," he makes Mr. 
 St. Lys say, "and from that moment the Church has 
 been in danger and the people degraded. Formerly 
 religion undertook to satisfy the noble wants of human 
 nature, and by its festivals relieved the painful weariness 
 of toil. The day of rest was consecrated, if not always 
 to elevated thoughts, at least to sweet and noble senti- 
 ments. The Church convened to its solemnities, under its 
 splendid and almost celestial roofs, amid the finest monu- 
 ments of art that human hands have raised, the ichole 
 Christian population; for there, in the presence of God, 
 all were brethren. It shared equally among all its 
 prayers, its incense, and its music, its sacred instructions, 
 and the highest enjoyments that the arts could afford?' f 
 
 Apparently somewhat startled by this language, 
 one of the characters asks the enthusiastic clergyman, 
 "You believe, then, in the efficacy of forms and 
 ceremonies ? " 
 Mark the answer. 
 
 " What you call forms and ceremonies represent the 
 divinest instincts of our nature. Push your aversion to 
 forms and ceremonies to a legitimate conclusion, and 
 you would prefer kneeling in a barn rather than in a 
 cathedral. Your tenets would strike at the very exist- 
 ence of all art, which is essentially spiritual." J 
 
 A considerable portion of " Sybil" is taken up with 
 a description of the condition of the poorer classes. 
 * Ibid. 125. t Ibid. 129. J Ibid.
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 245 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield speaks, as has been seen, of these 
 descriptions as " accurate, and never exaggerated." 
 They appear to me, on the contrary, most inaccurate, 
 and certainly exaggerated ; unreal, spasmodic ; daubs, 
 not pictures. To quote the words of a famous critic,* 
 Lord Beaconsfield's pictures in " Sybil " "only show how 
 strongly and coarsely the painter can write, and are 
 obviously not the result of any genuine regard for the 
 poor and the afflicted." 
 
 Egremont, is I have said, is the representative of 
 Young England. His principal duty is to preach the 
 doctrines of the school in season and out of season. 
 The dogma on which he chiefly insists is that the poor 
 can only be rescued by the aristocracy. Addressing 
 Sybil, the Chartist's daughter, with whom he is in love, 
 this splendid young aristocrat exclaims, " You look 
 upon me as an enemy, as a natural foe, because I 
 am born among the privileged. / am a man, Sybil, 
 
 as well as a noble The world that exists is not 
 
 the world of which you have read ; the class that calls 
 itself your superior is not the same class as ruled in 
 the time of your fathers. There is a change in them 
 as in all other things, and I participate in that change. 
 I shared it before I knew you, Sybil ; and if it touched 
 me then, at least believe it does not influence me less 
 now." f 
 
 In giving the reply to this speech, we find Lord 
 Beaconsfield, for a moment, writing sense. Egremont's 
 
 * W. R. G., in Westminster Review, xliv. 142-3. 
 t Ibid. 319.
 
 246 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 piece of impertinent condescension, of which Lord 
 Beaconsfield or Jenkins could alone think admiringly, 
 is thus fitly answered by Lord Beaconsfield's heroine : 
 " ' If there be a change/ said Sybil, ' it is because in 
 some degree the people have learnt their strength.' " * 
 
 After this short gleam of independence and sense, 
 Lord Beaconsfield again lapses into flunkeyism and non- 
 sense. 
 
 " ' Ah ! dismiss from your mind those fallacious fancies,* 
 said Egremont. * The People are not strong; the People 
 never can be strong. Their attempts at self-vindication 
 
 will end only in their suffering and confusion 
 
 There is a day-spring in the history of this nation,' 
 this means, of course, the rise of Mr. Disraeli's Young 
 England party, ' which perhaps those only ivho are on 
 the mountain-tops can as yet recognize. You deem you 
 are in darkness, and I see a dawn. The new gene- 
 ration of the aristocracy of England are not tyrant--, 
 
 not oppressors, Sybil, as you persist in believing 
 
 Enough that their sympathies are awakened ; time and 
 thought will bring the rest. They are the natural lead rs 
 of the People, Sybil ; believe me, they are the only ones.' 1 " t 
 
 The reader will not forget that, in the debate on the 
 ^National Petition, Mr. Disraeli assumed a somewhat 
 novel attitude: that, while carefully abstaining from any 
 vote in favour of the Charter, he professed to have sym- 
 pathy with the Chartists. There is an exquisite passage 
 in " Sybil " in allusion to this episode in the Parliamen- 
 tary lift of the orator. Sybil is represented as reading 
 Ibid. 819-20. t
 
 YOUNG ENGLAND. 247 
 
 " a report of the debate in the House of Commons on 
 the presentation of the National Petition." * 
 
 " Yes ! " exclaims Lord Beaconsfield; " there was 
 one voice that had sounded in that proud Parliament, 
 that, free from the slang of faction, had dared to ex- 
 press immortal truths/' f Of course Lord Beaconsfield 
 meant himself when he wrote this passage, for he had 
 been alone in the way in which he had spoken of the 
 Chartists' Petition. He throws in "the voice of a 
 noble, who, without being a demagogue, had upheld 
 the popular cause," J but this is a very transparent 
 device. 
 
 Mark the effect which the oration of Mr. Disraeli or 
 Egremont, as he calls himself had on Sybil. 
 
 " With a heart not without emotion, with a kindling 
 cheek, and eyes suffused with tears, Sybil read the speech 
 of Egremont. She ceased ; still holding the paper with 
 one hand, she laid on it the other with tenderness, and 
 looked up to breathe as it were for relief. Before her 
 stood the orator himself" 
 
 These quotations, I think, sufficiently indicate the 
 character of " Sybil." The analysis of " Tancred," 
 the third of the Young England series of novels, will 
 be introduced more fitly further on. 
 
 * 2bid. 337. t Ibid. J Ibid. Jbil.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 
 
 I NOW resume the history of Lord Beaconsfield's Par- 
 liamentary career. At the point where I left off. Mr. 
 Disraeli was still the ardent and constant supporter of 
 Sir Robert Peel. I now approach the period when 
 enmity succeeded to professed friendship, and vehement 
 vituperation to unstinted adulation. 
 
 Probably, as has been observed by Mr. Francis in his 
 short biography of Mr. Disraeli, the hate of that gentle- 
 man to Sir Robert Peel had begun many a season before 
 he allowed it to appear. It is not improbable that rage 
 and disappointment were burning in his heart at the 
 very moment when words of praise were flowing from 
 his lips. Is Mr. Disraeli the man, with his overween- 
 ing conceit and vindictive nature, to forgive Sir Robert 
 Peel's neglect of him in 1841 ? After his years of 
 struggle for notoriety, after his industry in Parliament. 
 after all his energy in flattery, not to receive even an 
 under-secretaryship this was a never-to-be-forgiven 
 offence. 
 
 There can be little doubt that Sir Robert Peel adopted
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 249 
 
 means whether unintentionally or not to add fuel 
 to the flame of Mr. Disraeli's passion. As Mr. Francis 
 remarks, the Premier " on many occasions treated the 
 aspiring regenerator of the age with marked indiffer- 
 ence, if not contempt." * 
 
 Even the cold and passionless pages of Hansard bear 
 evidence of the " marked indifference, if not contempt," 
 with which Sir Robert Peel treated his "humble but 
 fervent supporter." When, for instance, in the month 
 of April of this session, Mr. Disraeli put several ques- 
 tions with the object of drawing from the English 
 Government a denunciation of Russian interference in 
 Turkey, the Premier dismissed his interrogator with 
 very scant courtesy, and even with some appearance of 
 irritation.! 
 
 Mr. Disraeli allowed his anger to smoulder from 
 April until August. In that month he for the first time 
 made a speech in direct antagonism to Sir Robert 
 Peel. The Premier had introduced one of those Irish 
 Coercion Bills with which Parliament is too familiar. 
 Thereupon Mr. Disraeli took up the cause of Ireland. 
 He began by saying that the Premier had in opposition 
 selected the Irish question as the ground of battle 
 between him and the Liberal Ministry; that he had 
 promised two measures of relief in particular : one on 
 the Municipal institutions, and the other on the 
 Registration of Ireland. But both these measures had 
 
 * " Critical Biography of the Eight Hon. B. Disraeli," by G. H. 
 Francis ; 50. 
 + See Hansard, 3 S. Ixviii. 859 and 1028-9.
 
 250 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 been abandoned ; and the " right hon. gentleman thus 
 admitted that his course while in opposition, as far as 
 this measure was concerned, was diametrically wrong, 
 and that those to whom he had been opposed had 
 acted correctly." The inference which Mr. Disraeli 
 drew from this was that " the followers and supporters 
 of the right hon. gentleman were now left to them- 
 selves." They were " plainly free from any bonds of 
 party on that subject, for the right hon. gentleman 
 himself had broken them ; " they " had a right they 
 were in fact bound to form their own opinion of what 
 they considered really, in the sincerity of their con- 
 viction, was most adapted to the advantage of the two 
 countries." * 
 
 This rencontre between Mr. Disraeli and his chief 
 was soon followed by another. And, as in an earlier 
 part of the session, the affairs of Servia supplied the 
 casus belli. The general nature of the questions of 
 Mr. Disraeli, and of Sir Robert Peel's replies, in 
 reference to that country, has been already described. 
 Mr. Disraeli's questions were not free from a spirit of 
 importunity, nor Sir Robert Peel's replies from a spirit 
 of contempt. On August 15th, Lord Palmferston 
 moved for papers in reference to Servia, and Mr. 
 Disraeli embraced the opportunity for taking his 
 revenge. When Sir Robert Peel had replied to Lord 
 Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli immediately rose, and criti- 
 cised with great freedom the Premier and his state- 
 ments. He reminded the House of the inquiry he had 
 * Hid. Ixxi. 431-2.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 251 
 
 made on the subject of the Premier " an inquiry 
 couched, he believed, in Parliamentary language, and 
 made with all that respect which he felt for -the right 
 hon. gentleman." To this inquiry, "the right hon. 
 gentleman replied with all that explicitness of which 
 he was a master, and all that courtesy which he 
 reserved only for his supporters." * 
 
 This was an excellent hit, for it struck at the points 
 in Sir Robert Peel's demeanour which were most 
 bitterly complained of Mr. Disraeli compliments Sir 
 Robert Peel on his explicitness, the most frequent 
 charge against him being that his answers were vague, 
 evasive, and disguised that he sould never, in i'act, 
 
 * Ibid. 835. It will not be without interest to give a farther quo- 
 tation from Mr. Disraeli's speech on the Eastern question. He 
 maintained that it was the duty of England to maintain the in- 
 dependence and integrity of the Turkish empire, and that ' that 
 independence and integrity were endangered by the late conduct of 
 the British Ministry" in allowing any Intervention of Russia in 
 Servia. "What, then." asked Mr. Disraeli, "ought to be their" 
 the Ministerial " policy 1 To maintain Turkey in that state by 
 their diplomatic action, that she might be able to Iwld independently 
 the Dardanelles. That, however, could never be the case, if the 
 policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Servia (but 
 he hoped in no other case) was to be pursued. It was useless for 
 them to pretend to disguise from themselves the state of Turkey. 
 Turkey was prostrate ; but not so much from natural decline, as 
 from having been, as it were, stabbed in the back. It was the 
 diplomacy of Europe during the last twenty years that had reduced 
 Turkey to her present fallen state not the decline of her resources. 
 They mere still unequalled." Hansard, 3 S. Ixxi. 836 838. I 
 will pause for but a moment in this place to call the reader's atten- 
 tion to the remarkable constancy with which Lord Beaconsfield has 
 maintained his love for the people, to whom civilisation owes the 
 transformation of lands flowing with milk and honey into scenes of 
 bloodshed and desolation.
 
 252 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 be got to give a straightforward answer to a plain 
 question. And Mr. Disraeli compliments Sir Robert 
 on " that courtesy which he reserved only for his 
 supporters," the commonest complaint against the 
 Premier being that he was polite to his opponents, 
 and insultingly haughty to his friends. Mr. Disraeli 
 was a skilful hand at fanning the flames of discontent. 
 
 This strong attack on the Government fulfilled Mr. 
 Disraeli's highest expectations ; for it drew upon him 
 a large amount of notice from both his own and the 
 opposite side. Lord Sandon, one of the Ministers, 
 denounced his speech as " heaping the grossest terms 
 of contumely and opprobrium on those whom " he 
 " affected to serve." Such conduct was, the noble 
 lord declared, "not seemly." Thereupon, Mr. Disraeli 
 had the rare luck of being defended by Mr. Joseph 
 Hume, Mr. Curteis, another Liberal member, by Mr. 
 George Smythe, his colleague in Young-Englandism, 
 and, better than all, by Lord Palmerston. In fact, he 
 and his speech became the subject of a little debate.* 
 
 In the session of 1844, Irish questions again formed a 
 prominent subject of debate. The state of Ireland had 
 become alarming. O'Connell's agitation for Repeal of 
 the Union had in 1843 assumed gigantic proportions. 
 Meetings, attended by hundreds of thousands, had 
 assembled in different parts of the country, and the time 
 seemed to have arrived when the Irish people would 
 either obtain their demands, or burst forth into a violent 
 movement. The Government of Sir Robert Peel 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxi. 8i2 81A.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 253 
 
 determined on a resort to force, and the measures they 
 adopted deserve the credit of being most ingeniously 
 calculated to drive to madness an already exasperated 
 nation. First, language of the most insulting character 
 was employed against the Irish people and their religion, 
 not only by the rank and file, but even by the leaders of 
 the party in power. Then troops were poured into the 
 country until all Ireland had become one great barrack ; 
 and, finally, one of O'Connell's meetings was pro- 
 hibited under circumstances of the greatest exasperation. 
 Under these circumstances, Lord John Russell brought 
 in a motion for inquiry into the state of Ireland. An 
 important debate, which extended over several nights, 
 ensued, and on the fourth night of the debate (February 
 16th) Mr. Disraeli spoke. The speech, compared with 
 what Lord Beaconsfield had been before and has been 
 since, is a very extraordinary one ; and the inference 
 I am inclined to draw from it is that he at this time 
 had begun to despair of receiving anything from the 
 Conservatives, and was contemplating the transfer of 
 his honest services to the Liberals. His speech was 
 certainly in direct contradiction to all the principles 
 of Toryism which the party had up to that time pro- 
 fessed ; and, what is still more important, to all those 
 principles of Toryism on which he himself afterwards 
 acted when he became the Tory chief. 
 
 He denounced the " union of Church and State ^ as 
 " opposed by the Irish people." * 
 
 " He wanted," he said further on, " to see a public 
 * Ibid. 3 S. 1y*ij. 1012-13.
 
 254 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 man come forward and say what the Irish question was. 
 One said it was a physical question, another a spiritual 
 question. Now, it was the absence of the aristocracy ; 
 then the absence of railroads. It was the Pope one 
 day ; potatoes, the next Let them consider Ireland as 
 they would any other country similarly situated, in 
 their closets. Then they would see a teeming popula- 
 tion, which, with reference to the cultivated soil, was 
 denser to the square mile than that of China created 
 solely -by agriculture, with none of those sources of 
 wealth which are developed with civilization, and sus- 
 tained consequently upon the lowest conceivable diet, so 
 that in case of failure they had no other means of 
 subsistence upon which they could fall back. That 
 dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island 
 where there was an Established Church which was not 
 their Church ; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of 
 whom lired in distant capitals. Thus they had a stari-imj 
 population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Churchy 
 and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world." * 
 " That was," proceeded the orator, " the Irish question. 
 Well, then, what would hon. gentlemen say if they were 
 reading of a country in that position ? They would say 
 at once ' the remedy is revolution.' But the Irish could 
 not have a revolution ; and why ? Because Ireland was 
 connected with another and more powerful country. 
 Then what was the consequence ? The connexion with 
 iand thus became the cause of the present state of 
 Ireland. If the connexion with England prevented a 
 Ibid. 1016.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 255 
 
 revolution, and a revolution were the only remedy 
 England logically was in the odious position of being 
 the cause of all the misery in Ireland. What, then, was 
 the duty of an- English Minister? To effect by his 
 policy all those changes which a revolution would do by 
 force. That was the Irish question in its integrity."* 
 
 The reader will by-and-by see this remarkable speech 
 alluded to in a very remarkable manner on a memorable 
 occasion ; and he will likewise see how Mr. Disraeli, as 
 an official, treated this utterance of his unofficial days. 
 For the present, let me simply point out that on all the 
 Irish questions then so bitterly dividing the English 
 parties Mr. Disraeli pronounces distinctly Liberal as 
 opposed to Conservative doctrines. I have suggested 
 that at this period Mr. Disraeli was contemplating 
 vaguely and indefinitely, of course still another trans- 
 formation : that, as a change in the political horizon 
 had formerly induced him to abandon Radicalism foi 
 Conservatism, so now another change in his political 
 prospects suggested the abandonment of the Conservative 
 and a return to the Radical creed. By this time he had 
 abandoned probably all hope of getting anything from 
 Peel ; nor was there any sign at this moment of the 
 advent of that rupture in Peel's ranks which Lord 
 Beaconsfield afterwards employed to Peel's destruction. 
 Probably, then, he was thinking whether he might not 
 make his peace with the Liberals and the Liberal leader. 
 Of this view of the intentions of this speech, I find 
 strong confirmation in an allusion to Lord John Russell, 
 Ibid.
 
 256 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Liberal leader. The allusion is apparently casual 
 and accidental ; but scarcely anything of a personal 
 character that Lord Beaconsfield says, is said accidently, 
 or without deep purpose. Behind almost every syllable 
 that drops from Lord Beaconsfield, however carelessly, 
 or lightly, or accidentally, whether with the appearance 
 of calmness or with that of passion, one can see the 
 cold brain of almost superhuman perception, working 
 patiently, ceaselessly, remorselessly, at the problem of 
 advancing the interests of that brain's owner. 
 
 " With regard," said Mr. Disraeli in the speech from 
 which I have been quoting, " With regard to the pro- 
 posal of the noble lord (Lord John Russell), if the noble 
 lord, or any other hon. member, came forward with a 
 comprehensive plan which would certainly settle the 
 question of Ireland, no matter what the sacrifice might 
 be, he (Mr Disraeli) would support it, though he )ni>//tt 
 afterwards feel it necessary to retire from Parliament, 
 or to place his seat again at the disposal of his consti- 
 tuency" * 
 
 I do not think I am putting a forced construction on 
 this passage in suggesting that it points to an incli- 
 nation on the part of Mr. Disraeli to prepare the way 
 for another scene in his political pantomime.t 
 
 The ingenuous reader will not, I hope, raise the 
 
 Ibid. 1013-14. 
 
 f In the course of the speech with which I have been just dealing, 
 tit. Disraeli, after he had stated that he represented " the oldest 
 Tory constituency in the country," claimed to have already succeeded 
 In weeding from their minds some most inveterate Whig prejudices. 
 " Last year," he went on, " for example, when he was told that he
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 257 
 
 objection to this suggestion of an intended change in 
 Mr. Disraeli of his allegiance from Sir Robert Peel to 
 Lord John Russell, that he had for years previous to 
 this inflicted on the one his most abject flattery and on 
 the other his most virulent abuse. It is true that he 
 had called Peel " the only hope of a suffering people/' 
 and Lord John Russell a man of " a strong ambitioiz 
 and a feeble intellect." It is true that he had talked 
 
 had lost his seat because he had supported the right hon. gentleman 's 
 tariff, he went down to see his friends in the country, and explained 
 the history of England to them, and he could assure the House that 
 after that they took the most enlightened mews upon the subject, and 
 mere proud to recur to old Tory principles of commerce." I have not 
 quoted this passage merely to give a further example of that astonishing 
 modesty which is one of Lord Beaconsfield's most prominent charac- 
 teristics ; I had the more important purpose in view of drawing atten- 
 tion to the speech to his constituents, of which mention is made in 
 the passage quoted. The speech was delivered at the dinner of the 
 Plough Club, in Shrewsbury, in May 1843. I have carefully but 
 vainly looked for any historical information in the address ; the 
 greater part of it is mere election blague about our glorious prin- 
 ciples, our territorial constitution, and so forth. One really wonders, 
 in reading the speech, how any man could condescend to talk such 
 rubbish. And still more one wonders how any one could be deceived 
 by language so plainly insincere. The speech is really as much a 
 burlesque of the oratory for Tory farmers as the speech of Serjeant 
 Buzfuz is of the oratory of lawyers. Amid the mass of blague, how 
 ever, we find some matter that has an interest for us ; that is to say, 
 we find a good deal about Sir Robert Peel, and about Mr. Disraeli's 
 support of Peel's Free Trade Corn Bill and Tariff of 1842. These, 
 Mr. Disraeli declared, he voted for as " wise and expedient measures." 
 " I voted," he says in another passage, " that Sir Robert Peel should 
 do that which nearly a quarter of a century before Lord Liverpool 
 had done, and which, nearly a quarter of a century before Lord 
 Liverpool's time, Mr. Pitt had done. (Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel 
 only followed the example of those eminent statesmen of those eminent 
 Conservative statesmen (cheers)" and so on. Now here is a point I 
 wish to draw particular attention to in this speech. Mr. Disraeli, in 
 allusion to this address, cays, as has been seen, that he had been 
 
 17
 
 258 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of Peel as one of "splendid talents" and "spotless 
 reputation/' while he had compared Russell to an 
 " insect." But I have written to little purpose if the 
 reader who has followed the narrative up to this point 
 requires to be told that the recollection of all this past 
 adulation and this past vituperation would not have 
 had the least influence in preventing Mr. Disraeli from 
 beginning to abuse the man whom he had praised, and 
 to praise him whom he had abused.* 
 
 threatened with the loss of his seat because he had supported Peel's 
 Tariff. And this is true, for the Shropshire Conservative, one of the 
 journals of Shrewsbury which had formerly supported Peel most 
 strongly, contained at this period as I have already mentioned {ante, 
 210-11, note) most bitter denunciations of Peel. The chief ground of 
 these denunciations was that the Premier had, in his Tariff and Corn 
 Act, abandoned the Protectionist principles which he had been raised 
 to power to defend. In other words, the Shropshire Conservative 
 brought against Peel the very same charge which, a few years later 
 on, Mr. Disraeli used with such crushing effect. But mark how, on 
 this occasion, Mr. Disraeli meets the chief article in his own and the 
 Shropthire Contercatiret indictment of Peel. fc It would have been 
 easy for me," said Mr. Disraeli, " as many others have done, to turn 
 round suddenly and say, here is the Minister of England, the man 
 whom the men of England hare put at the head of the great Con- 
 servative party ; he has gained power, and the moment he has gained 
 power he seems to hesitate whether he should carry into extreme 
 effect the principles we profess." (Hear, hear, from the Editor of 
 the Sliropthire Conservative.) " Hear, hear, says my hon. friend. 
 (Cheers.) My answer to him is this, that Sir Robert Peel it not the 
 wan to be carried into potver to be your tool! (Great cheers.) Ho 
 veill be your Minitter, but he rrill not be yow tool I (Applause.) " 
 SliropsJiirt Conservative, May 3, 1643. 
 
 * A writer from whom I have often quoted puts in effective juxta- 
 position the estimates given of Lord John Russell at different periods 
 by Lord Beaconslield. Having first quoted the epithets applied in the 
 Runnymede letters, the writer proceeds : " Later in Mr. Disraeli's 
 career, it became his cue to flatter Lord Russell as resolutely as in the 
 letters of Runnymefle he had bespattered him. In ' Coningsby,' his
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 259 
 
 Among the members of the House during this 
 session, and for some years afterwards, was a Mr. 
 Ferrand, who sat for Knaresborough. He was a Tory 
 of the most violent school, and was by no means 
 friendly to the existing Tory Cabinet, whose attach- 
 ment to Tory principles he considered decidedly luke- 
 warm. He seems to have had a boisterous, restless, 
 unreasoning nature, and he made himself principally 
 remarkable by speeches of the most violent and reckles? 
 
 1 strong ambition ' and ' dark and dishonourable intrigues ' are con- 
 verted into ' this moral intrepidity which prompts him ever to dare 
 that which his intellect assures him is politic. He is consequently at 
 the same time sagacious and bold in counsel ; as an administrator, he 
 is prompt and indefatigable.' The 'cold and inanimate tempera- 
 ment," the ' weak voice and minting manner,' the ' imbecile accents 
 that struggle for sound in the chamber, echoing but a few years back 
 with the glowing fervour of a Canning,' became ' physical deficiencies 
 which even a Demosthenic impulse could scarcely overcome.' But 
 these disadvantages detract little from the parliamentary influence of 
 a statesman who ' is experienced in debate, quick in reply, fertile in 
 resources, takes large views, and frequently compensates for a dry 
 and hesitating manner by the expression of those noble truths that 
 flash across the fancy, and rise spontaneously to the lips of men of 
 poetic temperament when addressing popular assemblies.' 'The 
 noble ' of the Runnymede letters ' who, with a historic name and no 
 fortune, a vast ambition and a baulked career, and soured, not to say 
 malignant, from disappointment,' offered ' prime materials for the 
 leader of a revolutionary faction,' becomes one whose ' private life of 
 dignified repute,' and 'the antecedents of whose birth and rank,' 
 added to the personal qualities before eulogised, made thebest leader the 
 Whigs have ever had or could have.' The ' individual ' of Runnymede, 
 ' who, on the principle that good vinegar is the corruption of bad 
 wine, has been metamorphosed from ' an incapable author ' into an 
 eminent politician,' becomes, in the biography of Lord George 
 Bentinck, an instance, along with Mr. Burke, ' Caius Julius,' and 
 Frederick the Great, of the union of pre-eminent capacity, both in 
 meditation and in action." " Political Adventures of Lord Beacont~ 
 Held" Fortnightly Review, cxxxviii., N. S., 875-6.
 
 26o LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 personal invective. In a debate on the Corn Law, he 
 would stand up to declare that Mr. Cobden grossly 
 ill-treated his employes, and roundly call the manu- 
 facturers a set of slave-drivers. In moments of greai 
 excitement, and after dinner, his speeches received 
 occasionally a good deal of applause from the more 
 rabid of his party ; but his sallies as a rule appear to 
 have evoked nothing but laughter half-amused, half- 
 contemptuous. 
 
 But though he might thus be contemned by other 
 people, Mr. Ferrand had the satisfaction of being taken 
 quite seriously by Mr. Disraeli. The future enemy of 
 Peel saw in this silly, bigoted, and tempestuous man 
 what he himself would call " the brooding elements " 
 of an active opposition. It is one of the secrets of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's success in life, as I have more 
 than once pointed out, that he has selected the proper 
 persons to be his tools. He has built his position, as 
 he told us he intended to do in " Vivian Grey," on 
 the mean passions of mean and foolish men. Mr. 
 Ferrand was an excellent specimen of the kind of 
 Conservative who could be played off against the Con- 
 servative chief, and the whole party which Mr. Disraeli 
 afterwards succeeded in dragging after him against 
 Peel consisted almost entirely of men of a Ferrand-like 
 type of mind and character. All that was good in the 
 Conservative party adhered to Peel ; all that was bad, 
 followed the lead of Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 Mr. Ferrand, like Mr. Disraeli, was great on the 
 Poor Law, and was fond of delivering excited harangues
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 261 
 
 to working men on the wrongs the new bastilles in- 
 flicted on the poor. Sir James Graham, then Home 
 Secretary, had the misfortune to come into collision 
 with the member for Knaresborough on his pet topic, 
 and was accordingly favoured with a large amount of 
 Mr. Ferrand's vituperation. Sir James Graham was 
 accused by Mr. Ferrand of having induced an Assistant 
 Poor Law Commissioner to draw up a false report, 
 and of having also induced Mr. Hogg, then member 
 for Beverley, to give a partial vote at an Election 
 Petition Committee, of which he was chairman. 
 
 In making a sort of defence for Mr. Ferrand, Mr. 
 Disraeli took an opportunity of striking a blow at the 
 Premier. In the previous session a painful scene had 
 taken place between the Premier and Mr. Cobden. 
 
 The terrible distress of the year 1842 produced a 
 great deal of political discontent. As is often the case 
 in such moods of the public mind, some of the people 
 attributed their privations to the Government. This 
 feeling found terrible expression : Mr. Druminond, the 
 private secretary of Sir Robert Peel, was shot dead in 
 the streets. Many persons thought Peel among the 
 rest that the bullet was intended for the Premier 
 himself, and that Mr. Drummond was shot in mistake. 
 This terrible event came upon Peel at a moment when 
 he was physically almost worn out by hard work, and 
 by the anxiety of his overwhelming responsibility j and 
 much disturbed his mind. 
 
 Shortly after this occurrence, Cobden, in a fervid 
 speech on the Corn Laws, for he, poor creature, could
 
 262 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 not bear, with the sublime equanimity of Mr. Disraeli, 
 the sight of the distress of the people, while the price 
 of food was kept up artificially by law, Cobden, I say, 
 declared Sir Robert Peel " personally responsible " for 
 the condition of the country. At these words, Peel, 
 still under the influence of his secretary's tragic death, 
 sprang from his seat, and made a heated reply, that 
 could be interpreted as an accusation against Cobden 
 of abetting assassination ; and a scene of painful ex- 
 planations followed. To this scene, with egregious bad 
 taate, Mr. Disraeli referred, raking up the whole dis- 
 agreeable story. It was in this same speech that he 
 made the only attack I know of on Lord Derby 
 then Lord Stanley. Ironically complimenting Lord 
 Stanley for his " amenity of manner " and " choice 
 selection of conciliatory phrase," he styled him the 
 " Prince Rupert of Parliamentary discussion ; his 
 charge is resistless, but when he returns from the 
 pursuit, he always finds his camp in the possession of 
 the enemy."* It was on this occasion also that he 
 complimented Sir Robert Peel on his " historical re- 
 search," and his i{ unrivalled memory" an anticipation 
 of his famous joke on Sir Robert's love of quotation. 
 
 In the session of 1845 Mr. Disraeli made no longer a 
 secret of his enmity to Sir Robert Peel. And the time 
 supplied him with an excellent opportunity for success- 
 fully attacking the Ministry. 
 
 Sir James Graham, as has before been stated, was 
 Home Secretary under Sir Robert Peel. During these 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxiv. 248.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 263 
 
 years, Mazzini was living in England, and was, as 
 throughout his whole life, engaged in a plot for the uni- 
 fication of Italy. Two brothers Bandiera by name 
 were among his instruments and correspondents. Their 
 letters to Mazzini were opened by order of Sir James 
 Graham, and the Austrian Government was informed 
 of the plots against it which these letters revealed. The 
 brothers Bandiera were living in Corfu. A spy, em- 
 ployed by the Austrian Government, induced the brothers 
 to enter upon Austrian territory; and, having been 
 seized, they were executed. 
 
 This event aroused most violent excitement in England, 
 and drew down upon Sir James Graham a storm of 
 popular hate. Popular sentiment was wounded in its 
 most sensitive points. First, the sacredness of private 
 correspondence was invaded; and, next, the right of 
 asylum to which the people of this country attach such 
 importance. The strong feeling of dislike to the existing 
 rulers of Italy added to the indignation at the manner in 
 which those who had conspired against them had been 
 entrapped to a bloody end. 
 
 The excitement was increased when the rumours went 
 abroad that it was not the letters of foreigners only 
 which were opened by the Government. Mr. Thomas 
 Duncombe, the then highly popular member for 
 Finsbury, asserted that the seals of his letters also 
 had been broken in the year 1842, when the Chartist 
 agitation was at its height. 
 
 In February, 1845, Mr. Duncombe brought the 
 matter before the House of Commons. The debate
 
 264 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 was several times adjourned and several times renewed. 
 On February 20, Mr. Disraeli spoke; and he then made 
 the most violent attack on the Prime Minister he had 
 yet indulged in. He described him as displaying " un- 
 usual warmth," adding that it by no means followed 
 that the right hon. gentleman "felt it," "The right 
 hon. baronet," he proceeded, "has too great a mind, 
 and fills too eminent a position, ever to lose his temper; 
 but in a popular assembly it is sometimes expedient to 
 enact the part of the choleric gentleman. The right 
 hon. gentleman touched the red box with emotion. I 
 know from old experience that when one first enters 
 the House, these exhibitions are rather alarming ; and 
 I believe that some of the younger members were 
 much frightened ; but I would advise them not to be 
 terrified. I would tell them that the right hon. baronet 
 will not eat them up will not even resign; the very 
 worst thing he will do will be to tell them to rescind a 
 vote." * 
 
 In the midst of such a passage as this, Mr. Disraeli 
 calmly said, " I am making no attack on the Govern- 
 ment." 
 
 Sir Robert Peel hereupon burst forth with a " Hear, 
 hear." The words must have been uttered in an irri- 
 tating tone, and prpbably whatever the tone raised a 
 laugh; for the contrast between Mr. Disraeli's general 
 style and his protest was comically glaring. The inter- 
 ruption put Mr. Disraeli completely out of temper; or he 
 found it expedient to pretend to be out of temper ; and 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxvii. 906.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 265 
 
 he ferociously accused Sir Robert Peel of being in corre- 
 spondence with a gentleman " who had been implicated 
 in designs against the State." " Yes ! " continued Mr. 
 Disraeli, " one of the intimate friends of the right hon. 
 gentleman was concerned in Despard's plot, and now 
 holds office in the right hon. baronet's administration." * 
 
 What terms can properly characterise such a charge 
 as this? This debate was in 1845; Despard's plot was 
 in 1802; a long way indeed to go back for an accu- 
 sation ! Besides, to put it mildly, was it a chivalrous 
 mode of combat to attack a third person by way of 
 getting at an enemy? 
 
 Sir Robert Peel's reply was overwhelming. First 
 answering to the charge of affecting warmth, " It is 
 certainly very possible," he said, "to manifest great 
 vehemence of action, and yet not be in a great passion. 
 On the other hand, it is possible to be exceedingly cold, 
 indifferent, and composed in your manner, and yet to 
 cherish very acrimonious feelings" " Notwithstanding 
 the provocation of the hon. gentleman," went on the 
 Premier, " I will not deal so harshly with him as he has 
 dealt with me. He undertakes to assure the House that 
 my vehemence was all pretended, and warmth all simu- 
 lated. /, on the contrary, ivill do him entire justice ; I do 
 believe that his bitterness was not simulated, but that it 
 was entirely sincere." f 
 
 And, then, referring to Mr. Disraeli's professions of 
 
 Ibid. 909. 
 
 * Hid. 998
 
 266 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 friendship, Sir Robert Peel quoted the famous lines of 
 Canning on Jlie candid friend.* 
 
 Next the Premier dealt with the more serious question ; 
 the allegation that he had employed a gentleman con- 
 nected with the Despard plot. Mr. Bonham, of the 
 Ordnance, was the person alluded to ; and Sir Robert 
 read a letter from that gentleman, in which he stated 
 that at the time of the plot he was a boy of sixteen 
 vears, and that he had had no more connection with it 
 
 i 
 
 than Sir Robert Peel himself. t 
 
 This retort was crushing, and so Mr. Disraeli felt ; for 
 he had to stand up immediately after Sir Robert Peel 
 had sat down, and make an apology which may well 
 be called abject. His statement had been proved to be 
 "utterly unfounded ;" he had committed a "great and 
 grievous error," "and lam not ashamed," he added, "to 
 acknowledge it ;" though most men of ordinary delicacy 
 of feeling would have felt ashamed when convicted of 
 having made a most serious charge, which had no foun- 
 dation whatever, against an unoffending person. Mr. 
 Disraeli's excuse for his act is still poorer in spirit : 
 
 " I repeat, the reference was perfectly unpremeditated, 
 and I believe it was so recognised by the House at the 
 time. A taunting cheer from the right hon. baronet called 
 my recollection to .t/ie circumstance, which I admit I 
 thought might not be agreeable to him, but at half-past 
 
 " Give me the avowed, erect, and manly foe ; 
 
 Firm I can meet, perhaps can turn the blow ; 
 
 But of all the plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send. 
 
 Save, O save me from a candid friend ! " Ibid. 998. 
 
 f Hansard, 3 8. Ixxvii. 1000.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 267 
 
 eleven o'clock, in the excitement of debate, there are 
 perhaps few of us who would be superior to the weak- 
 ness." * 
 
 With characteristic elasticity, Mr. Disraeli, notwith- 
 standing his discomfiture of February 21, returned to the 
 charge against the Premier on February 28. He played 
 on a good string the implicit obedience which Sir Robert 
 Peel demanded from his supporters. This he denounced 
 as " a system of tyranny " " as degrading to those who 
 exercise it as to those who endure it." f Then, he 
 thus happily described the adoption by Peel of Liberal 
 measures : " The right hon. Gentleman caught the Whigs 
 bathing, and walked away with their clothes. He has left 
 them in the full enjoyment of their liberal position, and 
 he is himself a strict conservative of their garments.^ . . . . 
 I look on the right hon. Gentleman as a man who has 
 tamed the Shrew of Liberalism by her own tactics. He 
 is the political Petruchio, who has outbid you all." 
 
 The light tone which characterises the part of the 
 speech just quoted was changed as Mr. Disraeli 
 approached the conclusion of his address. The reader 
 has seen that Sir Robert Peel quoted against Mr. 
 Disraeli Canning's famous lines on the " candid friend." 
 It is known that when, on Lord Liverpool's illness, 
 Canning became Premier, Sir Robert Peel refused his 
 support, and withdrew from the new Ministry. The 
 feeling whether just or unjust was general, that 
 Peel's conduct in this transaction was not to say the 
 least of it generous. Sir Robert Peel, as has already 
 * nid.. 1005. f Ibid. Ixxviii. 7*2. J Ibid. Ibid. 54-5.
 
 *68 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 been seen, was much given to quotation, sometimes 
 even venturing to speak long passages from the classics. 
 With cruel dexterity Mr. Disraeli stabs his enemy in 
 these weak points. He sarcastically complimented the 
 Prime Minister on using quotation with great effect, 
 11 partly, because he seldom quotes a passage that has not 
 previously received the meed of Parliamentary appro- 
 bation, and partly and principally, because his quotations 
 are so happy." * Then he went on to allude to the 
 relations which had existed between Peel and Canning. 
 
 \\'e all," he said, speaking of Canning, " admire 
 his genius ; we all, at least most of us, deplore his 
 mi timely end ; and we all sympathise with him in his 
 fierce struggle with supreme prejudice and sublime 
 mediocrity, with inveterate foes and with 'candid 
 friends.' The right hon. Gentleman may be sure that 
 a quotation from such an authority will always tell 
 Some lines, for example, upon friendship, written by 
 Mr. Canning, and quoted by the right hon. Gentleman ! 
 The theme the poet the speaker what a felicitous 
 combination I Its effect in debate must be over- 
 whelming ; and I am sure, were it addressed to me, 
 all that would remain for me would be thus publicly to 
 congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, not only on his 
 ready memory, but on his courageous conscience." f 
 
 This bitterly pointed attack Sir Robert Peel received 
 
 coolly enough. He expressed the hope that Mr. Disraeli, 
 
 " having discharged the accumulated virus of the last 
 
 week," now felt "more at ease than he was."J Then Peel 
 
 Hid. 165. f Ibid. 155-6. J Ibid. 205.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 269 
 
 declared that he would not condescend to " reciprocate 
 personalities" with his assailant.* Finally, referring to 
 the attack as to his conduct towards Canning, Peel 
 naturally asked how it was that by an accidental 
 quotation Mr. Disraeli's mind was suddenly, and for 
 the first time, awakened to the enormity of his 
 conduct, f 
 
 In about three weeks after this collision, Mr. Disraeli 
 had another and a better opportunity of assailing the 
 Minister. Nobody watching his plan of operations can 
 deny its skill, though, to be sure, the materials for a 
 rebellion against the Government lay ready enough to 
 any one's hands. Mr. Disraeli knew that the sternness 
 of Sir Robert Peel's rule had created discontent among 
 his followers ; and in his last two speeches Mr. Disraeli 
 had dexterously appealed to this feeling. But even 
 stronger than this feeling was another among a large 
 body of the Conservatives the feeling that Sir Robert 
 Peel had not proved sufficiently devoted to what is called 
 the agricultural interest. I have already shown the alarm 
 which Sir Robert Peel's Corn Law and Tariff of 1842 
 had created. This alarm had gone on increasing. Sir 
 Robert Peel, in 1842, had but entered office, and while 
 his followers were still enjoying the first delicious taste 
 of power, they were willing to be carried away by 
 their leader. But 1842 was now three years past. 
 And then, Sir Robert's declarations in favour of Pro- 
 tection were becoming every year less firm. Besides, 
 
 * ttid. 206. 
 
 f Hansard, 3 S. Ixxviii. 207-8.
 
 270 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 the great relief that the agriculturists had panted for 
 had come in mere drops, not in golden showers. 
 
 When Mr. W. Miles then proposed, on March 17th, 
 that a portion of the surplus should be applied towards 
 " affording relief to the agricultural interest,"* Mr. 
 Disraeli had a splendid opportunity for an attack on 
 Sir Robert Peel, and most effectively he made use of it.f 
 Knowing well that the Government would oppose this 
 motion of Mr. Miles, Mr. Disraeli recalled how several 
 of the Ministers had supported a similar proposal when 
 they were out of office ; and then he harped on the 
 difference between the Government, and particularly 
 Sir Robert Peel, when they were in and out of office. 
 Next he ironically rebuked his agricultural friends for 
 their impatience with Sir Robert Peel. " There is uo 
 doubt," he went on, "a difference in the right hon. 
 gentleman's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and 
 as Minister of the Crown. But that's the old story : you 
 must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with 
 the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right 
 hon. gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him 
 making his protection speeches. They were the best 
 speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the 
 right hon. gentleman say, ' I would sooner be the leader 
 of the Gentlemen of England than possess the confidence 
 of Sovereigns,' That was a grand thing. We don't 
 hear much of the * Gentlemen of England ' now. But 
 what of that ? They have the pleasures of memory the 
 charms of reminiscences. They were his first love, and 
 Ibid. Ixxviii. 963. f H>id. 1027-28.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 271 
 
 though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of 
 passion, still they can recall the past ; and nothing is 
 more useless and unwise than these scenes of crimination 
 and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when 
 the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to 
 appeal to the feelings."* 
 
 Mr. Disraeli next proceeded to allude to a speech 
 which Mr. Sydney Herbert had made a few days 
 previously. Mr. Herbert had said that "it would be 
 distasteful to the agriculturist to come whining to 
 Parliament at every period of temporary distress." f 
 
 "The right hon. gentleman," said Mr. Disraeli, 
 " being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, 
 who says in the genteelest manner, ' We can have no 
 whining here.' And that, sir, is exactly the case 
 of the great agricultural interest that beauty which 
 everybody wooed, and one deluded. There is a fatality 
 in such charms, and we now seem to approach the 
 catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in 
 about the same condition that Protestantism was in 
 1828. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I 
 who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be 
 proposed by the hoii. Member for Stockport, than by 
 one who, through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres, 
 has tampered with the generous confidence of a great 
 people and a great party. For myself, I care not 
 what may be the result. Dissolve, if you please, the 
 Parliament you have betrayed, and appeal to the people, 
 who, I believe, mistrust you. For me there remains 
 * Ibid. 1027-28. f Ibid. 818.
 
 272 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 this at least the opportunity of expressing thus pub- 
 licly my belief that a Conservative Government is an 
 Organised Hypocrisy" * 
 
 In our admiration of the skill of these attacks by Mr. 
 Disraeli, we must not forget to examine their justice or 
 injustice. I have already, in the earlier part of this 
 chapter, shown as I think, conclusively that the Corn 
 Law and the Tariff of 1842 were Free Trade measures ; 
 and I have shown that those very Free Trade measures 
 were not only not opposed, but were actually supported 
 with enthusiasm, by Mr. Disraeli. Yet he now has the 
 face in 1845 to pander to the prejudice of the Tory 
 agriculturists against those measures of Sir Robert Peel, 
 which he himself supported in 1842! Sir Robert Peel's 
 reply so far as the contest between him and Mr. 
 Disraeli is concerned is crushing. | He quoted the 
 passages I have already given, in which Mr. Disraeli 
 declared that the Tariff of 1842, which at that time 
 was denounced by the same persons and for the same 
 reasons as Peel's measures at the present moment, 
 was in exact permanent and perfect consistency with 
 the principles of Free Trade laid down by Mr. Pitt. 
 Having thus completely proved the inconsistency of 
 Mr. Disraeli the readiness to defend in 1842, and the 
 readiness to attack in 1845, the same measures, Sir 
 Robert Peel thus contemptuously proceeds : 
 
 " I do not know whether they " Mr. Disraeli's 
 words " are of sufficient importance to mention them 
 to the House ; but this I know, that I then held in tin- 
 Ibid. 1028. f Ibid. 1038.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY, 273 
 
 same estimation the panegyric with which I now regard 
 the attack."* 
 
 We have seen how Mr. Disraeli skilfully addressed 
 himself towards encouraging the wrath of the different 
 sections of the Tory party which Sir Robert Peel had 
 offended. He had appealed to the vanity of the younger 
 members, whose frowardness Sir Robert Peel had 
 snubbed. He had appealed to the agriculturists, whom 
 Sir Robert Peel had disappointed. But those feelings, 
 bitter and powerful though they might be, were weak 
 compared with that to which Mr. Disraeli next appealed ; 
 for the passion upon which he played was religious 
 bigotry. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel proposed to increase 
 the annual allowance to the Roman Catholic College of 
 Maynooth from 9,000 to 26,000. This grant was 
 justified by all the circumstances. It had been con- 
 clusively proved that the College was quite inefficient 
 for its purposes ; that it could not teach the requisite 
 number of students ; and that it could not properly feed 
 and house the few students it had. Moreover, the 
 grant raised no question of principle, for if it were 
 wrong to endow the Roman Catholics at all, a grant of 
 9,000 a year was quite as much a violation of that 
 principle as a grant of 26,000. But the violation of 
 principle involved in a grant of 9,000 had been 
 sanctioned by successive Parliaments for fifty years. 
 The proposal of Sir Robert Peel was accordingly sup- 
 ported by all the intelligent and tolerant men of the 
 House, irrespective of party. It was supported by Lord 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 18
 
 274 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 John Russell, the leader of the Liberal party, by a 
 Radical so sturdy as Joseph Hume, and by an enemy 
 so bitter of religious endowment as Richard Cobden. 
 However, a measure which had the appearance of even 
 giving the slightest support to the Roman Catholic 
 religion was certain to find vehement opposition from 
 a section of narrow-minded and bigoted people. As 
 Macaulay, who spoke strongly in favour of the Bill, said, 
 describing the commotion which Peel's proposal drew 
 forth, 
 
 " The Orangeman raises his howl, and Exeter 
 Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. M'Neile is horror- 
 stricken to think that a still larger grant is intended 
 for 'the priests of Baal' at the table of 'Jezebel'; 
 and your Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the 
 impeachment of the Minister in exceedingly bad 
 English;" * 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, for all his indifference to the Christian 
 religion in any shape, saw a tide was flowing against 
 the Minister ; and, however dirty the tide might be, 
 determined to take it at its flood. 
 
 In the character of Lord Bolingbroke, the statesman 
 for whom Lord Beaconsfield has so often expressed 
 .admiration, one of the worst features is that, though per- 
 sonally an infidel, he assiduously persecuted Dissenters. 
 Every historian feels bound to express disgust at this, 
 as one of the worst offences in his scandalous career. 
 Yet why should we waste our angor on Bolingbroke ? 
 Bolingbroke is long since dead ; but we have living 
 * Hid. Ixxix. 657.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 275 
 
 among us, and influencing our destinies, a statesman 
 who has made quite as unscrupulous a use of religious 
 infatuation. 
 
 One of Mr. Disraeli's first points against Sir Robert 
 Peel was the pains that that statesman took to justify 
 his actual policy by reference to past examples. 
 
 "The right hon. gentleman," said Mr. Disraeli, 
 " tells us to go back to precedents ; with him a 
 great measure is always founded on a small prece- 
 dent. He traces the steam engine always back to 
 the tea-kettle. His precedents are generally tea-kettle 
 precedents."* 
 
 " It is not Radicalism," said Mr. Disraeli in another 
 passage, " it is not the revolutionary spirit of the 
 nineteenth century, which has consigned 'another 
 place ' to illustrious insignificance ; it is Conservatism 
 and a Conservative dictator." f 
 
 And then, again, he aired the grievances of young 
 members : 
 
 " Whenever the young men of England allude to 
 any great principle of political life or Parliamentary 
 conduct, are they to be recommended to go to a rail- 
 way Committee ? " \ 
 
 And next followed this famous description of Peel's 
 statesmanship : 
 
 " Something has risen up in this country as fatal in 
 
 the political world as it has been in the landed world of 
 
 Ireland we have a great Parliamentary middleman. 
 
 It is well known what a middleman is ; he is a man 
 
 * Ibid. 658. f Ibid. J Ib id. 56i.
 
 276 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 who bamboozles one party, and plunders the other, till, 
 having obtained a position to which he is not entitled, 
 he cries out, ' Let us have no party questions, but fixity 
 of tenure.' " * 
 
 After this came an appeal to the Roman Catholic 
 members to vote against the Bill. And this passage 
 appears to me one of the most powerful Mr. Disraeli 
 ever uttered. One figure is unquestionably fine : 
 
 " I cannot believe, therefore," said Mr. Disraeli, 
 "that the Roman Catholic gentlemen, on reflection 
 and I hope they will have time for reflection will vote 
 for this measure, when they consider what it is. Who 
 is he who introduces it? He is the same individual 
 whose bleak shade fell on the sunshine of your hopes for 
 more tlian a quarter of a century"^ 
 
 Finally, in his anxiety to get support against the 
 Minister, Mr. Disraeli appealed to those Whigs whom 
 he had been savagely abusing almost from his boyhood, 
 and to that Whig statesman whom he had once com- 
 pared to an insect. 
 
 " As to the Whigs, I am almost in despair," he said, 
 " of appealing to their hereditary duties, their constitu- 
 tional convictions, or their historical position ; but I 
 should have thought that the noble Lord opposite was 
 almost weary of being dragged at the triumphal car 
 of a conqueror who did not conquer him in fair fight. 
 I think the noble Lord might have found some in- 
 spiration in the writings of that great man whom he 
 has so often quoted, and whose fame he attempts to 
 Ibid, n t IKd. 567.
 
 PREPARING THE MUTINY. 277 
 
 emulate. I should have thought that a man of the 
 mind and spirit of the noble Lord and he has a 
 thoughtful mind and a noble spirit might have felt 
 that Mr. Fox would have taken a course which I still 
 think the noble Lord, touched by his high position, and 
 the responsibility of that position, will still adopt."* 
 
 And the speech wound up with these energetic pas- 
 sages : 
 
 " Let us in this House re-echo that which I believe 
 to be the sovereign sentiment of this country ; let us 
 tell persons in high places that cunning is not caution, 
 and that habitual perfidy is not high policy of State. 
 .... Let us bring back to this House that which it 
 has for so long a time past been without the legitimate 
 influence and salutary check of a constitutional Oppo- 
 sition. That is what the country requires, what the 
 country looks for. Let us do it at once in the only 
 way in which it can be done, by dethroning this 
 dynasty of deception, by putting an end to the in- 
 tolerable yoke of official despotism and Parliamentary 
 imposture." f 
 
 I have now finished my account of the session of 
 1845. No impartial reader, it appears to me, can think 
 that Mr. Disraeli comes well out of it, or Sir Robert 
 Peel ill. In the chief debate of the year the debate 
 on the Maynooth Grant we find Mr. Disraeli taking 
 the side of the bigoted and the stupid, and Sir Robert 
 Peel that of the tolerant and the enlightened. We 
 have seen that, to further his private interests, Mr. 
 Ibid. 668. f -ft"*- 5 68-9.
 
 278 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 Disraeli appealed to the worst passions of the narrow- 
 minded ; while, to carry what he believed a good 
 measure, Sir Robert Peel dared to encounter violent 
 prejudices, and to risk his personal and political in- 
 terests. We now approach a session in which Mr. 
 Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel play the same parts on 
 a more important scale.
 
 279 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 
 
 T HAVE, in the last and previous chapters, endeavoured 
 to show the change that was gradually working in the 
 mind of Sir Robert Peel on the question of Protection. 
 The Corn Law and the Tariff of 1842 were a real 
 advance in the direction of Free Trade ; and the 
 speeches of the Premier in the succeeding sessions 
 prove that the Premier's defence of Protection was 
 growing perceptibly weaker. During the recess of 
 1845, events occurred which brought a crisis to Sir 
 Robert Peel, and rendered all further hesitation and 
 wavering on his part impossible. The blight attacked 
 the potato in Ireland, and famine stared the Irish 
 people in the face. The appalling statement rested 
 first on newspaper reports, but by-and-by public 
 meetings, under the most responsible auspices, con- 
 firmed the intelligence. Everybody now knows that 
 those gloomy prognostications were more than re- 
 alized, and that Ireland passed through one of the 
 most fearful famines known in history. 
 
 This terrible problem then the Irish people deprived
 
 zSo LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of their staple article of food and threatened with 
 wholesale starvation confronted Sir Robert Peel. 
 What possible solution could present itself to his 
 mind but the admission of corn free of duty ? This 
 also was the remedy suggested by the Duke of 
 Leinster and other Irishmen of authority. Moreover, 
 the accounts of the condition of England were also 
 alarming. 
 
 In addition to considering the condition of the two 
 countries, we also must regard the state of political 
 parties. 
 
 The Anti-Corn Law League had reached gigantic 
 proportions, and overwhelming influence. The funds 
 raised for its purposes were enormous ; its meetings, 
 held all over the country, and at regular periods in the 
 metropolis, became daily more crowded and more en- 
 thusiastic; the country was stirred by most eloquent 
 political speakers, by the poetic fervour of W. J. Fox, 
 the passion of Bright, and the resistless common sense 
 of Cobden. Such was the position of the League. The 
 attitude of the Whigs was no less decided. On the 22nd 
 November Lord John Russell addressed a letter to the 
 electors of the City of London, denouncing the existing 
 Corn Law as "the blight of commerce and the bane 
 of agriculture." This justified the conclusion that the 
 Whigs were prepared to unite with the Anti-Corn 
 Law League in demanding the total repeal of the Corn 
 Laws. 
 
 These, then, were the circumstances Peel had to 
 face : famine threatened Ireland ; the Anti-Corn Law
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 281 
 
 League had become irresistible ; the Whigs were ready 
 to curry absolute Free Trade ; and he himself had lost 
 the last shread of his long-waning faith in the benefits 
 of Protection. 
 
 I now approach the difficult and much-controverted 
 question What was the Minister's duty in this posi- 
 tion? I have already stated rny views on ministerial 
 and party obligations.* I laid it down as a general 
 principle that a Tory Minister ought to leave to a 
 Liberal Ministry the carriage of Liberal measures, 
 and vice versd. There may be circumstances, however, 
 which justify a departure from this general rule. 
 Were there such circumstances in the case of Sir 
 Robert Peel in 1845 ? 
 
 There was a considerable difference, unquestionably, 
 between the views of Peel and of Lord John Russell 
 on the question of Free Trade and Protection ; but 
 the difference was one of degree rather than of 
 principle. There was almost as great a gulf between 
 the views of Lord John Russell up to 1845 and of 
 Mr. Cobden, as between those of Sir Robert Peel and 
 of Lord John Russell. In 1842, the proposals of 
 Lord Russell and of Peel did not represent the anta- 
 gonism of Free Trade and Protection. The plan of 
 Sir Robert Peel, as had been mentioned, was a duty 
 regulated by a sliding-scale. The counter-proposal 
 of Lord John Russell was a fixed duty of 8s. Even 
 assuming that Lord John Russell's scheme would 
 have resulted in cheaper corn, his scheme is not the 
 
 * See ante, 124-5.
 
 282 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 scheme of a Free Trader any more than that of Sir 
 Robert Peel. The Free Trader is opposed to any 
 duty whatever, and therefore is equally hostile to a 
 duty, whether it be a fixed one of 8s., like that of 
 Lord John Russell, or a variable one, like that of Sir 
 Robert Peel. But it is by no means clear that the 
 plan of Sir Robert Peel made imported corn dearer 
 than it would have been under the plan of Lord John 
 Russell. In the opinion of many Liberal journals 
 of the period, imported corn would be actually 
 cheaper under the sliding-scale than under the fixed 
 duty. And if that be so, Sir Robert Peel's plan wn< 
 not only in principle no more removed than Lord 
 John Russell's from the plan of a Free Trader, but 
 was nearer to it in practice. 
 
 Moreover to show still further that Lord John 
 Russell was nearly, if not quite, as removed from dm 
 Free Traders as Sir Robert Peel when Mr. Villiers 
 brought forward his annual motion in favour of 
 absolute Free Trade, Lord John Russell voted against 
 it quite as persistently, up to 1845, as Sir Robert 
 Peel. So far, then, as the personal claim to carry 
 Free Trade is concerned, I think that that of Sir 
 Robert Peel was equal to that of Lord John Russell. 
 
 The next question is, Did Peel's party position permit 
 him to propose Free Trade? And was there any 
 difference between his position with regard to IV > 
 Trade, as a party leader, and that of Lord John 
 liu-sell? Bid the position of Lord John Russell, as 
 a party leader, give him a claim apart from his
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 2 g 3 
 
 personal claim to pass Free Trade, which Sir Robert 
 Peel had not ? 
 
 On all these questions, I think the answer must be 
 decidedly against Sir Robert Peel. Whatever were 
 Sir Robert Peel's own opinions, he was the chief of 
 the distinctly Protectionist party. It is nothing to 
 the purpose that he had kept himself comparatively 
 unpledged in favour of Protection. What the con- 
 stituencies, in returning a supporter of Sir Robert 
 Peel, meant to return, was a supporter of Protection. 
 On the other hand, a large body what may be called 
 the extreme left of Lord John Russell's followers 
 were Free Traders, and Lord John Russell's position, 
 as the leader of this body of Liberals, plainly signified 
 that he was the leader of a party which, to say the 
 least, was not distinctly Protectionist, It, therefore, 
 appears to me that, so far as the position of the two 
 rivals as party leaders is concerned, Lord John Russell 
 had, and Sir Robert had not, a right to pass Free Trade. 
 
 But another consideration here steps in. There are 
 circumstances in which the obligations of a statesman 
 to his country may overrule his obligations to his 
 party. A crisis may come which requires immediate 
 action, and a particular Minister may be the only man 
 capable of applying that imperatively demanded action 
 with the requisite promptitude and completeness. In 
 such circumstances, a Minister would, in my opinion, 
 be justified in adopting the measures absolutely re- 
 quired by the country, though he and his party might 
 have been opposed to those measures at another time.
 
 284 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Let us apply these considerations to the circum- 
 stances of Sir Robert Peel in 1845. It can scarcely 
 be denied that a crisis had come to the country, and 
 that the crisis demanded immediate treatment. If the 
 prospect of the majority of a population in one county 
 being starved, and a large number of the population 
 in another being half-starved, be not a crisis that 
 demands a prompt remedy, what imaginable circum- 
 stances can constitute such a crisis ? 
 
 Well, then, a crisis, a terrible crisis, having come to 
 the country, was Sir Robert Peel justified in assuming 
 that he was the man to deal with it? Firstly, he 
 was the Prime Minister, and, as such, was, for the 
 time being, the person chiefly responsible for the con- 
 dition of the country. The Opposition leader could, 
 of course, be sent for, but Peel had already acquired 
 the knowledge which the Opposition leader had yet 
 to learn : he had a Government formed, colleagues 
 who had worked with him for years ; the Opposition 
 leader had yet his Government to create, had yet to 
 find colleagues who would agree with him and with 
 each other. All these things must cause delay in the 
 application of a remedy by the leader of the Opposition. 
 Meantime, there was the threatened famine crying for 
 immediate relief. 
 
 But when we speak of Sir Robert Peel as Prime 
 Minister in 1845, and, by virtue of this office, as 
 primarily responsible for the condition of the country, 
 we give but a faint notion of his responsibility. In 
 point of fact, Sir Robert Peel was the dictator rather
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 285 
 
 than the Prime Minister of England, from 1842 to 
 1845. Apart from the fact that he had a majority of 
 ninety, his personal influence was commanding. 
 
 He found almost as unvarying support from the 
 Liberals as from the Tories ; and, indeed, whenever the 
 more fanatical of his own supporters deserted him, 
 Liberal speakers and voters were ready to come to his 
 rescue. Nor was this all: the Liberal members not 
 only supported Peel against his own followers, but even 
 against their own leader ; and speech after speech can 
 be quoted from the addresses of those times to prove 
 that Liberal members founded higher hopes on Sir 
 Robert Peel than on Lord John Russell. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it was not unnatural that 
 Sir Robert Peel should have come to look upon himself 
 as something more than a party leader, as something 
 more than a Tory chief : it is not surprising that he 
 should have come to consider himself, as others con- 
 sidered him, Minister of the country.* 
 
 If, then, Sir Robert Peel were the Minister of the 
 country, it was his plain duty to consult its interests, 
 even at the sacrifice of the interests of his party. 
 
 Taking this view of his position, Sir Robert Peel 
 proposed to the members of his Cabinet that the ports 
 should be opened for the importation of corn to the 
 
 * Mr. Cobden thus described the position of Peel at this crisis : 
 " There is," he said, " no man in the world, whether he be the Grand 
 Turk, or whether he be a Russian despot, who has more power than 
 Sir Robert Peel now has in this country. He has the power, and I 
 say he is a criminal and a poltroon if he hesitates a whit." Ashworth, 
 Cobden and the League, 301.
 
 286 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 starving population of Ireland. This was no new 
 expedient ; but in the circumstances of this time every- 
 body felt that the ports, if once opened, could never be 
 closed again. And, therefore, the proposal of Sir Robert 
 Peel was interpreted to mean the complete abandonment 
 of Protection, and the adoption of absolute Free Trade. 
 Several of Peel's colleagues refused to accept his pro- 
 posals ; and, having a divided Cabinet^ he had no choice 
 but to offer his resignation. Lord John Russell was 
 sent for ; but failing in his efforts to form a Ministry, 
 Peel was again called to power ; and having got rid of 
 the colleagues Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, among 
 the rest who would not support him, prepared his 
 plans for introducing Free Trade. 
 
 It is needless to say that Peel's determination to 
 carry Free Trade supplied a very effective weapon to 
 his enemies ; and that his enemy-in-chief did not 
 hesitate to use the weapon to the utmost. 
 
 The Protectionists all over the country called meetings 
 to protest against what they called the treachery of 
 Peel ; and speeches were made which would now excite 
 a smile, but for the tragic circumstances under which 
 they were delivered. 
 
 Two Dukes, their Graces of Richmond and Bucking- 
 ham, put themselves at the head of the movement against 
 Peel. His Grace of Richmond seems to have been one 
 of the most insolent and stupid even of his name or 
 order, and his invectives had something to do in steeling 
 the determination and rousing the angry pride of Sir 
 Robert PeeL
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 287 
 
 In Parliament, as the reader will have already seen, 
 there was, even at the close of 1S45,, a pretty large 
 minority of malcontents on the Conservative benches. 
 There were the fanatical Protestants whom Sir Robert. 
 Peel had offended by his small pecuniary addition to 
 the Maynooth Grant ; and there were the fanatical 
 Protectionists whom his gradual advances towards Free 
 Trade had estranged. And, besides, there was the 
 great fact that Sir Robert Peel had held almost un- 
 bounded power for four years. The times were ripe for 
 Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 Parliament was opened on January 22, 1846. The 
 address in reply to the Queen's speech was proposed by 
 Lord Francis Egerton, and seconded by Mr. Beckett 
 Denison, both converted Protectionists ; and when they 
 had concluded, Sir Robert Peel rose, and entered into 
 lengthy explanations of the break-up and subsequent 
 reassembling of his Cabinet in November and December 
 of the previous year. After Sir Robert Peel had sat 
 down, Lord John Russell got up, and gave his version 
 of his futile attempts to form a Government. " When 
 the noble lord concluded," writes Mr. Disraeli, "the 
 House, which during the evening had rarely been 
 
 excited, was tame and dispirited It seemed that 
 
 the curtain was about to fall, and certainly not to the 
 disadvantage of the Government. In their position, the 
 first night of the session passed in serenity was compara- 
 tively a triumph. With the elements of opposition, 
 however considerable, so inert and desponding, the first 
 night might give the cue to the country. Perceiving
 
 283 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 this, a member who, though on the Tory benches, had 
 been for two sessions in opposition to the Minister, 
 ventured to rise and attack the Minister.'' * 
 
 This member is, of course, Mr. Disraeli. He began 
 dexterously enough in a modest and deprecatory tone : 
 " After the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman 
 that an early day was to be appointed for the discussion 
 of that question, I should have abstained," he said, " from 
 intruding myself on the House at the present moment, 
 had it not been for the peculiar tone of the right hon. 
 Gentleman. I think that tone ought not to pass unnoticed. 
 At the same time I do not wish to conceal my opinions 
 on the general subject. I am not one of the converts."! 
 
 And then comes a skilful bit of self-pity and self- 
 praise. " I am," said Mr. Disraeli, " perhaps, a member 
 of a fallen party." \ This sentence, which, we doubt 
 not, Mr. Disraeli managed to utter in a very dolorous 
 tone of voice, must have had a fine effect on the 
 susceptible bosoms of the squires whom Sir Robert Peel 
 had deserted. And then, too, what a picturesquely 
 melancholy attitude it places Mr. Disraeli himself in. 
 The Prime Minister of the country and his colleagues 
 had basely deserted principle. This sad example had 
 been followed by many of their supporters it might 
 even be by all their supporters. Yet here was Mr. 
 Disraeli ready to stand alone in the isolation of solitary 
 virtue. 
 
 * " Lord George Bentinck : a Political Biography ; " 2nd edition, 
 pp. 55-6. 
 
 f Hansard, 3 8. Ixxxiii. 111-12. 
 j Ibid, 112.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 289 
 
 It is a very pretty picture indeed ; but let us see how 
 far it is true to fact. 
 
 " To the opinions," goes on Mr. Disraeli, " which I 
 have expressed in this House in favour of Protection, 
 I adhere. They sent me to this House, and if I had 
 relinquished them I should have relinquished my seat 
 also."* 
 
 " To the opinions which I have expressed in favour 
 of Protection." What opinions? When expressed ? I 
 have given the reader an opportunity of reading Mr 
 Disraeli's expressions of opinion on Protection. I have 
 shown that, in place of displaying an obstinate and 
 chivalric fidelity to Protection, he had shown himself 
 quite ready to advocate Free Trade. But that was in 
 the days when Sir Robert Peel had first come into 
 power, might still be useful, and had proposed Free 
 Trade measures which a powerless Protectionist minority 
 had attacked. Now there was nothing to be gained 
 from Sir Robert Peel ; and the Protectionists promised 
 to be a numerous and powerful section. Hence Mr. 
 Disraeli swallows his Free Trade ideas of 1842, and 
 boldly proclaims that he has ever been faithful to 
 Protection. 
 
 Nor is this the only flagrant instance of false suggestion 
 in the sentences I have quoted. To the declaration 
 the untrue declaration that he himself had been in 
 favour of Protectionist principles in 1841, he adds the 
 further declaration that his constituency had chosen him 
 at the General Election of that year, because of those 
 * Hid. 
 
 19
 
 29 o LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Protectionist principles. But this is a representation of 
 the election of 1841 utterly at variance with that which 
 Mr. Disraeli gave of it on a previous occasion. The 
 reader will, perhaps, remember that, when describing 
 the first speech of Mr. Disraeli in the newly elected 
 Parliament, I drew particular attention to what he said 
 as to the elections then just concluded. I pointed out 
 that Mr. Disraeli distinctly denied that the question of 
 Free Trade as against Protection was the issue on which 
 the constituencies had pronounced against the Whigs 
 and Lord Melbourne, and in favour of Peel and the 
 Tories. He asserted over and over again that the 
 verdict of the constituencies was not that Protection 
 should be maintained, but that Free Trade measures 
 could be carried more efficiently by a Peel than by a 
 Melbourne administration.* 
 
 Thus the picture of the '41 election given by Mr. 
 Disraeli in 1841 is diametrically opposite to that given 
 of it in the passage of the speech in 1846 just cited. 
 
 After these preliminaries, Mr. Disraeli gave, in his 
 happiest style, an illustration of the position of the 
 Premier. " Sir," he said, " there is a difficulty in 
 finding a parallel to the position of the right hon. 
 Gentleman in any part of history. The only parallel 
 which I can find is an incident in the late war in the 
 Levant, which was terminated by the policy of the noble 
 Lord opposite. I remember when that great struggle 
 was taking place, when the existence of the Turkish 
 empire was at stake, the late Sultan, a man of great 
 
 See ante, 201-5.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 291 
 
 energy and fertile in resources, was determined to fit 
 out an immense fleet to maintain his empire. Accord- 
 ingly a vast armament was collected. It consisted of 
 many of the finest ships that were ever built. The 
 crews were picked men, the officers were the ablest 
 that could be found, and both officers and men were 
 rewarded before they fought. There never was an 
 armament which left the Dardanelles similarly ap- 
 pointed since the day of Solyman the Great. The 
 Sultan personally witnessed the departure of the fleet ; 
 all the muftis prayed for the success of the expedition, 
 as all the muftis here prayed for the success of the last 
 general election. Away went the fleet ; but what was 
 the Sultan's consternation when the lord high admiral 
 steered at once into the enemy's port ! Now, sir, the 
 lord high admiral, on that occasion, was very much 
 misrepresented. He, too, was called a traitor ; and he, 
 too, vindicated himself. 'True it is,' said he, 'I did 
 place myself at the head of this valiant armada true 
 it is that my sovereign embraced me true it is that all 
 the muftis in the empire offered up prayers for my 
 success ; but I have an objection to war ; I see no use 
 in prolonging the struggle, and the only reason I had 
 for accepting the command was that I might terminate 
 the contest by betraying my master.' And, sir, these 
 reasons offered by a man of great plausibility, of vast 
 adroitness, have had their effect, for you may be sur- 
 prised at it but I assure you it is a fact, which by the 
 way the gallant officer opposite (Commodore Napier) 
 can testify, that he is at this moment the First Lord
 
 292 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of the Admiralty at Constantinople, under the new 
 reign." * 
 
 Next, Mr. Disraeli drew an effective picture of the 
 allegiance his party had given to Sir Robert Peel a 
 very apt plan to excite disgust at the Premier's sup- 
 posed desertion of his party. " Well do we remember," 
 said Mr. Disraeli, " on this side of the House perhaps 
 not without a blush well do we remember the efforts 
 which we made to raise him to the bench on which he 
 now sits. Who does not remember the ' Sacred cause 
 of Protection,' the cause for which Sovereigns were 
 thwarted Parliaments dissolved and a nation taken 
 in!"t 
 
 This is the truest sentence in the whole speech ; and 
 one might, indeed, imagine that Mr. Disraeli was for 
 once in his life really frank and ready to make a 
 general confession of his sins. He certainly had a 
 right to " blush " for his former slavish flattery of 
 the man he was now attacking so bitterly. 
 
 He then describes Sir Robert Peel as "a man who 
 never originates an idea a watcher of the atmo- 
 sphere." " Such a person," he added, " may be a 
 powerful Minister, but he is no more a great statesman 
 tJtan the man who gets up behind a carriage is a great 
 whip:' I 
 
 It will have been observed that many of Mr. Disraeli's 
 
 attacks on Sir Robert Peel are founded on the most 
 
 frivolous bases. I have already given in full a scene 
 
 where Mr. Disraeli accused the Premier of being the 
 
 * Ibid. 113-H. f IKd. 115. t *** 116 -
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 293 
 
 friend and patron of a man who had been engaged in 
 a plot for the massacre of the citizens of London, and 
 the assassination of the king. It has been seen that 
 tliis charge was utterly without foundation ; and it has 
 also been seen that the miserable excuse Mr. Disraeli 
 had to advance for the flagrant offence of bringing 
 this completely unfounded charge, was that he had 
 been irritated by a taunting cheer from the Premier, 
 and that he wanted to say something disagreeable in 
 return. I think I am justified in saying that in prize- 
 ring phraseology this was hitting below the belt. 
 
 But Mr. Disraeli's conduct during the session of 
 1845 was fair play itself in comparison with his conduct 
 during the session I am now describing. It will be 
 found that the most innocent and accidental phrases of 
 Sir Robert Peel are tortured by Mr. Disraeli into in- 
 tentional insults of the Tory party ; that references are 
 made to painful transactions of the past from all men- 
 tion of which a delicate-minded man would recoil ; that, 
 in fact, there is no misrepresentation, no calumny, no 
 rhetorical trick, from which the assailant of Peel feels 
 bound to shrink. 
 
 I am about to give the first instance of gross and 
 plainly wilful misrepresentation. In the course of his 
 speech, Sir Robert Peel had used the expression it was 
 " no easy task to ensure the united action of an ancient 
 monarchy, a proud aristocracy, and a reformed consti- 
 tuency." * 
 
 This appears to me one of the most innocent sen- 
 Ibid. 91.
 
 294 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 tences ever spoken by an orator. Everybody knows 
 it is a platitude of English politics, that the functions 
 and prerogatives of the English Crown, and of the 
 different Houses of Parliament, are ill-defined, if not 
 undefinable. It is known to everybody that each of 
 those parts of the Constitution has powers in theory 
 which could not be put into force without producing 
 collision; and that it is only by compromise, by sus- 
 pension in action of purely logical claims, that the 
 different parts of the Constitution are able to work 
 harmoniously. Clearly, then, an English Minister 
 has the task of reconciling by tact and good manage- 
 ment the theoretically irreconcilable claims of the 
 English Crown, the English House of Lords, and the 
 English House of Commons. Is not that plainly 
 what Sir Robert Peel's sentence was meant to con- 
 vey? and that the duty became the more difficult 
 because of the antiquity of the first, the pride of the 
 second, and the popular character of the third ? Mark 
 the dishonest use to which Mr. Disraeli put Peel's 
 sentence : 
 
 " The Minister," writes Mr. Disraeli, chuckling over 
 his mean triumph years after, "perhaps too con- 
 temptuous of his opponents, had not guarded all his 
 approache.". His depreciation of those party ties by 
 which he had risen, in an assembly, too, in which they 
 are wisely reverenced j . . . . and above all his signi- 
 ficant intimation that an ancient monarchy and a proud 
 aristocracy might not be compatible with a reformed 
 home of commons at least, unless he were Minister
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 295 
 
 offered some materials in the handling of which the 
 least adroit could scarcely fail." : 
 
 I think it requires 110 further argument to show that 
 Mr. Disraeli puts a forced more, a plainly false inter 
 pretation on Sir Robert Peel's words. As he does this, 
 writing in coolness, years after the event, we are not sur- 
 prised to find him making the same misrepresentation in 
 a speech to an excited assembly. Here are his words : 
 
 "Follow him! Who is to follow him, or why is any- 
 body to follow him or where is anybody to folio w him 
 to? What does he mean to do this great statesman, 
 who talks with a sneer of an * ancient monarchy ' and 
 a 'proud aristocracy,' and the difficulty of reconciling 
 them with a reformed constituency ; and who tells us 
 that we are but drags on the wheel, and that he is 
 the only driver? Have we arrived at that? Is that 
 the opinion of the majority of this House, or even 
 of the minority of the majority of the country, or 
 even of the minority? Is it their opinion that ancient 
 monarchies and proud aristocracies are inconvenient 
 lumber, to be got rid of on the first convenient opportunity 
 that they are things irreconcilable with a reformed con- 
 stituency, reformed under this Minister's own protest, 
 in spite of his own protest, this man who comes for- 
 ward and tells us he is devoting himself to his country, 
 and sacrificing himself to his Sovereign, and that he 
 is the only man who can advise you what counsel it 
 is most expedient for you to pursue ? " t 
 
 * " Life of Bentinck," 56-7 : edition of 1862. 
 f See ant.*. 116-17 ; Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxiii.
 
 296 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The speech closes with a highly virtuous eulogy on 
 the merits of consistency, and a severe homily on tLe 
 vice of political insincerity. 
 
 11 Let men stand," exclaimed Mr. Disraeli, "by the 
 principle by which they rise right or wrong. I make 
 no exception. If they be in the wrong, they must 
 retire to that shade of private life with which our 
 
 present rulers have often threatened us Do not, 
 
 then, because you see a great personage giving up his 
 opinions, do not cheer him on do not yield so ready 
 a reward to political tergiversation. Above all, main- 
 tain the line of demarcation between parties ; for it i 3 
 only by maintaining the independence of party that 
 you can maintain the integrity of public men, and 
 the power and influence of Parliament itself."* 
 
 " The opportune," says Mr. Disraeli, criticizing 
 afterwards his own speech, " in a popular assembly, 
 has sometimes more success than the weightiest efforts 
 of research and reason." f 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, the reader will perceive, attribules the 
 success of his speech rather to the passions uf his 
 audience than to the merit of what he said. And 
 assuredly the success of such an address is one of the 
 most amusing, or, otherwise regarded, one of the most 
 saddening episodes 'in political history. Mark first 
 the dramatis personce. Here we have on one side a 
 Minister engaged in the great task of making food 
 accessible to the poor of three nations. This Minister 
 is denounced for inconsistency, amid the deafening 
 See ante, 122-3. t " Life of Bentinck," 56.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 297 
 
 cheers of an English Parliament, by a man whose 
 whole life had been a series of the most notorious 
 inconsistencies. " Do not yield so ready a reward to 
 political tergiversation/' says Mr. Disraeli, who had, 
 as everybody in the House of Commons knew, sought 
 election first as a Radical, and a short time after as 
 a Tory ; who had first advocated and then opposed 
 T.iennial Parliaments and Vote by Ballot; who had 
 first condemned and afterwards defended the Irish 
 Tithes and the Irish Church ; who had first sought 
 the aid of O'Connell and of Hume, and had after" 
 wards denounced them ; who had advocated Free 
 Trade in 1841 and 1842 as vehemently as he now 
 advocated Protection ; who had for years fawned upon 
 the man whom he was then endeavouring to hunt for 
 ever from power. Of whom are we to think more 
 meanly of Mr. Disraeli, or of the large-acred and 
 small-brained fanatics by whom he was cheered? 
 
 On Tuesday, January 27, Sir Robert Peel introduced 
 his Bill on the Corn Laws, the nature of which may 
 be briefly described as a proposal for the total abolition 
 of those laws. 
 
 A desultory conversation, but no discussion, took 
 place on the first night, and a fortnight was to elapse 
 before the real debate began. In that fortnight the 
 position of Mr. Disraeli was greatly changed : from 
 being a mere free-lance, he had become one of the 
 chiefs of a compact party. 
 
 The leader of the Protectionist opposition was, as 
 everybody knows, Lord George Bentinck. It was
 
 298 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 a strange choice ; but it turned out to be wiser 
 than was at first thought. Lord George had sat in 
 eight Parliaments without making any mark, or taking 
 any particular interest in its proceedings. All his time 
 and energy had been devoted to hunting and racing. 
 He was without much talent, had little ambition, and 
 was a wretched speaker; as a rule, he was unselfish, 
 and he was a firm friend. Besides all this, he was rich 
 and noble. Such a man, properly handled, would be a 
 real Marquess of Carabas to our Vivian Grey. 
 
 The debate on the Corn Law dragged its weary 
 length along ; Protectionist member after member rose 
 to repeat well-worn fallacies, or to give dreary echoes of 
 Mr. Disraeli's attacks on Sir Robert Peel.* It was not 
 till February 20 that Mr. Disraeli himself spoke. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli began by a definition of party obligations. 
 He maintained that party is public opinion embodied ; 
 that Sir Robert Peel received office as the representative 
 of that section of public opinion which opposes Free 
 Trade ; and that, therefore, it was not his province, but 
 that of Lord John Russell and the Liberal party, to 
 carry Free Trade. 
 
 The theories he laid down on party obligations will 
 find general acceptance ; but they are in direct contru- 
 
 * Those dull and stupid speeches receive obsequious eulogisms 
 from Mr. Disraeli, who, when writing the Life of Bentinck, was not 
 yet secure in his leadership of the country party. Mr. Philip Miles 
 "delivered a well-digested speech." Life of Bent inch, 82-3. Sir 
 William Hcathcotc's speech was one " of admirable ability," " alike 
 remarkable for its just, temperate, and ingenious views, and its grace- 
 ful rhetoric and flowing elocution." Hid. 83. Mr. Staff-mi ' replied
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 299 
 
 diction with the acts of Mr. Disraeli when he himself 
 was a holder of office. Like Sir Robert Peel, he had to 
 " educate " his party into a desertion of their principles. 
 As Sir Robert Peel abandoned Protection to carry Free 
 Trade, Mr. Disraeli abandoned opposition to any change 
 in the franchise to carry Household Suffrage. Aye, 
 more than this as will soon be seen Mr. Disraeli, 
 when he became one of the leaders of a Protectionist 
 Ministry, surrendered Protection quite as readily and 
 submissively as did the man he was attacking in this 
 speech. 
 
 Besides, Mr. Disraeli has not only practised, but 
 preached, a gospel of party obligations in exact contra- 
 diction to that he is laying down in 1846, and in exact 
 accordance with the theories and acts of Sir Robert Peel. 
 The reader will not forget that in his " Vindication " he 
 declared that Sir Robert Peel had a perfect right to bring 
 forward in 1834, as Minister, measures which he had 
 opposed when in opposition. He laughs to scorn the 
 " famous dilemma of insincerity or apostacy." " I will 
 grant," he writes, " that Sir Robert Peel and his col- 
 leagues had previously resisted the measures which tbey 
 then proposed ; " but he justifies this abandonment of 
 principle on the ground that, if such measures had not 
 been carried, Peel and his party could never again 
 exercise power ; they would have " conceded to the 
 
 to the Secretary of War in a speech of uncommon spirit and success." 
 Ibid. 85. The Marquis of Granby " proved to the House that he 
 had carefully and deeply studied the question under discussion, and 
 gave an earnest of that prominence in debate which he has subse- 
 quently achieved and sustained." Hid. 85 ; etc., etc., etc.
 
 300 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Whigs a monopoly of power under the specious title of 
 a monopoly of reform." * 
 
 This is exactly the argument Sir Robert Peel, and 
 still more, the Duke of Wellington, gave for carrying 
 Free Trade in 1846. Free Trade, they argued, is in- 
 evitable : the Whigs have, through their leader, declared 
 their determination to carry it. The question for us 
 then is, whether we or they shall carry Free Trade? 
 Are we to concede " to the Whigs a monopoly of power 
 under the specioiis title of" Free Trade? If the 
 Mr. Disraeli of 1846 had been consistent with the 
 Mr. Disraeli of 1835, he would have most highly 
 applauded the conclusions of Sir Robert Peel and his 
 colleagues. In place of meeting them with the " famous 
 dilemma of insincerity or apostacy," he should have 
 been gratified by their practice of his own preaching. f 
 
 Mr. Disraeli next spoke on February 27, taking a 
 very discreditable part in a very discreditable scene. 
 It will be remembered that in the session of 1845 he 
 alluded to the painful collision that had taken place in 
 
 See ante, 125-6. 
 
 f Mr. Disraeli was not satisfied with preaching this doctrine of 
 party obligations in the " Vindication " ; he afterwards, as we all 
 know, not only acted upon it, but preached it most vigorously in 1867. 
 Speaking at Edinburgh,. after he had carried Household Suffrage, he 
 said that it would have been " a fatal position that one of the great 
 constitutional partiet of England should commence their programme 
 by the admisxion that upon the mott important and intercxting of 
 public qwstiont they mere to be considered to be debarred from 
 crcr interfering." (Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 
 Edinburgh. Apply this principle to the position of Sir Robert Peel 
 with regard to Free Trade in 1846, and does it not recommend 
 Sir Robert Peel's line of action ?
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 301 
 
 1843 between Sir Bobert Peel and Mr. Cobden, after 
 the assassination of Mr. Drummond, Sir Robert Peel's 
 secretary. In 1846 Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden 
 were on the best of terms: with characteristic good 
 taste, Mr. Disraeli again sought to open the old sore 
 between them. 
 
 Speaking of some condemnation that had been passed 
 on foul-mouthed Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Disraeli asked why 
 did not " the gentlemen of the League " vindicate their 
 " character as to assassination," which had been im- 
 pugned by Sir Robert Peel ? " Why not," he said, " pro- 
 secute the right hon. Baronet? . Here is an ' antler' d 
 monarch of the woods ; ' why hunt ' small deer ' ? " * 
 
 After this thrust at the Premier came the celebrated 
 attack upon Mr. Roebuck's " melodramatic malignity 
 and Sadler's Wells sort of sarcasm." f 
 
 Let us turn from these wretched personalities, and 
 this attempt to stir up old discords, to the manly and 
 generous contrast presented in the speeches of Sir 
 Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden. The Premier declared 
 that the expression he had used had been totally mis- 
 understood ; and if he had not sufficiently explained 
 this before, he was rejoiced at the new opportunity for 
 " fully and unequivocally withdrawing an imputation on 
 the hon. Member for Stockport, which was thrown out 
 in the heat of debate under an erroneous impression of 
 his meaning." J Mr. Cobden spoke in exactly the same 
 spirit. He acknowledged that " he too felt regret for 
 the terms in which he had alluded to the right hon. 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Lxxxiv. 244. f MM. 246. J Ibid. 248.
 
 302 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Baronet. He sincerely hoped," he said, rebuking 
 though not naming Mr. Disraeli, " that all either he 
 (Mr. Cobden) or the right hon. Baronet had previously 
 said on that subject would be obliterated from their 
 recollection, and that no one on either side of the 
 House, after what had passed that night, would attempt 
 to revive the matter or make any allusion to it." ' 
 
 On this same night (February 27) the debate on the 
 Corn Law, which had dragged its weary length along 
 for twelve nights, was at last brought to a close. Lord 
 George Bentinck was the last speaker. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's account of this speech is one of the 
 most amusing things even he has written. The speech 
 was a mass of ill-digested information the production 
 of a mind quite incapable of grasping principles, and 
 of a man who, entirely unaccustomed to serious thought 
 or to commercial questions, flattered himself that he 
 had mastered a subject by cramming his head with 
 figures. The speech, too, is filled with dark forebodings 
 and prophecies ; the destruction of English prosperity 
 and the setting of England's sun are proved to inevitably 
 result from Free Trade. Yet this production of a narrow, 
 prejudiced, and untrained intellect receives terms of 
 praise from Mr. Disraeli that would be fulsome, even if 
 the adulation had been offered to a great and enlightened 
 statesman. It was " recognised very soon," writes Mr. 
 Disraeli, " that Bentinck was master of his subject." f 
 
 " Sir Robert Peel looked round very often with that 
 expression of appreciation which it was impossible for 
 . 248-9. * - Life of Bentinck," 97.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 303 
 
 his nature to refuse to parliamentary success, even 
 when the ability displayed was hostile to his projects," * 
 and so on. 
 
 Immediately after the conclusion of Lord George 
 Bentinck's speech the division was taken. Here was 
 the result, in Mr. Disraeli's own beautiful language : 
 
 " In a house of five hundred and eighty-one members 
 present, the amendment of the protectionists was defeated 
 only by ninety-seven ; and two hundred and forty-two 
 gentlemen, in spite of desertion, difficulty, and defeat, 
 still maintained the ' chastity of their honour.' " f 
 
 Thus foiled in their first attempt to stop the Corn 
 Bill, the Protectionists resorted to a policy of delay, and 
 shrank from no dodge to postpone the Bill to such a 
 late date that the House of Lords might have a decent 
 excuse for exercising its chief function of delaying 
 just and necessary measures. The Government, un- 
 fortunately for themselves, helped the plans of their 
 enemies by the introduction of an Irish Coercion Bill. 
 
 During the year 1845, there was a more than usually 
 severe outbreak of crime in Ireland. Murder walked 
 rampant through the land. The murders were of two 
 classes : some of them were committed by landlords, 
 and were called legal ; some were committed by tenants, 
 and were, of course, illegal. In the session of 1846, 
 Sir Robert Peel brought in an Act to put down crime ; 
 but, curiously enough, the Bill proposed to put down 
 only one quality of crime : it proposed to extirpate 
 illegal murder, which is, of course, dangerous, but left 
 * Jbid. t Ibid. 109.
 
 304 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 untouched legal murder, which is infinitely more 
 perilous. 
 
 Now, this Bill interfered in a curious way with the 
 Corn Law measure, and placed the Government in a 
 strange and awkward dilemma. They were, of course, 
 most anxious to pass the Corn Bill; and to pass it 
 quickly in the House of Commons. 
 
 On the other hand, a Bill which had the repression 
 of assassination as its professed object, of course de- 
 manded immediate attention, and if the circumstances 
 permitted, should be immediately forced by the Govern- 
 ment into law. 
 
 However, against the rapid passage of the Bill, three 
 obstacles immediately arose. In the first place, as has 
 been seen, it was the determination of the Protectionists 
 to postpone, if possible, the third reading of the Corn 
 Bill till after Easter, in the hope of thus defeating it by 
 delay ; the introduction of a new, important, and strongly 
 opposed Bill offered them, of course, an opportunity 
 which was extremely tempting for carrying out this 
 purpose. 
 
 Next, the Irish members, who followed the lead of 
 O'Connell, were of opinion that the Bill was cruelly 
 oppressive and altogether uncalled for ; and a small, 
 but at the same time compact and determined section 
 they had resolved to oppose the Coercion Bill at every 
 stage. 
 
 Finally, there were the Whigs, who* were not en- 
 thusiastic in favour of the Bill, and who, of course, 
 would be more than human if they had not some desire
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 305 
 
 to profit by the break-up which the measure caused in 
 the Conservative ranks. 
 
 On Monday, March 30th, leave was asked to intro- 
 duce the Coercion Bill. As everybody knows, this 
 request is usually granted as a matter of course, but 
 so strong had grown the desire to oppose the Bill, 
 that even this favour was denied, and a strange coali- 
 tion the herald of future and fatal coalitions took 
 place. The amendment was proposed by Sir William 
 Somerville, an Irish Whig, and seconded by Mr. Smith 
 O'Brien, a Repealer; and was supported with equal 
 ardour by Lord John Russell and Daniel O'Connell. 
 And, finally, the Protectionists gave it but a conditional 
 support. The result was that the Irish members and 
 the Whigs succeeded in preventing Sir Robert Peel 
 from passing the first reading of the Coercion Bill 
 before Easter, and the Easter vacation found the Govern- 
 ment decidedly lowered in prestige. They were still 
 further damaged by the events which took place im- 
 mediately after the end of the recess, for, owing to 
 various causes, a whole week passed without their 
 making the slightest progress either with their Corn or 
 their Coercion Bill. In the meantime, another danger 
 
 ' O 
 
 to the Government had arisen ; a rapprochement was 
 taking place between the Protectionists and those of 
 the Irish members like Mr. Smith O'Brien who were 
 violently opposed to the Coercion, and but luke- 
 warmly attached, if not hostile, to the Corn Law Bill 
 On April 24 by way of finding out whether a coalition 
 against the Coercion Bill and the Ministry was possible 
 
 20
 
 3c6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 between the two sections Mr. Smith O'Brien asked 
 Lord George Bentinck inter alia whether, in the 
 present condition of Ireland, his Protectionist friends 
 would consent to a temporary opening of the ports to 
 corn, free of duty. This question led to a long debate, 
 thus again interfering with the progress of the Coercion 
 Bill. Such a repetition of failure seriously alarmed both 
 the Government and the chief advocates of Free Trade. 
 Mr. Cobden rose to complain of the Protectionists and 
 of the Government ; of the former for their factious 
 opposition, and of the latter for their introduction of 
 the Coercion Bill. 
 
 In the course of this speech, Mr. Cobden used a 
 sentence by accident which had serious results. He was 
 arguing that whatever temporary success the coalition 
 of the member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) and 
 Lord George Bentinck might have in defeating Sir 
 Robert Peel's measure, the Corn Laws were doomed. 
 These laws might still be supported by the friends 
 of Lord George Bentinck, but there were other people 
 to be considered there were the people of England. 
 " I don't mean," went on Mr. Cobden, " the country 
 party, but the people living in the towns, and who will 
 govern this country."* 
 
 The last sentence in this passage is open to mis- 
 understanding if taken by itself. It might be inter- 
 preted to mean that the towns should govern the 
 country. But, taking the passage in conjunction with 
 what preceded and followed it, the meaning is plainly 
 * Ibid. 3 S. Ixxxv. 1010.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 307 
 
 enough this : that, however these aristocratic land- 
 lords might rave, whatever devices they might employ 
 to defeat Sir Robert Peel's Bill, the people generally 
 were determined that, for once and all, the Corn Laws 
 should be abolished. That this was the meaning of 
 it is made perfectly clear by the sentence which 
 follows : 
 
 " I tell him that the English people, and the Scotch, 
 and the Welsh, and I believe the Irish too, are, from 
 what I have heard, determined not to be content with 
 a suspension, but to have a total abolition of the Corn 
 Law." * 
 
 The speech of Mr. Cobden was, as a whole, favour- 
 able to the Government, and a crushing condemnation 
 of the tactics of the Protectionists. It received 
 accordingly a considerable amount of applause from 
 the Treasury Bench ; and Mr. Disraeli, knowing the 
 readiness to take offence of the insolent dullards by 
 whom he was followed, saw that this circumstance 
 might be utilized against Sir Robert Peel. He first 
 accused Mr. Cobden of defining the people of England 
 " as the persons who live in the towns " which, as I 
 have- shown, was altogether a forced construction on 
 Mi*. Cobden's words ; and then went on to say, 
 
 "The right hon. Baronet immediately cheered that 
 expression. The circumstance struck me at the time ; 
 for it came from the same right hon. individual w r ho 
 was once so proud of being at the head of the gentle- 
 men of England. At the moment that the hon. 
 * Ibid. 1010-11.
 
 3 o8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Member for Stockport, in a tone of menace, threatened 
 the country party with the control of public opinion, 
 and said that a powerful sentiment of indignation 
 would arise among the people of England at their 
 conduct, in the most frank and open spirit he gave 
 them his definition of what the people were, as being 
 the inhabitants of the towns. The right hon. Baronet 
 cheered that sentiment he accepted that definition."* 
 
 This is the second example I have given, in my 
 account of this session, of the unscrupulous use Mr. 
 Disraeli is ready to make of an accidental phrase. The 
 reader has not forgotten to what purpose Mr. Disraeli 
 put Sir Robert Peel's innocent words with regard to 
 an ancient monarchy, a proud aristocracy, and a 
 reformed House of Commons. And here again we 
 have him pursuing the same kind of tactics. Is this 
 mode of warfare honest, is it honourable ? Is the 
 greatest victory obtained by such weapons a victory 
 to be proud of ? 
 
 I have shown that the phrase of Mr. Cobden was 
 innocent enough ; that all he meant to say was that 
 the people were determined and able to overcome 
 faction. But suppose Mr. Cobden's words had the 
 meaning attributed to them by Mr. Disraeli, was Mr. 
 Disraeli justified in making his charge against Sir 
 Robert Peel? Even if Sir Robert Peel thought the 
 towns should rule the country, was it likely that a 
 man of his cautious character would cheer the ex- 
 pression of such an opinion ? But what did Mr. 
 * Ibid. Ixxxv. 1015-16.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 309 
 
 Disraen care about fair play when he had an enemy 
 to strike ? He saw an opportunity for playing on the 
 folly and mean passions of his Protectionist followers ; 
 why should he " a being reckless of all things save 
 his own prosperity" why should he not catch at the 
 chance ? 
 
 A long and desultory discussion ensued, and the 
 natural result followed. Mr. Disraeli was shown by 
 Mr. Cobden to have totally misrepresented his words ; 
 Sir Robert Peel, confirmed by several others, proved 
 that Mr. Disraeli's assertion that he had cheered the 
 supposed definition was incorrect; and Mr. Disraeli 
 had to apologize both for the misrepresentation and 
 the false charge.* Was there ever a man of any 
 importance who had to withdraw so many serious 
 personal charges ? Yet mark how, in spite of detection 
 after detection, refutation after refutation ; in spite of 
 a long series of abject apology following upon con- 
 fident assertion he goes on in his path of vituperation 
 unabashed. 
 
 The first reading of the Coercion Bill was passed on 
 the 2nd of May. It was supported by Lord John 
 Russell, by Lord George Bentinck, and the greater 
 part of the Protectionist members, f And thus the 
 
 * Mr. Disraeli had the coolness to conclude his apology with these 
 words : " But I would wish the House to understand that whatever 
 may be our party struggles, or what is called personal acrimony, 
 which I never did feel, that is the truth I mould not for a moment 
 think of rising to take advantage of a cheer, and to make a charge , 
 ad I the slightest doubt about the matter." Ibid. Ixxxv. 1021. 
 
 f Mr. Disraeli did not vote. Life of Bentinck, 206
 
 310 LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 Ministry were relieved of one of the great obstacles in 
 their way, and had reason to hope that their Corn Law 
 would pass without much further delay. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, however, reckoned without his host : 
 even yet he did not know the lengths of absurdity to 
 which the Protectionist orators were prepared to go. 
 In the course of his speech on the Coercion Bill, 
 Sir Robert Peel happened to make casually the remark 
 that the restrictions on trade, which he formerly 
 believed to be " impolitic," he then believed to be also 
 unjust. Lord George Bentinck actually raised a 
 debate on this phrase ! 
 
 In the course of this " injustice debate," as he him- 
 self calls it,* Mr. Disraeli made a long speech, of 
 which the only point worth noticing is that he had 
 shall I call it the courage ? to quote Mr. John Stuart 
 Mill as a friend of Protection ! t This audacious mis- 
 representation met with speedy punishment. On 
 May 8, Mr. Roebuck, rising to speak on the Corn 
 Bill, devoted, as he was fond of doing in those days, 
 some of his attention to Mr. Disraeli, and made an 
 attack on that gentleman, which is to my mind quite 
 as powerful as any Mr. Disraeli made on Sir Robert 
 Peel, with the important addition that it was wholly 
 true, while the attacks of Mr. Disraeli were often 
 partly false. In this speech, Mr. Roebuck touched 
 the very root of Mr. Disraeli's motives, and of the 
 success of his oratory; and he showed that it was to 
 the mean passions and dull intelligences on which 
 Ibid. 217. f Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxvi. 88-9.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 311 
 
 Mr. Disraeli played, and his unscrupulous skill in 
 playing upon them, we must attribute the success ot 
 his harangues. Referring scornfully to Mr. Disraeli's 
 ridiculous assumption of a knowledge of political 
 economy, Mr. Roebuck went on : " He would leave 
 out of consideration all the garnish that surrounded 
 this proposition of the hon. Member's, because the hon. 
 Member understood perfectly well the temper of the 
 House, and knew that, however backward might be his 
 speech however shallow his reasoning no matter ichat 
 fallacies he might put forward still, if he seasoned it 
 ivith a little personality, it would be sure to pass"* 
 
 Mr. Roebuck next took up Mr. Disraeli's oft-repeated 
 charge of inconsistency against Sir Robert Peel, and 
 was easily able to show with what ill-grace it came 
 from him above all other men. Mr. Disraeli, he 
 said, " had begun life as a tragedian, but he has left 
 off tragedy, and he now found it much more successful 
 to devote his talents to genteel comedy." f Then he 
 recalled to Mr. Disraeli's memory the days when he 
 the rampant True Blue of the moment was a 
 protege" of Mr. Hume and O'Connell; and he reminded 
 Mr. Disraeli, who had just indulged in an attack of 
 characteristic impertinence on Radicals, that he him- 
 self "had been in the habit of going to meetings at 
 Marylebone spouting radicalism.'" % Finally, summing 
 up Mr. Disraeli's motives and principles, he declared 
 that it was not quite fair to twit one man about 
 his " change of opinion, while another man was found 
 * Ibid. 274-5. f IMd. 276. J Ibid.
 
 3 I2 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 who took up a particular set of opinions, ai a time 
 when his own personal interests were concerned, and 
 ivhen he thought he might get something from a party 
 by joining them, and afterwards, on failing by one set 
 of opinions to gain any regard for himself, picks 
 up another, and plays an opposite character from the 
 same motive. For a man to complain of that sort 
 of change was what he could understand; but that 
 change was, he thought, not like a statesman, but like 
 something else."* 
 
 Those charges of inconsistency of gross and in- 
 terested inconsistency, brought by Mr. Roebuck 
 against Mr. Disraeli are, as a reader of these pages 
 will see, founded on indisputable fact. How comes 
 it, then what can we think of the intelligence of the 
 Protectionist members, when such a man was allowed 
 to lead a crusade against another man's inconsis- 
 tency ? 
 
 Finally, Mr. Roebuck proved that Mr. Disraeli had 
 been guilty of the grossest and most barefaced mis- 
 representation of Mr. John Stuart Mill's meaning. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli made an extremely, lame attempt to 
 answer this unanswerable attack ; made his old claim 
 to perfect consistency; and gave a new version, in 
 addition to the many he had already propounded, of 
 his relations with O'Connell.t In the course of his 
 explanation on this latter point, he spoke of the Irish 
 tribune as "a great man"; an estimate very different 
 from the contemptuous and underrating tone he had 
 Ibid. | Ibid. 279-80.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 313 
 
 adopted towards him in all he had written and said 
 from 1835 up to this year. 
 
 There is only one fault, perhaps, to be found with the 
 tone of Mr. Roebuck's reply to Mr. Disraeli. It is the 
 fault which has been laid to the charge of a previous 
 work of mine on Lord Beaconsfield. Mr. Roebuck, 
 as I am accused of doing, took Lord Beaconsfield too 
 seriously. I deny that this charge has any foundation 
 against me. I have brought heavy charges against 
 Lord Beaconsfield, and I have pressed them home, 
 but" to me his inconsistencies, his want of principle, 
 his alternate support and denunciation of the same 
 measures, his alternate flattery and denunciation of 
 the same men, appear a perfectly natural outgrowth 
 of his character. However grave the situation, how- 
 ever momentous the circumstances, whether he be 
 the Corypheus of an enthusiastic party of youth, re- 
 ligion, and feudalism, or the leader of an infuriated 
 faction against the alleged abandonment of principle 
 by a great Conservative chief, whether he be the 
 financial minister of the greatest commercial country 
 in the world, or whether he reach the still higher 
 position of being the sole arbiter of the lives and 
 fortunes of millions of men, existing and to come, 
 in all those situations, I say, he retains, to any clear- 
 eyed student of his character, his original littleness. 
 Behind the greatness, and, in some cases, the terrible 
 solemnity of the occasion, and behind Lord Beacons- 
 field' s own mask of honest anger, of deep piety, of 
 lofty patriotism, of real seriousness of character, you
 
 3 H LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 can see, if you have but an eye, young Vivian Grey 
 in a drawing-room, saying pleasant nothings to silly 
 women, playing skilfully on the passions of vain and 
 weak men, frivolous, egotistic, self-seeking, utterly 
 insincere. And, even if you be but purblind, there 
 is no excuse for you not seeing through Lord 
 Beaconsfield. For the marvellous thing about this 
 great and most successful of charlatans is, that he 
 is a self-confessed charlatan. He has deceived this 
 country, after he had told it he was going to deceive 
 it. He has deceived this country in the very way in 
 which he said he would deceive it, and by the very 
 means : the mountebank, before proceeding to his 
 performance, took his audience behind the scenes. 
 
 When Lord Beaconsfield, in his Vindication, gravely 
 quotes a passage from Bolingbroke in support of a 
 certain set of political views, I at once go back to the 
 scene in " Vivian Grey " where that young gentleman 
 invents a sentence from Bolingbroke in confirmation of 
 certain opinions. When he speaks in the most seem- 
 ingly serious manner in defence of the Corn Laws, the 
 passage in " Vivian Grey " comes back to my memory 
 in which Mr. Stapylton Toad's success in dishonestly 
 playing the same part is told with a great deal of 
 admiration. When Lord Beaconsfield pays court, with 
 indecent ostentation, to Hume, or to Peel, or to Bentinck, 
 I simply see a real Vivian Grey paying court to a live 
 Marquess of Carabas. When Lord Beaconsfield openly 
 violates all political principle, I remember that he is 
 the writer of the aphorism that in politics there is no
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 315 
 
 honour. When he panders to the meanest passions of 
 the Protectionist party, I recall that he professed his 
 intention of regarding mankind as a base herd whose 
 weaknesses were to be humoured, and whose vilest 
 passions were to be assumed, and who to the wise 
 man were merely a great game. Finally, when I see 
 him opposing a measure that was to rescue millions 
 from starvation, or adopting a policy that might bring 
 a bloody death to hundreds of thousands, I remember 
 his own description of himself as a being reckless of 
 all consequences save his own prosperity. It is only 
 those who believe in Lord Beaconsfield that can be 
 said to take him seriously. But those who share the 
 opinion of him entertained by the writer of this book 
 cannot fairly be charged with such want of humour. 
 To them, at least, Lord Beaconsfield did not reveal 
 the joke through Vivian Grey in vain. 
 
 On the llth of May the third reading of the Corn 
 Bill was proposed ; and, in accordance with their policy 
 of factious opposition, the Protectionists, through the 
 Marquis of Granby,* proposed an amendment. 
 
 The debate lasted for three nights. On the third 
 night, the 15th May, Mr. Disraeli spoke. With this 
 speech I will deal as I have done with many others 
 delivered during this session, I will, that is to say, 
 
 * The speech of the Marquis of Granby is, it is scarcely necessary 
 to say, highly applauded by Mr. Disraeli. "He placed the whole 
 question before the House in a style comprehensive, masculine, and 
 sincere." Life of Bcntinclc, p. 223. Lord Beaconsfield is not so 
 ready to flatter the Marquis of Granby now ; I would venture to say 
 he snubs him.
 
 316 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 omit his exploded fallacies and falsified predictions, 
 and give those passages only in which he made a per- 
 sonal attack upon the Minister. 
 
 He began by alluding to his attack of the previous 
 session on Sir Robert Peel in which he had said that 
 Protection appeared to him to be in the same danger 
 as Protestantism in 1828. In connection with this 
 reference he made the statement the importance of 
 which will be seen by-and-by that Lord George 
 Bentinck disapproved wholly of this assault on the 
 Prime Minister, and that he continued a firm believer 
 of that statesman up to 1846.* He then went on to 
 describe the Prime Minister as one who "from the days 
 of Mr. Horner to the days of the Honourable Member 
 for Stockport " had " traded on the ideas and intelli- 
 gence of others. His life," he went on, "has been 
 one great appropriation clause. He is a burglar of 
 others' intellect. Search the Index of Beatson, from 
 the days of the Conqueror to the termination of the 
 last reign, there is no statesman who has committed 
 political petty larceny on so great a scale." t 
 
 The action of the Ministry he described as "the 
 huckstering tyranny of the Treasury Bench," and the 
 Ministers as " political pedlars that bought their party 
 in the cheapest market and sold us in the dearest." t 
 
 Sir Robert Peel made a stinging and contemptuous 
 reply to this remark. He said he would be offering 
 an insult to the country and the House if he were 
 to condescend to bandy personalities on such an 
 
 Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxvi. 673. f Ibid. 675. J Ibid. 676.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 317 
 
 occasion. " Sir," lie went on, " I foresaw that the 
 course which I have taken from a sense of public duty 
 would expose me to serious sacrifices. I foresaw, as 
 its inevitable result, that I must forfeit friendships 
 which I most highly valued that I must interrupt 
 political relations in which I felt sincere pride; but the 
 smallest of all the penalties which I anticipated were 
 the continued venomous attacks of the Member for 
 Shrewsbury." * 
 
 Then he turned to the assertion of Mr. Disraeli that 
 he had been trading on other people's ideas since the 
 days of Horner, and asked Mr. Disraeli, pertinently 
 enough, why, if such were his view of his character, he 
 should have been so ready to give him his support in 
 1841. 
 
 " It is still more surprising," went on Peel, " that 
 he should have been ready as 1 think he ^uas to 
 unite his fortunes with mine in office, thus implying 
 the strongest proof which any public 'man can give of 
 confidence in the honour and integrity of a Minister 
 of the Crown." f 
 
 I think I have given the reader overwhelming 
 evidence in corroboration of the statement Sir Robert 
 Peel makes about Mr. Disraeli. I have shown how 
 persistently, during his first session, Mr. Disraeli de- 
 fended Sir Robert Peel's acts, and how lavishly he 
 praised Sir Robert Peel himself. I have shown how 
 Mr. Disraeli spoke of Sir Robert Peel at the Shrews- 
 bury election of 1841, how he proclaimed the future 
 * Ibid. 689. f Ibid.
 
 3 i8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Premier " the greatest statesman of his age," how 
 he wrote to Sir Robert Peel the news of his success, 
 and how he described himself as one of Sir Robert's 
 Peel's "humble but fervent supporters." And the 
 reader has also seen, when Parliament assembled, 
 and there was the trial of strength between Sir Robert 
 Peel and Lord John Russell, with what vigour Mr. 
 Disraeli attacked Russell and defended Peel. And, as 
 has also been seen, Mr. Disraeli was not satisfied with 
 paying court to Sir Robert Peel by his tongue. Sir 
 Robert Peel in " Runnymede " was " the only hope of 
 the suffering people," and in " Coningsby " was " a 
 great personage," " a great man," etc., etc. 
 
 Therefore, I say, there is overwhelming evidence 
 in favour of the statement that Mr. Disraeli was 
 seeking office from Sir Robert Peel in 1841. How 
 does Mr. Disraeli meet the charge ? Did he admit 
 frankly what it was impossible to deny ? Did he 
 make a candid confession of his sins ? Oh no ! 
 Mr. Disraeli will never be caught doing that. Mr. 
 Disraeli quibbled. 
 
 "I never shall," he said, "I never shall it is totally 
 foreign to my nature make an application for any 
 place. But in 1841, when the Government was 
 formed .... an individual possessing, as I believe 
 him to possess, the most intimate and complete confi- 
 dence of the right hon. Gentleman, called on me and 
 communicated with me. There was certainly some 
 
 conversation There was some communication, 
 
 not at all of that nature whiuh the House perhaps
 
 .THE FALL OF PEEL. 319 
 
 supposes, between the right hon. Gentleman and me, 
 but of the most amicable kind. I can only say this 
 it was a transaction not originated by me, but which 
 any Gentleman, I care not how high his honour or 
 spirit, might entertain to-morrow." * 
 
 Now, I call this a quibbling answer, and for this 
 reason : Mr. Disraeli, while admitting in fact the truth 
 of Sir Robert Peel's statement, endeavours by a skilful 
 and characteristic attempt at confusing the issue, to 
 make Sir Robert Peel's statement appear false. Sir 
 Robert Peel's assertion was that Mr. Disraeli was 
 ready to take office under him in 1841. Mr. Disraeli 
 cannot deny this, but he tries to escape by raising the 
 new issue whether the office was sought by him or 
 offered to him. He insinuates but does not dare, 
 as the reader will see, to openly assert that the 
 office was offered to him. I ask, is that likely ? Is it 
 likely that an expectant Premier and one especially 
 of the cold, uncommunicative, and haughty nature of 
 Sir Robert Peel would seek out a politician of the 
 insignificance of Mr. Disraeli, for in 1841 he was 
 insignificant ? 
 
 But even if the assertion of Mr. Disraeli be correct, 
 that the negotiations between him and Sir Robert Peel 
 were earned on by a third person, it in no measure 
 affects the merits of the question between them. If a 
 third person did intervene, we may be sure that it was 
 some friend whose kind offices Mr. Disraeli sought. 
 And so it is evident that Mr. Disraeli, while endea- 
 Ibid. 707-8.
 
 3 30 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 vouring to suggest a denial, was in reality making a 
 virtual admission of the truth of Sir Robert Peel's 
 statement. 
 
 How like this whole contest is to the Globe contro- 
 versy ! In that controversy O'Connell and Hume 
 brought against Mr. Disraeli the same charge that Sir 
 Robert Peel brings against him now. They charged 
 Mr. Disraeli, and they proved the charge, with seeking 
 their patronage at one period of his career and loading 
 them with vituperation at another ; and, in answering 
 them, Mr. Disraeli employed the same arts he employed 
 in answering Sir Robert Peel. Forced to admit his 
 relations of friendship, he sought to show that the 
 friendship was not of his seeking; that O'Connell and 
 Hume then two of the most powerful politicians of 
 England sought his aid then one of the most in- 
 significant politicians in England. And, following 
 exactly the same plan of tactics now, he tries to raise 
 the impression that Sir Robert Peel was anxious for 
 his services, not he for Sir Robert Peel's patronage. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the tactics, all the speeches, and 
 all the vituperation of the Protectionists, the third 
 reading of the Corn Law Bill passed the House of 
 Commons on May 15, by a majority of ninety-eight 
 votes. The Bill was immediately sent up to the House 
 of Lords, and there, after a three nights' debate, 
 passed the second reading on the 28th of May, by the 
 (for the House of Lords) enormous majority of forty- 
 seven. Next day began the \Vhitsun recess. Thus 
 once more did the Government seem to have overcome
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 321 
 
 all obstacles, and to be free from all danger. And 
 now there seemed no point from which they could 
 be attacked. But Sir Robert Peel did not take into 
 account the want of honesty and consistency into which 
 Mr. Disraeli was able to educate his party. 
 
 "How was Sir Robert Peel," writes Mr. Disraeli, 
 who was carrying out in real life the maxims of his 
 hero, " to be turned out ? Here was a question which 
 might well occupy the musing hours of a Whitsun 
 recess." * 
 
 But, as Mr. Disraeli points out, this was not an easy 
 question to answer. A formal vote of want of con- 
 fidence had but little chance of being passed. A large 
 number, if not the majority of the Liberal members, 
 were still under the fresh influence of gratitude to Sir 
 Robert Peel for carrying the Corn Law, and would not 
 join in any direct censure on his administration. Again 
 an interval of two to three weeks might be expected to 
 elapse before the Corn Bill came down from the House 
 of Lords ; until that Bill was safe, the House of Com- 
 mons would refuse to join in any attack. Meantime, 
 the Protectionist leaders thought the attack, to be suc- 
 cessful, should be made immediately, and while their 
 ranks were still closely united by their bitter feelings. 
 
 " In this state of affairs," writes Mr. Disraeli, " it 
 was submitted to the consideration of Lord George 
 Bentinck that there appeared only one course to be 
 taken, and which, though beset with difficulties, was 
 
 * " Life of Bentinck," 230. 
 
 t Ibid. 240 
 
 21
 
 322 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 with boldness and dexterity at least susceptible of 
 success." 
 
 We need scarcely say that the counsellor of Lord 
 George Bentinck was Mr. Disraeli, and certainly the 
 advice he gave was a strange one. 
 
 " The Government had announced their intention of 
 moving the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill 
 on Monday, the 8th of June. If this second reading 
 were opposed both by Lord John Russell and Lord 
 George Bentinck, the defeat of the Administration 
 seemed more than probable." * 
 
 It did certainly require " boldness " and " dex- 
 terity," to say nothing of many other requisite quali- 
 ties, to cai-ry out this programme. For the Bill, the 
 second reading of which Mr. Disraeli advised Lord 
 George Bentinck to assist Lord John Russell in re- 
 jecting, both Lord George Bentinck and Lord John 
 Russell had supported on the first reading. 
 
 On the first reading of the Bill, Lord George 
 Bentinck had described the condition of Ireland as 
 such that no man "can pursue the occupations of 
 industry, or carry out any improvements, without an 
 immediate prospect of being arrested in those im- 
 provements by the hand of the broad-day murderer 
 or the midnight assassin. For these reasons," he 
 added, emphatically, " it is that / call on those with 
 whom I act to give their hearty and lionest support to 
 Her Majesty's Administration, so long as they show 
 an earnest desire to put down murder and protect pro- 
 * Ibid.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 323 
 
 perty in Ireland." " I shall certainly/' he wound up 
 by saying, "support the Government in forwarding 
 the measure." * 
 
 In the face of this support of the Coercion Bill, 
 Lord George Bentinck had the calmness, following 
 Mr. Disraeli's advice, to prepare opposition to its 
 second reading. In leading an attack to drive Sir 
 Robert Peel from office for inconsistency, Lord George 
 Bentinck was not ashamed to be guilty of this gross 
 act of inconsistency himself. 
 
 The excuse given by Lord George Bentinck for his 
 change of attitude is very flimsy. He says that " the 
 Protectionists were prepared to support the Coercion 
 Bill if the Ministry proved the sincerity of their belief 
 in the existence of a dire emergency for such a Bill 
 ' by pressing the measure with all speed through the 
 House/ " t He then proceeded to argue that the 
 Government had not pressed forward the Bill with 
 anything like the necessary speed. Some of his state- 
 ments on this point appear to me open to question. 
 But admitting them all to be true, it does not establish 
 his case. His contention is that a Bill for the protec- 
 tion of life in Ireland is urgently necessary, and his 
 objection to the action of the Government is that they 
 have not been sufficiently prompt in meeting this 
 urgent necessity. But it is plain that if the Bill 
 of Sir Robert Peel were defeated by Bentinck, the 
 measure for which there was so crying a demand 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxv. 308-10. 
 f Ibid. Ixxxvii. 178.
 
 324 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 would be postponed to a still more remote date. If, 
 as Lord George Bentinck said, murder were walking 
 rampant through Ireland by day and by night, not an 
 hour should be lost in putting it down by law, and he 
 was himself committing the crime of which he accused 
 the Premier, by endeavouring to add to the period 
 during which assassination would be allowed to go on. 
 
 To do Lord George Bentinck justice, his first line 
 of defence is not one to which he himself attaches 
 much importance; he abandons it almost as soon as 
 it is made, and frankly confesses that it is hatred of 
 the Ministry for passing the Corn Law, and not his 
 objection to the management of the Coercion Bill, 
 that dictated his opposition. "I, and the gentlemen 
 around me, refuse to trust Her Majesty's Ministers. 
 Yes, Sir, we will no longer trust Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment." * 
 
 This is the poor excuse Lord George Bentinck gives 
 for his extraordinary change of attitude on the Coercion 
 Bill. 
 
 However, whether his excuses were good or bad, 
 Lord George did oppose vehemently the second reading, 
 and hid opposition gave rise to one of the most startling 
 episodes of the session. 
 
 On Monday, the 8th June, the debate began on the 
 second reading. Sir William Somerville, on the part 
 of the Whigs, proposed the rejection of the Bill. Y\V 
 have the authority of Mr. Disraeli for the statement 
 that up to the time the House met, the course of Lord 
 * Ibid. 180.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 325 
 
 George Bentinck, and of the Protectionists generally, 
 was undecided. So far as there was any agreement, 
 it was in the opinion that opposition to the Coercion 
 Bill "would fail/' and would "become unpopular in 
 the country." * 
 
 "Nothing/'' writes Mr. Disraeli, "was decided when 
 Lord George took his seat, and while Sir William 
 Soinerville was moving his amendment, that the Co- 
 ercion Bill should be read that day six months. His 
 solitary supporter in the council was sitting by his 
 side ; they had agreed their course should be decided 
 by the report ivhich they should receive from a gentle- 
 man who had the best acquaintance iv'dh the individual 
 feelings of the members of the party, and who, through 
 absence from town, had not unfortunately been present 
 at the previous consultations. While Sir William 
 Somerville was closing his speech with an appeal to 
 Lord George Bentinck, this much-expected individual 
 appeared at the Bar." t 
 
 Lord George Bentinck goes out at the conclusion of 
 Sir William Somerville's speech, has an interview with 
 his agent, and when he returns, says to Mr. Disraeli, 
 " There are no means of calculating at this moment 
 how our men will go, but he agrees with us. It may 
 be perilous, but if we lose this chance, the traitor will 
 escape. I will make the plunge, and as soon as I can. 
 There is a rumour that Lord John is hardly up to 
 the mark. I suppose he has heard that our men will 
 
 * " Life of Bentinck," 247. 
 f Ibid.
 
 326 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 not vote against the Bill. Now if I apeak early and 
 tstrongly, it will encourage them to be decided." * 
 
 We now see the position completely. Lord George 
 Bentinck was uncertain of his own followers, and 
 uncertain of Lord John Russell. And he came to the 
 conclusion that a vehement speech from him would 
 put an end to wavering, both in the one and the other. 
 In other words, the violence of his language was not 
 the spontaneous and resistless outburst of passionate 
 indignation; it was passion, calculated beforehand, 
 and utilized for party purposes. 
 
 Bentinck's speech may be described as of New- 
 market coarseness. He declared that Sir Robert Peel 
 was " supported by none but his forty paid janissaries, 
 and some seventy other renegades ; " and that he had 
 "lost the confidence of every honest man in this 
 House, and of every honest and honourable-minded 
 man out of this House." t 
 
 This passage was assuredly bitter enough, and it 
 created much indignation and disgust. But a passage 
 was to follow in which a still more shameless and 
 cruel blow was to be struck at the Minister. "We 
 are told now," said Lord George Bentinck, "we 
 hear from the right hon. Baronet himself that .... 
 it would have been base and dishonest in him, and 
 inconsistent with his duty to his Sovereign, if he had 
 concealed his opinions after he had changed them; 
 but I have lived long enough, I am sorrt/ to say, to 
 remember, and remember with sorrow with deep and 
 
 * Ibid. 248. t Hansard, 8 8. Ixxxvii. 182.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 327 
 
 heartfelt sorrow the time when the right hon. Baronet 
 chased and hunted an illustrious relative of mine to 
 death; and when he stated that he could not support 
 his Ministry, because a leading Member of it, though 
 he had changed no opinion yet, from his position, 
 was likely to forward the question of Catholic Eman- 
 cipation; that was the conduct of the right hon. 
 Baronet in 1827 ; but in 1829 the right hon. Baronet 
 told the House that he had changed his opinions on 
 that subject in 1825, and had communicated that 
 change of opinion to the Earl of Liverpool. That 
 however, did not prevent the right hon. Baronet in 
 1827 from getting up in his place and stating that 
 he had severed himself from Mr. Canning's Govern- 
 ment because he could not support a Government 
 of which the chief Minister was then favourable to 
 the measure, which it appeared aftenvards the right 
 hon. Baronet had approved of two years before. If, 
 therefore, the right hon. Baronet says, it is base 
 and dishonest and inconsistent with the duty of a 
 Minister to his Sovereign to continue to maintain 
 opinions after he has changed them, does not the 
 right hon. Baronet, I ask, stand convicted, on his 
 own verdict, of base and dishonest conduct, and con- 
 duct inconsistent with the duty of a Minister to his 
 Sovereign ? " * 
 
 The reader needs not be told how serious are the 
 charges brought in this passage against Sir Eobert 
 Peel. It is hard to imagine more serious charges 
 
 * Ibid. 182-3.
 
 328 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 against any Minister, or, indeed, against any man. 
 Sir Robert Peel is accused of lying, treachery, and the 
 ruthless persecution of a rival unto death. 
 
 Now one of the questions that appear to me most 
 important in investigating the history of this remark- 
 able charge is this : who originated it ? Did Lord 
 George Bentinck start this charge of his own pure 
 motion, or at the suggestion of Mr. Disraeli, or was 
 the charge made by Bentinck, partly from his own 
 personal feeling, and partly at the suggestion of Mr. 
 Disraeli ? 
 
 The burden of proof appears to me to favour the 
 last of these three solutions. Lord George Bentinck 
 in all probability, at one time, entertained feelings 
 of irritation against Sir Robert Peel for his treat- 
 ment of Canning. There is no doubt that Canning's 
 wife felt the deepest anger against the Duke of 
 Wellington, Peel, and the others, who, on the illness 
 of Lord Liverpool, seceded from the Canning Cabinet. 
 And when Mr. Huskissoc, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. 
 Grant afterwards joined the Ministry of Wellington 
 and Peel, the widow of Canning denounced them for 
 throwing in their lot with what she described as the 
 " murderers of her husband." Therefore, Lord George 
 Bentinck may have inherited a family prejudice against 
 Sir Robert Peel, which would make his allusions to 
 the relations of Peel and Canning appear the spon- 
 taneous outcome of his own mind. But it must 
 strike one as a remarkable coincidence that Mr. 
 Disraeli should in a previous Session, at a time when
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 329 
 
 probably there was no intimacy, and certainly no 
 friendship, between him and Lord George Bentinck, 
 have made a somewhat similar charge against Sir 
 Robert Peel. The reader has not forgotten that, when 
 Sir Eobert Peel quoted Canning's famous verses 
 about candid friends, Mr. Disraeli replied by some 
 sarcastic observations, the tendency of which was to 
 insinuate that Sir Robert Peel's friendship to Canning 
 had been faithless and treacherous. 
 
 Now, to any one \vlio compares the speeches of Mr. 
 Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck in 1846, the notion 
 must often occur that the ideas of the one, and even 
 the expressions, bear a strong likeness to those of the 
 other. Some people might say that Mr. Disraeli had 
 borrowed his ideas from Lord George Bentinck. But 
 this fact is rather fatal to the theory, that Mr. Disraeli 
 had expressed the ideas common to him and to Lord 
 George Bentinck, long before his friendship with Lord 
 George Bentinck had begun. 
 
 Taking, then, the influence whi^h Mr. Disraeli exer- 
 cised over Lord George Bentinck, taking also the fact 
 that Mr. Disraeli alluded to the relations of Canning 
 and Peel, in 1845, before he had become the friend 
 of Bentinck, it is, I think, fair to conclude that the 
 allusion to Canning in Bentinck's speech on the 
 Coercion Bill was suggested by Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 And these considerations enable us to form a true 
 estimate of the Canning episode of 1846. 
 
 What was Canning to Mr. Disraeli ? Mr. Disraeli 
 was no relative of Canning's. Mr. Disraeli was no
 
 330 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 connection of Canning's. Mr. Disraeli never knew 
 Canning ; the only relation if it can be called relation 
 he ever had with Canning, was that he heard him 
 speak once in the House of Commons; and yet Mr. 
 Disraeli was the prime mover in all this business ! It 
 was Mr. Disraeli who used Lord George Bentinck 
 through it all ! It was Mr. Disraeli who, calmly, 
 coolly, without the least personal feeling in the matter, 
 got this other man to make a party move under the 
 guise of deep and sincere sorrow. His was the tran- 
 quil hand that moved this puppet to put his hand to 
 his bleeding heart ; it was he who squeezed tears from 
 the puppet's eyes over a transaction nineteen years 
 past ! How scrupulous these men who maintained 
 " the chastity of their honour " were in their attacks 
 upon their enemy ! 
 
 All the facts I have cited irresistibly point to this 
 as the true view of Lord George Bentinck's conduct 
 in this affair. But we have further evidence. As we 
 have said before, Mr. Disraeli made an attack during 
 the session of 1845 on Sir Robert Peel in reference 
 to this very point the relations between him and 
 Canning. Now if the feeling of anger with Peel 
 for his treatment of Canning were of that intense 
 nature in the bosom of Lord George Bentinck which 
 he represented it to be, it would be an ever-present 
 feeling a feeling ready to explode on the least 
 occasion. When, therefore, Mr. Disraeli made lii- 
 clever, skilful, well-prepared attack on Peel, with 
 respect to his relations with Canning, ought not
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 331 
 
 Lord George Bentinck supposing him ever-consumed 
 by his recollection of Canning's unfair treatment to 
 have gone and hung on Mr. Disraeli's neck ? Did 
 Lord George Bentinck do this ? Did he, finding 
 that there was at least one man who sympathized with 
 the sorrow, repostum in altd mente, did he at once 
 become the ally and the friend of that man ? I will 
 let Mr. Disraeli himself speak. 
 
 " More than a year ago I rose in my place and said, 
 that it appeared to me that Protection was in about the 
 same state as Protestantism was in 1828. I remember 
 my friends were very indignant with me for that 
 assertion, but they have since been so kind as to 
 observe that instead of being a calumny it was only 
 a prophecy. But I am bound to say, from personal 
 experience, that, with the very humble exception to 
 which I have referred, I think the right hon. Baronet 
 may congratulate himself on his complete success in 
 having entirely deceived his party, for even the noble 
 Lord, the member for Lynn himself, in a moment of 
 frank conversation, assured me that he had not till the 
 very last moment the slightest doubt of the right hon. 
 Gentleman/' * 
 
 So that Lord George Bentinck, far from approving 
 Mr. Disraeli's attack in 1 845 on Peel in reference to 
 his relations with Canning, actually disapproved of 
 them ! 
 
 Is there any further proof required to show that 
 Bentinck's indignation was got up a mere pretence 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxvi. 673.
 
 332 LORD BEACONSFIEI.D. 
 
 a skilful, but base party move ? Is it not clear that 
 it was informed and instigated by Mr. Disraeli, and 
 adopted by Bentinck ? 
 
 " Let us sympathise with the sorrows we do not 
 feel ! " 
 
 Sir Robert Peel delivered his reply to Bentinck, and 
 his other assailants, on June 12. The reply appears 
 to me completely satisfactory. In moderation of 
 language, dignity of style, and general evenness of 
 temper, it presents a fine contrast to the jockey-like 
 coarseness, rudeness, and ill-temper of Mr. Disraeli's 
 friend, patron, and tool. 
 
 First, he asked how, if Lord George Bentinck so 
 strongly resented his treatment of Canning, he had 
 continued to follow his lead to accept his political 
 friendship ? He pointed out that it was seventeen 
 years since his speech in 1829, nineteen since the 
 occurrence of 1827, and that Lord George Bentinck 
 had been a member of Parliament since 1826. How 
 was it, then, that during all these long years, he 
 had heard the charge for the first time on the 
 previous Monday ? " There may have been inter- 
 missions; but since 1835 I have been honoured with 
 the noble Lord's cordial, and I must say his pure and 
 disinterested support. He called me his right hon. 
 Friend he permitted me to be the leader of the party 
 to which he belonged he saw me united to his own 
 immediate connections and followers ; and never until 
 Monday last, in June, 1846, did I harbour the sus- 
 picion that the noble Lord entertained such feelings
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 333 
 
 in respect to me a man who hunted and chased his 
 relation to death. " * 
 
 And then Sir Robert Peel proceeded to show by 
 quotations from his speeches in 1827, uttered in the 
 presence of Canning, and replied to by Canning, that 
 it was impossible he could have declared, in 1825, an 
 opinion in favour of Catholic claims. In one of the 
 speeches made in 1827, he entered into an explanation 
 of his reasons for resigning his office when Canning 
 succeeded to Lord Liverpool. The principal reason 
 he assigns is that he differed from Canning on the 
 question of Catholic claims; and the statement is 
 distinctly made in the speech of 1827, that this dif- 
 ference between him and Canning existed and was 
 expressed in 1825. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel next quoted a speech of Canning's 
 which immediately followed his, and this quotation 
 shows that Canning fully admitted that Peel had 
 frankly avowed in 1825 his opposition to the Catholic 
 claims. 
 
 This defence, which appears to me a complete 
 answer to the charge of Lord George Bentinck, did 
 not, however, satisfy him, or the ruthless gentleman 
 by whom those attacks on Peel were inspired. 
 
 On June 15, Mr. Disraeli returned to the charge, 
 and gave a re-hash of the case against Sir Robert 
 Peel. Mr. Disraeli's speech was delivered on the third 
 night of the debate on the Irish Coercion Bill. We 
 have seen the inconsistency displayed by Lord George 
 * Ibid. Ixxxvii, 432.
 
 334 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Bentinck on this Bill; we have seen that, beginning 
 by supporting- it, he ended by opposing it ; we have 
 seen that this change was the result of personal hatred 
 of Peel, and of the idea that an advantage could be 
 gained over him; and, finally, we have seen that, in 
 order to encourage the opposition of the Whigs and 
 of his own followers to the Bill, Bentinck did not 
 scruple to rake up a scandal of nineteen years past, 
 and to hide a party move under the guise of real 
 sorrow and indignation. What will be thought of 
 Mr. Disraeli, when, in the face of these facts, and in 
 the face of the fact that he himself was going to 
 revive Bentinck's cruel attack, what will be thought 
 of Mr. Disraeli, when he calmly introduces his speech 
 by the assertion that he and his friends had " evinced 
 a desire not to treat vn a party fashion the measure 
 now before us " ? * 
 
 The earlier portion of Mr. Disraeli's speech I will 
 pass over ; it was probably not meant by himself to be 
 anything more than the preface to the real point of his 
 speech, the renewal of the attack on Peel. 
 
 " I now," said Mr. Disraeli, " approach a subject 
 to which I cannot allude without unaffected pain." f 
 
 This audacity of pretence to delicacy to a feeling 
 of pain, when everybody knew that Mr. Disraeli was 
 in the very height of joy at commencing an attack on 
 an enemy proved too much even for the House of 
 Commons, and laughter resounded. Not disconcerted, 
 Mr. Disraeli changed ground, and affected to mean 
 * Ibitf. 617. f Ibid. 628.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 335 
 
 that the pain he felt was because of Canning, and not 
 of Peel. 
 
 " Sir," he said, " there may be some who will treat 
 with derision the memory of a great man, but I confess, 
 whatever may be my feelings on the conduct of any 
 individual, if he has been a distinguished citizen of 
 this country, particularly if he has been an illustrious 
 Member of this Senate, and particularly if he has left 
 us for ever, I would not receive an allusion to his 
 memory with the miserable sneer which I heard just 
 now."* 
 
 The audacity of this passage ois really marvellous. 
 In the first place, as everybody can see, the House did 
 not laugh, as Mr. Disraeli affects to believe, in derision 
 of Canning. What the House laughed at, as Mr. 
 Disraeli well knew, was at his affectation of pain in 
 having to attack Peel. Again, mark the affectation of 
 sorrow and veneration for the memory of Canning, the 
 man whom he saw but once ! As if Mr. Disraeli really 
 cared one straw for Canning, his memory, or his wrongs. 
 Finally, is it not a marvellous piece of "cheek" to lay 
 claim to respect for the feelings of any distinguished 
 citizen, " particularly if he has been an illustrious 
 Member of this Senate," at the very moment when he 
 was attacking, not merely without mercy, but without 
 justice, a man who could certainly lay claim to be a 
 " distinguished citizen " and " an illustrious Member 
 of " that " Senate." 
 
 After this truthful preface, Mr. Disraeli proceeded 
 * Hid.
 
 336 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to lay before the House his proofs that the charges 
 advanced by Bentinck against Peel were well founded. 
 
 He dealt almost entirely with the charge that Peel 
 had opposed Canning on the Catholic claims in 1827, 
 although in 1829 he admitted that in 1825 he had 
 expressed to Lord Liverpool agreement with those 
 claims. He first complains that Peel had omitted to 
 quote the speech of 1829, which contained this ad- 
 mission with regard to 1825. 
 
 "Now/' said Mr. Disraeli, "it is a remarkable 
 circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman did not 
 read this speech. He read the speech which he had 
 made in 1827, in presence of Mr. Canning; but the 
 House will recollect that he never read the speech 
 which the noble Lord alleged contained the great 
 admission, and which was the only question before 
 the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to 
 that speech, but never read it." * 
 
 Mr. Disraeli himself then read the speech, as reported 
 in Hansard. He pointed out that the words in dispute 
 the words which make the alleged admission are 
 omitted from that report. 
 
 " Now, Sir," continued Mr. Disraeli, " I make no- 
 charge against the right hon. Gentleman, but I say 
 that the speech I have read from is a garbled, a 
 mutilated, or, to adopt the language of this House, a 
 corrected report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; 
 and that it omits, and entirely omits, that important 
 statement which is the great question to-night. "f 
 "Ibid. Can. f/Wrf. 531.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 337 
 
 Then Mr. Disraeli went on to show that there were 
 other reports of Peel's speech besides that in Hansard. 
 
 "It so happens that in those days there were two 
 reports of what was said in this House ; for there was 
 then not merely Hansard, the speeches in which are 
 generally corrected by hon. Gentlemen themselves, but 
 there was also the 'Mirror of Parliament/ the speeches 
 in which were taken in shorthand, verbatim, by the 
 most able shorthand writers, most of them being men 
 of education and intelligence, and at that time the 
 speeches were published every three days. Now, sir, I 
 call the attention of the House to what it appears from 
 the ' Mirror of Parliament/ the right hon. Gentleman 
 really said in that famous speech of 1829: 
 
 " ' So far as I am personally concerned, I beg to say, 
 my own course is the same as that which suggested 
 itself to my mind in 1825, when I was His Majesty's 
 principal Minister for the Home Department, and 
 found myself in a minority upon the Catholic question 
 in this House. I felt that, looking at the numbers 
 arrayed against me, my position as a minister was un- 
 tenable. The moment that I found that I was in a 
 minority on that question, I felt that it was no longer 
 advisable that I should continue to be charged with 
 the responsibility of Irish affairs. I stated to the Earl 
 of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Adminis- 
 tration, that in consequence of the decision against me 
 by the voices of the representatives of that country, 
 the time was come when something respecting the 
 Catholics ought, in my opinion, to be done, or that I 
 
 22
 
 338 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 should be relieved from the duties of the office I held, 
 as it was my anxious wish to be/ 
 
 " The words left out in the report of Hansard are 
 these : 
 
 " ' I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, that in conse- 
 quence of the decision against me by the voices of the 
 representatives of Ireland, something respecting the 
 Catholics ought, in my opinion, to be done.' " * 
 
 Mr. Disraeli had thus made out a strong case in 
 favour of the statement that Sir Robert Peel had used 
 the words making the admission, for he had shown 
 that, while they were omitted in the report corrected 
 by Peel himself, they occurred in the report produced 
 independently. 
 
 "But this, Sir," continued Mr. Disraeli, "is only 
 the commencement of my proof. 
 
 " Hon. Gentlemen may understand that though you 
 may alter your speech for Hansard, you cannot alter 
 the answer to it. There may be two versions of a 
 speech the speech for the House, and the speech for 
 posterity. An hon. Gentleman, who was then the 
 head of a party that had also been betrayed, the head 
 of the Protestant party in this House, and who has 
 since been a member of Her Majesty's Government, 
 in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, 
 as it appeared in the ' Mirror of Parliament/ though 
 not in Hansard, used this language : 
 
 "'If at that period the policy of conceding the 
 Catholic question were clear to the right hon. Geiitle- 
 * Ibid. 531.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 339 
 
 man, I say that, in justice to himself, in justice to 
 his friends, in justice to the country, in justice to 
 Mr. Canning himself, who had always been the able, 
 powerful, and constant advocate of the Catholics, he 
 ought not to have concealed it. If, as he now says, he 
 had discovered in 1825 the necessity of passing this 
 question, I ask why did he not say so in 1827, and give 
 his support to Mr. Canning then, when the supposed 
 difference between him and Mr. Canning obtained for 
 him the support of many hon. Gentlemen who differed 
 with him only on that, which I confess was the case 
 with me/ 
 
 " Sir, that was a memorable speech. It was the 
 speech in which Sir E. Knatchbull used the phrase 
 nusquam tuta fides. It appealed to the feelings of 
 the House, who were carried away by the expressions 
 of the speaker. 
 
 " The right hon. Gentleman was obliged to get up 
 and notice it ; but he did not notice that passage ; he 
 never denied that he had proposed to Lord Liverpool, 
 in 1825, that something should be done respecting 
 the Catholics, though Sir Edward Knatchbull had 
 repeated that statement. No, Sir, the right hon. 
 Gentleman admitted his guilt, if guilt it were ; and 
 it is only in 1846 that he vindicates himself by 
 referring to a different speech, and quotes a report 
 which I have proved is not a correct one/' * 
 
 This certainly was very strong proof ; not satisfied, 
 however, with this, Mr. Disraeli made another hit : 
 
 * Ibid. 531-2.
 
 343 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 " Now, sir, I have a right to speak of that report 
 of the speech I have read from Hansard, as being 
 corrected by authority, for I find a note and every 
 one knows how seldom one finds notes in Hansard 
 on the oth of March, 1829, appended to the beginning 
 of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in these words, 
 ' Inserted with the permission and approbation of 
 Mr. Secretary Peel.' " * 
 
 Those last words, which seemed to drive the last 
 nail in Peel's coffin, were received with wild cheers by 
 the Protectionists. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli went on to add another link to his 
 chain of evidence; he produced a report from the 
 Times, and this report also contained the words of 
 admission which appear in the "Mirror of Parlia- 
 ment ; " so that there was the evidence of two reports, 
 and not that of one, in favour of the statement that 
 Peel had used the words of fatal admission. 
 
 And, finally, Mr. Disraeli brought another im- 
 portant fact forward : 
 
 "Now, in the Edinburgh Review of April, 1829, 
 in an article on the state of parties, written, I believe, 
 by a man who was not to be misled with respect to 
 transactions in which he had himself taken a great 
 part, this is the language used : 
 
 " ' Sir R. Peel at that time told Mr. Canning, in 
 the House of Commons, that his unlooked-for opposi- 
 tion to Mr. Canning was grounded on a difference of 
 opinion on the Catholic question; yet at that very 
 * Ibid. 532.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 341 
 
 time he had in his writing-desk a letter in which 
 two years before he had told Lord Liverpool, in his 
 opinion, the Catholic claims ought to be granted, and 
 proposing that he should retire from office in the 
 meantime/ " * 
 
 And then, summing up the reply of Peel to the 
 charge of Bentinck, Mr. Disraeli thus characterised 
 it: 
 
 " He came to these extracts, which I have proved 
 to be garbled. He came with a suppressio veri un- 
 precedented in the debates of this House." f 
 
 Mr. Disraeli wound up his speech with a eulogium 
 of Canning : 
 
 "I never saw Mr. Canning," he said, "but once, 
 when I had no expectation of ever being a member 
 of this House, but I can recollect it but as yesterday 
 when I listened to almost the last accents I may say 
 the dying words of the great man. / can recall the 
 lightning flash of that eye, and the tumult of that 
 ethereal brow: still lingers in my ear the melody of 
 that voice. But, sir, when shall we see another 
 Mr. Canning ? a man who ruled this House as a 
 man rules a high-bred steed, as Alexander ruled 
 Bucephalus (a laugh) of whom it was said that the 
 horse and the rider were equally proud." J 
 
 Did anybody ever read a better specimen of what 
 
 the Americans call "high-falutin'," than this elaborate 
 
 eulogium? But the vulgar gaud of the language is 
 
 the smallest fault of this passage. Its great fault is 
 
 * Ibid. 533-4. + Ibid. 535. J Ibid. 536.
 
 342 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that it is utterly insincere : that reverence is affected, 
 emotion pumped up, to stimulate the passions of a 
 blindly excited and stupid party. 
 
 I think this criticism is justified by the passive 
 itself, without going outside it. But I have further 
 proof than this to show the insincerity of the eulogium ; 
 I have the evidence of Mr. Disraeli's own words. 
 
 In the passage quoted, he speaks of having heard 
 Canning once. Now, I find another account of this 
 occasion, an account written years before the session 
 of 1846, when Mr. Disraeli's impressions of it were 
 much fresher : 
 
 "I like a good debate; and, when a stripling, used 
 sometimes to be stifled in the gallery, or enjoy the 
 easier privileges of a member's son. I like, I say, a 
 good debate, and have no objection to a due mixture 
 of bores, which are a relief. I remember none of the 
 giants of former days; but I have heard Canning. 
 He was a consummate rhetorician; but tlicre seemed 
 to be a dash of commonplace in all that he said, and 
 frequent indications of the absence of an original 
 mind. To the last, lie never got clear of, ' Good God, 
 sir ! ' and all the other hackneyed ejaculations of his 
 youthful debating clubs." * 
 
 Where, can the reader guess, does this passage 
 occur ? Why it occurs in a book written by Mr. 
 
 * Edition of 1881, iii. 171-2. A few lines further on, Mr. Disraeli 
 writes, in reference to the House of Commons and Canning : " Many 
 a sneer withers on those walls which would scarcely, I think, blight 
 a currant-bush out of them ; and I have seen the House convulsed 
 with raillery which, in other society, would infallibly settle the railer
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 343 
 
 Disraeli; it occurs in the "Young Duke." The 
 Young Duke" was published in 1831 : that is to 
 say, when Mr. Disraeli had no reason to exaggerate. 
 Could any two descriptions of the same man be more 
 diverse than those of 1831 and 1846 ? 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's speech wound up with this vigorous 
 peroration : 
 
 "The tone and temper of this House are not as 
 elevated and brave as in the days of Mr. Canning ; 
 
 to be a bore beyond all tolerance. Even an idiot can raise a smile. 
 They are so good-natured, or find it so dull. Mr. Canning's badinage 
 mas the most successful, though 1 have listened to few things more 
 calculated to make a man gloomy. But tlie House always ran riot, 
 taking everything for granted, and cracked their universal sides before 
 he opened his mouth." Ibid. 172-3. If we want further proof of the 
 disingenuousness and insincerity of Mr. Disraeli's attack on Peel, 
 we can find it ; and. again, the evidence is supplied by the words 
 of Mr. Disraeli himself. Writing in " Coningsby " on this very 
 question of the relations of Peel and Canning, he says, " It may not 
 only be a charitable but a true estimate of the motives which 
 influenced him," Peel, " in his conduct towards Mr. Canning, to con- 
 sider that he rcas not guided in that transaction by the disingenuous 
 rivalry usually attributed to him." " His statement in Parliament," 
 goes on Mr. Disraeli, "of the determining circumstances of his 
 conduct, coupled with his subsequent and almost immediate policy, 
 may, perhaps, leave this a painful and ambiguous passage in his 
 career ; but in passing judgment on public men, it behoves us evert* 
 ttJce large and extended vieivs of th ir conduct, and previous incidents 
 will often satisfactorily explain subsequent events, which, without 
 their illustrating aid, are involved in misapprehension or mystery.'" 
 (" Coningsby," 79. Fifth edition.) Thus calmly can Mr. Disraeli 
 write about a question upon which he pretended afterwards to be 
 scarcely able to speak with self-control ! Where are the choking 
 emotion, the overpowering sorrow, the sceva indignatio of the speech 
 on the Canning episode in the House of Commons ? And mark, too, 
 with what tranquillity Mr. Disraeli can write on the Canning episode 
 after the occasion for using the memory of Canning for party purposes 
 had passed away : " The truth about the question which so conveni-
 
 344 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 nor am I surprised, when the vulture rules where once 
 the eagle reigned. The right hon. Gentleman once said 
 that Ireland was his great difficulty. I ask the right 
 hon. Gentleman why Ireland was his great difficulty, 
 and whether, if he had acted with frankness to 
 Mr. Canning in reference to his communication with 
 Lord Liverpool in 1825, Ireland would have been his 
 great difficulty ? This the right hon. Gentleman must 
 feel at the present moment, when we are about again 
 
 ently occasioned this interesting episode in -the debates on the 
 Coercion Bill appears to be this: that Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, 
 having to make a complicated and very embarrassing statement 
 respecting his change of opinion and policy with regard to the Roman 
 Catholics, and to refer by dates to several periods, both as to his 
 positive and his contingent conduct upon that subject, conveyed by 
 some expressions a meaning to the House of a very perplexing 
 character and quite different from that which he intended ; that the 
 reporter of the Times caught the sentence and although it was 
 inconsistent with the reputation of Sir Robert Peel perhaps im- 
 perfectly preserved it ; that the reporters of the other journals, not 
 comprehending the remark and deeming it quite incongruous and 
 contrary to received impressions, omitted it, as under such circum- 
 stances is not unusual ; that Sir Robert Peel, when he corrected the 
 version of his speech, which he did from the report of the Times, 
 finding a sentence which conveyed a false meaning, and which was 
 authorised by no analogous expressions in the other papers, very 
 properly struck it out ; that the reporter of the Times, who, after 
 due comparison and consultation with the reporters of some other 
 principal journals, prepared with them the matured version for the 
 ' Mirror of Parliament,' adhering to his text with the general 
 concurrence of his colleagues, and thus embalmed the error. Per- 
 plexing as it is, we have no doubt that the speech of Sir Edwnrd 
 Knatchbull can be explained to the entire vindication of Sir Robert 
 Peel ; the solution of this, however, as far as we are concerned, 
 must be left to (Edipus, with a full admission that though Lord 
 George Bentinck was perfectly justified in making the particular 
 charge which he advanced, it itat without real foundation." Life 
 of Jfcntinck, 284 286. "Let us sympathise with the sorrows wo do 
 not feel I "
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 345 
 
 to divide on an Irish question a division which may 
 be fatal to the continuance of his power. It is Nemesis 
 that inspires this debate, and dictates this division, and 
 seals with the stigma of Parliamentary reprobation the 
 catastrophe of a sinister career." 
 
 Rarely has there been a more successful speech. 
 It was interrupted at almost every sentence by 
 frantic cheers, and when Mr. Disraeli sat down, he 
 received an enthusiastic ovation. 
 
 Its effect on Peel was it may be said without 
 exaggeration terrible ; and it completely broke his 
 chance of support from any of the Protectionist party. 
 
 " The minister," writes Mr. Disraeli, " rose con- 
 fused and suffering. He said he had no right to reply, 
 but continued to make deprecatory and feeble observa- 
 tions. Finally, he called upon the House to f suspend 
 their judgment/ until an opportunity for reply canie."t 
 
 "The House/' continued Mr. Disraeli, " adjourned 
 until Thursday. The general opinion was that the 
 minister was greatly damaged, and that had the 
 division then taken place, the Government would 
 certainly have been in a minority." % 
 
 On Friday Mr. Disraeli's speech had been delivered 
 on Monday Sir Eobert Peel made his reply. The 
 Minister began by complaining, reasonably enough, 
 that he had, in the midst of overwhelming official 
 business, to search among papers and journals in 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. Ixxxvii. 537. 
 f " Life of Bentinck," 271. 
 i Ibid.
 
 346 LORD BEACONSFI&LD. 
 
 reference to a transaction that had taken place 
 nineteen years before. 
 
 He then gave the most emphatic denial to the state- 
 ment that he had in 1825 announced to Lord Liverpool 
 a change in his opinions on the Catholic question. 
 And he proceeded to give proofs that he could not 
 possibly have done so. First, he showed from Hansard 
 what his action and pronouncements on the Catholic 
 claims had been in 1825. He showed that, when in 
 February of that year Sir Francis Burdett brought 
 forward a motion in favour of the Catholics, he spoke 
 in opposition to the principle of the Bill.* The motion 
 of Burdett having passed by a considerable majority, 
 he proved that he had likewise opposed the second 
 reading; and he quoted a remarkable passage from 
 his speech on that occasion, in which, alluding to 
 the change in another member's opinions, he dis- 
 tinctly declared that no such change had taken place 
 in him.t 
 
 The second reading of the Bill passed ; and its third 
 reading was again opposed by Sir Robert Peel. He 
 
 * These are the words used by Sir R. Peel in 1825, and quoted by 
 Lira in this speech of 1846 : 
 
 " Without dwelling on the objections as to the time at which 
 this motion was proposed, or its present expediency, he opt-nli, 
 announced hit objection to its principle. He should, therefore, 
 pursue the course which hitherto he had uniformly persisted in, 
 and give his decided opposition to the measure." Hansard, 3 8. 
 btxxvii. C94. 
 
 f These were his words : " Mr. Secretary Peel said he had heard, 
 and with the most perfect conviction of his sincerity, the avowal 
 of the hon. member for Armagh, .that he had changed his opinions 
 upon it. If he (Mr. Peel) had changed his own opinion, he should
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 3^7 
 
 quoted a passage from the speech he made justifying 
 this opposition. 
 
 Then he asked : 
 
 "After such declarations publicly made in Parlia- 
 ment, is it probable that I could have gone to the Earl 
 of Liverpool, and informed him that my opinion on the 
 Roman Catholic question had undergone a change, and 
 that I was prepared to acquiesce in the concession of 
 the Roman Catholic claims ? " * 
 
 The third reading of the Catholic Bill, notwithstand- 
 ing Peel's opposition, having been carried, he offered 
 his resignation to Lord Liverpool. Lord Liverpool, 
 who was equally opposed to the concession of the 
 Catholic claims, urged him to remain ; and the Bill 
 having meantime been rejected by the House of Lords, 
 he consented. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel next quoted a speech antagonistic to 
 the Catholic claims, which he had made in the House 
 of Commons in this same session of 1 825, of course 
 after he had had his interview with Lord Liverpool, f 
 
 have been most ready to avow it ; but as he Tiad not cJuingcd it, 
 he trusted that his hon. friends would give him the same credit 
 for purity of motive in retaining it, that he gave to the hon. member 
 for Armagh in abandoning it." Ibid. 695. 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 f " On that occasion, after my interviews with Lord Liverpool, I 
 took part in the discussion ; and this was the language I held on the 
 26th of May, in reference to a speech made by Mr. Brownlow in the 
 course of the debate : ' His hon. Friend now seemed to expect an 
 apology from him for continuing of the same opinion. His hon. 
 Friend thought it necessary to call upon him to explain why he too 
 was not converted by the evidence of Dr. Doyle, telling him that 
 the cause was hollow, that the ground was utterly untenable. Now,
 
 348 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 This speech was delivered in the presence of Mr. 
 Canning : " Is it probable," says Sir Robert Peel, " I 
 again ask, that I should have held that language in 
 the presence of Mr. Canning, and in the face of Parlia- 
 ment, if I had told Lord Liverpool that my opinion on 
 the Catholic question was changed ? I imposed no 
 restrictions of secrecy as to my communications with 
 Lord Liverpool. Mr. Canning was as much in Lord 
 Liverpool's confidence as I was probably still more; 
 and I have not a doubt that Mr. Canning was perfectly 
 aware of what had passed, namely, that I had expressed 
 an earnest wish to be relieved from the responsibility of 
 office under the circumstances in which I found myself 
 placed."* 
 
 Sir Robert Peel then went on to deal with the charge 
 of having in his possession a letter that showed he had 
 intimated a change of opinions to Lord Liverpool in 
 1 825. He first observed that few letters passed between 
 them, their communications being mostly verbal. He 
 pledged his honour that he could find among his 
 papers but three letters from Lord Liverpool during 
 the year 1825. The first of those letters pointed to 
 
 he admitted that if his hon. Friend felt the ground untenable, that 
 was a sufficient reason for his abandoning it. He admired his hon. 
 Friend's sincerity ; and, if he himtelf had felt the tame wotit-et, he 
 would hare followed the example of hit hon. Friend, and defied 
 all attack* for to doing. But he would beg to be allowed still to 
 occupy ground which he did not feel untenable. He would beg to 
 be allowed, with those who thought with him, to continue of the 
 same mind, seeing that the same light had not broken in upon them 
 which had broken in upon his hon. Friend.'" Ibid. 696. 
 Ibid. 697.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 349 
 
 a state of relations quite opposite to that argued for 
 by Sir Robert PeePs enemies:* the second was un- 
 important; and the third also tended to prove that 
 Peel had made no such intimation to Lord Liverpool 
 as that with which he was charged. 
 
 Next, Sir Robert Peel dealt with the other branch 
 of the indictment against him. "Though I made 
 no such communication as that supposed to Lord 
 Liverpool, did I in 1829 declare that I had made it ?" 
 This charge also Sir Robert Peel " positively " denied.! 
 
 Then, Sir Robert Peel discussed the reports containing' 
 the alleged admission, which had been quoted against 
 him. He admitted his surprise when Mr. Disraeli 
 was able to quote words, containing such an admission, 
 
 * "In March, 1825, I had been in a minority on the motion of 
 Sir F. Burdett. There were rumours that Lord Liverpool had him- 
 self changed his opinion on the Roman Catholic question. It was 
 most material for me to ascertain whether such were the case or not ; 
 because if Lord Liverpool's opinions were changed, and I was in a 
 minority in the House of Commons, there were additional reasons for 
 my retirement from office. I received from Lord Liverpool, on the 
 10th of March, 1825, this letter : " (Private.) Fife House, March 
 10th, If 25. My dear Peel, I return the report of the Irish Associa- 
 tion. 1 have thought it quite necessary, in consequence of the para- 
 graph in the Morning Chronicle of this day, to send an article to 
 the Courier, contradicting the reports in circulation respecting any 
 change in my sentiments upon the Roman Catholic question. Ever 
 sincerely yours, LIVERPOOL." Ibid. 699. 
 
 t " This second charge against me is to the effect, that in 18'29 
 I made a statement, and afterwards garbled the speech in which 
 the statement is alleged to have been made. Says the hon. 
 Gentleman the member for Shrewsbury, ' I am mating no charge 
 against the right hon. Gentleman ; but I say that his is a mutilated, 
 a garbled, or, to use the softer language of this House, a mutilated 
 report.'" Ibid. 701. When Sir Robert Peel made this quotation 
 from the speech of Mr. Disraeli, a member interrupted him, ex
 
 350 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 from the " Mirror of Parliament," and his still greater 
 surprise when Mr. Disraeli was able to confirm the 
 report in the "Mirror" by a like report in the Times* 
 
 But, then, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to show, and 
 proved beyond all dispute, that these apparently 
 separate reports were really one and the same. He 
 proved that the " Mirror " had no staff of its own in 
 the House, that its reports were made up, just as the 
 reports in Hansard are made up to & considerable 
 extent, even to the present day, from a comparison of 
 the reports in the different daily papers. The report 
 in the " Mirror " was simply a copy, and not a con- 
 firmation of the report in the Times. 
 
 Then Sir Robert Peel put a very awkward question 
 
 claiming "corrected," meaning that Mr. Disraeli had used the word 
 "corrected," and not "mutilated," as Sir Robert Peel quoted. 
 Sir Robert Peel made a good point, and was justified in making 
 good point, of this interruption. " (An hon. Member, ' corrected.') 
 Well, ' corrected.' The Tariation in the reports as to that expression 
 only shows that too much confidence cannot be placed in them ; 
 and yet twenty years after the events have taken place I am te 
 be condemned on account of discrepancies in newspaper reports." 
 Ibid. 
 
 * "The hon. Gentleman" Mr. Disraeli" began by stating that 
 he adverted to the subject with the deepest pain .... and the hon. 
 Gentleman came down on Monday night, I having no conception 
 whatever of what was about to occur, and, professing that he ap- 
 proached the subject with great pain, stated also that he had been 
 making careful inquiry, and had found that there was an independent 
 body of reporters, reporting for the ' Mirror of Parliament,' not con- 
 nected with the public press. The hon. Gentleman has a connection 
 with the press that enables him to speak with some authority on these 
 points. I heard his statement, and it struck me, as it struck others, 
 that evidence of concurrence between two independent and sepa- 
 rate authorities was strong, if they had made the same reporU" 
 Ibid. 702.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 351 
 
 to Mr. Disraeli. " As you have had the discretion/' 
 he said to that gentleman, "to refer to the report 
 in the Times, and have informed the House that it 
 is concurrent with that in the ' Mirror of Parliament/ 
 have you had the discretion to examine other reports 
 also ? " Then Peel proceeded to show that there 
 were, in addition to the Times, four other morning 
 papers in London, "with separate and independent 
 reports/' "There were four other papers: as you 
 hunted up the report in the Times, I ask the question, 
 Did you examine the others ?" 
 
 And then he put this dilemma to Mr. Disraeli : 
 either that he had not read those reports, or that, 
 having read them, he kept back the result ; in other 
 words, that he had been guilty of a piece either of 
 reckless carelessness or vile misrepresentation. For 
 not a single one of the other four morning papers 
 agreed with the Times ; not a single one contained the 
 words on which Mr. Disraeli's attack was founded ! * 
 
 * Ibid. 703. "Now I put this question to the honourable Gentle- 
 man, As you have had the discretion to refer to the report in the 
 Times, and have informed the House that it is concurrent with that 
 in the ' Mirror of Parliament,' have you had the discretion to 
 examine other reports also 1 There were other morning papers at 
 that time, for which there were separate and independent reports ; 
 and as you took the precaution of referring to one, and, finding an 
 apparent concurrence, have informed the House of that fact, and 
 have concluded that there was no necessity for further evidence, 
 allow me to ask if the same sense of justice has induced you to 
 examine the other reports ? Did you look at the reports in the 
 Morning Chronicle, the Morning Herald, the Morning Post, and the 
 Morning Journal [a paper which was set up to destroy the hopes of 
 the success of Catholic emancipation]? There were four other papers ; 
 as you hunted up the report in the Times, I ask the question, Did you
 
 ?52 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 And, then, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to read from 
 the reports in the different papers named. Not one of 
 them, as he had asserted, contained the words upon 
 which the whole charge against him was based. 
 
 Finally, Sir Robert Peel dealt with the apparent 
 confirmation in the speech of Sir E. Knatchbull of the 
 report in the "Mirror of Parliament." That speech 
 was made, in the first place, by Sir E. Knatchbull about 
 a fortnight after the speech of Sir Robert Peel. Is it 
 not likely that Sir E. Knatchbull would, in preparing 
 an important speech, have refreshed his memory by 
 referring to a report of Sir Robert Peel's speech. 
 "Might not," asks Sir Robert Peel, "Sir Edward 
 Knatchbull have seen the report in the ' Mirror of 
 Parliament,' and drawn his inferences from that 
 report?"' 
 
 Moreover, Sir Robert Peel pointed out that the 
 passage quoted from Sir Edward Knatchbull by Mr. 
 Disraeli did not occur in the reports of Knatchbull's 
 speech in the report of the Times, Morning Herald, or 
 of the Morning Journal. 
 
 "Now, Sir," said Sir R. Peel, in conclusion, "I have 
 gone through, one by one, the charges which have 
 
 examine the others ? If you did not, how came you to limit your 
 caution and discretion to the production of the only report that 
 seemed to give a confirmation to your charge ? If you did examine 
 the others, why did yon not, in common honesty, admit the (lit- 
 er epaney they exhibit? Why did you not, in justice to me, state 
 that which is the fact namely, that each report of the four ot In r 
 nen-gpapcrg, all made by separate and independent reporters, altogether 
 excludi the word* on which t/iix imputation i* founded t" 
 t Ibid. 708.
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 353 
 
 been brought against me Oppressed with 
 
 public business, I have had to devote two or three 
 days to the collating and contrasting of newspaper 
 reports, of speeches delivered many years since, for 
 the purpose of rebutting charges founded upon such 
 an authority, preferred seventeen years after the 
 transactions in question took place. I trust I may 
 venture to assert I have succeeded in vindicating 
 myself; and yet, considering the difficulty in which 
 I was placed, how possible it is that I might have 
 failed ! I might not have been able to have proved 
 my case so completely."* 
 
 And then Sir Robert Peel devoted a few words of 
 scathing and just scorn to Mr. Disraeli : 
 
 " The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by a 
 passionate representation of his veneration and affec- 
 tion for the memory of Mr. Canning ; and at a fitting 
 time, and in a fitting manner, these are feelings 
 which are to be held in respect. The hon. Gentleman 
 described Mr. Canning as an eagle; he spoke of him 
 as the rider of Bucephalus. One would have supposed 
 that he had devoted all the energies of all his intellect 
 to magnify the praises of Mr. Canning, and that he 
 Tiad submitted to some great personal sacrifice on 
 account of his devotion to Mr. Canning. Why, Sir, 
 if he had those feelings, they are to be held in honour ; 
 but if the hon. Gentleman is parading those feelings 
 of veneration for the memory of Mr. Canning for the 
 mere purpose of wounding a political opponent, he is 
 * Ibid. 709-10. 
 
 23
 
 354 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 desecrating feelings which, when sincere, are entitled 
 to esteem and respect. So far from succeeding in hia 
 purpose of inflicting a blow upon me, he is rallying 
 around me public sympathy; and exciting public in- 
 dignation at the time chosen for this attack, and the 
 motives which led to it." * 
 
 Anybody who has read even with slight attention 
 this debate will see that never did a man acquit him- 
 self more completely of any charge than did Sir Robert 
 Peel of the charge brought against him by Lord George 
 Bentinck, and the gentleman who was not ashamed to 
 act as his squire. So the House, too, felt. Lord John 
 Russell had " no hesitation whatever in stating " his 
 "opinion that the right hon. Gentleman is not guilty 
 of that which, had he been guilty of it, would have 
 been a flagrant offence ; and that he has completely 
 justified himself/' f 
 
 Lord Morpeth (afterwards Earl of Carlisle), another 
 of the Whig leaders, " must do the right hon. Baronet 
 the justice to say that he thought the case attempted 
 to be substantiated against him (his own words were 
 the best to employ) had been 'completely shattered.'" \ 
 
 And Radical members spoke in a similar manner. 
 
 Mr. Hume " ha(J witnessed with deep regret the whole 
 course of these attacks on the right hon. Baronet, and 
 particularly the conduct of the party in persevering, 
 notwithstanding the triumphant answer of the right 
 hon. Baronet." 
 
 * Jbi<l. 710-11. J Ibid. 761. 
 
 Ibid. 734. JKrt. 760.
 
 777.fi: FALL OF PEEL. 355 
 
 Mr. Roebuck "assured the right hon. Baronet that 
 although he might have felt pain that any noble Lord 
 should have made such a charge, his answer had been 
 triumphant ; but it was unnecessary." * 
 
 Even Mr. Disraeli himself is compelled to write, 
 " There never was a more successful explanation." t 
 
 Yet will it be believed that Lord George Bentinck 
 had the indecency Mr. Disraeli calls it "courage" J 
 to stand up and repeat his vile and unfounded charges. 
 This is the man who talked about maintaining "the 
 chastity of his honour " ! 
 
 However, the storm of unreason, prejudice, and mean 
 passions, which Mr. Disraeli had helped to raise, over- 
 whelmed Sir Robert Peel. The division on the second 
 reading of the Coercion Bill took place on Thursday, 
 June 25, when 219 voted for, and 292 against the Bill. 
 The Ministry were, therefore, defeated by a majority 
 of 73. On the following Monday they resigned. 
 
 * ibid. 730. 
 
 f " Life of Bentinck," 279. 
 
 t lUd. 
 
 For the amusement of the reader perhaps it may create some 
 other feeling Mr. Disraeli's description of this celebrated division 
 is appended : 
 
 " At length, about half-past one o'clock, the galleries were 
 cleared, the division called, and the question put. In almost all 
 previous divisions where the fate of a Government had been depending, 
 the vote of every member with scarcely an exception had been anti. 
 cipated : that was not the case in the present instance, and the 
 direction which members took as they left their seats was anxiously 
 watched. More than a hundred Protectionist members followed the 
 minister ; more than eighty avoided the division, a few of these, how- 
 ever, had paired ; nearly the same number followed Lord George 
 Bentinck. But it was not merely their numbers that attracted the
 
 356 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 I have now finished my account of the relations of 
 Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 I have had to deal with two different periods, the 
 period when Mr. Disraeli was at peace, and the period 
 when Mr. Disraeli was at war with Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 I have shown that as long as Mr. Disraeli had 
 anything to hope from Sir Robert Peel, he poured 
 upon him the most abject flattery ; that whether 
 writing in newspapers or in works of fiction, whether 
 speaking on the hustings or in the House of Commons, 
 Mr. Disraeli was never tired of sounding the praises of 
 Peel, and professing his own devotion to him. 
 
 On the other hand, we have seen that Mr. Disraeli, 
 when he had lost all hope from Peel, was as lavish in 
 abuse as he had been formerly in praise. In the 
 
 anxious observation of the treasury bench as the Protectionists passed 
 in defile before the minister to the hostile lobby. It was impossible 
 that he could have marked them without emotion : the flower of that 
 great party which had been BO proud to follow one who had been BO 
 proud to lead them. They were men to gain whose hearts and 
 the hearts of their fathers had been the aim and exultation of his 
 life. They had extended to him an unlimited confidence and an 
 admiration without stint. They stood by him in the darkest hour, 
 and had borne him from the depths of political despair to the proudest 
 of living positions. Right or wrong, they were men of honour, breed- 
 ing, and refinement, high and generous character, great weight and 
 station in the country, which they had ever placed at his disposal. 
 They had been not only-his followers but his friends ; had joined in 
 the same pastimes, drank from the same cup, and in the pleasantness 
 of private life had often forgotten together the cares and strife of 
 politics. He must have felt something of this, while the Manners, the 
 Somersets, the Bentincks, the Lowthers, and the Lennoxes, passed 
 before him. And those country gentlemen, ' those gentlemen of 
 England,' of whom, but five years ago, the very same building was 
 ringing with his pride of being the leader if his heart were hardened 
 to Sir Charles Burrell, Sir William Jolliffe, Sir Charles Knightley, Sir
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 357 
 
 session just described we have seen this system of 
 attack reaching its climax and receiving its reward. 
 The reader has now all the material complete for 
 forming a judgment of the motives and conduct of the 
 opposition to Sir Robert Peel, which Lord Greorge 
 Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli led. I believe I am justi- 
 fied in. saying that never was any opposition to any 
 minister conducted with less scruple. I have shown, 
 I think, that no trick was deemed too low for use, 
 that personal vituperation was employed to an extent 
 that nothing could justify, and that vile charges were 
 made against the minister without any foundation, and 
 urged without any decency. 
 
 And, again, I ask the reader not to forget the 
 great centi'al fact of this controversy : that Sir Robert 
 
 John Trollope, Sir Edward Kerrison, Sir John Tyrrell, he surely must 
 have had a pang when his eye rested on Sir John Tarde Bulger, his 
 choice and pattern country gentleman, whom he had himself selected 
 and invited but six years back to move a vote of want of confidence 
 in the whig Government, in order, against the feeling of the court, to 
 install Sir Robert Peel in their stead. They trooped on : all the men 
 of metal and large-acred squires, whose spirit he had so often quick- 
 ened and whose counsel he had so often solicited in his fine con- 
 servative speeches in Whitehall Gardens : Mr. Bankes, with a Parlia- 
 mentary name of two centuries, and Mr. Christopher from that broad 
 Lincolnshire which protection had created ; and the Mileses and 
 Ilenleys were there ; and the Duncombes, the Liddells, and the Yorkes ; 
 and Devon had sent there the stout heart of Mr. Buck and Wiltshire, 
 the pleasant presence of Walter Long. Mr. Newdegate was there 
 whom Sir Robert had himself recommended to the confidence of the 
 electors of Warwickshire, as one of whom he had the highest hopes ; 
 and Mr. Alderman Thompson was there, who also, through Sir Robert's 
 selection, had seconded the assault upon the Whigs, led on by Sir John 
 
 Buller. But the list is too long ; or good names remain behind." 
 
 Life of Bentinck, 298300.
 
 358 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 Peel endured all these attacks in a right cause. 
 Events, as everybody now knows, have realized his 
 predictions. A potato blight did occur in Ireland ; 
 thousands did die of starvation ; and the repeal of 
 the Corn Laws has made enormous additions to the 
 welfare and happiness of the English people.* 
 
 Let the reader remember also that I have proved, 
 on the evidence of facts, and of, I believe, unanswer- 
 able arguments, also on the evidence of rivals, 
 that Sir Robert Peel was justified in conferring this 
 great blessing of Free Trade on the country. 
 
 And, therefore, I say in all this controversy, justice, 
 truth, the welfare of the people, were arrayed on the 
 side of Sir Robert Peel ; and injustice, falsehood, 
 and the greed of the few on the side of Mr. 
 Disraeli. 
 
 Let us not be carried away by the fact that, in a 
 
 * The full wickedness of Mr. Disraeli's conduct in opposing Free 
 Trade cannot be properly realised without endeavouring to recall the 
 state of terrible distress to which Protection had reduced this country 
 in the years preceding 1816. I have not space to go into the subject; 
 but the reader will find full details upon it in Mr. Ashworth'i 
 interesting volume, " Gobdcn and the League." I extract a state- 
 ment or two from the speeches quoted in that book. According to 
 Mr. Edward Akroyd, the number of persons seeking outdoor relief 
 in Halifax hod increased between the years 1838 and 1842 by 130 per 
 cent. (89.) In the Poor Law Union of Bolton, according to Mr. 
 Henry Ashworth, speaking in 1842, out of 90,000 persona, 13,000 nere 
 receiving parish relief. (90.) In Leeds, according to Mr. Bright, 
 there were in 1843, 40,000 persons subsisting on charity ; and in 
 Sheffield, no less than 12,000 paupers. (227.) It was to maintain thi.i 
 condition of things tLat Mr. Disraeli attacked Peel : he was at the 
 same time the enemy of the Minister and the friend of the starva- 
 tion of the English people. Is that the reason the English people 
 admire him?
 
 THE FALL OF PEEL. 359 
 
 personal sense, Sir Robert Peel for the moment 
 failed, and Mr. Disraeli for the moment succeeded. 
 Let not our judgment be warped by the fact that 
 Mr. Disraeli helped to break up a great party, and 
 to overthrow an all-powerful minister; nor by the 
 fact that he played a great game with great skill. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli did play for high stakes : and Mr. 
 Disraeli played well. But I have shown the motives 
 with which he entered on the game. The sublimity 
 of the stakes cannot exalt the meanness of his 
 passions.
 
 360 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 
 
 THE fall of Peel produced a curious state of parties in 
 the House of Commons. The Protectionists, considering 
 themselves as supporters of the existing Whig Ministry, 
 sat on the Liberal benches ; and the Conservative 
 Opposition consisted solely of those members who had 
 supported Peel in abolishing the Corn Laws. The 
 position of the Ministry was thus a strange one. The 
 Conservatives, if they could act together, still, of course, 
 formed an overwhelming majority ; and therefore the 
 existence of the Ministry was wholly dependent on the 
 continuance of the split between the Protectionists and 
 the Peelites. 
 
 Lord John Russell was not long in proposing a 
 measure which put the disposition of the House to the 
 test. He proposed the abolition of the protection given 
 to the sugar grown in the British colonies over that 
 grown in other countries. Lord George Bentinck at 
 once led the opposition to the measure, and he was 
 seconded by Mr. Disraeli. Bentinck proposed an amend- 
 ment, the effect of which was that the proposed reduction
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 361 
 
 would give an unfair advantage to foreign and slave- 
 grown sugar over sugar cultivated by free labour in 
 British possessions. Sir Robert Peel, however, strongly 
 supported the Government, and on a division Lord 
 George Bentinck's amendment was rejected by a 
 majority of 285 to 135 votes. 
 
 This defeat, however, is to some extent to be regarded 
 as a triumph for Mr. Disraeli. There was a danger that 
 a party, which the hate of Peel had combined, might 
 melt away when the object of that hate had ceased to 
 hold high place. Members of a party have a wonderful 
 readiness to forget in the cold shade of opposition the 
 offences of their leaders when in office. The desire to 
 get back again to power, and its rewards, overcomes 
 personal grievances and private feelings ; and thus a 
 leader, whom his party has expelled from office, by that 
 very fact sometimes regains its allegiance. 
 
 The possibility of a return to the former relations 
 between Peel and his Protectionist followers was, how- 
 ever, the great thing against which Mr. Disraeli had to 
 guard. The restoration of Peel to Conservative confi- 
 dence meant the eternal relegation of himself to that 
 dreary parliamentary Limbo of clever speakers who 
 never reached office. The proposal of an amendment 
 by Lord George Bentinck to the Sugar Duties Bill, 
 and the support of the Ministerial measure by Sir 
 Robert Peel, widened the split between the Protectionists 
 and their late chief, formed the Protectionists into a 
 distinct party with distinct principles, and confirmed 
 Mr. Disraeli's position as a parliamentary leader.
 
 362 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 There is nothing further in his conduct during the 
 remainder of the session of 1846 which calls for par- 
 ticular comment. 
 
 At the beginning of the session of 1847, another and 
 a still more advantageous change to Mr. Disraeli was 
 made in the position of the Protectionist party. As I 
 have said, the Protectionists had sat on the Liberal 
 benches during the last months of 1846. It had, how- 
 ever, according to Lord Beaconsfield,* been represented 
 to them that this arrangement caused considerable 
 inconvenience. The Protectionists were so numerous 
 that they crowded out the Liberal members from the 
 Liberal benches, and thus much confusion arose. " This 
 led," writes Lord Beaconsfield, f "to some conversation 
 between the Treasury bench and Lord George Bentinck, 
 and it was finally agreed that on the whole it would be 
 more convenient that on the meeting of the House in 
 1847, he should take the seat usually occupied by the 
 leader of the Opposition, and that his friends should 
 fill the benches generally allotted to an adverse party." 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, it will be observed, speaks of the 
 matter in a rather easy tone ; but this incident was, 
 undoubtedly, one of the most momentous in his whole 
 career. The Protectionists, from being a mere parlia- 
 mentary section, was transformed into the Conservative 
 Opposition ; and the change in Mr. Disraeli's position 
 was correspondingly great. Sitting now on the front 
 Opposition bench, he was established as one of the 
 chiefs of the sscoud great political party, and registered a 
 Life of Bentinck," 871-2. t Ibid.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 363 
 
 certain title to take his seat in due time on the Treasury 
 bench opposite. He became a Cabinet Minister in petto. 
 It is singular to remark how fortune has favoured Lord 
 Beaconsfield in so many ways above other men. Here, 
 by a strange and unprecedented combination of circum- 
 stances, he was placed in a position without any of the 
 preliminaries through which nearly every other English 
 statesman of the old or the modern time has had to 
 pass. He sat on the front Opposition bench as the 
 leader of a party, and was an heir to high office before 
 he had filled even the most subordinate governmental 
 situation. 
 
 The attitude of the Protectionists to the Government 
 during the session of 1847, continued to be that of 
 friendly but close critics. There was one occasion, 
 however, on which they came into open collision, and 
 it appeared quite possible that Lord George Bentinck 
 and his lieutenant would be called upon to assume the 
 reins of Government. The chief topic of discussion 
 during the session was the fearful distress in Ireland, 
 and the means which the Ministry had taken to relieve 
 it. Lord George Bentinck met the scheme of the 
 Government by a counter-scheme. His proposal was 
 that the State should lend 16,000,000 for the construc- 
 tion of Irish railways. For some reason or other, the 
 Bill was allowed to be read a first time ; but when the 
 moment came for the second stage to be taken, Lord 
 John Russell declared that the carriage of the measure 
 would involve the resignation of the Government. The 
 Protectionist leader, amid some professions of reluctance,
 
 364 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 real or feigned, accepted the challenge ; declared he 
 was " not appalled " by the difficulties of the position 
 of a Minister ; and that he and his friends would " not 
 shrink from any responsibility which, unsought, may 
 be forced upon us." ' 
 
 The debate lasted for three nights, during one of which 
 Mr. Disraeli made a long speech in defence of the pro- 
 posal of his chief. Ultimately, the Bill being opposed 
 both by the Peelites, by the Liberals in a body, and by a 
 portion of the Protectionists, was rejected by the over- 
 whelming majority of 332 to 118 votes. 
 
 This defeat was not lost on Bentinck and his adviser ; 
 and during the rest of the session they avoided any 
 direct test of strength with the Government. It was 
 evident that the time was not yet ripe for the Protec- 
 tionists. 
 
 The Protectionist chiefs took up a somewhat strange 
 attitude on the foreign policy of the Government. 
 These were the days of the Spanish marriages, which 
 resulted in the hapless reign of Queen Isabella, and her 
 final expulsion from the throne. Lord Palmerston, who 
 was then at the head of the Foreign Office, vehemently 
 opposed this infamous act of Machiavellian traffic ; and 
 his conduct received the censure of Lord George 
 Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli. They were quite unable 
 to see that those marriages were a violation of the 
 Treaty of Utrecht ; that they in any way concerned 
 England ; and Mr. Disraeli went even so far as to ex- 
 press surprise that Lord Palmerston had not sent a con- 
 * " Life of Bentinck," 389.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 365 
 
 gratulatory letter on the union of Isabella and Francis 
 de Assisi ! * 
 
 The conduct of Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli was even 
 more curious on the question of Cracow. By one of 
 the articles in the Treaty of Vienna, Cracow had been 
 guaranteed independence. In November of 1846, 
 however, the three Powers, which had been parties to 
 the original partition of Poland, agreed to destroy this 
 last remnant of Polish independence ; and Austria, with 
 the consent of Russia and Prussia, annexed Cracow^ 
 Lord Palmerston severely blamed the transaction, and 
 
 / 7 
 
 entered a protest against it ; the subject was mentioned 
 in the Queen's Speech ; and on the 4th of March, 1847, 
 Mr. Hume proposed a vote of censure on the conduct 
 of the three Powers. 
 
 The action of the Ministry was so plainly justified 
 by the facts that it received the hearty support of 
 Sir Robert Peel.t The motion of Mr. Huine was 
 seconded by Lord Sandon,f one of Peel's colleagues 
 in the late Ministry ; and so staunch a Conservative as 
 Lord Mahon spoke strongly in favour of the Foreign 
 Secretary's action. These very circumstances were 
 probably the reasons which induced Mr. Disraeli to 
 persuade Bentinck to oppose Lord Palmerston. It was 
 part of the general plan of keeping the Protectionists, as 
 a party, separate from all others, and especially from 
 Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 It is not necessary to follow the many debates which 
 
 * See Hansard, Ixxxix. 107 and 150-51. J ibid. 167. 
 
 f Annual Register, Lxxxiz. 172. Ibid. 170.
 
 366 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 took place on economical subjects. Suffice it to say 
 that in all the discussions on those matters Lord George 
 Bentinck re-echoed the most ignorant and most popular 
 fallacies. He denounced the abolition of the Corn Law, 
 at one moment, because it lowered the price of corn, and 
 so defrauded the English farmer ; and in the very next 
 breath he found fault with this same measure because it 
 made wheat dear in Ireland.* He reflected the preju- 
 dice of our grandmothers against what used to be called 
 " engrossers, and regraters, and forestallers," and almost 
 suggested that they should be hanged ; t and, al- 
 together, spoke in all the self-sufficiency of Cimmerian 
 ignorance. It is amusing to watch the yeoman service 
 Mr. Disraeli performs to his dullard chief. He utters 
 the feeling soul, who wanted to keep up a starvation 
 law the old cant as to the heartlessness of political 
 economy, much as though one were to tax astronomy 
 with callousness ; and he declares that nothing can be 
 more ridiculous than to govern states in accordance 
 principle, t 
 
 * Hansard, Ixxxix. 246250. 
 f Ibid. 247. 
 
 * As a specimen of Mr. Disraeli's rhetoric, I give the following 
 passage. " The hon. member for North Lancashire," said Mr. 
 Disraeli, " seems annoyed that my noble friend should have expressed 
 a feeling adverse to forestallers and regraters, and talks of such a 
 feeling being a feeling that existed in barbarous days. It is very 
 true that it was 600 years ago that statutes against forestallers and 
 regraters were passed. But what does that prove, when you hear 
 expressions adverse to those clauses at this moment, but that there is 
 a strong national feeling opposed to that system ? And I tell this to 
 the hon. Gentleman, that all his philosophy will not be successful 
 when opposed to the national conviction!" Hansard, 3 S. Lxxxix. 
 259. As a specimen of the kind of wit which sometimes proves
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 367 
 
 Parliament was dissolved in July, and Mr. Disraeli 
 once again sought a new constituency. He left 
 Shrewsbury, and stood for Buckinghamshire. It is 
 not hard to understand why he should have sought the 
 representation of this latter constituency. He had 
 passed a considerable portion of his youth in that 
 county, at his father's house at Bradenham. It was in 
 a Buckinghamshire town that he made his first attempts 
 to get into Parliament. In his character of farmers' 
 friend, too, it would be more appropriate that he should 
 represent a county constituency. And, finally, Buck- 
 inghamshire had associations with great statesmen of the 
 past, which might be turned in some way to the honour 
 and glory of Mr. Disraeli. Indeed, with characteristic 
 modesty, he did not fail in his election speeches to 
 couple his name with that of Burke, who had lived 
 at Beaconsfield, and of Hampden, who had represented 
 the county. The address to the Buckinghamshire 
 electors is characteristic enough. One of the chief 
 dogmas in the creed he professes it is not particularly 
 easy to understand ; and, indeed, it is a very good 
 
 effective in the House of Commons, I append this other passage in 
 the same speech. " I, for my part," said Mr. Disraeli, " am con- 
 vinced that the hon. Gentleman himself is not a forestaller. I feel 
 persuaded the hon. Gentleman is not a regrater. I am sure the hon. 
 Gentleman is not a regrater, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not a 
 great capitalist who has invested his capital in corn. But I tell the 
 hon. Gentleman this, if those sentiments had been expressed by one in 
 such a situation, the speech would not have been forgotten by the 
 people of England. And when the right hour arrives, he will find 
 that his principles of political economy will be subjected to a kind of 
 criticism he will not find within the walls of this House." Ibid. 
 Ixxxix. 260
 
 368 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 specimen of the system of giving sounding and at tho 
 same time unintelligible watchwords, which he has so 
 studiously adopted in leading his party. " In that 
 great struggle," he says, "between popular principles 
 and liberal opinions, which is the characteristic of our 
 age, I hope ever to be found on the side of the 
 people and of the institutions of England." I have road 
 with some care the many speeches in which he further 
 developed this new political dogma, and am slill puzzled 
 as much as ever to know what it means. 
 
 But the really important point in this election is the 
 attitude of Mr. Disraeli to Protection. Whether he 
 ever really believed in that doctrine or not, he may be 
 credited with sufficient sense to see that, if abolished, 
 it could never be restored. He knew, of course, that 
 the people having once got the taste of cheap broad, 
 would rise in rebellion rather than again allow its price 
 to be artificially raised by protective laws. The diffi- 
 cult problem which Mr. Disraeli had, therefore, to solve 
 was, to keep up his appearance of a belief in the 
 possibility of a return to Protection, and at the same 
 time gradually pave the way for abandoning Protection. 
 This is the game which he plays for the next few years, 
 and I think the reader will not be wholly unamused in 
 watching the skill, the audacity, and the unscrupulous- 
 ness with which he played it. 
 
 The first move was made at this Bucks election, and 
 it took the form of deprecating any immediate attempt 
 to reverse the Free Trade legislation of 1846. Remind- 
 
 O 
 
 ing the electors in his address, he says, " during the
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 369 
 
 recent assault on the protective system " he had offered 
 " a faithful though fruitless opposition to that project." 
 He went on, however, to add that he was not " one 
 of those who would counsel, or who would abet, any 
 attempt factiously and forcibly to repeal the measures 
 of 1846."* 
 
 This' thesis, that an immediate return to Protection 
 was impossible, he enlarged on during his many election 
 addresses ; taking care, however, be it remarked, to 
 hold out at the same time the hope that what was im- 
 possible for the moment, would be possible by-and-by.f 
 
 It is this that constitutes the dishonesty of Mr. 
 Disraeli's action. The harm he did by keeping alive 
 these hopes which he knew to be false is incalculable. It 
 induced lethargy in both the landlord and the tenant, 
 
 * Bucks Herald, May 29, 1847. This address is signed simply 
 " Disraeli." It is possible that the " B." is omitted by a printer's 
 error, though this is not very likely. Even in his forty -third year, and 
 in his high political position, he had not given up the silly affectation 
 of his youth with regard to his name. This is a small matter 
 certainly, but in these trifles, we know, the real character of the man 
 is often portrayed. 
 
 f Thus, in one of his speeches, he described Free Trade as <! a 
 resolution of Parliament ; " " and," he proceeded, " we must see the 
 experiment fairly tried." " You are." he says to the electors, in the 
 position of a man who has made an improvident marriage. You have 
 become united to Free Trade, and nothing can divorce you except you 
 can prove the charmer has been false. . . . You have become united 
 to a false duenna, and you must take the consequences ; and the con- 
 sequence I venture to predict will be, that the House of Commons, 
 after a fair, full, and ample trial of this great measure, will be driven 
 to repeal it from absolute necessity, though at the termination of 
 much national suffering ; but then that suffering will be compensated 
 for by the bitterness and profundity of national penitence." Bucks 
 Herald, June 26 1847. 
 
 24
 
 370 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and throughout the entire community it kept up a 
 dangerous feeling of uncertainty. Equally immoral was 
 the conduct of Mr. Disraeli when viewed in its effects 
 upon the position of parties. If the hope of a return to 
 Protection were abandoned, there was no reason why 
 the estrangement between Peel and the main body of 
 his former followers should still be kept up : this -deter- 
 mination to reverse the legislation of '46 was the single 
 point upon which he and they differed. But if this hope 
 of restoring Protection were illusory, then a party was 
 allowed to exist which had no basis, and those who 
 continued its leaders, professing to believe this basis 
 firm, were guilty of the worst of false pretences. I call 
 attention to the point here, because it will be found of 
 considerable importance in studying some subsequent 
 phases in Lord Beaconsfield's political career as a Pro- 
 tectionist leader.* 
 
 The result of the election was that, the other candi- 
 dates having withdrawn, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Du Prd, and 
 Mr. Cavendish were returned without opposition. 
 
 * Not the least interesting feature in this election are Mr. Disraeli's 
 personal encounters with some of I/is opponents. One of the rival 
 (Minlidates was a member of the Cavendish family, and the services 
 this family had rendered to the Liberal cause were adduced as a 
 reason for supporting Mr. Cavendish. Thus Mr. Disraeli replies to 
 this argument : " I am not disposed for a moment to admit that my 
 pedigree is not as good and even superior to that of the Cavendishes ; 
 but as he and his representative have chosen to narrow the question 
 to that issue I accept the ground on which he is prepared to fight. 
 Let him pride himself on his blood; I have con6dence in my brains 
 (loud cheers and laughter) and I am not alarmed as to the result. 
 This I can tell the silent candidate and his too loquacious champions, 
 that if he appeals to ancestry, I have a father, more than eighty ye.ir
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 371 
 
 There was some, but not a very great, change in the 
 position of parties in the new Parliament. The Pro- 
 tectionists " maintained their numbers, though they did 
 not increase them ; " * the Peelites and the Radicals 
 were some what diminished ; the Whigs alone had added 
 to their ranks, f During the recess there had occurred 
 one of those panics which periodically overwhelm the 
 English money market. In the month of September 
 alone fifteen large London houses stopped payment, 
 the Governor of the Bank of England being a partner 
 in one of these firms. Important houses in the pro- 
 vincial cities were obliged to submit to the same fate, 
 and on the 1st October the interest on money was at 
 the rate of sixty per cent.J The Ministers, in conse- 
 quence, were obliged to resort to the usual remedy in 
 these cases they authorised the suspension of the Bank 
 Charter Act of 1844. As a result of this permission to 
 
 of age, who is a freeholder of the coun'nf of Buckingham, and who 
 intends to record his vote for his son when the day of election 
 arrives." Bucks Herald, June 26, 1847. And here is another passage 
 which shows how high his hopes had become at this time : he is 
 answering the charge that he is the nominee of the Duke of Bucking- 
 ham. " This is a position where a candidate is allowed to speak of 
 himself ; . . . . and I say it would be totally impossible that I 
 should fulfil the career to which I hope I am destined, if the opinion 
 of any individual is to influence my conduct. I would much sooner 
 remain the representative of those honest burgesses who first sent me 
 to Parliament, . ... if I mere not master of my own career, and if 
 I could not lead instead of following.' 1 ' 1 Ibid. Be it remarked that 
 these words were uttered while Bentinck was still alive, and still 
 the nominal leader of the Opposition. Were they not meant to tell 
 Bentinck that Mr. Disraeli was not to be second to him or any other 
 man ? Did Mr. Disraeli contemplate an intrigue against his nominal 
 chief ? 
 
 * " Life of Bentinck," 442. f Ibid. % Ibid. 413.
 
 372 LORD BEACONSFIELD 
 
 infringe the law, they were obliged to summon Par- 
 liament in November. Mr. Disraeli took, in the session 
 commenced at that date, perhaps a more important part 
 than he had hitherto played in Parliament, From a 
 mere guerilla warrior, distinguished only by bitter per- 
 sonal attacks, he came to be regarded as the exponent 
 of the principles of a party ; and it will be seen, too, that 
 he ventured to make some claims, though in a very 
 cautious and timorous fashion, to being so considered. 
 
 Scarcely had the session begun when he had the very 
 difficult but to him not unusual task of reconciling two 
 diametrically opposite votes on practically the same 
 question. Among the first measures introduced by 
 Lord John Russell was a Coercion Bill for Ireland, 
 which bore a very close resemblance to the memorable 
 Bill brought in on the same subject in 1846 by Sir 
 Robert Peel. The reader has not forgotten that it was 
 by a coalition of Whigs and Protectionists against the 
 Coercion Bill of 1846 that Sir Robert Peel was driven 
 from office. Mr. Disraeli, however, was enthusiastic 
 over the Bill of Lord John Russell. He attempted to 
 justify the inconsistency, but his reasons were so 
 flimsy as not to justify my wasting time in examining 
 them.* 
 
 At this point, I have to stop to notice an episode 
 which would have made havoc of Mr. Disraeli's poli- 
 tical fortunes, if he had been an ordinary man 
 ordinary, in the sense of having the usual allowance 
 of independence and delicacy of feeling. Untroubled, 
 * See Hansard, 3 S. xcr. 356868.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 373 
 
 however, by these weaknesses, Mr. Disraeli, it will be 
 seen, turned this episode to his own great advantage. 
 
 Among the representatives who had been returned 
 at the (jreneral Election for the city of London, was 
 Baron Rothschild. Up to this time, the oath which 
 members of Parliament were obliged to take contained 
 the words " on the true faith of a Christian," and the 
 point in dispute was whether Baron Rothschild should 
 be admitted without being compelled to subscribe to 
 this form of oath. On the 16th December, Lord John 
 Russell brought the subject before the House by pro- 
 posing a resolution removing the disabilities of the 
 Jews. This action threw the Protectionist party into 
 a state of utter confusion. The vast bulk, being natu- 
 rally enough as narrow-minded and bigoted in religious, 
 as they were stupid in commercial questions, denounced 
 the proposed reform with all the bitterness and rancour 
 which religious fanaticism can so abundantly beget. I 
 have not space here to quote the flowers of eloquence, 
 at once ludicrous and blasphemous, with which the 
 Inglises, the Ashleys, and the Newdegates graced their 
 opposition to Lord John's resolution. Suffice it to say 
 that the question was evidently one upon which the 
 Tory Rump would accept DO compromise. 
 
 It would be interesting indeed if we could by some 
 process obtain an accurate photograph of Mr. Disraeli's 
 feelings while, sitting as the leader of these men, he 
 listened to the words of contumely and imbecile bigotry 
 with which they spoke of his race. His disposition 
 was not a very tender or generous one. to begin with ;
 
 374 LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 for no man of tender or generous nature could have 
 written " Vivian Grey " in his twenty-first year. But 
 whatever small remnant there may have been left of 
 softness in his character, these insults and this folly 
 would have annihilated. We do not admire Lord 
 Beaconsfield because he has sacrificed every principle 
 of honesty, of honour, of fair-dealing, to gratify his 
 ambition as a man, and his hate as a Jew ; but, almost 
 more conte.mptible is the conduct of those men who 
 hating and persecuting his race to the very last 
 moment, were yet mean-spirited enough to accept his 
 leadership. Another reflection that naturally suggests 
 itself to one's mind in connection with this episode in 
 Lord Beaconsfield's career is that it does not speak 
 very highly for his spirit that he should cast in his 
 fortune with the party which thus regarded the people 
 from whom he sprang. What would be thought of 
 the Roman Catholic who was a constant and faithful 
 adherent of the Tory party, while that party was 
 continuing its bitter and uncompromising hostility to 
 Catholic emancipation ? 
 
 It is true Lord Beaconsfield supplies a ready answer 
 to all such fault-finding with his conduct. " No, Grey ; 
 make them fear you," he makes one of his characters 
 exclaim in his earliest novel, " and they will kiss your 
 feet." Lord Beaconsfield resolved to stoop before 
 these insolent patrons, that he might afterwards have 
 the pleasure of making them fear him. 
 
 But the difficulty with regard to Mr. Disraeli was not 
 the only one in which the Protectionists were placed
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 375 
 
 by this Jewish question. Lord George Bentinck, their 
 other leader, was likewise in favour of the Emancipa- 
 tion of the Jews. Amid all the errors and darkness of 
 his Tory maturity, he still retained a relic of the days 
 when he was the private secretary of Canning. He 
 was still an advocate of religious toleration. Thus the 
 position of the two Protectionist leaders was in many 
 respects the same ; it will be a most instructive thing 
 one of the most instructive in the whole career of Lord 
 Beaconsfield to observe the manner in which the two 
 men acted in the same difficulty. 
 
 First, then, let us take the conduct of Bentinck. "As 
 there are very few Englishmen," writes Lord Beacons- 
 field,* " of what is commonly called the Jewish faith, and 
 as, therefore, it was supposed that political considerations 
 could not enter into the question, it was hoped by many 
 of the followers of Lord George Bentinck that he would 
 not separate himself from his party on this subject, and 
 very earnest requests and representations were made to 
 him with that view. He was not insensible to them ; he 
 gave them prolonged and painful consideration ; they 
 
 greatly disquieted him He was entreated not to 
 
 vote at all ; to stay away, which the severe indisposition 
 under which he was then labouring warranted. . . . 
 Enfeebled by illness, he had nearly brought himself 
 to a compliance with a request urged with affectionate 
 importunity, but from which his reason and sense of 
 duty held him aloof. After long and deep and painful 
 pondering, when the hour arrived, he rose from his 
 * "Life of Beritinck," 511-12.
 
 376 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 bed of sickness, walked into the house of commons, 
 and not only voted, but spoke, in favour of his con- 
 victions." 
 
 This story, although told by Lord Beaconsfield, is 
 literally true, as after-events tragically prove ; and I 
 must say that, much as I dislike Bentinck's opinions, 
 poor as is the respect I have for his abilities, though I 
 consider him to have been a man of narrow and 
 untrained mind, of ungoverned passions, of contemptible 
 prejudices, I cannot, in the face of such evidence, deny 
 him the merit of being in some respects a gentleman 
 in feeling and in principle. And this opinion is con- 
 firmed as I read further on in the pages of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, as follows : 
 
 " This vote and speech of Lord George Bentinck no 
 doubt mortified at the moment a considerable portion of 
 his followers, and occasioned great dissatisfaction among 
 a very respectable though limited section of them. . . . 
 Lord George did not take any pains to ascertain whether 
 the representation which was made to him was that of 
 the general feeling of a large party, or that only of a 
 sincere, highly estimable, but limited section. He was 
 enfeebled and exhausted by indisposition ; he often felt, 
 even when in health, that the toil of his life was beyond 
 both his physical and moral energies ; and though he 
 was of that ardent and tenacious nature that he never 
 would have complained but have died at his post, tha 
 opportunity of release coming to him at a moment when 
 he was physically prostrate was rather eagerly seixed, 
 and the world suddenly learned at Christmas, with
 
 f PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 377 
 
 great astonishment, that the renowned leader of the 
 Protectionist party had relinquished his trust."* 
 Just one touch more to fill in the picture : 
 " Parliament reassembled," writes Lord Beaconsfield, 
 " on the 3rd of February, and on that night Lord 
 George Bentinck brought forward his motion for ' a 
 select committee to inquire into the present condition 
 and prospects of the interests connected with and 
 dependent on sugar and coffee planting in her majesty's 
 East and "West Indian possessions and the Mauritius, 
 and to consider whether any and what measures can be 
 adopted by parliament for their relief.' When he 
 entered the house Lord George walked up to the head 
 of the second bench below the gangway on the opposite 
 side, and thus significantly announced that he was no 
 longer the responsible leader of the Protectionist party."f 
 
 " Look here upon this picture and on this 
 The counterfeit presentment of two brothers." 
 
 I have said that the position of Lord George Bentinck 
 and that of Mr. Disraeli was the same ; and so it was 
 to a very considerable extent ; but there were some 
 differences in the circumstances of the two, and these 
 differences are most material. Lord George Bentinck, 
 it is true, was bound to the cause of the Jews by a vote 
 he had already given on the question ; and it would 
 therefore have been inconsistent of him to have opposed 
 their claims now. But the vote had been given so far 
 back as 1833,J and parliamentary history is rich enough 
 
 * "Life of Bentinck," 513-14. % Ibid. 508. 
 
 . 523.
 
 378 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 in instances of mortal sins in political inconsistency, by 
 the side of which Bentinck's abandonment of the Jews 
 would have been a comparatively venial offence. If he 
 had only studied the career of the friend who was then 
 the sharer of his counsels, Bentinck might have well been 
 emboldened to take a step of far more shameless tergi- 
 versation. Besides, as we have seen, the demands made 
 upon him on this question by his friends were not very 
 large. As we have been told by Lord Beaconsfield, it 
 would have satisfied them if he had abstained from 
 voting. But Bentinck would not accept this easy 
 refuge : on the contrary, he insisted on taking his own 
 course in the most ostentatious and, to his followers, 
 most offensive way. 
 
 The position of Mr. Disraeli was very different. It 
 was known that he was a member of the race which 
 was still excluded from the ordinary rights of citizens 
 by his own party. His position was, therefore, much 
 more delicate and much more awkward th:in that 
 of Lord George Bentinck. Any reason which might 
 have urged Bentinck to surrender the leadership of 
 the Protectionist party ought to have weighed with a 
 hundredfold force in the same direction on Mr. Disraeli. 
 Let us see what Mr. Disraeli did. 
 
 In the first place, let us mark the manner in which 
 he spoke of those who spoke so disrespectfully of him 
 and his. In one of the passages which ] have just 
 quoted, the section of poor bigots for whom a Christian 
 of any pretensions to breadth of mind can scarcely find 
 words contemptuous enough, are described by this man
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 379 
 
 of the Jewish race as " a sincere, highly estimable " 
 section. In his speech to the House of Commons, the 
 address of Lord Ashley (now Lord Shaftesbury), one 
 of the bitterest opponents to the emancipation of the 
 Jews, is spoken of as " the noble speech of the noble 
 Lord."* 
 
 More than this : in a speech which he delivered at a 
 later period of the session he actually blamed Lord 
 John Russell for having brought forward the question 
 at all.f 
 
 And now, finally, let me contrast the action of Lord 
 George Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli with respect to the 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. xcv. 1323. 
 
 f Lest I should appear to misrepresent Lord Beaconsfield on this 
 most important point, I give his exact words : " But I have a charge 
 against the Government, as far as the conduct of public business is 
 concerned, for their not having carried the repeal of the navigation 
 laws. If the subject is of such urgent importance as to be the first 
 recommended in the Queen's Speech, why was your project intro- 
 duced so late as the 15th May ? I will tell you how it was, because 
 the noble Lord, when Parliament met, chose to introduce a Bill, to 
 which he devoted all the strength and energies of the Government, on 
 a subject which was not introduced into Her Majesty's Speech the 
 Jewish Disabilities Bill. The noble Lord knows full well that as far 
 as my opinion of that measure are (sic) concerned I am making no 
 imputation upon the noble Lord for bringing it in. I gave to the 
 noble Lord, at no ordinary sacrifice, my support upon that occa- 
 sion ; but though I agree with the noble Lord as to the principle 
 which animated his legislation, I do not at all approve of his conduct 
 as manager of the House of Commons. My opinion is, generally 
 speaking, that upon all subjects of that kind the emancipation of 
 Catholics, and the like it is not advisable that a Minister should 
 bring forward a project of change unless he is able to carry hia 
 measure. I believe the evils are great of a Minister failing in 
 measures of that kind : the failure imparts a party spirit and a party
 
 380 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 leadership. I have already described, in the language of 
 Lord Beaconsfield himself, the public manner in which 
 Bentinck signified his abdication as Chief of the 
 Protectionists. Let us consult the same high authority 
 as to what Lord Beacousfield did : 
 
 " It was the wish of the writer of these pages," he 
 says, in his " Life of Bentinck," * " who had resolved 
 to stand or fall by him " (Lord George Bentinck), tl to 
 have followed his example, and to have abdicated the 
 prominent seat in which the writer had been unwillingly 
 and fortuitously placed ; but by the advice or rather 
 at the earnest request of Lord George Bentinck this 
 course was relinquished as indicative of schism, which 
 he wished to discourage ; and the circumstance is only 
 mentioned as showing that Lord George Bentinck was 
 
 bitterness to subjects in which party business at all events, and party 
 spirit as little as possible, should mingle. Besides, it is an impru. 
 dent and impolitic course with regard to those whose interests you 
 advocate, because, when the Minister is defeated, the cause always 
 goes back. It is known that the battle has been fought under the 
 most favourable auspices, and you always find a reaction. It is very 
 different if you are in Opposition. If the noble Lord had been in 
 Opposition, he would have been perfectly justified, from his position, 
 fr->m the opinions upon religions disabilities which he has always most 
 ably upheld, in bringing the subject before the House year after year, 
 to see whether, by fresh cogency of logic and increased brilliancy of 
 rhetoric, he could make an advance in the House and in the country, 
 and, in fact, to gauge the progress of the question. I think, in the 
 position of the First Minister of the Crown, he was not justified in 
 bringing forward a measure of this kind unless he had a moral cer- 
 tainty of passing it. But it is quite clear that his bringing in the 
 Jewish Disabilities Bill, and pressing it forward, prevented his 
 carrying the repeal of the navigation laws, and, so far as his conduct 
 of the business of the Session was concerned, was a great mistake." 
 J/ajuard, 3 8. ci. 689691. 
 * 523-4.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER 381 
 
 not less considerate at this moment of the interests of 
 the Protectionist party than when he led them with so 
 much confidence and authority." Of course, of course ; 
 Mr. Disraeli having once got to a good place, was not 
 going to be easily removed : such over-delicate consider- 
 ations might be left to have their influence with beings 
 of less superior mould.* 
 
 This will perhaps be the proper place to examine the 
 grounds upon which Lord Beaconsfield advocated the 
 admission of his own people to the franchise. It is a 
 question which he discusses in more than one place. 
 He deals with it not only in his speeches in Parliament, 
 but also in his novel of " Tancred," published about this 
 time. Indeed, that work has almost for its leading 
 subject the relations of Judaism and Christianity ; and 
 let me say that I must dismiss the book with this 
 casual observation. But the Jewish question is dealt 
 with more closely and intelligibly in a chapter in the 
 " Life of Bentinck," than in any other place, and it is 
 with the representation of the question there put forward 
 that it will be most convenient for me to deal. 
 
 The whole tendency of Lord Beaconsfield's argument 
 is that Judaism and Christianity are practically the same 
 
 * It is scarcely necessary to notice the insinuation that Lord 
 Beaconsfield was " only induced to maintain the leadership by tha 
 persuasions of Lord George Bentinck." Lord Beaconsfield is not the 
 man to be persuaded into any course he does not think to his interest, 
 and he does not require much inducement to retain a position which 
 gratifies his vanity and advances his ambition. Lord Beaconsfield 
 might have been satisfied with using Lord George Bentinck as his 
 catspaw when living, without likewise making him when dead the 
 sponsor for some of his most questionable acts.
 
 382 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 thing. He speaks* of the morality of the two religions 
 being identical. Manini is " a Jew who professes the 
 whole of the Jewish religion." "A converted Jew/' 
 goes on Lord Beaconsfield, "as the Lombards styled 
 him, quite forgetting in the confusion of their ideas that 
 it is the Lombards who are the converts not Manini." f 
 In the next page he deplores that "several millions of 
 the Jewish race should persist in believing in only a 
 part of their religion," \ and so on. 
 
 I do not know whether it is necessary that I should 
 attempt to dispose at any length of these representations. 
 It is quite plain, in spite of all Mr. Disraeli's sophistry 
 that the Jew and the Christian are separated from each 
 other by a doctrine of overwhelming importance. Christ 
 to the Jew I mean, of course, the orthodox Jew 
 is an impostor, but to the Christian a belief in the 
 divinity of Christ is the very basis of all his doctrines, 
 a necessary part of his morality in this life, and, in 
 the eyes of many believers in Christ at least, an indis- 
 pensable requisite for his happiness in the next. What 
 more fundamental difference can there be between 
 religions than the difference as to who is their God? 
 
 O 
 
 But Mr. Disraeli is so oblivious, or pretends to be so 
 oblivious, of this distinction, that he actually claim-* 
 credit for the Jews for committing that act which, 
 in the eye of the orthodox Christian, must always be 
 regarded as an inexpiable crimo. 
 
 " If the Jews," he writes, " had not prevailed upon 
 the Romans to crucify our Lord, what would have 
 
 * "Life of Bentinck," 487-8. f MM- 493- t 2bid. 499.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER 383 
 
 become of the atonement ? . . . . The immolators were 
 preordained, like the victim, and the holy race supplied 
 both. Could that be a crime which secured for all 
 mankind eternal joy ? " 
 
 Passing on from the question of doctrine, Mr. Disraeli 
 flies into the region of the incomprehensible. In 
 "Tancred," he speaks of a great Asian mystery, and 
 to this day the world is asking in vain what this great 
 Asian mystery is. In the life of Bentinck, the great 
 Asian mystery is transformed into the Semitic principle. 
 " The Jews represent the Semitic principle ; all that is 
 spiritual in our nature. "f 
 
 " Destruction of the Semitic principle," he says, in 
 another place, "extirpation of the Jewish religion, 
 whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form," | are 
 said to be the cause of the recent disturbances. 
 " The great transatlantic republic," he further informs 
 us, " is intensely Semitic, and has prospered accord- 
 ingly." " This sacred principle alone has consolidated 
 the mighty Empire of all the Russias." In Rome, 
 according to Lord Beaconsfield, an "old man, on a 
 Semitic throne, baffles the modern Attilas," and Austria 
 "would long ago have dissolved but for the Semitic 
 principle." 
 
 I must dismiss this part of Mr. Disraeli's exposition 
 with the candid confession that I really do not know 
 what it all means. I cannot even see what was his 
 object in writing it, except the general one of so mysti- 
 
 * Jbid. 488. { Ibid - 497 - 
 
 f Ibid. 49?. Ibid. 509.
 
 384 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 fying people as to make them blind to the real question 
 at issue.* 
 
 This treatment of Jewish questions by Lord Beacons- 
 field partly derives its interest from the light which it 
 throws upon a great deal of his style of dealing 
 with the opinions of men. One of the stratagems 
 which may be traced in all his writings and speeches 
 from the very commencement of his career and to this 
 I have already drawn attention is to so mix up opposing 
 principles as to make them appear identical. In his 
 youth he tried to prove that Radicalism and Toryism 
 were the same thing. In 1842 free trade and protec- 
 tion were demonstrated to be synonymous terms. 
 Opposition to the lowering of the franchise and house- 
 hold suffrage were, in due time, also shown to be 
 perfectly consistent ; and here, in religion, we have seen 
 how the belief that Christ was an impostor, and the 
 belief that He is God, form exactly the same faith. 
 
 I now resume the narrative of Mr. Disraeli's action 
 during the remainder of the session of 1847-8. In all the 
 d bates he took a prominent part ; and it is clear from 
 the newspaper reports of the period, and from the com- 
 ments of the other speakers, that he had now .in assured 
 position in the House. Yet these speeches, which pro- 
 duced roars of laughter, and were listened to with great 
 interest, are dreary reading nowadays. Their chief 
 
 * In this chapter on the Jews, Lord Beaconsfield makes an amusing 
 mistake. He speaks of the crucifixion of our Lord as having taken 
 place " in the reign of Augustus Caesar " (483 ; edition 1852). 
 Most people know that the crucifixion took place in the reign of 
 Tiberius.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 385 
 
 effect is to lower one's opinion of a popular assembly. 
 Very small jokes produce mighty merriment; appeals, 
 exaggerated to the verge of burlesque, and patently 
 insincere, excite wild and sincere enthusiasm ; argu- 
 ments of the most transparent fallacy, are listened to 
 with approval. The subjects of discussion during this 
 session were pi'incipally of a commercial character. 
 Measures were proposed on the Sugar Duties, on the 
 Navigation Laws, and kindred subjects. There is not 
 a single one of those beneficent changes in our restric- 
 tive system which Mr. Disraeli did not denounce as 
 fraught with every evil. Events have, as everybody 
 knows, triumphantly refuted these gloomy forebodings 
 of himself and those he led ; but perhaps no one 
 laughed more heartily, scoffed more ostentatiously at 
 these falsified predictions of Mr. Disraeli, than Mr. 
 Disraeli himself. 
 
 Reading the speeches at this distance of time, you 
 can see that the serious part of his subject was the 
 part in which Mr. Disraeli felt most uncomfortable, 
 and from which he made his escape as soon as possible. 
 For a while, he makes a show of dealing with matters 
 of fact, quotes a number of undigested statistics, and 
 makes a parade of minute commercial knowledge ; but 
 then, he is off to a personal attack on Mr. Cobden or 
 Mr. Bright, to a paltry pun on somebody's name, to a 
 thrust at Dr. Bowring, or some other of the House's 
 butts, or to some such easy escape from his own igno- 
 rance, and consequent dulness. 
 
 The whole effect of Mr. Disraeli's appearances in the 
 
 25
 
 386 LORD SEACONSFIELD. 
 
 character of a financier is really intensely amusing to 
 anybody who has studied his career. The author of 
 " Contarini Fleming " speaking gravely of the difference 
 beween white and brown sugar, of the tonnage of British 
 vessels at Rio and the freightage at Antigua, of dock 
 duties, raw material, currency, appears to me an irre- 
 sistibly comic picture ; and Lord Beaconsfield's feelings 
 must assuredly have been a mixture of amusement and 
 disgust. It was the Venetian having to speak, in the 
 jargon which he loathed, of the things which he de- 
 spised, to the northern barbarians, among whom a 
 malign fate cast his lot A Yankee exploiting North 
 American Indians by imitating their vile tongue, 
 ministering to their coarse passions, and affecting their 
 brutal sympathies, would have probably no deeper con- 
 tempt for his subjects than our Oriental ruler for the 
 people he rules. 
 
 Let me now notice with some slight detail a few of 
 Mr. Disraeli's most remarkable appearances during 
 this session. 
 
 On February 18, making a long speech on the 
 Budget, he branched off into a violent attack on Mr. 
 Cobden ; * but the only reply the leader of the Free 
 Trade movement . made was that he had not found 
 " much " in Mr. Disraeli's speech " necessary to refer 
 to."t Similarly, Mr. Bright's answer to a similar 
 attack n February 28, was a declaration that Mr. 
 Disraeli "boldly and firmly reiterates sophisms with 
 regard to taxation which any weaver in Lancashire 
 Hansard, 3 S. xlvi. 953960. f Ibid. 961.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 387 
 
 or Yorkshire would be ashamed to utter." * Again 
 returning to the charge against the Manchester school, 
 Mr. Disraeli declared himself a " free trader, but not 
 a freebooter." t He described Mr. Cobden and Mr. 
 Bright as the "representatives of two great principles 
 Peace and Plenty. Yes ! Peace and Plenty amid a 
 starving people, and with the world in arms." \ 
 
 Mr. Disraeli also took part in some important 
 debates on our foreign relations. In an elaborate 
 attack he made upon the interference of Prussia in 
 Schleswig-Holstein, he found himself in complete 
 agreement with Lord Palmerston. In the course of 
 his speech, he has no words of scorn sufficiently 
 vigorous for the principle of nationality. The Che- 
 valier Bunsen is blamed for talking "that dreamy 
 and dangerous nonsense called German nationality." || 
 " If," exclaims Mr. Disraeli, " wheresoever the German 
 language is spoken, the German flag should wave, 
 why do not the Germans invade Alsace?"^ In 
 speaking on the expulsion of Sir Henry Bulwer from 
 Madrid, he condemns in the strongest manner Palmer- 
 ston's efforts to encourage Liberal institutions in 
 other countries. "You," he said, "look upon the 
 English Constitution as a model farm. You forced 
 this Constitution in every country." ** And he also, 
 in the course of this address, expresses horror at Lord 
 Palmerston's not having been more communicative on 
 
 * Ibid. 1440. Ibid, xcviii. 609526. 
 
 f Ibid, xcvii. 417. || Ibid. 521. 
 
 j Ibid. 436. 1 Ibid. 616. 
 
 ** Ibid. xcix. 398.
 
 388 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 foreign affairs to the House of Commons, " the chosen 
 temple of national right and national honour." * 
 
 But his greatest effort was a review of the session, 
 which he delivered on August 30. Lord Beaconsfield 
 has found it necessary to explain the circumstances 
 under which he came to deliver this speech ; and some 
 explanation was certainly necessary. By thus under- 
 taking the task of giving a general criticism of the 
 action of the Government, Mr. Disraeli was per- 
 forming the duty of the leader of the Opposition. 
 But would it not be strange that he should perform 
 this task, while the man he professed to follow occu- 
 pied the seat of a private member ? Does it not look 
 as if Mr. Disraeli were trying to "cut out "Lord 
 George Bentinck ? Conscious, perhaps, of these 
 natural and ugly suspicions, Lord Beaconsfield, in his 
 " Life of Bentinck," gives an explanation of his action. 
 According to this explanation, Mr. Disraeli undertook 
 this duty in spite of his own wishes, and only in 
 compliance with Bentinck's most urgent request. 
 He " shrank," he tells us,f " from a laborious effort " " at 
 the end of August;" though from all that has been 
 seen of Lord Beaconsfield, up to this period of his 
 career, " laborious effort " appeared to him no burden 
 when he had a chance of advancing his interests. 
 Besides, I am still following his explanation, he did 
 not think " his position in the House of Commons 
 warranted on his part such an interference." J He 
 "therefore unaffectedly stated that he thought the 
 * Uriel. 386. t " Life of Bentinck." 574. * Tb id. 674.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 389 
 
 office somewhat above his measure."* This part of the 
 explanation is quite as puzzling as the first, or even 
 more so. It is astonishing to find Lord Beaconsfield 
 assuming an air of elegant languor, when he had a 
 great purpose to serve ; but it is still more astonishing 
 to behold him in the new guise of the modest questioner 
 of his own merits. I take the liberty of doubting the 
 accuracy of this whole explanation. Mr. Disraeli, we 
 may be sure, was only too delighted to spend any 
 amount of "laborious effort," even at the "end of 
 August," for the profit of standing forth as the pro- 
 tagonist of the Ministry; and instead of modestly 
 fearing the office " somewhat above his measure," he 
 was perfectly convinced that of all beings in the 
 world, he was " the right man in the right place." 
 
 However, be the circumstances what they might 
 under which it was delivered, the address of Mr. 
 Disraeli was immensely successful. The Ministry, by 
 their many changes of purpose, and by some mistakes, 
 had laid themselves open to an effective attack by 
 a skilful opponent, and Mr. Disraeli unquestionably 
 made the most of his opportunity. The thrusts at 
 the Ministry were admirably given ; the illustrations 
 were extremely happy, some happier, I think, than 
 anything even in the philippics against Peel ; and there 
 was throughout the whole address a riotous humour 
 that must have been almost intoxicatino-.t 
 
 O I 
 
 * Ibid. 575. 
 
 f I can only give one short extract from the speech. " I scarcely 
 know to what to compare their (the Ministerial) conduct, except 
 something that occurs in a delightful city in the south, with which
 
 390 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 During the recess, an event unexpectedly occurred 
 which influenced the whole of Mr. Disraeli's subsequent 
 career. On September 21st, Lord George Bentinck 
 fell dead in his brother's park at Welbeck. Thus the 
 Protectionist party were left without a leader, and 
 the appointment of his successor was evidently by no 
 means an easy task. The negotiations which took 
 place upon the subject are hidden in considerable 
 mystery, and though I have perused most of the news- 
 papers of the period, I find nothing like a full story of 
 what took place. Mr. Disraeli was, by his talents and 
 his Parliamentary success, clearly pointed out for the 
 vacant post. He was, indeed, the only man of ability 
 in his party, for, with characteristic judiciousness, he 
 had chosen a party in which stupidity was predominant. 
 But these large-acred legislators, of long descent, were 
 
 hon. Gentlemen are familiar and which is now, I believe, blockaded 
 and bullied by the English fleet. There an annual ceremony takes 
 place, when the whole population are found in a state of the greatest 
 alarm and sorrow. A procession moves through the streets, in which 
 the blood of a Saint is carried in a consecrated vase. The people 
 throng round the vase, and there is great pressure, as there was in 
 London at the time to which I am alluding. This pressure in time 
 becomes a panic just as it did in London. It is curious that in both 
 cases the cause is the same : it is the cause of congealed circulation. 
 Just at the moment when unutterable gloom overspreads the popu- 
 lation when nothing -but despair and consternation prevail the 
 Chancellor of the , Exchequer I beg pardon the Archbishop of 
 Tarento announces the liquefaction of St. Januarius's blood as the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the issue of a Government 
 letter : in both instances, a wholesome state of currency returned : 
 the people resume their gaiety and cheerfulness, the panic and the 
 pressure disappear, everybody returns to music and maccaroni as 
 in London everybody returned to business, and in both cases the 
 remedy is equally efficient, and equally a hoax." Hamard, 3 8. ci. 
 677.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 391 
 
 naturally very averse to raising over their heads a 
 man of but moderate fortune, and of Hebrew origin. 
 His chief rivals for the post were the Marquis of 
 Granby and Mr. Herries ; but neither of these could 
 lay claim to it on the ground of intellectual gifts. 
 Mr. Herries had been an official, but he was a dull, 
 plodding, commonplace man; and the Marquis of 
 Granby was also deemed unequal to the position. So 
 far as I can make out, the question of the leadership 
 was not finally settled even when Parliament met in 
 1849 ; but there was a sort of arrangement by which it 
 was exercised in turn by each of the three competitors. 
 However, Mr. Disraeli had so far gained his .point as 
 to be chosen to propose the amendment to the Address 
 from the Throne on the meeting of Parliament.* 
 
 * The Morning Chronicle, in its issue of December 16, 1848, speaks of 
 the election of Mr. Disraeli to the. leadership as already a fait accompli. 
 Having referred to the pretence of the first Napoleon to having been 
 elected to the Imperial Throne by the popular will, the Chronicle 
 proceeds : " We cannot help regarding the election of Mr. Disraeli to 
 the leadership of the Protectionists in the House of Commons as an 
 analogical example of what conscious merit and inborn superiority, 
 backed by strong volition and utter insensibility to the ordinary 
 weaknesses of a sensitive or shrinking nature, may effect. We are 
 not, indeed, aware that the dignity in question is typified by any 
 material sign or emblem, like the belt with which the championship of 
 England is conferred, or the whistle which belongs of right to the 
 greatest drinkers of the .north. On the contrary, we strongly suspect 
 that Mr. Disraeli's only external sign of authority, or mark of pre- 
 eminence, is a trumpet of his own ; and we are quite sure it has never 
 been blessed by the Protestant Pope, Mr. Spooner, at any ceremony 
 attended by the Protectionist magnates Major Beresford, S:r John 
 Tyrell, Mr. Henley, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Stafford, and Mr. Bankes. 
 But Napoleon wore his usurped crown so well, and showed himself so 
 admirably qualified for the situation and the emergency, that the 
 French soon became, as they long remained, persuaded that he was
 
 392 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 He had good materials for attacking the Ministry, 
 for Lord Palmerston, true to his policy of encouraging 
 in every way Liberal institutions throughout Europe, 
 had intervened in the many conflicts which marked 
 the year 1848. He had interfered on behalf of Hun- 
 gary against Austria; of Sardinia against the same 
 power; and of Sicily against the King of Naples. 
 As on a previous occasion, Mr. Disraeli utterly con- 
 demned all these efforts on behalf of struggling nation- 
 alities. He gloried over the success of Austria in 
 crushing the attempt of Hungary to regain her rights. 
 Charles Albert's effort to rescue Lombardy from the 
 dominion of the foreigner was to him mere brigandage, 
 and the King of Naples was a pattern of rulers.* 
 " There wanted," he said, summing up the policy of 
 Lord Palmerston, " but one ingredient in the mess to 
 /nake the incantation perfectly infernal. A republic 
 
 indispensable to them ; and on precisely the same principle will Mr. 
 Disraeli very soon become, if indeed he is not already, confessedly 
 indispensable to the Protectionists. . . . They cannot do without him, 
 and, so soon as Parliament meets, he will take his place naturally, 
 and by the mere force of circumstances, at their head." However, 
 the Times, speaking on January 30, 1849, two days before the meeting 
 of Parliament, speaks of Lord Granby as being the leader. " The first 
 symptoms," it says, "of the Parliamentary campaign are to be noted 
 
 in the kitchens of the leaders of party There is the official 
 
 dinner, of Lord John Russell ; there is the agricultural Opposition 
 dinner, such as that of Lord Stanley and the Marquis of Granby." 
 Mr. Disraeli's name is not even mentioned in the entire article. 
 The Morning Chronicle, too, in its issue of February 3, 1849, two 
 days after Parliament had met, falsifies its own prediction, for it lias 
 to " congratulate the Protectionists on their new scheme of a trium- 
 virate leadership in the Lower House Mr. Herries, Lord Granby, 
 ami Mr. Disraeli." 
 * bee Hansard. 3 8. cii. 89117
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 393 
 
 without republicans, an empire without an emperor, 
 required only mediations without an object to mediate 
 about: and the saturnalia of diplomacy would mix. 
 with the orgies of politics ! " * 
 
 He was happy in criticising the announcement of 
 the Government that they were about to effect economy 
 in the services ;f professed to say that "any well- 
 considered measure for retrenchment" would meet 
 with no opposition from his followers;! and concluded 
 with an astonishing piece of exciting and meaningless 
 rhetoric. 
 
 In this session the Government again introduced 
 their scheme for the abolition of the Navigation Laws. 
 Mr. Herries on this occasion performed the function of 
 
 * Ibid. 103. 
 
 f " What," he asked, " is this fresh discovery in the aspect of 
 affairs which enables us to make large reductions 1 Is it what I read 
 of in the Speech itself the spirit of disaffection in Ireland ? . . . . 
 Is it what I also read of in the Speech the rebellion of a formidable 
 character in the Punjaub 1 A possible insurrection in Ireland, or an 
 actual rebellion in India? " Ibid. 108. 
 
 J " Firstly," he says, " because I believe there is no instance of a 
 well-considered measure of retrenchment which has not been carried 
 into effect by the Tory party ; and, secondly, because, faithful to the 
 great traditions of their political connexion, the Tory party will never 
 forget that it is they who were the original opponents of any extra- 
 vagantly conceived military establishments of this country." Ibid 
 109. 
 
 " But," proceeds our patriotic orator, " no gentleman on this side 
 of the House will approach in a light spirit, or touch with a careless 
 hand, the military system of this country as at present established. 
 They will respect that English fleet which is a name more influential 
 with foreign Cabinets than all the resources of our foreign diplomacy ; 
 they will not tamper with the English regiment, which has become 
 a name as famous as the Eoman Legion." Ibid. 109. Loud cheers, 
 according to the " Annual Register," followed this splendid period of 
 bollow rhetoric. xci. 13.
 
 394 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 leader of the Opposition, and proposed the rejection 
 of the measure. It would be instructive, if I had the 
 space, to quote some of the many wildly false pre- 
 dictions as to the result of this measure which were 
 uttered by the Protectionist speakers. Mr. Disraeli 
 fully echoed all these gloomy prophecies. That is 
 really the irritating part of this man's success, that 
 on every great question upon which the country has 
 had to decide, he has been egregiously in the wrong ; 
 and that if his views had been carried out, the nation 
 would have incalculably suffered. Had he succeeded in 
 staying the adoption of Free Trade, who can estimate 
 the immeasurable misery that the dearness of bread 
 which Protection begot would have inflicted upon the 
 English people ? If he had succeeded in his opposition 
 to the repeal of the Navigation Laws, our commerce 
 would not have attained its present splendid pro- 
 portions. What is the fatal circumstance in politics 
 that blinds men, sensible in other circumstances ? 
 A lawyer who loses our case by his blunders is 
 peremptorily dismissed. We have no more to do with 
 the doctor who has misunderstood our ailment. We 
 refuse to pay the architect who has built us an ill- 
 constructed house.. But the politician who deals, not 
 with individual lives, but with the lives of millions, can 
 blunder on to the end of the chapter without punish- 
 ment nay, oftentimes with reward. If the counsels of 
 the man who is at present our supreme ruler had been 
 carried out, the nation would have been wellnigh ruined ; 
 and yet he is an Earl, a Knight of the Garter, one of the
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 395 
 
 most powerful Premiers of the century. These showy 
 titles deceive the multitude to the real essence of the 
 case : but, ah me ! how would a poor shoemaker have 
 fared who had bungled in boot-making as Lord Beacons- 
 field has bungled in politics ? 
 
 The most interesting feature, in Mr. Disraeli's 
 action during this session of 1849, is his mode of 
 dealing with the supreme question of Free Trade 
 and Protection. I have already pointed out how, 
 during his Bucks election, he took the first step for 
 abandoning a policy he knew to be impracticable. 
 In this session, and as time went on, he ventured 
 on successively bolder steps in this direction. One of 
 his first and favourite expedients was to persuade the 
 farmer that a change in the incidence of taxation would 
 have practically the same effect as a restoration of Pro- 
 tection ; hoping thus to get rid of the cry, which, having 
 advanced him to power, had now become foolishness 
 and a stumbling-block. 
 
 On March 8, he brought forward a proposition on 
 local taxation, the general effect of which was that 
 the land paid an undue amount of such taxation, 
 and ought accordingly to be relieved. At the 
 very outset of his speech, he boldly declared that 
 he had no intention of raising the general question 
 of Free Trade or Protection. His argument, and it 
 was a skilful one, was that Free Trade, whether 
 right or wrong, had taken away from the land, to a 
 certain degree, its profits, by exposing its chief pro- 
 duct to foreign competition ; and that as a necessary
 
 396 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 consequence the legislature was bound to give compen- 
 sation in the shape of reduced taxation. This propo- 
 sition he argued for the most part with a speciousness 
 that delighted his wondering admirers, and a tempe- 
 rateness that was eulogized from all parts of the House. 
 \Yhen, however, he reached his peroration, and had to 
 adopt his usual methods for awaking the enthusiasm 
 of his followers, he complimented the landed interest 
 with the usual insincere extravagance, and denounced 
 the manufacturers with amusingly gross misrepre- 
 sentation.* 
 
 The motion which Mr. Disraeli made on July 2 
 v/iis still more important. It was a proposal for a 
 committee to consider the state of the nation. He 
 proposed this motion because, he says, " in my opinion, 
 great and general distress prevails in this country ; 
 
 * Declaring that the landed interest had been deeply offended by 
 the manner in which they had been spokeu of, he went on : " They 
 have not forgotten that they have bee a spoken of in terms of con- 
 tempt by Ministers of State ay, even by a son of one of their 
 greatest houses, a house that always loved the land, and that the land 
 still loves. They have not forgotten that they have been held up to 
 public odium and reprobation by triumphant demagogues. They 
 have not forgotten that their noble industry, which in the old days 
 was considered the invention of go is and the occupation of heroes, 
 hns been stigmatised and denounced as an incubus upon English 
 enterprise." Hansard, 3 S. ciii. 451. Such is his picture of the agri- 
 culturist. Now let us turn to the dark features of the manufacturer. 
 J hiving first said that the motto of the agriculturists was " Live and 
 let live," he proceeds : " Yon have adopted a different motto, you, the 
 leading spirits on the benches which I see before me, have openly 
 declared your opinion that if there were not an acre of land cultivated 
 in Knglnnd it would not be the worse for this country." Ibid. 462. 
 : ely necessary to pause to say that no manufacturer 
 ever made an assertion so idiotic. But let our orator proceed : 
 "Yon have, all of you, in open chorus, announced your object
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 397 
 
 and because I believe that that great and general 
 distress has been progressive since the formation of the 
 present Government."* In other words, Mr. Disraeli 
 proposed a want of confidence motion. This esta- 
 blished for the first time his position as the leader of 
 the Opposition. He is recognized as such by several 
 speakers during the debate ; t and it is also declared 
 on all sides that the consequence of the carriage of the 
 motion would be the expulsion of Lord John Russell 
 from power, and the substitution of Mr. Disraeli and 
 his friends as successors, i 
 
 to be the monopoly of the commerce of the universe, and to 
 make this country the workshop of the world. . . . But believe 
 me," he goes on, " I speak not as your enemy when I say that 
 it will be an exception to the principles which seem hitherto to 
 have ruled society, if you can succeed in maintaining the success at 
 which you aim without the possession of that permanence and sta- 
 bility which the territorial principle alone can afford. Although you 
 may for a moment flourish after their destruction although your 
 ports may be filled with shipping, your factories smoke on every 
 plain, and your forges flame in every city I see no reason why you 
 should form an exception to that which the page of history has mourn- 
 fully recorded ; that you, too, should not fade like the Tyrian dye, and 
 moulder like the Venetian palaces. But, united with the land, you 
 will obtain the best and surest foundation upon which to build your 
 enduring welfare ; you will find in that interest a counsellor in all 
 your troubles in danger your undaunted champion, and in adversity 
 your steady customer." Ibid. 452-3. Would such rubbish be tolerated 
 in any deliberative assembly except the House of Commons? 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cvi. 1141. 
 
 f Mr. Roebuck congratulates Mr. Disraeli "upon this his first 
 appearance as the acknowledged chief of the party." Hansard. 3 S. 
 cvi. 1223. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of the hon. 
 gentleman as " the avowed leader of a powerful party." Hid. 1173. 
 And Lord John Russell refers to the Protectionists as "the supporters " 
 of Mr. Disraeli. Ibid. 1472. 
 
 J Mr. Disraeli speaks of his motion as " an earnest and seriou 
 motion." " Its object," he adds, " is to turn out the Government
 
 398 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The speech of Mr. Disraeli was very lengthy, but 
 not particularly able. He indicted the whole policy of 
 the Government, foreign and domestic ; but the main 
 burden of his address was the fatal effects of Free 
 Trade. At the same time this address is deserving of 
 attention as marking another step further from the 
 orthodox Protectionist creed. In this speech Mr. 
 Disraeli brings forward a novel style of financial 
 legislation, which we know now under the name of 
 reciprocity. He asked that we should meet " hostile 
 tariffs " by " countervailing duties."* It will easily be 
 seen that this new form of Protection is an entirely 
 different thing from that preached by Mr. Disraeli 
 gome years before, and still professed by his followers. 
 Protection pure and simple meant that we should 
 impose import duties, no matter what any other 
 country might do. Reciprocity means that our im- 
 position of such duties should depend on the action of 
 other nations. If " hostile tariffs " were to be met by 
 " countervailing duties," then conversely, no " counter- 
 vailing duties " were to be levied where there were no 
 " hostile tariffs." In other words, we should employ 
 
 We may not succeed, but we shall succeed some day." Ibid. 123:1-4. 
 Sir Robert Peel, in giving us his reasons for opposing the motion, 
 says : " I cordially approve of the general principles of commercial 
 policy by which Her Majesty's Government have been guided, and 
 that I will not consent to a motion the main bject of which avowedly 
 is to censure them for their adherence to those principles, and to 
 substitute in the place of that policy some other economic system." 
 Ibid. 1429-30. And Lord John Russell speaks of the motion as " asking 
 that the present Ministry be displaced, and that a new Ministry be 
 formed on the ground of the restoration of Protection." Ibid. 1472. 
 Hansard, 3 8. cvi. 1155.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 399 
 
 Protection against those only who employed Protection 
 against us. 
 
 The debate lasted for two nights. The best speech 
 was made by Sir Robert Peel, who gave a convincing 
 exposition of the policy of Free Trade, and with 
 perfect calmness and temper examined and utterly 
 destroyed Mr. Disraeli's fallacies.* In fact, so com- 
 plete was the defence of the commercial policy of the 
 Ministry that Lord John Russell found it unnecessary 
 on this point to supplement the unanswerable speech t 
 of his predecessor in office; while Mr. Disraeli, in 
 winding up the debate, J unable to answer the argu- 
 ments of Peel, replied, after his wont, by a piece of 
 violent personal vituperation. 
 
 * See Hansard, 3 S. cvi. 14291462. 
 
 f Ibid. 1472. 
 
 j Ibid. 14861497. 
 
 There is a general impression, and the statement is usually made 
 in the biographies of Lord Beaconsfield, that his attacks on Sir 
 Robert Peel ceased with the fall of that statesman in 1846. This 
 impression is altogether incorrect. Of course his attacks on Peel 
 were necessarily less frequent, because Peel, not being in power, it 
 was not so necessary for Mr. Disraeli's purposes to assail him. Mr. 
 Disraeli attacked the ex-Premier during the session of 1847. Defend- 
 ing Mr. Ferrand, he spoke of Peel as one whom " too much prosperity 
 had made insane " (577) ; and his followers were described as a " devoted 
 phalanx " a ' Macedonian army, ready to vote according to his nod." 
 Hansard, 3 &. Ixxxix. 577. This, by the way, produced the retort 
 from Mr. Roebuck, that " the conduct of the late Prime Minister was 
 Mr. Disraeli's leading idea. He could not help bringing into every 
 discussion his favourite topic, censure and condemnation of the right 
 hon. Gentleman. This one idea," continued Mr. Roebuck, " he drags 
 into every discussion ; and whenever he gets up, be the occasion what 
 it may, he never can sit down till he has had a fling at the right hon. 
 Baronet." Ibid. 581. Referring to Mr. Disraeli's image of the " Mace- 
 donian phalanx," Mr. Roebuck reminded him that he had " sat behind
 
 400 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 On a division, the motion of Mr. Disraeli was rejected 
 by 296 to 156 votes. 
 
 Meantime, the Protectionists outside Parliament were 
 pursuing courses very different from those of their 
 cunning leader in the House of Commons. Daring 
 the recess, several tumultuous meetings were held, 
 at which there were riots, bloodshed, and the most 
 violent language.* The tone of the Protectionists will 
 be gathered from the harangue of a Mr. Cheetham,t 
 
 the Minister that powerful Minister at whose beck and call the Mace- 
 donian phalanx, now rendered so memorable, was prepared to act." 
 Ibid. 580. In the speech referred to in the text Mr. Disraeli thus 
 addressed Sir Robert Peel : "And here I must say, with all respect to 
 the right hon. Baronet, that there is something in his manner when 
 he addresses on these subjects his former companions, which I will 
 not say is annoying, bnt rather I would style somewhat astonishing. 
 One would almost imagine from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman 
 that he had never for a moment held other opinions on this subject 
 that he had never entertained a doubt upon it that he had been 
 born an infant Hercules, cradled in political economy, and only 
 created to strangle the twin serpents of Protection and Monopoly. 
 
 . . The right hon. Gentleman should view one's errors at Ica^t 
 with charity. He is not exactly the individual who, ex cat/km' ni. 
 should lecture us on the principles of political economy. He might, 
 at least, when he denounces our opinions, suppose that in their j 10- 
 fession we may perhaps be supported by that strength of convict ion 
 which, for nearly forty years, sustained him in those economical 
 errors of which he was the learned and principal professor. . . . He 
 preached a crusade against the system of commercial reciprocity. 
 . . . Men of great scientific research have investigated and illustrated 
 it ; and I believe that it will require more time and discussion than it 
 has yet received in this House, before it can be thrown into thn' 
 limbo of stale opinions in which the right hon. Gentleman has found 
 it convenient to deposit so many of his former convictions." - 
 Hansard, 8 S. cvi. 1494 Mi";. 
 
 * Irving, 172. 
 
 t Ibid. 173. "The phantoms," said Mr. Checthan?. "of ruined 
 fanners must haunt the sleeping pillow of Sir llobert Peel. Knowing 
 how much he was execrated, he must really move about in fear and
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 401 
 
 at a Rutland meeting, in which it was declared " that 
 Sir Robert Peel ought to be "afraid of the poniard and 
 the dagger." 
 
 This tempestuous agitation, and this passionate 
 demand for the immediate restoration of Protection, 
 proved exceedingly embarrassing to Mr. Disraeli, and 
 he deserves credit for the bold, skilful, although dis- 
 ingenuous way in which he tried to escape from his 
 difficulties. An amendment to the Address was pro- 
 posed in both Houses of Parliament by subordinate 
 members of the Protectionist party. The amendment 
 raised the question of Protection by declaring that 
 the existing distress in the agricultural districts was 
 due to Free Trade. But there was also tacked on the 
 statement that this distress was aggravated by the 
 pressure of local taxation. This was in complete 
 accordance with the plan of tactics which had been 
 adopted, as has been already seen, by Mr. Disraeli in 
 previous sessions, and exactly suited his purposes. 
 By not raising the question of Protection directly, it 
 
 dread. Even if Sir Robert Peel should ever have a majority again, 
 he dared not take office. If he was in Sir Robert's position, he should 
 be afraid of the poniard and the dagger, and so he had a right to." 
 (Here the speaker was interrupted by loud cries of " No ! no I ") 
 " He should be sorry to say what he did not feel, but he thought he 
 was justified in saying what he had, seeing what a narrow escape 
 Peel once had when he was not so much execrated as now. He 
 believed that Gobden and Peel were travelling the same road. Peel, 
 he was informed, had a strong grudge against the aristocracy, because 
 one of them in the House of Lords once called him a weaver's son. 
 Sir Robert Peel's son need not be afraid of being called a weaver's 
 son, or a weaver's grandson, but he would be called ' the traitor's 
 son.' " Irving, 173-4. 
 
 26
 
 401 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 enabled him to ride away from that disagreeable topic; 
 and, at the same time, by raising the question indi- 
 rectly, it kept up the agitation, which, though occa- 
 sionally embarrassing, was still necessary to him for 
 the maintenance of a Protectionist party and his 
 leadership of that party. 
 
 The difference between the speech of the Protec- 
 tionist leader, and of the general body of Protectionist 
 speakers, brings out most clearly the peculiarity of 
 Mr. Disraeli's position : while they boldly proclaim 
 that their object and their hope is the restoration of 
 Protection, he over and over again denies that the 
 general question of Protection and Free Trade is in- 
 volved in the Address at all. On this point he labours 
 at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his 
 speech on the Address. To raise the general question 
 "may or may not be politic," "may or may not be 
 expedient ; " but in his opinion " the amendment 
 upon the Address " is not the " right occasion upon 
 which to test so great a principle." * And again, he 
 declares that the " success or failure of free trade I 
 do not at all consider to be the question to-night, or 
 in any way connected with the amendment." f "I 
 call upon the noble Lord at the head of the Govern- 
 ment," exclaims . Mr. Disraeli, " to speak frankly on 
 this subject." " Don't let the noble Lord," he con- 
 tinued after this excellent burst, " suppose that this is 
 a party movement ; nothing is more convenient for a 
 Government than to contend that the great principles 
 Hansard, 8 8. cviii. 221. t Ibid. 226.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 403 
 
 of free trade are endangered, and that those who are 
 embarrassing them with a Motion, have merely per- 
 sonal considerations at stake. I tell the noble Lord 
 that the time has gone by for those antiquated quib- 
 bles ; the question is too serious and too earnest." * 
 
 There is one sentence more in this curious speech 
 which must be quoted. It is the first direct hint of a 
 disbelief in the full Protectionist gospel. After de- 
 nouncing Free Trade, and the manner in which it was 
 carried, Mr. Disraeli goes on to say : " But I have ever 
 felt, and I take this opportunity of expressing my 
 conviction, that there never was a mistake greater than 
 supposing the land of England did at any time depend 
 for its fortune on any artificial law whatever." t 
 
 This speech naturally created considerable astonish- 
 ment. It "altogether changed the character of the 
 debate," J to use the words of Mr. Cobden, for the 
 leader of the Protectionists thus removed from dis- 
 cussion the general question of Protection or Free 
 Trade. This it did in spite of the numberless and 
 enthusiastic meetings in favour of restoring Protec- 
 tion which Mr. Disraeli had permitted to take place 
 throughout the country ; this it did, notwithstanding 
 
 * Ibid. 231. I must point attention to this last and characteristic 
 passage. All through this speech Mr. Disraeli implies one thing while 
 saying another ; He does not once " speak frankly " as to the real 
 object of the amendment, and his address is one long quibble. But 
 with characteristic art, and equally characteristic want of scruple, he 
 implies that the want of candour is on the part of others ; that they 
 not he, shirk the real question ; that they are the quibblere, not Be. 
 
 t Ibid. 233. 
 Ibid. 246.
 
 4 04 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that the Government, by putting up Mr. Villiers, the 
 oldest leader of Free Trade in the House, to propose 
 the reply to the Address, had directly challenged dis- 
 cussion ; this it did, although several of the Protec- 
 tionist speakers had accepted the Ministerial challenge. 
 Lord John Russell declared that Mr. Disraeli had 
 utterly confused the House,* and Mr. Cobden adminis- 
 tered to this trifler with public interests and passions 
 one of the severest, truest, and most effective casti- 
 gations in Parliamentary history. t 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, however, was not to be moved from 
 his purpose by the appeals from Lord John Russell 
 for more frankness, or from Mr. Cobden for more 
 honesty, and, true to his system of tactics, he pro- 
 posed on February 19th, a resolution, the effect of 
 svhich would be to reduce country taxation by about 
 2,000,000. In his speech introducing the resolution, 
 he attempted to answer the attacks which had been 
 
 * Ibid. 234. 
 
 t " But what has fallen from the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire 
 iias altogether changed the character of the debate ; he has totally 
 altered the issue of our coming decision. For he has told us the 
 question before us is not the question of protection, or free trade 
 that we are not on this occasion going to decide whether the principle 
 of protection to native industry is or is not to be the principle of thia 
 House. He says that ' it may or may not be ' expedient, at some 
 future time, to test the opinion of the House on the subject, but 
 thai to-night, no hon. Gentleman who rotes, commits himself at all 
 upon the question. I must say it is a very sorry beginning, after so 
 
 load a preparation as has been heard throughout the country 
 
 The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire frequently alluded to what 
 has taken place out of this House. The hon. Gentleman out of this 
 House sometimes makes statements of a personal character some- 
 times indulges in little invectives and personalities which he does not 
 nlways like when used by other parties. I remember the hon. Gen-
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 405 
 
 made upon him for not bringing forward the question 
 of Protection and Free Trade, and his defence was 
 that the House, as then constituted, had plainly 
 shown its intention of not restoring Protection, and 
 that further appeals to it for this purpose were 
 accordingly in vain; and this defence was followed 
 by the important announcement that no such appeals 
 would in future be made to that Parliament.* The 
 remainder of his speech was devoted to proving his 
 theme that relief from burdens on the land would be 
 some compensation for the loss of Protection. 
 
 An important debate followed Mr. Disraeli's propo- 
 sition. It extended over two nights, and nearly all 
 the leading speakers on both sides of the House took 
 part in it. The scheme was opposed by the Govern- 
 ment, by Sir Robert Peel^t and by Sir James 
 
 tlernan, at a meeting at Marlow some time ago, stated that a county 
 meeting was not a proper place for discussing the questions of free 
 trade and protection. Well, here I am on the floor of this House, 
 and not in Buckinghamshire, anxious to argue with him. The hon. 
 Gentleman has talked of every subject except protection to native 
 
 industry If there is any party or any individual in this House 
 
 who wishes to make protection a stalking-horse to power, without 
 any serious intention of ever attempting to restore it who could 
 have any such motive as that of hoping for a time as it could only 
 be for a time, when dealing with so much intelligence as that of the 
 English population by mystifying this question, and by pretending 
 to advocate protection, when they did not dream of the possibility of 
 ever returning to it I say that such an individual would be one of 
 the greatest enemies that the British farmer could have ; and not 
 merely that, but he would be the greatest enemy to the country at 
 large, because we have all an interest, whether we are farmers or 
 individuals connected with trade or manufactures, in successful 
 operations of agriculture." Ibid, 248. 
 
 * Hid. 1028-9. f Ibid. 12311253,
 
 406 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Graham,* but it had the good luck to be supported 
 by Mr. Gladstone, t This was an important advantage 
 for Mr. Disraeli, for it broke up the solid body of 
 Peelites who had hitherto combined in opposition to 
 all his motions; and this fact, together with some 
 dexterous coquetting with the Irish Liberal mem- 
 bers, had the effect of considerably diminishing the 
 majority by which the Government had hitherto 
 defeated all Mr. Disraeli's proposals. On a division, 
 252 members followed Mr. Disraeli into the lobby, 
 while 273 supported the Government. The majority 
 of the Ministry, accordingly, was but twenty-one, 
 and Mr. Disraeli's defeat was a victory. On several 
 other occasions in the course of the session Mr. 
 Disraeli had an opportunity of insisting on the 
 position he had taken up with regard to the great 
 controversy of Free Trade and Protection. Thus, on 
 May 14,$ in speaking on a motion of Mr. Grantley 
 Berkeley to impose five shillings duty on all foreign 
 corn, he used some words which, though studiously 
 ambiguous, seemed to indicate that if certain burdens 
 were taken off the land, the agriculturists would be 
 willing to abandon their claim for protection for their 
 corn; and he concluded his speech by an emphatic 
 reiteration of his determination not to bring the 
 question of Protection before that Parliament. \ Mr. 
 Cobden, rising immediately after, ^[ endeavoured once 
 
 Tbid. 11891204. { Ibid. 85-6. 
 
 t Ibid. 12041214. | Ibid. 87-8. 
 
 I Ibid. cxi. 81-82. T Ibid. 88 Dt.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 407 
 
 more to open the eyes of the Protectionists and the 
 country generally to the game of duplicity Mr. Disraeli 
 was playing,* and pointed out in a few emphatic 
 sentences the cruelty as well as the absurdity of 
 holding out the hope to the farmers that a new 
 Parliament would, any more than the present, be able 
 to restore Protection.f 
 
 Of the many other questions in the discussion of 
 which Mr. Disraeli took a part during the session, it is 
 only necessary to speak of the debate on the foreign 
 policy of the Government, and of the extension of the 
 franchise both in Ireland and England. 
 
 On Monday, June 17, a vote of censure on the 
 policy of Lord Palmorston was carried in the House of 
 Lords. Lord John Russell, in reply to interrogations, 
 declared that the Government did not mean to resign 
 because of this vote, and he then made an appeal to 
 Mr. Disraeli which amounted to an official recognition 
 of that gentleman's position as leader of the Con- 
 servative party. Lord John argued that as the 
 Conservative leader had brought forward this vote of 
 censure in the House of Lords, it was the duty of the 
 other Conservative leader to bring forward a similar 
 motion in the other house. Mr. Disraeli, however, 
 declined to throw down the challenge, and the question 
 was raised by Mr. Roebuck proposing a vote of confi- 
 dence in the Ministry .\ The debate on this motion 
 was most important and interesting. It lasted four 
 nights, and was marked by many strange incidents. 
 * Ibid. 88. f Ibid. 93-4. J Ibid. cxii. 102108.
 
 4 o8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Lord Palmerston defended his policy in perhaps the 
 longest speech he ever delivered. He spoke for several 
 hours, "from the dusk of a summer evening to the 
 dawn of a summer morning," and it was in this speech 
 that he made the famous comparison between the 
 rights of the English citizen and those of the Civ is 
 Romanus.* But the chief interest of the debate lies in 
 the fact that this was the last occasion on which Sir 
 Robert Peel made his appearance in the House of 
 Commons. Even if he could have foreseen the violent 
 end that was at that moment so near, he could scarcely 
 have appeared in circumstances more worthy of his 
 past, or more calculated to leave a lofty regard for his 
 memory. He had to express agreement in a good deal 
 of the censure which had been cast on the policy of 
 Lord Palmerston; but while doing so, he spoke of the 
 Foreign Secretary himself in the kindliest terms, f 
 
 And the speech concluded with a peroration in which 
 were laid down the principles by what the foreign policy 
 of England ought to be guided. These sentences, the 
 last Peel ever uttered in the House of Commons, con- 
 tain within a short compass the exposition of the truest 
 and best policy which the country could pursue ; and 
 
 * Irving's " Annals of Our Time," 184. 
 
 f Alluding to Lord Palmerston's speech, he said, " I have so little 
 disposition .... for entering into any angry or hostile controversy, 
 that I shall make no reference whatever to many of the topics which 
 were introduced into that most able and most temperate speech, which 
 made us proud of the man who delivered it, and in which he vindi- 
 cated with becoming spirit, and with an ability worthy of his name 
 and place, that course of conduct which he had pursued." Hansard, 
 8 8. cxii. 688.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER, 49 
 
 the tone in which these wise counsels are given is that 
 of passionless benignity, as of a man who had ceased 
 to be moved by the feverish desires and personal aims 
 of ordinary men.* 
 
 In marked contrast to the speech of Peel was that of 
 Mr. Disraeli, who wound up the debate. According to 
 him, it was the duty and interest of England to protect 
 the interests of every other European country. In this 
 speech we have a phrase with which we have become, in 
 more recent days, unhappily familiar. We have the 
 phrase " a great English interest," and the phrase is 
 made to cover almost every event that could possibly 
 happen in Europe. Talking of various changes that 
 had taken place on the Continent, Mr. Disraeli went 
 on : " Now in every instance these dismemberments had 
 
 * " It is also my firm belief," said Peel. " that you will not advance 
 the cause of constitutional government by attempting to dictate to 
 other nations. If you do, your intentions will be mistaken you will 
 rouse feelings upon which you do not calculate you will invite 
 opposition to Government ; and beware that the time does not arrive 
 when, frightened by your own interference, you withdraw your coun- 
 tenance from those whom you have excited, and leave upon their 
 minds the bitter recollection that you have betrayed them. If you 
 succeed, I doubt whether or no the institutions that take root under 
 your patronage will be lasting. Constitutional liberty will be best 
 worked out by those who aspire to freedom by their own efforts. 
 You will only overload it by your help, by your principle of inter- 
 ference, against which I remonstrate against which I enter my 
 protest to which I to-night will be no party. You are departing 
 from the established policy of England you are involving yourselves 
 in difficulties the extent of which you can hardly conceive you are 
 bestowing no aid on the cause of constitutional freedom, but are 
 encouraging its advocates to look to you for aid, instead of those 
 efforts which can alone establish it, and upon the successful exertion 
 of which alone it can be useful." Ibid. 693.
 
 4 io LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 injured a great English interest." "It was a great 
 English interest " that the north of Italy should belong 
 to Austria. It was a first-rate English interest " that 
 Sicily should belong to Naples," and that the Sound 
 should be in possession of Denmark.* In this speech, 
 too, we have the craze that all continental movements 
 are due to secret societies, t a craze which seems to 
 have haunted Mr. Disraeli throughout his whole life. 
 
 The division took place after three o'clock in the 
 morning j and by a curious coincidence, in this division 
 the last in which he ever took part Peel went into 
 the same lobby as Mr. Disraeli. 
 
 The sun had risen before Sir Robert went to bed, 
 and he was obliged to rise early, as he had to attend 
 that day, at twelve, a meeting of the Commission of 
 the Great Exhibition. The afternoon he spent in his 
 study till five o'clock, when he went out to take a ride. 
 Passing down Constitution Hill, his horse shied, he 
 fell, was severely injured, and in three days afterwards 
 was dead.J 
 
 This tragic and sudden end to a great and, on the 
 whole, beneficent career, created profound and uni- 
 versal grief. "The multitude of inquiries were so 
 great that policemen were stationed at different places 
 near his house with bulletins, which they were ordered 
 to read to the crowds of all ages, sexes, and conditions 
 that flocked to Whitehall, anxiously inquiring after 
 the chances of recovery of the suffering statesman. 
 
 Hansard, 8 8. cxii. 731. f Ibid. 
 
 1 Moleaworth's Historj of England, ii. 344-5.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 411 
 
 Never perhaps did the intelligence of any event cause 
 more genuine grief in the country than the news of his 
 death." * 
 
 Thus death once more came as a useful ally to Mr. 
 Disraeli at a critical stage in his career. The death of 
 Lord George Bentinck removed the obstacle to his 
 leadership of the Protectionists, and the death of Sir 
 Peel removed the great obstacle to his tenure of office. 
 There can be little doubt that Peel would in due time 
 once more have been called to the head of affairs. 
 During the years which elapsed from the fall in 1846 
 to his death, his fame stood at its highest. Separated 
 from both parties, and supported by but a small band 
 of followers, he spoke, as a rule, with the impartiality 
 and with the authority of a man free from party ties. 
 Never during his whole career were his words listened 
 to with deeper attention; never did he stand out 
 more prominently as the greatest member of Parliament 
 of his time ; and never did he more truly occupy the 
 position of the man who in perilous times, when others 
 had failed, would be called to guide the State. A few 
 months only had elapsed after his death, when the 
 Government of Lord John Russell had reached the 
 lowest stage of impotence, and a strong hand was 
 required once again at the head of affairs. Peel, of 
 course, would have been the man to whom the Queen 
 would have had to apply ; it is not at all improbable 
 that he would have been able to get sufficient support 
 from the independent men on both sides of the House 
 * Ibid. 345.
 
 412 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to enable him to carry on the affairs of State ; and if 
 he had risen to power once again, Mr. Disraeli's 
 chance of ever ruling this country would have been 
 destroyed. 
 
 Among the Bills brought in this session, as I have 
 already indicated, was a Bill for the extension of the 
 franchise in Ireland. How necessary such a measure 
 was is proved by the fact that whereas the proportion 
 of electors in Scotland and Wales varied from 25 per 
 cent., which was the lowest, to 82 per cent., which was 
 the highest, the average in Ireland was 2 per cent.* 
 Mr. Disraeli, after all his professions of justice to 
 Ireland, and his advocacy of the rights of the people, 
 opposed the Bill, which tended to make a slight increase 
 in this paltry number of the voters, f He adopted 
 a similar course when Mr. Locke King brought in, 
 on the 9th July, his motion for an extension of the 
 franchise in England. In the course of this debate, he 
 took good care not to allude to the Radical principles 
 which he formerly professed, but he did not escape 
 without having his memory refreshed upon this now 
 rather troublesome part of his career. % 
 
 * Speech of Lord John Russell, Hansard, 3 S. ex. 1366. 
 
 f Ibid. 13371364. 
 
 | Sir Benjamin Hall, speaking in favour of Mr. Locke King's 
 motion, asked Mr. Disraeli some pertinent questions. The member 
 for Bucks had, among other things, stated that if he had been in 
 Parliament in 1832 he would have opposed the Reform Bill. " Lei 
 me ask him," said Sir B. Hall, " if he was always of that opinion ? " 
 Mr. Disraeli, according to Hansard, intimated that he was. Sir B. 
 Hall was as startled as the reader will probably be by such an asser- 
 tion. If the reader will turn back to one of the earliest chapters of 
 thi book, he will find Mr. Disraeli thanking God tfiat the people of
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 4*3 
 
 Of the many sessions of the English Parliament 
 which have been utterly wasted, and which have ended 
 without adding a single benefit to the community, 
 perhaps that of 1851 was the most misspent and the 
 most useless. Throughout the whole period of its 
 existence, the two Houses of the Legislature were 
 occupied in discussing a measure which was violated the 
 very day after its enactment, and which has remained 
 a dead-letter, with the consent of everybody, from the 
 hour of its passage to the present moment. This was 
 the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which Lord John Russell 
 introduced with a view to allaying one of the " No 
 Popery" tempests which periodically pass over this 
 country. The session is for the most part taken up 
 with Ministerial defeats and Ministerial crises, the 
 result of the general disrepute into which this Bill 
 
 Wycombe had at last got their rights through the Beform Bill. 
 " Will the hon. Gentleman," continued Sir B. Hall, "look my hon. Friend 
 the member for Montrose in the face and say that he has always been 
 of that opinion ? " Sir B. Hall under-estimated Mr. Disraeli's powers 
 of looking in the faces of those whose friendship he had gained 
 through political principles he had deserted. " Certainly," was the 
 reply of Mr. Disraeli to Sir B. Hall's question. " Certainly ! " ex- 
 claimed Sir B. Hall, " why, the hon. Gentleman, who now stands 
 forward as the great champion of Protection, at one time held opinions 
 now entertained by Gentlemen on this side of the House. . . . Did he not 
 go down," went on this inconvenient interrogator, " to the borough of 
 High Wycombe as the protege of the late Mr. O'Connell and the hon. 
 Member for Montrose 1 Did he not go down under those auspices ? " 
 An hon. Member here, according to Hansard, exclaimed, " That's a 
 poser." Then Sir B. Hall alluded to Mr. Disraeli's attempt to repre- 
 sent Marylebone, giving the interesting information that the election 
 address of the future Premier was " concocted " in the house of a 
 tallow-chandler in Crawford Street, Bryanston Square. Hansard, 
 3 S. cxii. 1181-2. Mr. Disraeli's reply was feeble and evasive. After
 
 414 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 brought the Government. Mr. Disraeli took a pro- 
 minent part in all these debates, which were generally 
 of so futile a character that our record of his acts 
 during this session will be extremely brief. There is 
 another reason for curtailing the narrative at this 
 point. The reader has already seen sufficiently what 
 was the line of tactics which Mr. Disraeli laid down 
 for himself in dealing with his Protectionist followers. 
 His policy, as we have said over and over again, was 
 to divert the attention of his followers from the ques- 
 tion of Protection itself to the question of removing 
 the alleged burdens on land. The motions and 
 speeches which he made during the session of 1851 
 are but a repetition, in somewhat different language, 
 of those which he made on the same subjects during 
 the two previous sessions. 
 
 On February llth, Mr. Disraeli achieved the most 
 
 his manner of meeting the charge on previous occasions, he suggested, 
 without actually expressing, false inferences. He did not deny that 
 Hume had given him his support, although he suggested that he had 
 not. " The hon. Gentleman," he replies, " said I went down to High 
 Wycombe with the recommendation of my hon. friend the member 
 for Montrose." Now mark the prevarication of what follows. " Why, 
 sir, I lived in High Wycombe before the Reform Bill. I was bred 
 there, if not born ; and it in to my connexion with it that I owe the 
 honour I now enjoy of representing the county." The reader will 
 also not fail to notice that in this passage we have a new revelation 
 as to the place of Mr. Disraeli's birth. It will be remembered that at 
 Shrewsbury he distinctly stated that High Wycombe was his birth- 
 place; here, he gives this merely as an impression. Ibid. 1184. In 
 this same speech Mr. Disraeli used these remarkable words also : 
 " The hon. Baronet has accused me of being the advocate of Par- 
 liamentary finality. I disclaim altogether th: office. / have been 
 alrvayi opposed to ike ryttem of reform; because I hold it to be, advertf 
 to the interettt of the party icith whom 1 acted: that if all.' Ibid.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 415 
 
 important victory he had yet gained iu the House 
 of Commons. His motion in favour of agricultural 
 distress was rejected by 281 votes to 267, or by the 
 small majority of fourteen. Nine days afterwards 
 the position of the Government was still further 
 shaken, for a motion of Mr. Locke King in favour 
 of reducing the franchise was carried, in spite of 
 the opposition of the Ministers, by the large majority 
 of one hundred to sixty-two. The result of these two 
 divisions one a practical, the other an ignominious 
 defeat was that on February 24, Lord John Russell 
 announced that the Government were unable any 
 longer to carry on the business of the country, and 
 that they had consequently placed their resignations 
 in the hands of the Queen. 
 
 Negotiations went on for several days before it was 
 possible to form a new Government. In the firat place, 
 the Queen called on Lord Stanley (the late Lord Derby), 
 and proposed to him that he should form a Government. 
 Lord Stanley, however, suggested that an attempt 
 should first be made, by Lord John Russell and Lord 
 Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, to form a junction 
 between the Peelites and the supporters of the 
 Government. This proposition was accepted by Lord 
 John Russell, and for a short time there appeared 
 some probability of such a junction being formed. 
 On their general policy there was no essential dif- 
 ference between the Ministry and the followers of 
 the late Sir Robert Peel, and they were both agreed 
 as to the supreme necessitv of presenting an united
 
 41 6 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 front in favour of Free Trade against the efforts of 
 the Protectionist party to revive Protection. On 
 one point, however, the difference between the two 
 was found to be insuperable. Lord Aberdeen and 
 Sir James Graham were both strongly opposed to 
 the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill so strongly, that they 
 could not sanction any compromise on the matter; 
 while Lord John Russell was too deeply pledged to 
 continue with the Bill to withdraw it, and thus these 
 negotiations came to an end.* The next suggestion 
 in this crisis was an attempt on the part of Lord 
 Stanley to obtain the support of the Peelites for the 
 Protectionists. 
 
 This crisis did Mr. Disraeli great service. It was 
 because of the large support which a motion of his 
 received, that the Government determined to hand in 
 their resignations, and the consequence was that in the 
 negotiations between the Queen and the various leaders, 
 his name was constantly and prominently brought for- 
 ward. It is pretty clear, however, from Lord Stanley's 
 speech, that Mr. Disraeli was one of the last men to 
 whom he would resort. The statement which Lord 
 Stanley makes upon this part of the transactions, 
 inclines me to the belief that his selection on a sub- 
 sequent occasion of. Mr. Disraeli as leader of the House 
 of Commons was not made by reason of any love for 
 Mr. Disraeli, but from the simple fact that he could 
 get nobody else to take his place. For on this occa- 
 sion we find him stating that he made application in 
 * Speech of Lord Aberdeen, Ha-isard, 3 8. cxiv. 99l> 1003.
 
 PROTECTIONIST LEADER. 417 
 
 the first instance to Mr. Gladstone,* and, of course, 
 if this was done in the first instance, his object would 
 probably be to give the leadership of the party in 
 the House of Commons to that gentleman. He then 
 speaks of having applied to other persons,! and, 
 altogether, conveys the impression that he tried 
 everybody before falling back on Mr. Disraeli. I 
 must, for the present, dismiss Lord Stanley's speech 
 with the final remark that he declared his efforts 
 to form a Ministry futile. There were, besides the 
 points I have noticed, an exposition of his policy 
 and of his intentions, in case he took office, which I 
 shall have to notice at some length at a future stage. 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxiv. 1012. 
 
 t Speaking of his leading supporters in the House of Commons, 
 Lord Stanley describes them as " men of talent and intellect," but 
 without " political experience," and not " versed in official business." 
 Hansard, 3 S. cxiv. 1008. In another passage, he speaks of his 
 attempts to select colleagues in the House of Commons thus : " My 
 Lords," he said, " even among that " the Protectionist " party, I 
 found that some of those who were well qualified to discharge public 
 duties, were by various causes induced to decline one, by the 
 pressure of extensive private concerns ; another by disinclination to 
 join an Administration which appeared to hold out no assured pros- 
 pect of permanence ; and a third by an undue depreciation of his 
 own abilities." Ibid. 103. I think, reasoning from the proba- 
 bilities of the case, it is clear that Mr. Disraeli was not one of the 
 three persons, as described. He was not pressed " by extensive 
 private concerns; " the fact that the Ministry could have " no assured 
 prospect of permanence " did not deter him later on from joining 
 Lord Stanley ; and assuredly he is not the person described as suffer- 
 ing from " an undue depreciation of his own abilities." It, therefore, 
 seems probable that, up to this date, Lord Stanley had not come 
 to the determination to join his fortunes so closely to those of Mr. 
 Disraeli, as he afterwards did. Mr. Disraeli, to all appearances, had 
 little to do with Lord Stanley's resolves during this crisis. 
 
 27
 
 4 i8 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 The resrut of the Ministerial crisis, then, was that 
 Lord John Russell resumed office. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's attitude on the Ecclesiastical Titles 
 Bill was quite characteristic. While expressing general 
 dissatisfaction with it, he took very good care to bend 
 before the then no-Popery storm, presenting in this 
 respect a marked contrast to Sir James Graham and 
 Mr. Gladstone, who not only spoke against the Bill, 
 but also had the courage to go into the lobby in oppo- 
 sition to it. 
 
 The Government sustained two other important 
 defeats during this session. On June 6 they were 
 defeated on a proposition of Lord Naas in reference 
 to their financial arrangements, and on June 23 Sir 
 Frederick Thesiger carried against them three reso- 
 lutions in reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. 
 Thus Government went on during the remainder of 
 the session, sustaining every now and then defeats, 
 and afterwards with some difficulty, by an appeal ad 
 misericordiam, obtaining a reversion of the votes to 
 which they objected.
 
 4*9 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 MINISTER. 
 
 WHEN the Government met Parliament again, its diffi- 
 culties and its weakness had still further increased. 
 During the recess a dispute had arisen between Lord 
 Palmerston and Lord John Russell, the result of which 
 was the dismissal of the Foreign Secretary from office 
 by the Queen, on the advice of the Premier. The 
 point in dispute, on which I need touch but lightly, 
 was that Lord Palmerston had been premature in 
 announcing to the French Government his approval 
 of the coup d'etat of Louis Napoleon. This event was 
 the coup de grace of the Russell Ministry. Lord 
 Palmerston had been its chief strength, and although 
 his policy had been several times attacked, he was 
 universally esteemed as a man of ability, courage, and 
 vigour, who had conferred considerable prestige on the 
 Government. The opening of Parliament was therefore 
 looked forward to with a great deal of interest, and 
 the days of the Ministry were, in the opinion of 
 many, already numbered. The first night of the 
 session was rendered particularly exciting by the
 
 420 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 speeches both of Lord John Russell and Lord Palmer 
 ston on the events and reasons which had led to the 
 expulsion of the latter from office. The speech which 
 Mr. Disraeli made upon the Address contains nothing 
 remarkable. The best part of it was that in which 
 he twitted Lord John Russell with the futility of the 
 recently enacted Ecclesiastical Titles measure. He 
 was able to show that the provisions of that enactment 
 had been openly and almost ostentatiously violated, 
 and that the Government found themselves unable to 
 interfere.* 
 
 Among the bills which Lord John Russell had 
 promised to bring in during the present session 
 was a bill for Parliamentary Reform; and on the 
 9th February he made his statement with regard 
 to this proposal. As the bill never passed into 
 law, it is unnecessary to go into it at any length. 
 Suffice it to say that the chief proposals were to reduce 
 the qualification in boroughs from 10 to 5, and 
 in counties to 10. The measure was not received 
 with particular favour from any side of the House, the 
 reformers thinking that it did not go far enough, and 
 the Conservatives that it was too advanced. The 
 speech which Mr. Disraeli made upon it was of a most 
 peculiar character. True to the tactics which he had 
 followed on the question of Reform since his entrance 
 into Parliament, he was careful not to pledge himself 
 against making any change in the franchise; but while 
 thus leaving open the way to himself for future retreat, 
 * See Hansard, cxix. 135153.
 
 MINISTER. 421 
 
 he invariably opposed, on one pretence or another, 
 every Reform Bill brought in by any other party. His 
 speech of this session was but a repetition of the 
 remarkable address which he made on the same subject 
 during the previous session, and which this is the 
 proper place to notice, as it supplies the key to a great 
 part of his future action in reference to this question. 
 Speaking on the bill of Mr. Locke King, he had 
 declared that he entirely protested "against what is 
 popularly understood in a political sense as the principle 
 of 'finality/" "But," he went on to say, "I do pledge 
 myself to oppose any measure of Parliamentary Reform 
 flagrantly having for its object the returning and con- 
 firming in power of some political section, or the 
 displacement of the proper territorial influence and 
 power which, as I believe, constitutes the best security 
 for our liberties, and the best means of retaining the 
 stable and confirmed character which the institutions 
 of the country have preserved."* He adopted the 
 same tactics in the present speech, but what his 
 opinions on the subject really were he so completely 
 managed to hide in a mist of words that it was 
 impossible really to understand what he meant, and 
 Sir George Grey was justified in saying that " he was 
 unable to discover whether " the speaker " was to be 
 numbered among the supporters or the opponents of 
 the bill." f 
 
 Before it was possible, however, to discuss the new 
 
 * Molesworth's History of England, vol. ii. 360. 
 f Hansard, 3 S. cxix. 308.
 
 4 22 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Reform Bill, events had occurred which put an eud to 
 its further progress. Recent occurrences in France had 
 once more aroused the apprehensions that aggression 
 on the part of that country was to be feared, and there 
 was a general cry for an increase of our armaments. 
 In response to this popular demand, Lord John 
 Russell brought in a Bill for the establishment of a 
 Militia Force. The bill passed through the first stage 
 without any interruption, or anything beyond the 
 faintest indication of the coming storm. Lord Palmer- 
 ston, it is true, dissented from the principle upon 
 which it was founded, but he gave no indication that 
 his opposition would be of such a kind as to wreck the 
 measure. But when the bill reached the next stage, 
 Lord Palmerston proposed an amendment embodying 
 his idea of the principle upon which the Militia Bill 
 should be founded. On the division, 136 voted for 
 Palmerston's amendment, and 125 against it, the 
 Government being thus left in a minority of eleven. 
 Lord John Russell immediately rose, and stated that it 
 was impossible that he could go on with the measure,* 
 and hinted that it was time to consider 'whether he 
 should continue any longer to carry on the affairs of 
 the Government. t The events of the next few days 
 were generally foreseen. It was plain that for a 
 considerable period Lord John Russell had wearied 
 of the position which he held, that he was tired of 
 depending for existence on the support of his 
 opponents, and of such aid being given at one moment 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxix. 877. t Ibid. 878.
 
 MINISTER. 423 
 
 and taken away at the next. In addition to this, the 
 several blunders which he had committed in the 
 course of his administration, had destroyed the pres- 
 tige of his Government, and the Ecclesiastical Titles 
 Act had brought the dissatisfaction with his Ministry 
 to a climax. It was therefore felt that he was only 
 looking out for an opportunity of retiring from his 
 difficult position. This defeat afforded him the anti- 
 cipated opportunity ; and when the House met OB 
 Monday, the 23rd February, he announced the resig- 
 nation of his Ministry. 
 
 When the list of Lord Derby's colleagues was pub- 
 lished, the world was at once astounded, alarmed, and 
 amused. It was scarcely credible that the most im- 
 portant affairs of State should be entrusted to the 
 inexperienced and stupid squires whom the Prime 
 Minister placed at the head of the different depart- 
 ments. But, perhaps, the appointment which most 
 startled and most amused the public was that of Mr. 
 Disraeli to the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. Its 
 first announcement at a public meeting was, according 
 to one journal, received with " shouts of laughter," * 
 and the comments generally of the press alternated 
 between sarcasm at the ludicrousness of Lord Derby's 
 choice, and alarm at its consequences. t 
 
 * Daily News. 
 
 f "It seems," says the Morning Chronicle (February 24, 1852), 
 "that Lord Derby has had the incredible rashness to make Mr. 
 Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely it might have been 
 possible to find some less delicate system of machinery than the 
 finances of the country as a subject for such an experiment.' 
 ' Mr. Disraeli," writes the Times (February 24, 1852). " certainly
 
 424 LORD BEACONSF2ELD. 
 
 The supposed intentions of the Ministry, however, 
 caused more alarm than the incapacity of its members. 
 The people were possessed with the gloomy foreboding 
 that the old curse of dear bread, which had in times not 
 very remote been the cause of untold misery amongst 
 the poorer classes, was about to return. So real was 
 the danger thought, that the very first words of Lord 
 John Russell, on his resigning office, were, that he 
 considered it one of his foremost duties in opposition 
 to resist any return to Protection. Another step, still 
 more significant of the public alarm, was taken. In 
 1846, after the Free Trade triumph of Peel, the 
 Anti-Corn-Law League, the most powerful political 
 combination which ever existed in this country, was 
 dissolved; but on the accession of the Derby Ministry 
 
 has consulted rather his ambition than his genius in his selection 
 of office," " It is a maiivaise plaisanttrle," writes the Examiner 
 (February 28, 1852), "a plagiarism from Punch, a copy of a squib 
 on an abortive attempt last year. The names, with an exception 
 here and there, cannot be read in any society without a laugh ; 
 and yet, in reality, it is no laughing matter. For a serious affair 
 there certainly was never anything so comical." Even the friendly 
 Morning Pout is obliged to confess, of the appointment of Mr. Disraeli, 
 that "it cannot be doubted that such an arrangement was among the 
 least expected of any which it has been our duty to announce" 
 (quoted in the Spectator of Feb. 28, 1852). It was at first rumoured 
 that Mr. Disraeli was to be Home Secretary, and in the earlier lists of 
 the Ministry which appeared in the newspapers, his name appears in 
 that capacity. Perhaps it was his original intention to have occupied 
 this post, which would probably have been more congenial to his 
 taste than that of Chancellor of the Exchequer. An able critic in the 
 Fortnightly Revitm suggests, on what authority I do not know, that 
 the reason of the change was that as Homr* Secretary he would, in 
 his turn, have been obliged to wait upon the Queen, and that Her 
 Majesty at that time had no desire to admit him to this familiarity. 
 "Political Adventures of Lord Beaconsfiol'l," Fortnightly Revitrr, 8.
 
 MINISTER. 425 
 
 preparations were speedily made for the revival of that 
 famous union. Meetings were held, subscriptions 
 poured in, and all the old machinery was put in order 
 for conducting the new campaign with the vigour, and 
 on the large scale, which had in former years com- 
 pelled a Conservative Cabinet to adopt Free Trade 
 principles. Mr. Cobden, at one of these meetings, 
 was careful to point out the reality of the immediate 
 danger. He showed that, by all their former declara- 
 tions, the Ministry was pledged to Protection, and that, 
 in one form or another, they would certainly attempt a 
 restoration of the old bad system. He had to answer 
 the objection that the Free Traders might remain 
 tranquil because the Ministry might abandon Protec- 
 tion. Mr. Cobden could not believe in the possibility 
 of such political turpitude. The poor man ! He 
 actually believed that a politician like Mr. Disraeli 
 cared something about political honour and political 
 consistency.* 
 
 * " But I am told," said Mr. Cobden, speaking at the meeting to 
 revive the Anti- Corn-Law League, " that we must allow the Protec- 
 tionists to remain in office for twelve months, because that will give 
 them the opportunity of abandoning all their professions and princi- 
 ples, and of cheating their friends. Now, I tell you candidly, I do 
 not believe Lord Derby and his colleagues are one-half so base as these 
 advisers take them to be. What 1 the men who hunted that illus- 
 trious statesman (Sir E. Peel) almost to his grave, for having abo- 
 lished the Corn Law whose sole political capital, from that time to 
 this, has been the sarcasms and obloquy with which they have covered 
 his name and fame, and the abuse and denunciations with which they 
 have loaded the gentlemen of the Manchester school are these men 
 going to do, not what Sir Robert Peel did, but ten times worse? 
 Are we now to believe that Lord Derby and his colleagues are coming 
 into office simply and solely that they may immediately get rid of the
 
 426 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Apart from the general reasons for suspecting Lord 
 Derby and Mr. Disraeli of an intention to restore 
 Protection, there were several remarkable circumstances 
 of recent occurrence to confirm the fear. The reader 
 has not forgotten that in the course of 1851 Lord 
 Derby had been offered and had declined the task of 
 forming a Government. In giving a narrative of his 
 proceedings on that occasion in the House of Lords, he 
 thought it proper to sketch the programme which he 
 would have attempted to carry out in office. Beginning 
 with a picture of agricultural distress, he declared 
 that he could not as " an honest man " take office 
 " without a full determination to deal with that distress, 
 and endeavour to apply to it, as a Minister, effective 
 measures of relief." If he could " so far forget ' ' him- 
 self as to sacrifice his " own honest convictions," " the 
 loss of honour that would be involved in such a course 
 would make " his " services worse than useless." And 
 then he went on to say, as a consequence of those 
 ideas, that he could not, " as an honest man, abandon 
 the attempt to relieve the existing distress by retracing 
 the false step which has been taken, and to remedy the 
 
 principles which they have hitherto advocated, and which ihey have 
 denounced their former leader for having abandoned ? I 8ay I do 
 not believe it. I believe that such a thing would show that we have 
 fallen into a lower status of political morality than it is alleged they 
 now have in France. I, on the contrary, believe the Ministry to be 
 sincere in their professions. I believe they came into office with a 
 view to carrying out those professions. But are you going to allow 
 them to remain in office, to be sharpening their weapons in order that 
 they may stab you when they find you off your guard 'I (Cheers.) "-^ 
 Athnorth : Cubiit it and the League, 352-3
 
 MINISTER. 427 
 
 wrong done by the imposition of a moderate import duty 
 on corn."* 
 
 In the course of that same year, too, a deputation 
 had waited on Lord Derby for the purpose of dis- 
 covering whether he was still " sound " on the great 
 question. His answer to this deputation was that they 
 should trust in him ; that he would succeed yet in 
 restoring Protection : t and, after those strong words, 
 he wound up by the question whether what he had 
 said should not "secure" him "in future from the 
 misrepresentation that " he " had abandoned Protec- 
 
 When, therefore, on taking his seat for the first 
 time as Prime Minister, Lord Derby proceeded to 
 announce his policy, the world of enemies and friends 
 was astounded to find that the bold, fluent, blunt 
 defender of Protection was timid, hesitating, and un- 
 intelligible in his expressions of opinion on the great 
 controversy between Free Trade and Protection; 
 
 Astonishing as was this change of front, still more 
 
 * Quoted by Earl Grey on March 15, 1852 ; Hansard. 3 S. cxix. 
 1020. 
 
 f " Not two years ago the noble Earl told a deputatiou of farmers 
 to trust to him that he would yet succeed in restoring Protection ; 
 that he was longing for the time, whir.h he was confident would 
 come, when he should be able to address his followers in the 
 memorable words of the noble Duke at the table, and cry, ' Up, 
 Guards, and at them 1 ' (The Earl of Derby : ' I told them to trust 
 to themselves.') The noble Earl told them that they must trust to 
 themselves, but that they should also trust to the party which was 
 pledged to Protection, and rally round it." Speech of Earl Grey. 
 March 15, 1852 Hansard, 3 S. cxix. 1017-18. 
 
 Quoted by Lord John Russell, March 19, 1852 ; Hansard, 3 S 
 cxiv 1371-2,
 
 428 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 strange was the picture presented by the Ministers 
 who were seeking re-election. Never was there such a 
 saturnalia except, perhaps, a few months after, with 
 the same performers in the same piece never was 
 there such a saturnalia in English politics. Free 
 Trade was a question which affected the daily food of 
 all the millions of British subjects directly, and indi- 
 rectly the daily food of all mankind ; it was the question 
 which had been the central and supreme subject of 
 political battle in England for the previous ten years ; 
 never, in short, had the English or any other public 
 to deal with a question of vaster, more far-reaching, 
 more stupendous importance. It is scarcely credible, 
 though it is unquestionably true, that on such a 
 subject this country permitted its rulers to hesitate 
 and trifle, to refuse any opinion at all, or to express 
 opinions the most opposite. The marvel that such 
 conduct should be tolerated appears the greater when 
 we remember that these very men, who declined to 
 say what they meant to do in reference to Protection, 
 had lived and thrived and had their whole political 
 being and importance for years as advocates of Pro- 
 tection. It is thus that a nation, which boasts of its 
 seriousness, its solidity of judgment, its bluntness of 
 tongue, entrusts its highest destinies to fools, triflers, 
 and tricksters. 
 
 Let us return to the electoral masquerade of Lord 
 Derby's and Mr. Disraeli's colleagues. Mr. Christopher, 
 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, declared that 
 his reason for accepting office "under the adminis-
 
 MINISTER. 429 
 
 tration of the Earl of Derby " was " from a conviction 
 of his sincere desire to reverse that financial and com- 
 mercial policy which has proved so injurious to native 
 industry and capital."* But on the other hand we 
 had Mr. Walpole and Sir Frederick Thesiger : the 
 one saying that "if we are to have a Free Trade 
 policy .... and I am by no means saying that that is 
 not to be the principle upon lohich you are to act ; " and 
 the other that " as to Protection, if the country rejects 
 it at the next election, there is an end of it altogether, 
 and let it never hereafter be discussed." f 
 
 But, puzzling as were the announcements of the 
 subordinate members of the Ministry, most mystifying 
 of all was that of the great professor of mystification 
 who had now taken the position of leader of the House 
 of Commons. In his address he hoped that " at no 
 distant period" the Government will "establish a 
 policy in conformity with the principles which in 
 opposition we have felt it our duty to maintain." $ 
 But when he came to define what those principles 
 were, it was quite impossible to understand his 
 meaning. The point of his address, however, seemed 
 to be that he would adopt the plan he had so often 
 recommended in Parliament during the previous 
 session that of compensating the landlords for the 
 loss of Protection by the reduction of the taxation 
 upon land. 
 
 In his speech after re-election he was equally mys- 
 
 * Examiner, March 6, 1852. J Ibid. 
 
 f Spectator, March 6, 1852. Ibid.
 
 430 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 terious. He declared that he " would pledge the 
 Government to secure for the agricultural interest 
 ample and complete redress j " and then he proceeded 
 to explain that the best mode of " settlement for the 
 community " was the mode recommended by Mr. 
 M'Culloch viz., that of a moderate fixed duty.* 
 But he was careful immediately afterwards to add that 
 if the country did not approve of this plan he would 
 not endeavour to carry it out.f 
 
 The reader has now sufficient material to enable him 
 to see the nature of the game which Lord Derby and 
 Mr. Disraeli meant to play. They had already clearly 
 seen that Protection was to use a graphic Americanism 
 " played out " : that the restoration of that barba- 
 rous system was hopeless. But of course they dared 
 not make this open confession to their followers at that 
 moment, and accordingly, their great object was to gain 
 
 * Speech of Mr. Disraeli to his constituents. See Examiner, 
 March 13, 1852. Mr. Disraeli was afterwards shown to have been 
 guilty of a gross misrepresentation of Mr. M'Culloch' s views ; for that 
 gentleman, while stating his individual opinion that a moderate fixed 
 duty would be the best relief for the grievances of the landlords, at 
 the same time distinctly declared that any attempt to impose such 
 a duty at this period would revive a dangerous agitation, and would 
 be unwise and impolitic. (See Treatite on Taxation and the Funding 
 System, 2nd ed., 200.) 
 
 f " I will not believe,- until the country has spoken, that it will not 
 sanction the policy recommended by the highest authorities amongst 
 the Free-Traders by men who were Free-Traders before these 
 brawling Free-Traders of the hour existed. (Cheers and disappro- 
 bation.) .... If the country in its calm judgment reject what I 
 f'.-liere to be the advice of mite and vnimpnttioned servants of the 
 nunmiinity, such as the distinguished writer to whom I have referred, 
 tht country mutt take the contequenoe"
 
 MINISTER. 431 
 
 time, hoping that something might turn up which would 
 either enable them to abandon Protection altogether, or 
 that a change in the temper of the couutry would give 
 them an opportunity of reintroduciug it under a new 
 name. To adopt such a course was a direct violation, 
 not only of constitutional precedent, but of the dictates 
 of political morality. It was unconstitutional, for it is 
 the first duty of a Government to bring forward sub- 
 jects for legislation; and, failing to find the House 
 of Commons willing to accept these proposals, they 
 are bound, if they believe the country along with them, 
 immediately to make an appeal to it. It was politically 
 immoral, because the Derby-Disraeli Ministry came 
 to power by virtue of their advocacy of Protection, and 
 by Protection, therefore, they were bound to stand or 
 fall. 
 
 When Mr. Disraeli came to make his statement on 
 first taking his seat as Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 after his re-election on March 15, his explanation was 
 found to be still more unsatisfactory, and naturally 
 enough, still less clear, than that of Lord Derby. In 
 the first place he put forward the pretence that the 
 existing Government owed its being to the fact that, 
 to use the words of Lord John Russell, " the Queen 
 was without a Government," * 
 
 The reader can see what advantage Government 
 
 gained by such a defence; if true, "it would to 
 
 some extent perhaps relieve them from dealing at 
 
 once with the question of Protection. There would 
 
 * Hansard, cxix. 1065.
 
 432 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 be an obvious difference between their seeking for 
 office and having office forced upon them. If they 
 directly sought for office, of course they rendered 
 themselves liable to a demand that they should 
 immediately carry out their principles, but if they 
 were forced into power against their will, they might 
 reasonably ask to be allowed in the first instance to 
 carry on the business of the country, which must 
 otherwise remain in abeyance. But the pretence that 
 office was forced upon them, as Lord John Russell 
 afterwards pointed out, was a completely false one. 
 The Protectionist party had never failed to join with 
 the enemies of the late Government, and the Russell 
 Ministry would still have been in existence had it 
 not been that the Protectionists had united with 
 Lord Palmerston against it on a vote upon a vital 
 question. 
 
 When Mr. Disraeli came to explain his policy, he still 
 more clearly illustrated the system of prevarication 
 upon which his government was founded. Mr. Villiers, 
 on the part of the Free-Traders, had asked for a defini- 
 tive declaration of principles. Mr. Disraeli began, 
 characteristically enough, by stating that he would 
 frankly and fairly answer the question of Mr. Villiers 
 a preface which, to all who knew him, was a very 
 significant warning that he meant to say nothing which 
 had the smallest tinge of either frankness or fairness. 
 He omitted all mention of the fixed duty upon which 
 he had been so eloquent in Buckinghamshire, and he 
 <lid not say a word which could fre interpreted into
 
 MINISTER. 433 
 
 a definite declaration as to whether the Government 
 was a Protectionist Government or not. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was followed by Lord John Russell and 
 several other Free Trade leaders. Sir James Graham 
 significantly remarked that " it is not, however, from 
 the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Govern- 
 ment in this House that I seek for the explanations." * 
 Sir James then pointed out the extraordinary difference 
 between the expressions of opinion by the different 
 members o* the Government, pointedly contrasting 
 the frankness of sou">.e of those gentlemen with the 
 duplicity of Mr. Disraeli, f Mr. Gladstone also sup- 
 ported the demand for clear explanation on the part 
 of the Government, and demonstrated cleai'ly the 
 unconstitutional character of their delay in dissolv- 
 ing Parliament. Another remarkable speech in this 
 debate was that of Mr. Oswald. That gentleman, 
 explaining that he himself had been denounced as 
 a traitor and renegade for following Sir Robert Peel 
 in his abandonment of Protection in 1846. prophesied 
 that the very persons who had applied these epithets 
 to him were now about to abandon Protection, and 
 were about to hear in their own ears the insults they 
 had showered on others ; \ and Sir Alexander Cockburn 
 neatly summarised the policy of Mr. Disraeli as 
 meaning, ( ' Heads I win, tails you lose." 
 
 Those scenes took place on March 15, and a day 
 or two afterwards a very remarkable circumstance 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxix. 1083. J Ibid. 11021110. 
 
 f Ibid. 1088. Ibid. 1124. 
 
 28
 
 434 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 occurred. While the Ministry of Lord John Russell 
 was still in existence, Sir John Pakington gave 
 notice of a motion in reference to colonial sugar. 
 Now, the then existing duties on foreign sugar were 
 to terminate on July 5, and the motion of Sir John 
 Pakington was to the effect that this enactment 
 should not be earned out, and that some small measure 
 of protection should still be continued to the colonial 
 grower.* But, marvellous to relate, Sir John, imme- 
 diately on his accession to office as Colonial Secretary 
 in a Protectionist cabinet, in place of attempting 
 to carry out his ideas, gave notice of the with- 
 drawal of this Protectionist motion. Lord John 
 Russell, taking this as his text, addressed on the 
 19th March an inquiry to the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer as to the time when the Government 
 intended to dissolve Parliament. Of course he received 
 an evasive reply ;f and, naturally dissatisfied, he asked 
 for a further explanation. J The reply of Mr. Disraeli 
 was a model of frankness and politeness. " I do not 
 feel," he said, " called on to give any further explana- 
 tion to the question of the noble Lord." 
 
 On the same evening, in Committee of Supply, 
 another attempt was made to force the Government 
 into an explanation of their policy. Mr. Bernal 
 Osborne happily described Mr. Disraeli's tactics as 
 a system of "Italian mystification" in which the 
 "cloven foot of protection " was concealed " under the 
 
 * Hansard, cxix. 1036. f Ibid. 1301. 
 
 t Ibid. 12991302. Ibid. 1302.
 
 MINISTER. 435 
 
 smock-frock of official reserve;"* and Sir Benjamin 
 Hall quoted some passages from Mr. Disraeli's 
 philippics against Peel on account of his abandon- 
 ment of Protection, which were very apposite at this 
 hour in connection with Mr. Disraeli's abandonment 
 of exactly the same cause. \ But the most remarkable 
 speech of the evening was that of Mr. Cobden, who 
 showed in the clearest manner that the existing 
 Government was founded on Protection, and that 
 nnless it meant to use its exertions to restore Pro- 
 tectibn, it had no right to exist, f Mr. Bright, taking 
 up the same line of argument, warned the farmers that 
 they were " deluded dupes " on whose shoulders the 
 Ministry had "scrambled" to their "seats of power." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, however, made no attempt to further 
 enlighten the country as to his policy. He contented 
 himself, knowing that no vote would be immediately 
 taken, with the barefaced assertion that his Govern- 
 ment was not in a minority in the House of Commons. 
 
 Before the work of again cross-examining the 
 Government on their policy of duplicity could be 
 resumed, circumstances gave them an opportunity of 
 achieving a victory which greatly strengthened their 
 position. The Government of Lord John Russell 
 had prepared the public mind for the belief that an 
 
 * Hid. 1310. f JMd- 13251336. J Ibid. 1339. 
 
 Ibid. 1395. M I say to you," said Mr. Bright also, " we will try if 
 we cannot break up a confederated imposture." Ibid. Does not the 
 last phrase recall Mr. Disraeli's " organised hypocrisy " 1 But how 
 mucL more truth was there in Mr. Bright's attack than in that of 
 Mr. Disraeli I
 
 436 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 increase in the defences of the country was required; 
 and, taking up this idea, the new Ministry brought 
 forward another Militia Bill. The measure was 
 opposed by Lord John Russell and some other 
 members of the late Government ; but was supported 
 very generally, and found a most potent advocate 
 in the House of Commons in Lord Palmerston, and 
 in the House of Lords in the Duke of Wellington. 
 The result was, that when the division came, tho 
 opponents of the Bill were but 165, while the sup- 
 porters of the Government were 355. This over- 
 whelming triumph naturally added to their prestige, 
 and encouraged them to proceed in their determina- 
 tion to rule the country for some time longer without 
 any definite declaration of their policy. 
 
 But the time at last approached when Mr. Disraeli 
 could no longer conceal his hand. On April 30 lie 
 introduced his Budget. The speech he delivered on 
 the occasion was as bold and remarkable as any 
 that was ever delivered in the House of Commons.* 
 Amid the melancholy faces of his supporters and the 
 continued cheers of his opponents, he practically 
 abandoned Protection ; in fact, the whole speech was 
 one triumphant vindication of the results of Free 
 Trade. He showed that, instead of being reduced, 
 the revenue of the country had steadily and largely 
 increased. He showed that the reduction of the 
 duty on coffee, on timber, and on sugar, had largely 
 increased the consumption of each of these three 
 * Hansard, 3 8. cxxi. 936.
 
 MINISTER. 437 
 
 articles, and he admitted that as a result the loss 
 of revenue was far less than had been anticipated.* 
 
 The reader will not fail to remember that the man 
 who was describing the "marvellous results/' as 
 he later on called them,t produced by the reduction 
 of the duty on sugar, was the same man, who from 
 1846 downwards had been constantly and persist- 
 ently declaring that the abolition of those duties 
 would be ruinous to the Colonies ! \ 
 
 * The duty on coffee had in the previous year been reduced from 
 sixpence per pound on foreign and fourpence on colonial to a uniform 
 duty of threepence. The result has been an increase in the con- 
 sumption not only of foreign, but of colonial coffee : as a consequence, 
 while the loss of diity was estimated at 176,000, the real loss was 
 112,000. Ibid. 22. The duty on foreign timber had been reduced 
 from 15*. to 7*. 6d. hewn, and from 20s. to 10s. on sawn timber. 
 Though the duty had been thus reduced by one-half, the real had 
 been about half the estimated loss : the real loss was 126,000, the 
 estimated loss 206,000. Ibid. Then, coming to the question of 
 sugar, he showed that the case of the Free-Traders was even still 
 more clearly proved. He pointed out that since the alteration in the 
 sugar duties in 1846, the increase of the consumption had amounted 
 to so large a figure as 33 per cent. The result of this marvellous 
 increase was that, while the estimated loss on this department of the 
 revenue had been 330,000 or 310,000, the actual loss had been 
 309 1 Ibid. 23. 
 
 f Ibid. 28. 
 
 | I wonder if Mr. Disraeli, while he was making this recantation 
 of his opinion on the sugar duties, recalled a scene with Lord George 
 Bentinck which he has himself described with much apparent satis- 
 faction. In the Session of 1847, Lord George obtained the appoint- 
 ment of a Select Committee to consider the sugar and coffee duties, 
 While this committee was sitting. " Surplice," a horse with which, 
 among the rest of his stud, Lord George had parted, won the Derby. 
 This, according to Lord Beacon sfield, caused Bentinck much annoy- 
 ance (" Life of Bentinck," 539) : a few days afterwards, however, 
 the Committee adopted a resolution of a Protective character ; and 
 this is how Lord Beaconsfield describes the result : " But on Monday, 
 the 29th. when the resolution in favour of a 10s. differential duty for
 
 438 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 , Finally, Mr. Disraeli concluded his address by 
 announcing that, owing to the shortness of the period 
 since he had received office, he was bound to accept 
 the budget of his predecessor.* 
 
 Such a speech was naturally received with the 
 greatest delight by the Free-Traders ; and it is also 
 fair to say that Mr. Disraeli got compliments, and well- 
 deserved compliments, from all sides of the House, 
 for the lucidity and ability of his first address as 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the point every one 
 of the Liberal speakers insisted upon was, that Mr. 
 Disraeli had proved their case as clearly as any one 
 of themselves could. Mr. Disraeli " had made out," 
 Said Sir Charles Wood, " what we on this side of the 
 House consider a triumphant case for the policy which 
 we have advocated." f " He had," said Mr. Hume, 
 " shown by figures and in language which could not 
 be misunderstood, that the policy which had been 
 followed ever since 1842 had been most successful. " % 
 Mr. Gladstone was " perfectly satisfied " to leave the 
 
 the colonies had at the last moment been carried, and carried by bis 
 casting vote, ' the blue ribbons of the turf ' were all forgotten. Not 
 for all the honours and successes of all the meetings, spring or 
 autumn, Newmarket, Epsom, Goodwood, Doncaster, would he have 
 exchanged that hour of rapture. His eye sparkled with fire, his 
 nostril dilated with triumph, his brow was elate like a conqueror, 
 his sanguine spirit saw a future of continued and illimitable success. 
 ' We have saved the colonies,' he said, ' saved the colonies. I knew 
 it must be so. It i the knell of Free Trade? " (" Life of Bentinck," 
 639-40.) We see how Mr. Disraeli justified this prophecy. It was well 
 for Bentinck, perhaps, after all, that he died so soon. The friends of 
 Lord Beaconsfield, whom the gods love, die young. 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxxi. 35-6. t TbU. 37. % Ibid. 42.
 
 MINISTER. 439 
 
 case of the commercial policy of the last few years " to 
 remain on the very able statement of the right hon. 
 Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer." * And 
 finally, Mr. Disraeli, in the words of Mr. Bright, ' ' had 
 stood forth in the face of the House and the country 
 to bless the policy which he had so frequently 
 censured." t But the thoroughly Free-Trade character 
 of the speech is still more clearly shown by the halting 
 praises of Mr. Disraeli's supporters, which contrast 
 very curiously with the enthusiastic eulogiums of his 
 opponents. Mr. Baring denied the existence of the pros- 
 perity which Mr. Disraeli had spoken about. J Sir John 
 Tyrell made some blundering attempt to reconcile the 
 good condition of the Revenue with the bad condition 
 of trade. And poor Sir John Pakington endeavoured 
 to explain that while this country had gained, the 
 colonies had lost, by the decrease in the price of sugar.|| 
 It shows a curious contrast in the manner in which 
 other people treat Mr. Disraeli, and the manner in 
 which he treats them, that this shameless abandon- 
 ment of Protection, by one who had exhausted his 
 abundant vocabulary of vituperation against the 
 abandonment of Protection by another Minister, this 
 public act of apostacy by a man who had risen to his 
 present position as a donouncer of apostacy, was 
 not made the object of any severe personal attacks. 
 Mr. Hume made a brief allusion to this remarkable 
 change, but with his usual good-nature his reproach 
 
 * Ibid. 61. J Ibid. 47.8. || Ibid. 68-71. 
 
 + Ibid. 68. Ibid. 56-8.
 
 440 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 took the form of a mild expression of the hope that 
 Mr. Disraeli looked back with regret aiid remorse 
 on his past career, and the manner in which he had 
 treated and persecuted the late right hon. Baronet who 
 had first introduced the system.* " Would to God," 
 said Mr. Wakley, who was a little more emphatic, " Sir 
 Robert Peel had been alive to list-en to the profound 
 homage paid him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 in the exposition of the facts which he submitted to the 
 House to-night ! " t And so Mr. Disraeli was allowed 
 to make his recantation. 
 
 As the country party, however, were not yet quite 
 prepared to swallow this wholesale abandonment of 
 Protection, and as their murmurs grew loud and 
 threatening, it became necessary for the Ministry to 
 make another change of front. The manner in which 
 this was done was certainly extraordinary, if not un- 
 precedented. Speaking shortly after the introduction 
 of the Budget at a banquet in the City, Lord Derby 
 had the boldness to refer to the speech of Mr. Disraeli. 
 The municipal dignitaries were then favoured with the 
 information that Mr. Disraeli had not meant all he had 
 said to the House of Commons. The representatives 
 of the people, in fact, Lord Derby whispered to the 
 Aldermen, were being taken in ; it was necessary to 
 make them think the Government intended to adopt 
 Free Trade; but that was only Mr. Disraeli's "little 
 game." 
 
 Shortly after this move in the extraordinary system 
 Ibid. 43. f Ibid. 5.
 
 MINISTER. 44t 
 
 of self-contradiction which the Government were pur- 
 suing, there came another revelation of the Ministerial 
 mind. This was Mr. Disraeli's address to his 
 Buckinghamshire constituents. The address, like the 
 speech on the Budget, was an open avowal of the 
 abandonment of Protection. Indeed, it seemed as if 
 there were a sort of tacit agreement between Lord 
 Derby and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, that 
 while one of them should satisfy the manufacturers, 
 the other should reassure the terrified agriculturists. 
 In this address Mr. Disraeli boldly declared that the 
 time had gone by for the recurrence of Protection. The 
 spirit of the age, he said, was against any such mea- 
 sure, and no statesman could afford to disregard the 
 genius of the epoch in which he lived. And then he 
 went back to his old scheme of compensating for the 
 loss of Protection by a decrease of local taxation.* But 
 even in this promise of relief he was studiously vague. 
 He would go no farther than to say that it seemed to 
 " loom in the future," f a n expression that caused a 
 good deal of comment and amusement. 
 
 On June 14 the Opposition made one other effort to 
 discover what the Minister really intended to do. After 
 proposing a motion condemnatory of Lord Malmesbury'a 
 policy in reference to a gentleman named Mather, who 
 had been ill treated by an Austrian officer at Florence, 
 Lord John Russell took occasion to give a general 
 review of the Ministerial policy. He pointed out how 
 Lord Derby had declared emphatically, and how the 
 * times. June 7, 1852 f Hid. '
 
 442 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had backed up the declara- 
 tion, that a moderate duty upon corn was absolutely 
 necessary for the interest of agriculture, and then pro- 
 ceeded to show how gradually the Government had 
 withdrawn from this position, and had shown that 
 " this desirable measure was to be abandoned." * He 
 next pointed out the remarkable contrast between 
 the thoroughly Free-Trade speech of Mr. Disraeli 
 on introducing his Budget, and the Protectionist 
 gloss that had been put on Mr. Disraeli's speech by 
 Lord Derby in the City ; f and he showed how, 
 as a result of this disagreement between the decla- 
 rations of the Ministers, different supporters of the 
 Government were seeking election in different con- 
 stituencies on diametrically opposite principles how 
 at one place an adherent of Lord Derby put him- 
 self forward as an unconverted Protectionist, and in 
 another place another adherent of the existing Ministry 
 declared himself as emphatically in favour of Free 
 Trade. \ 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's reply was characteristically auda- 
 cious. He had the face to deny that either he or the 
 Protectionist party had ever asked for a recurrence of 
 the laws that existed previous to 1 8 A6. " You cannot/' 
 he said, " recall a single speech to that effect ; I defy 
 anybody to quote any speech that I ever made, or any 
 sentence that I ever uttered, that recommended such 
 a course as desirable or possible/' j 
 
 Hansard, 8 S. cxxii. 636. * Ibid. 
 
 f Ibid. 637. IbM. 692.
 
 MINISTER. 443 
 
 This statement, as the reader who has followed these 
 pages will well know, was audaciously false. Not in 
 a single speech, but in scores of speeches not in one 
 sentence, but in a hundred did Mr. Disraeli suggest 
 that the restoration of the Protectionist laws was 
 " desirable " and " possible." He told the Bucks 
 electors in 1847, the reader will remember, that though 
 an attempt to restore Protection might not be advis- 
 able at the moment, its restoration in the course of 
 time was inevitable. Both in 1847 and 1848 he 
 suggested that the policy of Free Trade should be 
 reversed. It is quite true that as time went on he gra- 
 dually changed his tone ; but not until he saw office in 
 Bight did he ever once even hint that the days of Pro- 
 tection were past. I have not, as I have before said, the 
 least doubt that Mr. Disraeli knew, from 1846 onwards, 
 that any attempt to once more raise the price of bread 
 would be futile; but this was a conviction which he 
 carefully concealed within his own bosom. For years he 
 allowed his followers to cherish the idea that a return 
 of Protection was a possibility. It was the conviction 
 that Free Trade might be reversed and Protection 
 restored that kept together his party, and maintained 
 his position as one of its leaders. By insisting, time 
 after time, on some measure which had more or less 
 of a Protectionist air, he kept up that division be- 
 tween Sir Robert Peel and his supporters which pre- 
 vented the reunion of the different elements of the 
 Conservative party. If it were most true, and it was 
 most false, that he had never advocated the restoration
 
 444 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of Protection as desirable or possible, then, in acting 
 as the leader of a Protectionist party, he had practised 
 for years a game of shameless deception, and of 
 deception which was fatal to the interests of those he 
 professed to serve. 
 
 It was equally false to say that his party haft 
 not advocated a return to Protection as desirable 
 or possible. Let us take only the most prominent 
 members of his party. We have just seen what Mr. 
 Disraeli's chief had said in 1851 about the possibility 
 of restoring Protection. Lord Malmesbury was at 
 this moment another of Mr. Disraeli's colleague's, 
 and Minister for Foreign Affairs. At a Protectionist 
 meeting held in Drury Lane Theatre on Juno 26, 1841>, 
 that noble Lord declared that it was not yet too late 
 to retrace the mischievous legislation of 1846, and he 
 emphasized this declaration by one of those appeals to 
 the Deity, at once vehement and familiar, which are 
 characteristic of ranting preachers and Tory lords.* 
 And finally, Mr. Christopher, as has also been seen, 
 had, within a few weeks of this speech of Mr. Disraeli, 
 announced to his constituents that his chief motive in 
 joining the Ministry of Lord Derby was his conviction 
 that the policy of Free Trade would be reversed. 
 
 In this speech, also, Mr. Disraeli indicated his readi- 
 
 * Irving, 163. Lord Malmesbury, expressing a hope that the Free- 
 Trade theory would never be consummated, added this beautiful 
 sentiment : " But should it please God in His anger that it should 
 : !(<(!, then wmiM this .^rcat kingdom soon return to its normal 
 and natural state a weather-beaten island in a northern sea." This 
 passage invites comment, but I abstain.
 
 MINISTER. 445 
 
 ness to abandon even the small fixed duty, on which 
 both he and Lord Derby had formerly been so vehement. 
 It was a proposal, he said, to which he would "not 
 pin" his "political career " nor make " the basis " of his 
 "policy," and he even ventured to denounce it as 
 "invested " " with popular odium," as " disliked by the 
 people, " * and as one which the " popular will repudi- 
 ates." f 
 
 On July 1, Parliament was dismissed, and the same 
 discreditable scenes which took place when the Minis- 
 ters sought re-election in the previous March, were 
 repeated on a larger scale. The ambiguous and con- 
 tradictory language of the Government had its natural 
 and its desired consequence. The Ministerial candi- 
 date, like the Government itself, had no policy beyond 
 that which suited the hour and the place. Where 
 Free-Trade professions were likely to produce success, 
 the supporter of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli was a 
 Free-Trader ; where the faith in Protection still sur- 
 vived, the supporter of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli 
 was a Protectionist. 
 
 But these contradictions were not confined to the 
 rank and file of the Protectionist party ; there was the 
 sa'me startling diversity between the utterances of the 
 Ministers themselves. Speaking at his election dinner 
 in Bucks, " Why," said Mr. Disraeli, " no one can sup- 
 pose that the present administration has any intention 
 of taxing the food of the people, or of bringing back 
 the laws repealed in 1846." " The question of Protec- 
 Ibid. 692. f Ibid. '693.
 
 446 LORD BRACONSFIELD. 
 
 tion,"* said Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby) at King's 
 Lynn, " is set at rest, and I am glad of it." Mr. Chris- 
 topher in Lincolnshire, Mr. Walpole at Midhurst, and 
 Lord John Manners at Colchester, on the other hand, 
 stilt dropped suggestions that the good old days of 
 Protection were close at hand.t Still more flagrant 
 was the case of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. Solicitor-General 
 in the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel, he had, of course, 
 supported the Free-Trade measure of that statesman 
 in 1846. At this election of 1852, he had the face to 
 go back on his former professions and votes, and to 
 make a violent Protectionist harangue.J The General 
 Election, in fact, degenerated into a political Donny- 
 brook, in which all principles were confused and all 
 political morality vanished. 
 
 The new Parliament met on November 11. The 
 speech from the Throne contained a single paragraph 
 in reference to the all-absorbing controversy of the 
 hour, and that paragraph was studiously ambiguous. 
 The " improved condition of the country, and especially 
 of the industrious classes," was first admitted, and then 
 
 * Irving's Annals, 229. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 % Ibid. 
 
 Macaulay very happily described the action of the Ministerial. 
 " Not only did they suit their language to town or country con- 
 stituencies, but individual candidates were seen from the same 
 reason to change all their former professions. Lord Maidstone, a 
 vehement Protectionist, adopted the policy of Sir Robert Peel when 
 standing for Westminster ; while Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Peel's Solicitor- 
 General, made a speech at East Suffolk which might have been com- 
 posed out of Lord Maidstone's hexameters. The one forgot his votes, 
 the other his Terse." Irvina, 229.
 
 MINISTER. 447 
 
 a suggestion was made that certain important interests 
 should be compensated, if Parliament were of opinion 
 that such interests had been injured by recent legisla- 
 tion.* 
 
 Tli is was certainly the most extraordinary speech 
 that had ever yet been delivered from the Throne; 
 and never had so gross an attempt been made by 
 a Government to continue existence without any 
 declaration of principles. This marks a further and 
 bolder step in the abandonment of the opinions by 
 which the Ministry had risen to power. They had 
 begun by declaring that Protection, in all its plenitude, 
 should be restored: then some of the leaders had 
 suggested that they would be satisfied with a moderate 
 duty: next came the bright idea of Mr. Disraeli, that 
 the land should be compensated for the loss of Pro- 
 tection by the decrease of taxation; and now even 
 that last and smallest remedy is abandoned. But that 
 is not the worst part of the case against the Ministry. 
 During all the years which had followed the abandon- 
 ment of Protection, Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and the 
 other Protectionist leaders, as the reader has seen, daily 
 
 * This is the text of the paragraph : " It gives me pleasure to be 
 enabled, by the blessing of Providence, to congratulate you on the 
 generally improved condition of the country, and especially of the in- 
 dustrious classes. If you should be of opinion that recent legislation, 
 in contributing, with other causes, to this happy result, has at the 
 same time inflicted unavoidable injury on certain important interests, 
 I recommend you dispassionately to consider how far it may be prac- 
 ticable equitably to mitigate that injury, and to enable the industry 
 of the country to meet successfully that unrestricted competition to 
 which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided that it should be sub- 
 jcr'tr fl." Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 19, 20.
 
 44 S LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 declared that Free Trade had inflicted incalculable 
 injury on the country in general and on the land in 
 particular. The abolition of the Sugar Duties had 
 ruined our West Indian, the abolition of the Timber 
 Duties had ruined our American colonies : the repeal 
 of the Navigation Laws had destroyed our shipping 
 and the removal of the duty on corn had lowered the 
 wages of the labourer and the rents of the landlord. 
 Well, Mr. Disraeli in the previous session had openly 
 abandoned the Protectionist's case on sugar and on 
 timber, and lastly on the Navigation Laws. But there 
 was still one point to be surrendered: that was the 
 case of the landlords, and their claim for compensation. 
 The grievance of the landlord had appeared in nearly 
 every one of his speeches on commercial policy for tho 
 last six years, and the justice of compensating for this 
 grievance by a reduction of taxation. What I have 
 already written explains why he should have adhered 
 to this idea so obstinately. It was the only alternative 
 he had to offer for the impossible plan of restoring 
 Protection altgether, or even in the modified form of a 
 small import duty : it was the last charge under which 
 he covered his retreat from Protection. Accordingly, 
 we find that even in his speeches in the previous recess 
 in which he abandoned so many things, he still main- 
 tained the idea of relieving the land. The elections 
 were still going on the Protectionists still demanded 
 some sop; and so this bait was dangled before their 
 eyes. But the constituencies had now given their 
 answer: that answer had been fatal to Protection
 
 MINISTER. 449 
 
 under any shape ; and thus the last poor consolation of 
 the landlord was as freely abandoned as all the other 
 articles of the Protectionist creed. The distress of the 
 landlords, and the necessity for relief, were in all the 
 speeches before the final result, put forward boldly, dis- 
 tinctly, vehemently, as an indisputable fact. In the 
 speech from the throne, the tone is completely altered. 
 " If you should be of opinion that recent legislation " 
 has "inflicted unavoidable injury on certain important 
 interests, I recommend you to dispassionately consider," 
 etc. the distress of the landlord and his claim for 
 relief are relegated to the region of the hypothetical. It 
 is one of the many questions Parliament must decide : 
 as to the opinion of the Ministry they really know 
 nothing about it. Here was a new departure, with a 
 vengeance, in the art of governing by party. 
 
 The Free-Traders were determined, however, not to 
 let the Government escape with ambiguous declarations, 
 and Parliament had scarcely met when Mr. Villiers 
 again came forward with a demand for a definite 
 proclamation of principles. In the debate on the 
 address Mr. Villiers announced the general character of 
 a motion he intended to bring forward at the earliest 
 opportunity.* Lord John Russell also complained of 
 the vagueness of the speech from the throne, and of 
 the ambiguity of the Ministerial action, t He showed 
 how, during the elections, the country had been utterly 
 perplexed by the contradictory declarations of members 
 of the Protectionist party,J and how, even still, when 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 7075. f Ibid. 80. % Ibid. 81. 
 
 29
 
 450 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the country had distinctly declared against them and 
 their policy, the Cabinet refused to definitely announce 
 their abandonment of Protection ;* and, finally, he called 
 upon Mr. Disraeli to emerge from that mist in which, 
 "like some of the goddesses of old," he "loves to conceal 
 himself." t 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, in his reply, made the distinct decla- 
 ration that, in future, the commercial system of the 
 country should be conducted on the principle of 
 " unrestricted competition ; \ and the declaration was 
 noted by several subsequent speakers as decisive as 
 to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at 
 least, on the question of Free Trade or Protection. 
 He went on to disclaim the idea of giving " compen- 
 sation for losses which have been occasioned by changes 
 in the legislation which heretofore regulated the com- 
 merce of this country," in other words, he aban- 
 doned the main ground of the numberless motions and 
 speeches he had made on agricultural distress since 
 1846. He then gave a glimpse of the scheme by 
 which he hoped, while not enraging the Free-Traders, 
 to soothe the Protectionists. It was his intention to 
 propose "a proper revision of our taxation," so as 
 to " make our financial system more in harmony with 
 our commercial system." || 
 
 This phrase, " revision of taxation," was one of the 
 latest productions of Mr. Disraeli's art of concealing 
 the same idea under different language. He had used 
 
 * Ibid. 81-82. % Ibid. 86. | Ibid. 
 
 t Jbid. 83. Ibid. 88.
 
 MINISTER. 451 
 
 the phrase frequently, and with considerable success, 
 during the recess. He saw, of course, that the idea of 
 compensating the landlords for the loss of Protection 
 was altogether impracticable in the shape, at least, 
 in which he had formerly clothed the proposal. His 
 plan, as we know, in his pre-Ministerial days, was to 
 relieve the land of a considerable quantity of local 
 burdens. That plan, under the name of compensation, 
 being impossible, he now advanced the same scheme 
 under the name of "revision of taxation." We shall 
 see more clearly his object by-and-by, when we come 
 to the production of his Budget. 
 
 It might have been expected that this further aban- 
 donment by Mr. Disraeli of his former opinions would 
 have brought down on him a severe castigation from 
 those who remembered his own attacks on Sir Robert 
 Peel. But it is one of the advantages of a man like 
 Mr. Disraeli, that other people are too scrupulous, or too 
 gentle, or too proud, to use against him arts which he 
 would employ against them without scruple, or mercy, 
 or shame. Accordingly, tempting though the occasion 
 was, Mr. Disraeli was allowed to escape almost without 
 a rebuke. The friends and former colleagues of the 
 late Sir Robert Peel scarcely whispered a word of 
 censure ; so that Mr. Cobden felt bound to ironically 
 compliment them on their Christian power of for- 
 giving.* 
 
 * " The late Sir Robert Peel avowed changing his opinions, and yet 
 he was not allowed to remain in peace with his new convictions, 
 though he abandoned office as the price of his conversion. I don't 
 think the Gentlemen opposite have any reason to complain of the retri-
 
 452 LORD BEACONSF1ELD, 
 
 Before I proceed to the next stage in the controversy 
 between Free Trade and Protection, I must allude to 
 one of the strangest episodes in Lord Beaconsfield's 
 career. The Duke of Wellington had died during the 
 recess, and it became the duty of Mr. Disraeli, as leader 
 of the House of Commons, to propose that the House 
 should attend his funeral. As was natural, he delivered 
 a panegyric on the merits of the late Commander- 
 in-Chief, in making this motion. The world was 
 astounded to learn from the Globe newspaper, a day or 
 two afterwards, that a considerable amount of the 
 eulogium upon this solemn and momentous occasion 
 was a plagiarism, almost word for word, from an article 
 which had appeared in a French review, and which had 
 generally been ascribed to M. Thiers. The Globe proved 
 its case in the clearest manner by putting side by side 
 the words of Mr. Disraeli and the words of the French 
 review.* Mr. Disraeli himself did not attempt any 
 
 bution with which they have been visited. I have often felt, and I 
 have often been on the point of saying, what I will not hesitate to 
 say now that the personal friends and political colleagues of the late 
 Sir Robert Peel have, in my opinion, shown more forbearance towards 
 his assailants than ever I could have done with the Christian temper 
 I aim at possessing." Hansard. 3 8. oxxiii. 117. 
 
 * I quote from the Globe, November 18, 1852 : 
 
 MR. DISBAELI. FRENCH REVIEW. 
 
 It is not that a grea't general An engineer, a geographer, a 
 must be an engineer a geogra- man of the world, metaphysician . 
 pher learned in human nature knowing men, knowing how to 
 adroit in the management of men govern them, an administrator in 
 that he must be able to fulfil the great things, a clerk in small 
 highest duty of a Minister of State, all these things it is necessary to 
 and then to descend to the hum- be, but these arc as yet nothing. 
 blest office of a commissary and All this vast knowledge must be
 
 MINISTER. 
 
 453 
 
 reply, but Mr. George Smythe, his old colleague in the 
 Young England movement, came to his rescue. The Globe 
 had stated that the translation of this French eulogium 
 had appeared in an article in the Morning Chronicle in 
 the year 1848. Mr. Smythe now declared that he was the 
 writer of the article to which allusion had been made. 
 
 a clerk ; but lie has to display all 
 this knowledge and to exercise 
 all those duties at the same time, 
 and under extraordinary circum- 
 stances. At every moment he 
 has to think of the eve and the 
 morrow of his flank and of his 
 rear he has to calculate at the 
 same time the state of the weather 
 and the moral qualities of men : 
 and all those elements that are 
 perpetually changing he has to 
 combine, sometimes under over- 
 whelming heat, sometimes under 
 overpowering cold oftentimes in 
 famine, and frequently amidst the 
 roar of artillery. (Hear, hear, 
 hear.) Behind all these circum- 
 stances there is ever present the 
 image of his country, and the 
 dreadful alternative whether that 
 country is to welcome him with 
 laurel or with cypress. (Hear, 
 hear. ) Yet those images he must 
 dismiss from his mind, for the 
 general must not only think, but 
 think with the rapidity of light- 
 ning ; for on a moment more or 
 less depends the fate of the most 
 beautiful combination and a 
 moment more or less is a question 
 of glory or of shame. (Hear, hear.) 
 Unquestionably, sir, all this may 
 be done in an ordinary manner, 
 
 exercised on the instant, in the 
 midst of extraordinary circum- 
 stances. At every moment you 
 must think of the yesterday and 
 the morrow; of your flank and of 
 your rear. Calculate at the same 
 time on the atmosphere and on 
 the temper of your men; and 
 all these elements, so various 
 and diverse, which are ceaselessly 
 changing and renewed, you must 
 combine in the midst of cold, 
 heat, hunger, bullets. ....... 
 
 .... Farther off, and behind 
 them, is the spectacle of your 
 country, with laurel or with 
 cypress. But all these images 
 and ideas must be banished and 
 set aside, for you must think, and 
 think quickly, one minute too 
 much, and the fairest combina- 
 tion has lost its opportunity and 
 instead of glory, it is shame that 
 awaits you. All this undoubtedly 
 is compatible with mediocrity, 
 like every other profession ; one 
 can also be a middling poet, 
 a middling orator, a middling 
 author ; but this done with 
 genius i- sublime.
 
 454 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, he said, had called his attention ten years 
 before he wrote the article to a remarkable passage 
 in a French review on the requirements of a great 
 general, and Mr. Smythe had in the course of his writing 
 made use of the information and quoted the passage.* 
 The Times also became Mr. Disraeli's advocate, and 
 
 by an ordinary man, as every day 
 of oar lives we see that ordinary 
 men may he successful ministers 
 of state, successful authors, and 
 successful speakers but to do all 
 this with genius is sublime. 
 (Hear, hear.) 
 
 To be able to think with vigour, ... To think in the quiet of 
 with depth, and with clearness one's Cabinet, clearly, strongly, 
 in the recesses of the Cabinet is a nobly, this undoubtedly is great; 
 great intellectual demonstration ; but to think as clearly, as strongly, 
 but to think with equal vigour, as nobly, in the midst of carnage 
 clearness, and depth amidst the and fire, is the most perfect 
 noise of bullets, appears to me exercise of the human faculties. 
 the loftiest exercise and the M. Thierton tins Marshal Gouvion 
 most complete triumph of human de St. Cyr, 1829. (The Morning 
 faculties. (Cheers.) -Yr. Disraeli Chronicle of July, 1848.) 
 <m the Duke of Wellington, 1852. 
 
 I append one of the many epigrams that were made upon Mr. 
 Disraeli's escapade : 
 
 Tn sounding great Wellington's praise, 
 Dizzy's grief and his truth both appear, 
 For a great flood of tears (Thiere) be lets fall, 
 Wbich were certainly meant for sincere (St. Cyr). 
 
 The Examintr, Nor. 20. 1951. 
 
 * Here is Mr. Smythe's letter. " To the Editor of the Times. Sir, 
 As the writer of the article of July 4, in the Morning Chronicle, from 
 which Mr. Disraeli is charged with having taken a passage of his 
 panegyric upon the late Duke of Wellington, I think it but just to that 
 gentleman to exonerate him entirely from this unfounded accusation. 
 It is more than ten years ago since Mr. Disraeli first mentioned to 
 me this very striking eulogium of the military character which he 
 remembered having read fifteen years before in a French review.
 
 MINISTER. 455 
 
 its account of the transaction was that the essay in 
 question had much struck Mr. Disraeli's mind, that he 
 committed some of its passages to memory, and that in 
 repeating those passages he had merely resorted to an 
 ordinary device of orators in omitting to give the autho- 
 rity from which he quoted. " To give the name of an 
 authority," wrote the Times, "is always difficult in a 
 " speech ; much more so when it is a review or other 
 " periodical. But the fair account of the matter is that 
 " Mr. Disraeli found himself in the passage before he 
 "had time to affix the proper title-page, introduction, 
 " and table of contents. It is," continued the leading 
 journal, " one of the evils of a well-stored memory that 
 "a man cannot help quoting; but nothing destroys the 
 " interest of a speech and the confidence of the hearer 
 " so much as avowed quotations." 
 
 It does not require much reasoning to show that both 
 these defences for Mr. Disraeli's conduct are no defences 
 at all. What Mr. Disraeli really did was to pass off the 
 
 Having subsequently discovered that this article was by no less a per- 
 sonage than M. Thiers, I made use of the quotation in some comment 
 on French military statesmen. It is, therefore, but fair to state that 
 instead of Mr. Disraeli being indebted to the Morning Chronicle for 
 the passage in question, the Morning Chronicle was indebted to Mr. 
 Disraeli. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, GEOBGE 
 SYDNEY S-MYTHE. 68, Harley Street, November 21." 
 
 * It may be interesting to quote some further passages from the 
 article in the Times. " We believe," it said, " the real truth to be much 
 as follows : A good many years ago Mr. Disraeli had the happiness 
 to receive a copy of the Revue Trimestre, containing a favourable 
 notice of his novel 'Vivian Grey,' then lately published, and was 
 encouraged thereby to look into the rest of the articles. Among them 
 was one, not particularly on Marshal St. Cyr, who was then alive, but
 
 456 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 composition of another man as his own. Whether 
 Mr. Disraeli was the first to notice this passage to the 
 writer in the Morning Chronicle, or the writer in the 
 Morning Chronicle to him, does not really influence 
 the main issue, and the pleading of the Times is 
 merely an apology for plagiarism under all circum- 
 stances. The newspaper press of the time did not 
 accept these apologies, and the condemnations which 
 were passed on this audacious, and at the same time 
 petty trick, in presence of a great national calamity, 
 were extremely severe, but at the same time extremely 
 deserved. 
 
 On November 23 Mr. Villiers proposed his resolutions, 
 which were three in number. They described the in- 
 creased prosperity of the country, and especially of the 
 working classes, as the result of recent legislation, and 
 especially of the Act of 1 846 ; and characterised that 
 Act as "a wise, just, and beneficial measure." They 
 next declared that the maintenance and extension of 
 
 on military genius, or some such wide subject. . . . Mr. Disraeli was 
 pleased with the article, committed some passages to memory, and the 
 passages so learnt have furnished successively a striking paragraph 
 to a morning contemporary and to a speech in the House of Com- 
 mons. All this is very natural. But why did not Mr. Disraeli give the 
 name of the author ? We believe it is not known. The passage is 
 from an anonymous article in a review, probably, but not avowedly, 
 by M. Thiers. To give the name of an authority is always difficult in 
 a speech ; much more so when it is a review or other periodical. But 
 the fair account of the matter is that Mr. Disraeli found himself in the 
 passage before he had time to affix the proper title-page, introduction, 
 and table of contents. It is one of the evils of a well-stored memory 
 that a man cannot help quoting ; but nothing destroys the interest 
 of speech and the confidence of the hearers so much as avowed 
 Quotations." (Nov. 2, 1852.)
 
 MINISTER. 457 
 
 Free Trade was the best means of enabling all classes 
 of the country to bear their burdens, and concluded by 
 expressing a readiness to consider any proposals of the 
 Government framed in accordance with those prin- 
 ciples.* 
 
 The debate extended over two nights, and was marked 
 by several strange episodes, which however I shall not 
 be able to touch more than briefly. The speech of 
 Mr. Disraeli was of the same character as those he had 
 been making since he had made up his mind to abandon 
 Protection. He announced the startling fact that the 
 reason why he had opposed Free Trade was, not that 
 it would injure the landlord, nor the farmer, but that 
 It would " prove injurious to the cause of labour." f 
 This assertion is, of course, utterly incorrect, for Mr. 
 Disraeli had opposed Free Trade as destructive of 
 every interest as well as that of labour; but suppose 
 it correct, what a splendid proof it is of Mr. Disraeli's 
 political wisdom that he should have expected the 
 working man to be ruined by having a cheaper loaf! 
 He ventured shortly afterwards on the utterly false 
 statement that " not a single attempt has been made 
 in the House of Commons to abrogate the measure of 
 1846." The astounded House of course burst forth 
 with an " Oh ! " at this audacious untruth, where- 
 upon Mr. Disraeli more suo proceeded to repeat it 
 with greater emphasis than before. Professing, first, to 
 believe that the expression of astonishment had come 
 from the new members, | he went on to say, " I repeat 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 351. f Ibid. 382. J Ibid. 383.
 
 458 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the statement which called forth the interruption . . . . 
 that from the moment the Corn Laws were repealed 
 till now, not a single Motion has ever been made in 
 this House at least, with the sanction of any party 
 to bring back that Protection which has so unneces- 
 sarily been attacked to-night." * 
 
 It was not surprising to find Mr. Disraeli declare 
 after this that the party which had been returned in 
 1847 under his leadership and that of Lord George 
 Bentinck, was not returned for the purpose of restoring 
 Protection ! No : he and his friends had been elected, 
 not from feelings of hope in the future, but of gratitude 
 for the past.t 
 
 So he went on, endeavouring to explain every gross 
 tergiversation by as gross misrepresentation. He 
 appealed in the end to the new members to favour him 
 by being so kind as to forget his Protectionist past 
 that past which contained the denunciations of Peel 
 for abandoning Protection, the acquisition of leadership 
 through Protection, the elevation to ministerial dignity 
 
 Jbid. 384. 
 
 f " When the general election of 1847 took place, the organisation 
 of political parties was entirely broken np ; very high prices for all 
 kinds of farm produce, from peculiar causes, then existed ; and the 
 opinions which influenced thf constituent body on that occasion could 
 hardly be taid to have had any reference to the principles, the merits, 
 or the poitiblc consequences of recent legislation." Mark what follows : 
 " A large Protectionist party was indeed returned to this House from a 
 feeling which always animates great bodies of people in this country, 
 who think they owe sympathy and gratitude to those who have fought 
 their battles or carried their colours." (Laughter.) Hansard, 3 8. 
 cxziii. 387. I have already laid sufficient materials before the reader 
 to see how utterly devoid of truth is this representation of the election
 
 MINISTER, 459 
 
 through Protection. " I appeal," said this callous, un- 
 scrupulous assailant of Peel in the past, " I appeal to 
 the generous and the young. And I ask them to pause 
 now that they are at last arrived on the threshold of 
 the Senate of their country, and not become the tools 
 and the victims of exhausted factions and obsolete 
 politics."* 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield is perhaps tolerable when he 
 speaks in his true character of unscrupulous and un- 
 principled cynic : he is not, to put it mildly, quite so 
 bearable when he puts on what he perhaps considers 
 the fascinating air of general amiability and confiding 
 simplicity. 
 
 And what was the amendment which our Protec- 
 tionist Minister proposed after his "appeal to the 
 generous and the young " ? It was simply the same 
 thing as was said by Mr. Villiers, except that the Act 
 of 1846 was not mentioned ! It acknowledged that 
 provisions had been cheapened by the recent legis- 
 lation ; that the working classes were prosperous ; and 
 that Free Trade or, as Mr. Disraeli chose to call it, 
 
 of 1 847. The House of Commons knew also, of course, that Mr. Disraeli 
 was not telling the truth, and began to laugh. Characteristically he 
 affected to misunderstand this mark of incredulity. " Hon. Gentle- 
 men," said he, doubtless looking very serious and dignified, "may 
 deride this feeling, but they may rely upon it that if this feeling do 
 not exist, Parliamentary government would soon be a mere name." 
 Of course what the House laughed at was not, as Mr. Disraeli affected 
 to believe, the right of constituencies to be grateful, but his 
 assertion that it was gratitude, and not the hope of restoring Protec- 
 tion, that influenced the constituencies in returning a Protectionist 
 party. 
 * Ibid. 411.
 
 460 L ORD BE A CONS FIELD. 
 
 "unrestricted competition" having been deliberately 
 chosen by the people at the last election, the Govern- 
 ment were bound to maintain that principle in what- 
 ever measures they intended to bring forward. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was succeeded by Mr. Bright, who spoke 
 on behalf of the section led by himself, Mr. Cobden, 
 and Mr. Villiers, and which had always been in favour 
 of Free Trade. What Mr. Bright said in effect was 
 that the present Ministry, and especially Mr. Disraeli, 
 were not to be trusted, and that nothing would satisfy 
 him or his friends but a resolution in which Free Trade, 
 by name, and the Act of 1846, were distinctly and 
 definitely approved. " Shall we allow any evasion ? " 
 asked Mr. Bright. " Shall we act in such a manner 
 that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, who is a great master of words, and who, if 
 there be a chink to get out at, is certain to escape, may 
 hereafter say, ' The House of Commons never pledged 
 itself in any manner to that Act, so as to preclude 
 itself from considering whether direct compensation 
 should not be made to farmers and landowners in con- 
 sideration of that Act having been passed ' ? " * 
 
 Shortly after, another and unexpected turn was 
 given to the debate by the intervention of Lord 
 Palmerston. Desirous, for some reason or other, to 
 come to the rescue of the Government, he proposed 
 another substitute for the resolution of Mr. Villiers. 
 This new amendment was in sense the same as the 
 original resolution, save only that, like the amendment 
 
 Ibid. 432.
 
 MINISTER. 461 
 
 of Mr. Disraeli, it avoided mention of the Act of 1846. 
 The effect which this proposal had on the House can 
 only be understood by remembering the fact that, in 
 the opinion of the majority of the Liberals, the main 
 point was to get an unmistakable Parliamentary 
 declaration in favour of Free Trade; and that, in 
 their view, this object would be best attained if a 
 proposition, embodying Free Trade, could be so worded 
 as to allow the bulk of the Conservatives, as of the 
 Liberals, to vote in its favour. Mr. Disraeli grasped 
 at the straw held out to him, withdrew his amend- 
 ment, and accepted that of Lord Palmerston ; and so 
 Protection gave up the ghost. Protection had been 
 stabbed by a score of daggers, and had still refused 
 to die ; to the man whom it raised from obscurity to 
 fame, from a humble to almost the proudest position, 
 to the man whose splendid fortune it had made to 
 Mr. Disraeli was reserved the task of giving it the 
 coup de grace, 
 
 This marvellous political phenomenon was freely 
 commented upon. The Marquis of Granby, who, with 
 a fidelity worthy of a better cause, still remained 
 faithful to Protection, had the manliness to say that 
 some acknowledgment was "due to the memory of" 
 Peel, " that man, whose patriotism I, for one, never 
 doubted and the purity of whose motives I never 
 impugned."* Some Liberals expressed the same 
 idea; and Mr. Bernal Osborne, with effective wit, 
 exposed the tergiversation of Mr. Disraeli, and recalled 
 * ibid. 497.
 
 462 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 his bitter attacks on the man who had carried Free 
 Trade.* 
 
 But it was the speech of Mr. Sidney Herbert which 
 brought into bold relief the full and, it may even be 
 said, tragic significance of the occasion. Mr. Herbert, 
 everybody knew, had been the friend, the confidant, 
 the political offspring of Peel, and the man who per- 
 haps lay closest to Peel's heart. They knew, too, that 
 Mr. Herbert had shared with Peel the foul-mouthed 
 aspersions of Mr. Disraeli's tongue, f It was as if the 
 shade of the departed statesman stood before the 
 House to recall how the political bravo who now sat 
 in Peel's place, on Peel's principles, had stabbed Peel's 
 reputation with calumny's poisoned dagger, had broken 
 his power, had hounded on his foes. 
 
 Mr. Herbert began by exposing the utter falsehood 
 of Mr. Disraeli's statement that the Protectionist party 
 had never sought to reverse the legislation of 1846. 
 He pointed out the gigantic agitation which the party 
 had carried on since the adoption of Free Trade, at 
 "market tables, in theatres, at Protection societies, 
 one hundred in number." \ 
 
 " For my part," he went on with just scorn, " I acquit 
 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer, as far as his own convictions are concerned, of 
 the charge of having ever been a protectionist. I 
 uever for one moment thought he believed in the least 
 degree in Protection. I do not accuse him of having 
 
 Ibid. 538-640, and 548-9. f Hansard, 8 S. cxxxlii. 603. 
 
 See ante. 271.
 
 MINISTER. 463 
 
 forgotten what he said or what he believed in those 
 years. I only accuse him of having forgotten now 
 what he then wished it to appear that he believed."* 
 
 Then he quoted passages from the speeches of all the 
 Protectionist leaders, Lord Derby, Lord George 
 Bentinck, the Marquis of Granby, in which the restora- 
 tion of Protection was distinctly laid down as the basis 
 of the party, and proved that these opinions had been 
 backed up by Mr. Disraeli, who had just now had the 
 coolness to deny that he or his friends had ever sought 
 to reverse Free Trade.f And, then, towards the close 
 of his speech, he delivered against Mr. Disraeli the 
 following piece of invective one of the most power- 
 ful, one of the most righteous invectives in political 
 oratory : 
 
 " Sir, I think the memory of Sir Robert Peel stands 
 on a pedestal, from which no counter-Motion, even if it 
 could be carried in this House, could remove it. I 
 knew Sir Robert Peel during my whole life almost I 
 admired him as a politician I followed him as a leader 
 and I loved the man. He was a man, mind you, 
 susceptible proud, and justly proud, of the purity of 
 his motives jealous of his honour. I sat by him 
 night by night on that bench when he was attacked 
 by the foulest language, and accused of the meanest 
 crimes. But Sir Robert Peel was a man of a generous 
 nature he was one who never rejoiced in the humilia- 
 tion of an adversary ; and he would have recollected 
 this that the humiliation, if humiliation it were, was a 
 * Ibid. 603-4. t /** 605-607.
 
 464 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 humiliation to be inflicted not only upon those who had 
 assailed him, but also on Gentlemen for whose character 
 he had the warmest regard. I don't confound hon. 
 Gentlemen opposite, with those who calumniated Sir 
 Robert Peel. I recollect, even at the moment when 
 party strife was embittered to the uttermost when 
 men's passions rose high when great disappointment 
 was felt at the course Sir Robert Peel had taken even 
 at that moment there were hon. Gentlemen opposite who 
 continued a general support to his Government, and 
 who never, when they opposed this very Bill, either 
 threw a doubt upon his motives or assailed his integrity. 
 I say, then, that the memory of Sir Robert Peel requires 
 no vindication his memory is embalmed in the grateful 
 recollection of the people of this country ; and I say, if 
 ever retribution is wanted for it is not words that 
 humiliate, but deeds if a man wants to see humilia- 
 tion which, God knows, is always a painful sight he 
 need but look there," and then, suiting the action to 
 the word, Mr. Herbert pointed to the bench on which 
 Mr. Disraeli sat as Chancellor of the Exchequer.* 
 
 The effect was most dramatic. The Liberals cheered ; 
 the Peelites cheered ; the remnant of the Protectionists 
 cheered ; and the followers of Mr. Disraeli himself were 
 painfully dumb. And Mr. Disraeli himself ! all eyes 
 were turned towards him : before him stood the friend 
 of Peel, like the image of Nemesis, proclaiming his 
 shame ; and all around he could hear the cheers that 
 told him of his discovered imposture. These shouts, 
 Ibid. 612-13
 
 MINISTER. 465 
 
 piercing to his inner ear, revealed to him that he stood 
 forth before these men in his true colours vindictive, 
 utterly selfish, wholly unscrupulous, of petty ends and 
 most despicable means a false foe, a falser friend. 
 
 And if he were an ordinary man what images 
 ought Mr. Herbert's speech to have called up before 
 his conscience before which to blush and tremble ! 
 Before his inner eye there ought to have passed the 
 reproachful shade of Peel whom he had stabbed in 
 the back ; the beckoning form of Bentinck pointing 
 to the bond of personal and political fidelity, to 
 which he had a hundred times sworn, and which now 
 he forswore ; and the thousands of hapless farmers 
 whom for years he had encouraged by every art by 
 flattery of their basest passions, and their wildest 
 unreason, by all the resources of his witty, eloquent, 
 luring tongue to support that cause he was now 
 abandoning. Such, I say, would have been the reflec- 
 tions that would have painfully crowded on the mind 
 of any ordinary man, wrung his heart, brought blushes 
 to his cheeks, tears to his eyes. But Mr. Disraeli sat 
 in his seat, unmoved, immovable, without sign of sorrow 
 or shame. In that callous heart these was no room 
 for remorse; in that self-adoring nature there was 
 no place for self-reproach ; that face of brass could 
 betray no shame. This " being, reckless of all things 
 save his own prosperity," could spare no thought for 
 the wrongs of others, living or dead. Their wounded 
 feelings, their betrayed friendship, their deserted interests, 
 added but zest to the cynic adventurer to whom all these 
 
 30
 
 466 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 things had paved the way to fame and power. There 
 he sat Cabinet Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 leader of the House of Commons. Not memories of 
 Peel, or Bentinck, not the angry menace of the farmer, 
 not the flashing words of Herbert, nor the loud shouts 
 of contempt around, could undo that. Never perhaps 
 was Mr. Disraeli's mood more exultant. Let them rave 
 themselves hoarse let them shout at him words of 
 hate, contempt, disgust, high above all their din rose 
 the organ-peal of his own measureless egotism, grati- 
 fied sublimely; in his ears the only notes audible were 
 those that played that sweetest of all melodies that 
 he had reached wealth, power, fame, that he had 
 realized his boyhood's dream, and his life ideal of 
 supreme imposture, supremely successful. 
 
 When the final division came, the Liberals, Peelites, 
 Mr. Disraeli and his friends, all went into the same lobby 
 against Protection, and together made up 468 votes. 
 The minority numbered but 53.* It is not unamusing 
 nor uninstructive to read over the list of this small 
 band, that still remained faithful, when all were faithless, 
 to the cause of Protection. Prominent amon^ them 
 
 o 
 
 are those very men whose vote against Peel, in the 
 division which overthrew that statesman, Mr. Disraeli 
 described with dithyrambic and pathetic eulogy in his 
 life of Lord George Bentinck. Captain Somerset and 
 Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Miles and Mr. Yorke, Mr. Newde- 
 gate and Alderman Thompson, are figures in the pages 
 of Protection's inspired historian, aud are likewise 
 Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 701.
 
 'MINISTER. 467 
 
 among those who found themselves, in the change of the 
 seasons, at the same time the friends of Protection and 
 the enemies of Mr. Disraeli.* How that gentleman, 
 under his impassive exterior, was chuckling from head 
 to foot over their cheated faith and their gloomy faces ! 
 This ragged regiment, this forlorn hope, this dejected 
 and powerless hand, were those he he, the leader of 
 the House had been obliged to grossly flatter a few 
 short years before ! Surely the stars were fighting 
 on Mr. Disraeli's side ! 
 
 So Mr. Disraeli rode triumphant over his first great 
 difficulty; but the moment was close at hand when 
 he would have to fight a sterner battle and less merciful 
 foes. His Budget was looked forward to with intense 
 interest. The report had got abroad he himself being 
 most industrious in circulating it that he had so 
 arranged the finances of the country as to produce a 
 Budget which would silence the groans of the farmers, 
 without raising the ire of the Free Traders. He was, in 
 fact, to come before the House a magician, a heaven- 
 
 * o t 
 
 born financier, who would reconcile the most opposed 
 interests, evoke blessings from his friends, loving em- 
 braces from his foes ; and join all mankind in the 
 bonds of a common love for Mr. Disraeli's finance, 
 and an emulous adoration of Mr. Disraeli himself. 
 
 At last (Dec. 4) the eventful day came. Mr. Disraeli 
 
 took upwards of five hours in expounding his Budget, 
 
 and, although he wearied his audience, produced on the 
 
 whole rather a good effect. His statement was prolix, 
 
 * Ibid. 704.
 
 468 LORD BEACONSfrELD. 
 
 but at the same time clear, and he showed that to some 
 extent he had managed to acquaint himself with the 
 details of the revenue of the country.* 
 
 The Budget may best be described as a compilation 
 of different schemes, which was meant to please all 
 parties. On the one hand, he deserted the Protectionists 
 and conciliated the Free Traders ; and, on the other, 
 abandoned the Free Traders and took up the cause of 
 the Protectionists. With merciless sarcasm he dis- 
 missed many of the grievances of which he had been 
 for many years the loud-mouthed advocate. It will 
 be rememdered that for session after session he had 
 declared that Free Trade had ruined the colonial growers 
 of sugar. With the utmost calmness he now asserted 
 that the colonial grower had no grievance at all ; that, 
 instead of being ruined, the demand for his sugar had 
 been considerably increased, and that he had practically 
 displaced the foreign sugar merchant from the market. 
 And in dealing with this part of his subject, he dismissed 
 his own inconsistency on the question with a jaunty ease 
 which excited loud laughter from the Liberal benches.t 
 
 " It was well done," writes Macaulay, " both as to manner and 
 language. The statement was lucid, though much too long. I could 
 have said the whole as clearly, or more clearly, in two hours; and 
 Disraeli was up five. The plan was nothing but taking money out of 
 the pockets of the people in towns, and putting it into the pockets of 
 growers of malt. I greatly doubt whether he will be able to carry it, 
 but he has raised his reputation for practical ability." TrcvcbjaiCt 
 Life of Macaulay, 2nd ed., ii. 334. 
 
 + Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 847-850. " I may," said Mr. Disraeli, " be 
 called traitor, I may be called renegade ; but I want to know whether 
 there is any gentleman in this House, wherever he may sit, who would 
 recommend a differential duty to prop up a prostrate industry which
 
 MINISTER. 469 
 
 In a similar manner he dealt with the various items 
 of agricultural distress on which he had made number- 
 less motions and speeches as leader of the Protectionists 
 in opposition. The grievances of the land he placed in 
 three categories the highway rate, the county rate, 
 and the poor rate.* The highway rate he practically 
 dismissed in a prospective Act of Parliament, of the 
 provisions of which he was careful to say nothing.f 
 As to the county rate, it was only 800,000, and should 
 be left alone.J The alleged grievance of the poor-rate 
 was even more promptly dismissed. The charge for 
 the poor had decreased by 25 per cent, since 1849. The 
 amount, Mr. Disraeli confessed, amid the loud cheers 
 of the Opposition, which in 1848 was 6,180,000, had 
 fallen in the last return to 4,962,000. As a natural 
 consequence, Mr. Disraeli, of course, was " not prepared 
 to recommend any change in the present system of 
 raising the local taxation of the country." || 
 
 Having thus completely abandoned the ground he 
 had formerly occupied with regard to the Free Traders, 
 he thought it time to say something on behalf of the 
 
 is actually commanding the metropolitan market, under the circum- 
 stances which I have placed before Parliament."- Ibid. 850. Who 
 would think that this gentleman, who assumes this air of sweetly 
 childlike ingenuousness, was the ruthless assailant in the past, whose 
 mouth the words " traitor " and " renegade " always filled, when othel 
 ministers were acting exactly as he was acting now ? 
 
 * Ibid. 855. 
 
 f Ibid. 
 
 j Ibid. 857. Hansard reports that this announcement was received 
 with " sensation." Ibid. 
 
 Ibid. 857-8. 
 
 II Ibid. 861.
 
 470 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 agriculturists. Slily remarking that it was the principle 
 of Free Trade to reduce the taxation on all articles of 
 primary consumption, he proposed to reduce the malt 
 tax by one-half.* Then came the description of the 
 means by which he proposed to made up for the 
 deficiency of two and a half millions which this reduction 
 of the malt tax created. The income tax was brought 
 down to incomes of 100 a year on ordinary and of 
 50 a year on landed property ; f and on the schedules 
 there was an alternative scale of Id. and 5|d. in the 
 pound. J Further, the house tax was made to extend 
 from houses of 20 to those of 10, in addition to which, 
 its amount was doubled. 
 
 After the compliments of the first night on the Un- 
 expected lucidity and sobriety of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer's scheme had passed, the public began to 
 examine his proposals more closely, and scarcely ever 
 was there a Budget against which more damaging 
 charges could be made. In the first place, there was 
 the objection that the reduction of the malt tax, whilst 
 seriously interfering with the revenue, would really 
 confer no practical benefit on the consumer. Then, fault 
 was justly found with the enormous increase of direct 
 taxation, and the blunders in the arrangement of the 
 income tax were shown to be almost inconceivably gross. 
 
 Another of the almost incredible blunders of which 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was guilty was that he 
 put down a sum of 400,000, which was really a debt of 
 
 * Ibid. 865. J Ibid. 888. 
 
 t Ibid. 887. Ibid. 905.
 
 MINISTER. 471 
 
 the State, as being to its credit,* and the result was 
 that whereas he counted on a surplus, he really left 
 a deficiency. This melancholy result was the more 
 remarkable, as, when Mr. Disraeli took the revenues in 
 hand, he had a surplus in his favour. In fact, Mr. 
 Disraeli's Budget was a thoroughly unworkmanlike 
 production, and there was not a financier in the House 
 who had a word to say in its favour. It was criticised 
 with crushing effect by Sir Charles Wood on behalf of 
 the Whigs, by Mr. Cobden as leader of the Free Traders, 
 and by Sir James Graham on the part of the Peelites. 
 The discussion had scarcely begun when it became 
 evident that the faults of the Budget had arrayed 
 against Mr. Disraeli nearly every section of the House. 
 Mr. Disraeli made a characteristic attempt to escape 
 from his impending fate. The first resolution which 
 came before the House on the Budget was that which 
 dealt with the house tax. Mr. Disraeli was several 
 times interrogated as to what would be the result if 
 this resolution were defeated. For a long time he 
 endeavoured so to put the resolution that it would 
 pledge the House to nothing, and so have no effect 
 
 * Mr. Disraeli calculated that he would have a surplus of 400,000. 
 In making out this, he reckoned an exactly similar sum 400,000 
 which he was to receive as repayment of money lent by the State for 
 public works. The State, to lend this money, had first itself to 
 borrow it. When it got back the 400,000, therefore, it simply 
 received from its debtor the sum in which it was indebted to another 
 person. Mr. Disraeli, however, committed the extraordinary error of 
 considering this debt of the State, as a sum to the credit of the State ! 
 (See Mr. Gladstone's speech, Hansard, 3 S. cxxiii. 1234.) What 
 would be thought of a cashier at 30*. a week who committed a similar 
 mistake ?
 
 472 , LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 whatever on the position of the Ministry. He wanted 
 to leave himself quite open to accept the opinion of 
 the House, whatever it might be, whether they 
 should agree with him that the change should be an 
 increase, or demanded that it should be a decrease, 
 or even if they should come to the conclusion that 
 the tax should remain as it was. The Opposition, 
 however, were not to be put off thus. After a hun 
 dred twists and turns, Mr. Disraeli remained pledged 
 to his own proposition of an increased house tax, and 
 on this motion he was also obliged to stake the success 
 or the failure of his whole Budget. 
 
 Brought to bay on the third night of the debate, he 
 sought refuge in violent invective. Unable to answer 
 Sir Charles Wood (now Lord Halifax), he took the 
 trouble to inform that gentleman that " petulance is not 
 sarcasm, and that insolence is not invective." 1 
 
 Turning next on Sir James Graham, whose exposure 
 of his Budget had been equally destructive, he de- 
 scribed him as a man whom " I will not say I greatly 
 respect, but rather whom I greatly regard,"! and finally 
 he attacked his opponents en. masse. 
 
 " Yes I " he exclaimed ; " I know what I have to 
 face. I have to face a coalition. The combination 
 may be successful. A coalition has before this been 
 successful. But coalitions, though successful, have 
 always found this, that their triumph has been brief. 
 This, too, I know, that England does not love coalitions. 
 I appeal from the coalition to that public opinion which 
 Ibid. 1653. f 1M*> 1655-6.
 
 MINISTER. 473 
 
 governs this country to that public opinion whose 
 mild and irresistible influence can control even the 
 decrees of Parliaments, and without whose support the 
 most august and ancient institutions are but ( the base- 
 less fabric of a vision.' " * 
 
 Before I give the crushing the cruelly crushing 
 reply which this speech received, I may draw the 
 reader's attention to the fact that Mr. Disraeli, in 
 declaiming, with such an assumption of sincerity, 
 against coalitions, was denouncing the preaching and 
 practice of his own life. His first political scheme, he 
 himself has told us, was to procure a coalition between 
 the Tories and the Radicals ; and he afterwards tried 
 to bring about a coalition of the Tories with the 
 Chartists. But a more remarkable proof that he did 
 not always regard coalitions with the loathing which 
 he now professed, was supplied by his conduct towards 
 Peel. Peel, it will be remembered, was driven from 
 office on a decisive division, such as that to which 
 Mr. Disraeli was now approaching, by a coalition 
 between the Liberals and the Protectionists. One of 
 the main supporters, if not the very originator, it has 
 been seen, of this momentous coalition, was the very 
 man who was denouncing all coalitions as wicked, 
 unconstitutional, and un-English! It will afterwards, 
 too, be found that Mr. Disraeli made the most success- 
 ful use of coalition ; and on three occasions in succession 
 was raised by coalition to power ! 
 
 After Mr. Disraeli had resumed his seat, Mr. Grlad- 
 Hid. 1065-6.
 
 474 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 stone jumped to his f0et, and a scene of wild excitement 
 ensued. 
 
 " I am reluctant, Mr. Patten," said he, '' to trespass 
 upon the attention of the Committee, but it appears to 
 me that the speech which we have just heard is a speech 
 that ought to meet with a reply, and that, too, on the 
 moment ; and, Sir, I begin by telling the right hon. 
 Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I 
 postpone for some minutes the inquiry whether he 
 knows his business or not, that there are some things 
 which he, too, has yet to learn. There were other rea- 
 sons, besides the reason of triviality and irrelevancy, 
 why a discussion should have been avoided to night by 
 the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of emigration. 
 And I tell the right hon. Gentleman more that the 
 license of language he has used the phrases he has 
 applied to the characters of public men (loud cries of 
 1 Hear, hear ! ') that the phrases he has applied to 
 the characters of public men, whose career (the 
 remainder of the sentence was droimed in renewed cinet 
 from both sides of the House). 
 
 " Mr. Patten, my wish is to keep myself, although 
 I confess that I could not hear those phrases used and 
 remain totally unmoved, my wish is to keep myself 
 strictly within the bounds of Parliamentary order and 
 propriety; and I beg of you, Sir, that if in one syllable 
 I trespass beyond those bounds, you will have tho kind- 
 ness to correct me. I do not address myself to those 
 Gentlemen belonging to the great party opposite, from 
 whom I have never received anything but courtesy and
 
 MINISTER. 475 
 
 forbearance (interruption), but, notwithstanding the 
 efforts of some Gentlemen in a remote corner of the 
 House, who avail themselves of darkness to interrupt 
 me, I will tell them this, that they must bear to have 
 their Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is so free in 
 his comments upon the conduct of others, brought to 
 the bar of the opinion of this Committee, and tried by 
 those laws of decency and propriety (cheers and con- 
 fusion, which drowned the remainder of the sentence}. 
 Sir, we are accustomed here to attach to the words of 
 a Minister of the Crown a great authority and that 
 disposition to attach authority, as it is required by the 
 public interest, so it has been usually justified by the 
 conduct and character of those Ministers ; but I must 
 tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is not entitled 
 to charge with insolence men who (renewed cheers 
 again drowned the remaining icords of the sentence). I 
 must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is not 
 entitled to say to my right hon. Friend the Member 
 for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that he regards him, but 
 that he does not respect him. I must tell the right 
 hon. Gentleman that, whatever he has learned and he 
 has learned much, he has not yet learned the limits 
 of discretion, of moderation, and of forbearance, that 
 ought to restrain the conduct and language of every 
 Member of this House, the disregard of which is an 
 offence in the meanest amongst us, but it is of tenfold 
 weight when committed by the leader of the House 
 of Commons." * 
 
 * Ibid. 1666-7.
 
 476 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Then Mr. Gladstone examined the different proposals 
 of Mr. Disraeli in one of the most masterly speeches 
 which he ever delivered on a financial subject. He 
 tracked the Chancellor of the Exchequer through all 
 the parts of his scheme, exposed blunder after blunder, 
 proved that in many cases the classes whom Mr. Disraeli 
 proposed to serve, his schemes would as a matter of 
 fact deeply injure ; and altogether crushed that hapless 
 gentleman's Budget as completely as a Nasmyth 
 hammer might crush a bandbox. 
 
 When the division came, 286 voted in favour of Mr. 
 Disraeli's proposal, and 305 against, the Government 
 being thus defeated by a majority of 15. A few days 
 afterwards they resigned. 
 
 Thus ended the first Derby-Disraeli Government. It 
 had never perhaps been the misfortune of this country 
 to be ruled by a Ministry more unprincipled, and never 
 perhaps during any period of English history were the 
 dictates of representative and party government, of 
 personal and political consistency and honour, violated so 
 grossly, so openly, and on such a large scale. Coming into 
 office pledged to restore Protection, they at first refused 
 to bring the question before Parliament ; then for 
 months they uttered the most contradictory opinions 
 upon it ; and when the general election came, they 
 allowed their supporters to profess opinions the most 
 opposite on the great and central controversy of the 
 day. Finally, asking the country for a policy, instead 
 of placing one before it, as is the duty o: a parlia- 
 mentary government, they found the tide turn against
 
 MINISTER. 477 
 
 iheir first political principles ; then they abandoned 
 those principles with unblushing readiness, without 
 any apology for past errors, without any repentance 
 for past injustice to the cause and the upholders of 
 Free Trade. To find a similar instance of political 
 tergiversation, we must look to subsequent political 
 developments of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli
 
 478 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 K A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION.** 
 
 LP to the present period, I have been dealing with what 
 may be called Lord Beaconsfield's ancient history. I 
 now come to a period more modern, and therefore less 
 unfamiliar. 
 
 My plan of dealing with my subject, will, therefore, 
 be somewhat altered. I shall, unless when the occasion 
 is very interesting and important, give a rapid and 
 general, instead of a detailed view, of the career I am 
 describing. 
 
 The Government of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli 
 was succeeded by a coalition ministry, which included 
 Peelites and Whigs. The Earl of Aberdeen, the chief 
 of the former party, was made Prime Minister ; Lord 
 John Russell became Foreign, Lord Palmerston Home 
 Secretary ; Mr. Gladstone was made Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer ; and Sir James Graham First Lord of the 
 Admiralty. 
 
 So hopeless was the fiasco in which Mr. Disraeli's 
 first tenure of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer 
 had ended, that for a time it was widely reported that
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 479 
 
 he was about to resign his position and once more take 
 a tour in the East. So loud and persistent did those 
 rumours become, that at last Mr. Disraeli had to 
 instruct the Times to publish an official denial, to the 
 effect that Mr. Disraeli never had less intention than 
 at that particular moment of absenting himself from 
 Parliament. The session had but begun when he 
 made a speech of some two hours' length on our 
 relations with France, strongly advocating a close 
 alliance with the Emperor Napoleon.* Of the re- 
 mainder of his actions during this session of 1853 it 
 is unnecessary to say more than a few words. He 
 joined in the opposition to some of Mr. Gladstone's 
 financial reforms, and in doing so took the opportunity 
 of defending once again the proposals of his own 
 Budget ; f and he asked, in his official capacity as leader 
 of the House of Commons, occasional questions in 
 reference to the rising troubles which culminated in 
 the Crimean war. As yet, however, the clouds were 
 but on the distant horizon : in the next two sessions 
 the quarrel between England and Russia was in full 
 progress ; and the chief point of interest in the conduct 
 of Mr. Disraeli, as in that of all our other statesmen 
 during that period, is in reference to his action on that 
 great conflict. 
 
 During the controversy which took place on the 
 
 Russo-Turkish war, one of the questions most frequently 
 
 and hotly debated was the attitude which should be 
 
 observed by an Opposition in face of a Government 
 
 * Annual Register, xcv. 9 11. f Ibid.
 
 4 8b LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 dealing with supremely important and extremely diffi- 
 cult matters of foreign policy. The doctrine was laid 
 down by some of the more extreme partisans of the 
 Government, that an Opposition should remain abso- 
 lutely dumb, and should agree to everything the 
 Cabinet proposed, without asking for any information 
 as to the facts or the arguments on which the policy 
 was based. The Ministers were not content with re- 
 echoing the words of their rabid admirers : they gave the 
 far more substantial mark of their approval of those 
 views by putting them into practice. They even went 
 further ; for they not only carried the doctrines of their 
 obsequious adherents into realisation, but they pushed 
 those doctrines to lengths which were not dreamt of, 
 even in the philosophy of those admirers. They were 
 not satisfied with thinking that an Opposition ought 
 to support everything a Government does, but they 
 thought an Opposition ought not to be afforded even 
 the opportunity of making a choice ; the most im- 
 portant ministerial acts were all faits accomplis before 
 the Opposition heard anything about them, and con- 
 sequently after their approval or censure could be of 
 any avail. 
 
 Some justification for such conduct was frequently 
 sought in the action of the Opposition during the 
 Crimean war. It was pointed out how, throughout 
 the whole of that terrible crisis in the history of our 
 country, Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli maintained an 
 attitude of the most benevolent, most Christian, most 
 patriotic indulgence to the thousand faults and errors
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 481 
 
 of the Government ; how, when their hearts were filled 
 with patriotic anguish and their tongues barbed with 
 effective epigrams, they, by a mighty effort of self- 
 control, persistently, obstinately, heroically, held their 
 peace. Such is the picture which the Conservative 
 imagination drew of Mr. Disraeli's conduct during the 
 years 1854, 1855, and 1856. I proceed to give a sketch 
 (it can only be a sketch) of what Mr. Disraeli really 
 did say and do : the facts and Conservative imaginings 
 will not be found to completely correspond. 
 
 About three weeks after the assembling of Parlia- 
 ment in 1854, on February 17th, Mr. Layard called 
 attention to the conduct of the Ministry, accusing them 
 of want of vigour in opposing Russia and in defending 
 Turkey.* Sir James Graham, challenging the Oppo- 
 sition to a direct vote of want of confidence, denounced 
 such attacks as weakening the hands of the Govern- 
 ment, f Mr. Disraeli, however, was of quite a different 
 opinion ; strongly supported Mr. Layard, and sharply 
 criticised Sir James Graham.^ A few days afterwards 
 on the 20th, after the adjourned debate had been 
 resumed the leader of the Opposition again joined 
 heartily in the assault on the Ministers. What he 
 
 " Tn the course of this speech Mr. Layai'd " controverted the asser- 
 tion that Turkey was not worth defending, declaring that the Turks 
 had advanced more in fifteen years than the Russians had done in 
 a hundred and fifty, and that the Ottoman empire was rapidly im- 
 proving in wealth and commerce, iu the liberality of its Government, 
 the intelligence of its people, and all other elements of strength." 
 Annual Register, xcvi. 31. 
 
 f Annual Register, xcvi. 33. 
 
 * Ibid. 35-6. 
 
 31
 
 482 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 most objected to was that, owing to the reticence of 
 the Government, the country did not know what it was 
 really going to war about.* He also, like Mr. Layard, 
 was shocked at what he considered some signs of luke- 
 warmness in the love of the Ministry for the Turks. 
 To him it appeared a matter of bitter complaint that 
 the Turks should be " lectured " on the " necessity for 
 internal and commercial reform." This amounted to a 
 " hint that the Porte should comply with the demands 
 of Russia " : the Government interfered, in fact, with 
 " the independence of the Porte " "by the insolent 
 character of their friendly dictation." f Reviewing the 
 entire conduct of the Ministry, he declared it to have 
 been influenced throughout by " credulity or conni- 
 vance ; " \ and before he sat down, he expressed him- 
 self shocked by a declaration of Mr. Gladstone that 
 " the condition of Turkey was full of anxiety, misery, 
 and perplexity." 
 
 By March it had become evident that a conflict 
 with Russia was inevitable; and, in fact, on the 22nd 
 of that month the Queen sent a message to both 
 Houses containing a declaration of war. On March 21, 
 that is to say, on the very day previous to this declara- 
 tion, it was the duty of Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, to propose to the House a resolution for 
 
 * <; Mr. Disraeli .... commenced his speech by saying that the 
 people of this country should not, as in the last great European war. 
 be ignorant why they were going to war, believing that a full know- 
 ledge upon the subject would dispose them to bear the necessary 
 burdens more willingly." Annual Itegister, xcvi. 39. 
 
 f Ibid. 40. \ Ibid. Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 483 
 
 doubling the income tax. Mr. Gladstone further asked 
 that the doubled income tax should in the first instance 
 be levied for only six months of the coming financial year 
 To this proposal Sir Henry Willoughby submitted an 
 amendment, the effect of which would be to extend the 
 raising of the additional tax over the whole year in place 
 ef the first six months. Mr. Disraeli gave to this attack 
 upon the financial proposals of the Government a most 
 vehement support ; and he took an opportunity to pass 
 upon the Government a general and scathing indict- 
 ment. He declared that the war was simply a creation 
 of divided opinions in the Cabinet; and he described 
 the conduct of the Government as marked " by vacil- 
 lation, by perplexity, by fitfulness, by timidity, and by 
 occasional violence." * 
 
 " It is," he exclaimed, " a coalition war. (Cheers.) 
 Rival opinions, contrary politics, and discordant systems 
 have produced that vacillation and perplexity, that at 
 last you are going to war with an opponent who does 
 not want to fight, and you are unwilling to encounter 
 him. (Cheers.) What a mess for a great country ! 
 (Cheers.) And this brought about by the splendid 
 
 administrative talents of the gentlemen opposite 
 
 The financial faux pas of the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer may soon be forgotten, and even forgiven. 
 What is the value of his conversion scheme .... to 
 this terrible prospect of war, brought about by the 
 combination of geniuses opposite me, and brought 
 about absolutely by the amount of their talents and 
 * Annual Eegister, xcvi. 164.
 
 484 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 the discordancy of their opinions? (Cheers and 
 laughter.) " * 
 
 But the most remarkable feature of the speech was 
 that, while thus drawing a picture of the enormous task 
 on which the Government had entered, and their equally 
 enormous incapacity for conducting it properly, he 
 declined to place before the House a vote of no con- 
 fidence in them. 
 
 " I tell them again," he says, endeavouring to escape 
 from the difficulty by a dexterous play upon words, 
 a play upon words in the midst of a stupendous national 
 crisis! "I tell them again, I will not propose a vote 
 of no confidence in men who prove to me every hour 
 that they have no confidence in each other." f 
 
 Next, having declared that he had " tried " the 
 Government upon the greatest of all questions the 
 question of peace or war he declared he would try 
 them upon other questions "almost equally great." 
 Then he went on to denounce their conduct in not 
 carrying out their intention of dealing with the question 
 of reforming the franchise. \ In fact, there never was 
 a more slashing or more contemptuous attack made 
 
 Ibid. 165. 
 
 f Ibid. Mr. Gladstone gave a splendid retort to this flimsy pre- 
 tence : " Ought a vote of want of confidence to be spared on the 
 ground that ministers hare ' no confidence in each other ' ? " the 
 strongest conceivable reason for moving such a vote. " I tell the 
 right hon. Gentleman this, that if I had possessed his great powers 
 of oratory, and had held his position in this House, I would rather 
 have forfeited both than, after making such an elaborate argument* 
 have conducted it to such a recreant conclusion." Tbid. 166. 
 
 t Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 485 
 
 upon the Ministry than that made by Mr. Disraeli on 
 the very morning of the day for Mr. Disraeli's speech 
 did not conclude till after midnight,* on which the 
 greatest English war of our time was declared. 
 
 On May 31, when the House met to agree upon a 
 reply to the royal declaration of war, Mr. Disraeli was 
 careful, while admitting the prerogative of the Crown to 
 declare war, and while describing the time as inoppor- 
 tune for entering into matters of policy, to again make 
 a general attack upon the Government, and especially 
 upon Lord Aberdeen, its head.f And the hostility to 
 Mr. Gladstone's financial proposals was continued by 
 Mr. Disraeli and his followers with almost uninterrupted 
 persistence until all these proposals had been disposed of. 
 
 On May 15, Mr. Wilson, on behalf of Mr. Gladstone, 
 who was absent on account of a domestic affliction, 
 proposed an increase of the malt tax from 2s. $d. to 
 4s. Mr. Cay ley's amendment that the Bill should be 
 read a second time that day six months was supported 
 by all the eloquence of the Opposition. Sir Edward 
 Bulwer Lytton made a dashing speech. Sir John 
 Pakington backed him up, and there were besides 
 orations from the minor luminaries of the Tory party. 
 This attack upon the Government at such a crisis was 
 so keen as to call forth a sharp rebuke from Mr. 
 Drummond, a very able, though eccentric member of 
 the Conservative party, who declared that the Opposi- 
 tion, while it approved of the war, now " wanted to 
 shrink from the realities." " The Opposition," he con- 
 Ibid. 166. t -W*. 67.
 
 486 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 tinned, " would lead the Minister into a mess, bnt would 
 never get him out of it.* And Lord John Russell, too, 
 denounced this unwillingness to supply the Government 
 with the means of carrying on the war at the same time 
 that the Opposition professed to consider the war just 
 and necessary. 
 
 " Don't tell me,'* said Lord John, " that the landed 
 interests cannot bear I5d. additional duty upon malt. 
 Tell me . . . that you are in favour of the war, that 
 you are ready to vote increases to the army and 
 to the navy, but that you are not ready to pay the 
 necessary taxes to defray the expenses. Tell me that 
 you shrink from the unpopularity which belongs to any 
 proposal to lay considerable burdens on the country. 
 (' Oh, oh I 'from the Opposition.} " t 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was prompt in defending his friends 
 from this attack, and he denounced as an extremely 
 dangerous doctrine of finance " that the Opposition, if 
 they approved the war, were bound to vote for any 
 proposal for a new tax without criticism or cavil." J It 
 appeared to him, on the contrary, that the more dis- 
 cussion there was the better ; and that the sight of 
 those differences of opinion, instend of weakening the 
 authority of the country in the eyes of her " Imperial 
 foe," would rather, tend to give it strength. 
 
 * Ibid. 182. 
 
 t Ibid. 183. 
 
 J Ibid. 184. 
 
 Ibid. 185. " In my opinion," he said, "it is better tnat our foe 
 should see that Boms so vast as these ^greater than those furnished 
 by the largest provincea of onr Imperial foe should be frankly dia-
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 487 
 
 Again, on May 22, when Mr. Gladstone proposed 
 the raising of 2,000,000 by Exchequer bonds, un 
 amendment of Mr. Baring was supported by Mr. Disraeli 
 in an extremely bitter speech against the Government 
 generally, and Mr. Gladstone personally.* 
 
 Immediately after this came another and more bitter 
 and more unexpected attack on the Ministry. On the 
 29th of May the Attorney-General announced the with- 
 drawal of the Canterbury Bribery Prevention Bill. 
 This was but one of the many measures the Ministry 
 were compelled to abandon after their introduction. 
 The absorbing importance of foreign affairs, the over- 
 whelming interest of a great war, left little time and 
 less inclination for the discussion of domestic questions. 
 The ill-success of the Ministry with their measures was 
 due to their refusal to accept facts, and to their en- 
 deavour to be as legislatively active in the midst of 
 a gigantic conflict as might have been possible in days 
 of peace. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli took advantage of the Attorney-General's 
 simple announcement to make the liveliest and perhaps 
 most bitter attack he had yet delivered against the 
 Ministry. The indictment came evidently upon the 
 
 cussed ; in my opinion it is better, rather than see sums given in the 
 churlish, undignified, and unmannerly manner in which the Govern- 
 ment attempts to filch this measure, that our foes should see that 
 we exercise our functions as representatives of the people, and that, 
 while prepared to support even a Government to which we are 
 opposed, we will to the utmost do our duty to our constituencies, 
 to see that the ways and means may be adjusted according to tho 
 principles of eternal justice." 
 * Ibid. 187-8.
 
 488 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 House as a surprise, for the occasion did not seem to 
 invite any such action. In other words, Mr. Disraeli, in 
 assailing the Government, did not take advantage of a 
 favourable and natural opportunity, but he actually was 
 so anxious to deliver his soul of his complaint that he 
 sought an opportunity, and was careless of the fact that 
 the mode and period of his attack were both unusual. 
 Enumerating with skill the list of the Bills which tho 
 Ministry had brought in and had afterwards abandoned, 
 he repeated his sarcasm upon the incapacity of the 
 Government "administered by men remarkably dis- 
 tinguished for ability " (laughter) " men," he went 
 on, " who have made enormous sacrifices for their 
 country, and for themselves (great laughter and 
 much cheering)."* 
 
 He next proceeded to make a personal attack upon 
 Lord John Russell, and to accuse him of having, in his 
 eagerness for fame, formed a coalition with those to 
 whom he had been bitterly opposed during his entire 
 career.f 
 
 Lord John Russell was provoked into a bitter reply 
 by this unexpected assault, and pointed out how Mr. 
 Disraeli was seeking for an opportunity to embarrass 
 the Government. He alluded to the reiterated hostility 
 shown to the measures which Mr. Gladstone proposed 
 
 * Annual Register, xcvi. 126. 
 
 f " No man," said Mr. Disraeli, " has made greater sacrifices than 
 the noble Lord." (Laughter.) " He has thrown overboard all his 
 friends and colleagues, and has connected himself with a coterie of 
 public men who have passed a great part of their lives in depre- 
 ciating the abilities of the noble I^ord and running down his eminent 
 career. (Loud laughter and ironical cheers.)" Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 489 
 
 for supplying the ways and means, and he wound up 
 with a very severe attack upon Mr. Disraeli's action 
 in reference to the Bill for admitting the Jews to 
 Parliament. This part of Lord John Russell's speech 
 led to a good deal of recrimination, but as he seems to 
 have laboured under a mistake I need not dwell upon 
 it.* 
 
 The moment Lord John sat down Mr. Disraeli once 
 more stood up and renewed with even greater vehemence 
 his previous attack. He accused the Government 
 of clinging to office notwithstanding their failure to 
 carry so many of their measures ; corrected his former 
 statement that they had been guilty of " credulity or 
 connivance " by saying that he thought they were now 
 guilty of " connivance and credulity ;" and wound up 
 by repeating his charge against Lord John Russell of 
 joining with former foes for the mere purpose of holding 
 office.! 
 
 So ferocious was this attack that Colonel, after- 
 wards General Peel, one of the most respectable of 
 Mr. Disraeli's own supporters, intervened, and de- 
 nounced moderately, but effectively, such an un- 
 patriotic attempt to bring the Government into 
 ridicule. $ 
 
 Thus I have shown that Mr. Disraeli in this session 
 
 * Ibid. 127-8. 
 
 f Ibid. 128-30. 
 
 J Colonel Peel said: " Though perfectly free and unbiassed by party 
 feeling, he entertained Conservative opinions which rendered it im- 
 possible for him to give his support to the present Government, but 
 still he would never be a party to such attacks as that which had 
 been made upon the noble Lord to-night. Such attacks only tended
 
 490 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of 1854, in place of avoiding any embarrassment of the 
 Government, seized every single opportunity of making 
 the most vehement and bitter attacks upon them. 
 And this, be it remembered, although he practically 
 agreed that the war they waged was a just war. 
 
 On but one other of the questions discussed during 
 this session is it necessary for me to take any notice of 
 Mr. Disraeli's action. Among the Bills introduced by 
 Lord John Russell was one for a change in the oaths 
 required of Members of Parliament on taking their 
 seats in the House. The Bill contained one clause 
 the fifth which would have enabled Jews to sit in Par- 
 liament without taking a Christian oath. But besides 
 this, there were other clauses which relieved Roman 
 Catholics from swearing to declarations offensive to 
 their religious feelings. The fifth clause was the one 
 most obnoxious to the Tory party. It was bitterly 
 opposed by Lord Derby. Sir Frederick Thesiger 
 proposed the rejection of the measure in the House 
 of Commons, and the main body of the Tory party 
 backed up the opposition. Mr. Disraeli, in order to 
 throw a sop to the wretched bigotry of his partisans, 
 actually condescended to oppose the Bill ; offering the 
 paltry and false excuse that, because it released the 
 
 to weaken the Government in carrying on a war which he cordially 
 approved, and, so far from believing the Government had been guilty 
 either of credulity, connivance, or collusion, he gave them his entire 
 support in everything they had done in connection with the war; 
 and both with regard to their financial measures and every ojher 
 arrangement, they might rely upon every assistance he could render 
 them." Hansard, 3 S. cxxxiii. 1093.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 491 
 
 Koman Catholics from offensive and futile oaths, it 
 endangered the security of the Protestant religion. 
 
 Parliament, which had been prorogued in August, 
 was suddenly called together on December 12, but 
 it is not necessary to say much of Mr. Disraelrs 
 action during the fortnight of its sitting. The 
 leaders of the Opposition moved no amendment to 
 the address, and professed a strong desire to do or 
 say nothing which might give an appearance of a 
 want of unanimity. This did not prevent both Lord 
 Derby and Mr. Disraeli, however, from entering into 
 a very detailed criticism of the whole conduct ef the 
 Government. So violent, indeed, was Mr. Disraeli's 
 attack that it provoked from Lord John Russell the 
 statement that the speech did not contain " a germ of 
 patriotism." * 
 
 When Parliament reassembled in 1855, the Oppo- 
 sition followed exactly the same tactics, and they were 
 unexpectedly placed in a position to do so more effec- 
 tively. The blame for the terrible blunders which had 
 
 * In the course of this speech, Mr. Disraeli was imprudent enough 
 to say the least of it to rake up the attacks which Sir James Graham 
 and Sir Charles Wood made upon the Emperor Napoleon, who was 
 then, as is known, the ally of England in carrying on the war against 
 Russia ; and he said the Emperor's joining with us so zealously, after 
 these attacks, in the war was a proof of the " generosity of that great 
 man." Annual Regster^cvi. 228. It was probably the evil effect tins 
 re-opening of old sores might have that prompted Lord John Russell's 
 rejoinder. In the course of this speech also, Mr. Disraeli, in referring 
 to an attack made before by Mr. Layard on the Ministry, described 
 that gentleman as "a man of genius, who would be remembered 
 when the greater portion of the existing Cabinet were forgotten." 
 Hid. 227.
 
 492 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 been committed in the management of the army had 
 been laid, by the popular voice, chiefly on the shoulders 
 of the Duke of Newcastle, the Minister for War. Lord 
 John Russell, accepting this view, proposed to Lord 
 Aberdeen that the Duke should be replaced by Lord 
 Palmerston. The proposition was apparently staved 
 off. As soon as the House of Commons met, Mr. 
 Koebuck gave voice to the popular outcry against the 
 administration of the army by proposing a committee 
 of inquiry. Lord John Russell thereupon resigned, de- 
 claring that he could not resist such a proposal. Mr. 
 Disraeli supported Mr. Roebuck's motion, and joined 
 in the attack upon the Duke of Newcastle, at the same 
 time declaring that the whole of the Government was 
 responsible for the blunders of the war.* And then 
 he denounced Lord John Russell's proposal that the 
 Duke of Newcastle should be succeeded by Lord 
 Palmerston as Minister for War as "profligate in- 
 trigue," t and he concluded by saying that he had no 
 confidence whatever in the existing Administration. \ 
 
 Mr. Roebuck's motion, as is known, was carried by 
 a majority of 157 against the Ministry, and then Lord 
 Derby, among other persons, was asked to attempt the 
 formation of a new administration. It is not uninterest- 
 . ing to know that for some time there was supposed to 
 be a possibility of a coalition Ministry, with Lord 
 Derby, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. 
 Disraeli among its members. The proposal, however, 
 did not succeed, because of the refusal both of Lord 
 Ibid, xcvii. 1719. t Ibid. \ Ibid. 18.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 493 
 
 Palmerston and Mr. Gladstone to accept office under 
 Lord Derby. But it is not a little remarkable that 
 these proposals for forming a coalition should conie 
 from those men who had spent years in denouncing a 
 coalition which had overthrown their own Ministry, 
 and which was the basis of the Government of Lord 
 Aberdeen. Another interesting circumstance in con- 
 nection with these negotiations is, that if they had 
 succeeded, Mr. Disraeli would probably never have 
 reached to the commanding position he afterwards 
 attained. One of the conditions which Lord Derby 
 offered as an inducement to Lord Palmerston to accept 
 his proposal was that he should be the leader of the 
 Ministry in the House of Commons. That, of course, 
 implied the dethronement of Mr. Disraeli from the 
 position of the first Conservative spokesman ; and Mr. 
 Disraeli, according to Lord Derby, professed himself 
 quite willing to accept such an arrangement.* Finally, 
 the negotiations for the formation of a new Govern- 
 ment in which Lord John Russell and Lord Granville 
 as well as the Earl of Derby had been engaged, issued 
 in the formation of a Ministry under Lord Palmerston. 
 To the new administration Mr. Disraeli was not more 
 sparing than to that which had gone before. Lord 
 
 * " I was enabled," said Lord Derby, " by an act of self-abnegation 
 and forbearance, for which I think my right hon. Friend deserves the 
 highest credit, to state, upon the part of my right hon. Friend Mr. 
 Disraeli, that with regard to the lead in the House of Commons, with 
 which he had been honoured upon a former occasion, in the presence 
 of the noble Viscount he would waive all claim to that position, and 
 would willingly act under the direction of a statesman of the noble 
 Viscount's ability and experience." Ibid. 34.
 
 494 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Pultnerston, on entering on office, accepted the Com- 
 mittee of Investigation proposed by Mr. Roebuck, and 
 this step resulted in the resignation of Mr. Gladstone, 
 Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Mr. 
 Disraeli took advantage of this circumstance to make 
 a general attack on the Government; and thus, curi- 
 ously enough, although Mr. Disraeli had been willing 
 to join an administration with Lord Palmerston as one 
 of the leading Ministers, and as his own chief in the 
 House of Commons, Lord Palmerston, just after he 
 had taken office, was denounced by Mr. Disraeli with 
 as much bitterness as his predecessors in power.* 
 
 In the course of this session, as everybody knows, 
 negotiations were entered upon in Vienna for the 
 purpose of seeing whether the war could be brought 
 to a conclusion or not, Lord John Russell being the 
 English representative at these conferences. The last 
 formal sitting of this Congress took place on the 26th 
 April. The public, however, were left uncertain as to 
 whether this was to be considered the conclusion of its 
 sittings, and, therefore, the termination of an attempt 
 to put an end to hostilities, or whether the Congress 
 was to be regarded as merely suspended, and negoti- 
 ations for peace were still to go on. By the beginning 
 of May Lord John Russell had returned to London, 
 and questions immediately began to be asked in the 
 House as to what was the real state of the negotiations 
 in which he had taken such a prominent part. This 
 
 "He" Mr. Disraeli "commented with great severity on the 
 conduct and inconsistencies of Lord Palmereton." Ibid. 53.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 495 
 
 epbeh in the war produced two motions hostile to the 
 Government from two different quarters. On the one 
 hand there was a motion of Mr. Milner Gibson on 
 behalf of the peace party, which condemned the Govern- 
 ment for not being sufficiently zealous in their endea- 
 vours to put an end to hostilities. On the other hand, 
 Mr. Austin Layard, making himself the spokesman of 
 the Turcophile party, proposed a resolution intended 
 to force the Government into demanding large terms 
 from Russia. 
 
 It was on the llth May that Mr. Milner Gibson gave 
 notice of bis motion, while Mr. Austin Layard had 
 placed his resolution on the table on the 27th April 
 previously. Monday, May 21, was fixed for the dis- 
 cussion of one of those motions, and the House was 
 crowded with members anxious to know what answer 
 the Government were really prepared to make as to 
 the important question whether all hope of a peaceful 
 settlement was abandoned. Lord Palmerston, in reply 
 to several questions, stated that the Vienna Conference 
 was suspended but not closed; that the Government 
 did not consider the means of pacification exhausted ; 
 that Austria was still furnished with the means of 
 bringing about a peace, and that any propositions of 
 Russia made through Austria would receive favourable 
 consideration.* Mr. Gladstone, who at this period 
 was of opinion that hostilities had gone on quite 
 long enough, was satisfied with those answers, and 
 thought they offered such fair hopes of return 
 * Ibid. 107.
 
 496 LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 of peace, that he urged Mr. Milner Gibson to with- 
 draw his motion. Mr. Disraeli, on the other hand, 
 remained dissatisfied with the explanations of the 
 Government, and demanded a more explicit statement 
 from Lord Palmerston, declaring that the secrecy 
 which the Premier maintained was meant to cover 
 " mysterious and sinister operations " of his own.* 
 Lord Palmerston pointed out the inconvenience of any 
 farther discussion at a moment when negotiations for 
 peace could still be regarded as actually going on, and 
 Lord John Russell stood up to confirm the Prime 
 Minister's representation as to the Congress being sus- 
 pended and not closed, and as to there still being room 
 for the hope that peace might be restored by negotia- 
 tions. Mr. Disraeli, however, was not to be deterred by 
 any of these considerations from making an attack upon 
 the Government. When Mr. Milner Gibson, in reply 
 to the appeals of Mr. Gladstone, consented to postpone 
 his motion until after the Whitsuntide recess, Mr. 
 Disraeli at once stepped into the breach, declaring that 
 he could not allow the House to break up without 
 some further explanations. Accordingly he gave notice 
 of a resolution condemning " the ambiguous language 
 and uncertain conduct of Her Majesty's Government in 
 reference to the great question of peace or war." f Iu 
 defence of this extraordinary conduct, he declared that 
 the time for forbearance and silence had passed. "The 
 silence of the House/' he said, "in 1853 had lowered 
 
 * Ibid. 107. 
 t Ibid. 108.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 497 
 
 its character, and had not /assisted in the preservation 
 of peace."* 
 
 . On the 24th May, then, Mr. Disraeli moved his 
 resolution; and in supporting this motion he attacked 
 Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell with the 
 greatest bitterness. f A long debate ensued, and 
 the strength of the disapproval with which his propo- 
 sition was received will be estimated from the fact that 
 it was rejected by a majority of 100: the numbers 
 being 319 to 219. } 
 
 Subsequently to this, Lord John Russell fell into 
 disrepute on account of discrepancies between his ex- 
 planations in Parliament, and his conduct in Vienna. 
 In all the violent attacks made upon him, Mr. Disraeli 
 took a prominent part; and on July 16th, when Lord 
 John Russell announced his resignation, Mr. Disraeli 
 assailed a speech of Lord Palmerston on the occasion 
 as "reckless rhodoinontade," and as "the patrician 
 bullying of the Treasury Bench." || It was not fit, he 
 said, that Lord Palmerston should attempt to stop dis- 
 cussions by language which he would not use an unpar- 
 
 * Ibid. 108-9. 
 
 t Ibid. 109111. 
 
 J Mr. Disraeli's chief objection to the despatch of Lord John 
 Russell as our plenipotentiary to the Vienna Conference was that 
 that statesman was pledged to bitterly anti-Eussian views. He 
 quoted the various speeches which Lord John Russell had made in 
 favour of a decisive struggle with Russia, and also the disrespectful 
 terms in which he had spoken of the Emperor of Russia personally ; 
 concluding with the remark, " This was the dove sent out upon the 
 troubled waters." Ibid. 110. 
 
 IMd.lM. 
 
 II Ibid. 169. 
 
 32
 
 498 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 liamentary epithet to describe, but not language which 
 he expected " from one who is not only the leader of 
 the House of Commons which is an accident of life 
 but who is also a gentleman. (Great cheering.)"* And 
 he wound up by declaring that Lord Palmerston had 
 shown that night, " by his language and by the tone 
 of his mind, that if the honour and interests of the 
 country be any longer entrusted to his care, the first 
 will be degraded and the last will be betrayed. (Loud 
 cheers.) " f 
 
 The vote of censure on Lord Palmerston which Mr. 
 Disraeli introduced gave rise to several amendments. 
 Thus his motion led to lengthy discussions and several 
 divisions, and it was not until June 8th that the matter 
 was disposed of. The Government were supported by 
 a large majority of the House, but they found bitter 
 opponents in Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, and the peace 
 party generally, and in Mr. Disraeli and his adherents. 
 There is, let me remark parenthetically, a wide distinc- 
 tion between the opposition of the former and of Mr. 
 Disraeli. The peace party regarded the time as already 
 arrived for bringing the war to a conclusion, and, 
 therefore, were justified in endeavouring to prevent 
 the Government from continuing it. But between 
 Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerstou there was really no 
 essential difference of policy, for the Prime Minister 
 was quite as Russophobist as the leader of the Oppo-i- 
 tion, and, therefore, the charge of unfairly embarrassing 
 the Government is justifiable against Mr. Disraeli, 
 Ibid. 159-60. t Mid- 160.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 499 
 
 though it may not be against Messrs. Bright and 
 Cobden. 
 
 It was on the 8th June, i have said, that the 
 debates and attacks upon the Government, to which 
 Mr. Disraeli gave rise, were concluded. On the 
 following day, and, therefore, without any doubt in 
 reference to the conduct of the Opposition and of 
 Mr. Disraeli, the Prince Consort made his memorable 
 speech at the Trinity House dinner, that speech in 
 which Constitutional Government was said to be on 
 its trial, and the efforts to impede the Ministry in the 
 midst of their enormous responsibilities were criticised 
 as bitterly as the position of the speaker would permit.* 
 
 * He said, " If ever there was a time when the Queen's Govern- 
 ment, by whomsoever conducted, required the support, ay. not the 
 support alone, but the confidence, goodwill, and sympathy of their 
 fellow-countrymen, it is the present. It is not the way to success in 
 war to support it, however ardently and energetically, and to run 
 clown and weaken those who have to conduct it. We are engaged 
 with a mighty adversary, who uses against us all those wonderful 
 powers which have sprung up under the generating influence of our 
 liberty and our civilization, and employs them with all the force 
 which unity of purpose and action, impenetrable secrecy, and uncon- 
 trolled despotic power give him ; whilst we have to meet him under a 
 state of things intended for peace and the promotion of that very civili- 
 zation, a civilization the offspring of public discussion, the friction of 
 parties, and popular control over the government of the State. The 
 Queen has no power to levy troops, and none at her command, except 
 such as voluntarily offer their services. Her Government can enter- 
 tain no measures for the prosecution of the war without having 
 to explain them publicly in Parliament ; her armies and fleets can 
 make no movement, nor even prepare for any, without its being 
 proclaimed by the press ; and no mistake, however trifling, can 
 occur, no weakness exist, which it may be of the utmost importance 
 to conceal from the world, without its being publicly denounced, 
 and even frequently exaggerated, with a morbid satisfaction. The
 
 500 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Notwithstanding this rebuke from so high a quarter, 
 Mr. Disraeli joined heartily in the next onslaught upon 
 the Government. On July 17th Mr. Roebuck proposed 
 a motion founded on the report of the Sebastopol 
 Committee. The motion attributed the sufferings of 
 the army during the previous winter in the Crimea 
 chiefly to tho then Cabin et, and declared every 
 member of that Cabinet, whose counsels led to such 
 disastrous results, worthy of " severe reprehension." * 
 
 The Aberdeen Cabinet was that, as the reader 
 knows, alluded to. Now, Lord Palmerston and nearly 
 all his colleagues had been members of the Aberdeen 
 Cabinet ; and such a motion, accordingly, amounted to 
 a vote of want of confidence in the existing Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Whatever view we take of Lord Palmerston and his 
 policy, such a motion at such a time can only be 
 regarded as unwise and unjust, inopportune and 
 unpatriotic. The mistakes which it condemned were 
 past and gone, and the Ministers Lord Aberdeen and 
 
 Queen's ambassadors can carry on no negotiation which has not to 
 be publicly defended by entering into all the arguments which a 
 negotiator, to have success, must be able to shut up in the innermost 
 recesses of his heart nay, at the most critical moment, when the 
 complications of military measures and diplomatic negotiations may 
 be at their height, an adverse vote in Parliament may of a sudden 
 deprive her of all her confidential servants. Gentlemen, consti- 
 tutional government is under a heavy trial, and can only pass 
 triumphantly through it if the country will grant its confidence a 
 patriotic, indulgent, and self-denying confidence to Her Majesty'g 
 Government. Without this all their labours must be in vain." 
 Irriruj, 20fi. 
 * Annual Register, xcvii. 161.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 501 
 
 the Duke of Newcastle, who were chiefly responsible 
 had been sacrificed. Lord Palmerston could scarcely be 
 held responsible; and even if he could, he was now in 
 the middle of a difficult and momentous struggle, and 
 it was unfair to impede his course by those references 
 to a dead past. This was the view taken by two of 
 the most distinguished members of the Conservative 
 party, and so strong was the feeling of these men upon 
 the subject that they personally came forward to the 
 defence of the Government by proposing the previous 
 question. The mover of this amendment in favour of 
 the Ministry was General Peel, afterwards the colleague 
 of Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Robert Cecil, who is now 
 known as the Marquis of Salisbury.* General Peel 
 denounced the interference of the House with the 
 Government, and Lord Robert Cecil characterised 
 Mr. Roebuck's motion as wearing " the aspect of acri- 
 monious and vindictive personality/' t Mr. Disraeli, 
 however, strongly supported Mr. Roebuck's motion. 
 
 I have now traced Mr. Disraeli's action through tiie 
 whole Crimean war, and I have proved that he did not 
 display that forbearance towards the Government which 
 was claimed by his adherents during his own tenure 
 of office, and which, in the imaginary history of past 
 transactions supplied by Tory speakers, he was credited 
 with having shown. I have proved that on every single 
 occasion on which an attack was possible upon the 
 Government, he was among the foremost assailants. I 
 have shown that he proposed a vote of censure himself, 
 Ibid. 162. t Ibid.
 
 502 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and supported every vote of censure that came from 
 anybody else; and I have proved that all these 
 motions he backed up with the most violent language. 
 Having now laid the facts before the reader, I consider 
 all further comment unnecessary. 
 
 The session of 1856 was not very important. The 
 affairs of Italy were discussed more than once, and the 
 encouragement which Lord Palmerston evidently was 
 inclined to give Sardinia in endeavouring to unite that 
 distracted country, was denounced by the Conservative 
 leaders, and by none more vigorously than by Mr. 
 Disraeli. In the course of one of his speeches he 
 again attributed the attempts at Italian unity to 
 secret societies ; * and denounced English interference 
 with Italian affairs as more likely to produce a worse 
 state of things than before. On a previous occasion, 
 when the estimates were being discussed, he had 
 expressed similar views with regard to Italy, strongly 
 condemning any encouragement of Sardinia for de- 
 stroying Austrian authority in the Peniusula,f and 
 he suggested no readier remedy for the evils of the 
 country than the action of time.J 
 
 At the close of the session, in giving an elabo- 
 rate view of what had taken place, he made one 
 statement in particular which subsequent events 
 make interesting. Defining the difference between 
 Conservative and Liberal principles, he declared him- 
 
 Ibid, xcviii. 81. 
 f Ibid. 162. 
 
 * Ibid. 153.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 503 
 
 self as a Conservative strongly against any further 
 reduction of the franchise.* 
 
 The session of 1857 found Lord Palruerston involved 
 in a war both with Persia and China. In the 
 debate on the Address, Mr. Disraeli delivered a very 
 remarkable speech on this state of circumstances. 
 He denounced in strong terms the whole foreign policy 
 of the Prime Minister. "Now, Sir/' he said, sum- 
 marising its effect, ( ' it is a very remarkable fact that 
 there is always a difficulty in our foreign affairs." f 
 
 He went in detail through every part of the 
 policy he attacked, and found justification everywhere 
 for such a judgment. He denied the right of Lord 
 Palmerston to interfere in Italy, especially as he 
 accused him of having made a secret treaty, the effect 
 of which was to guarantee to Austria all her posses- 
 sions. He was utterly shocked by this secret treaty. 
 It was a "ruinous imposture on the credulity of the 
 country." J He passed in review our relations with 
 Russia, and denounced in strong terms the Russo- 
 phobia of Lord Palmerston. He described the efforts 
 of the Minister to rouse a belligerent feeling against a 
 country which meant no offence against us, and which 
 was desirous of peace for the very good reason that 
 
 * " I hold," said he, " that to be a Conservative principle which 
 regards the Parliamentary settlement of 1832 as a satisfactory settle- 
 ment. I hold that to be a Conservative principle which, without any 
 blind or bigoted adherence to the doctrine on all possible occasions, 
 believes that tampering with the suffrage is a great evil to the State." 
 Ibid. 203-4. 
 
 t Hansard, 3 S. cxliv. 113. 
 
 \ Ibid. Ill
 
 504 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 she was too exhausted to fight. Any difficulty that 
 existed between us and that country he ascribed to 
 blunders of Lord Clarendon at the Paris Congress; 
 and he condemned with indignation the attempt to 
 cover such a blunder by exciting ill-feeling between 
 the two countries.* He scoffed at the charge of 
 
 * Mr. Disraeli first described Lord Clarendon being sent as a 
 Plenipotentiary to Paris, in place of leaving our representation at 
 the Congress to our Minister at Paris. " You would not even trust 
 yonr Ambassador in Paris, . . . one of the leading members of the 
 Cabinet, one of the principal Ministers of the Queen, should himself 
 proceed to Paris to do that which you were determined to achieve. 
 Well, he does go, and commits this awful mistake, which not being 
 discovered at the time, he returns to this country with great honour, 
 crowned with laurels." He then proceeded : " The mistake, of 
 course, is at length discovered in the most natural manner possible 
 namely, by your late foes, to whom rights had been given by the 
 treaty, asserting their rights ; and instead of at once turning round 
 and saying, ' Oh, there has been a mistake :' the people of England 
 can never be satisfied with this arrangement ; let us understand each 
 other, ... in a most conciliatory manner, and carry out our real in- 
 tentioninstead of that^ every means are used to lash up the passions 
 of the people of England. You are made to suppose that . . . our 
 late foe . . . had absolutely endeavoured to defraud us of the legitimate 
 consequences of our hard-earned victory, and in order that there 
 should be no want of enthusiasm, and that the public should be 
 prepared to enter into a renewed contest with Russia this exhausted 
 Russia, which was quite determined not to fight upon the question 
 the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) goes down himself to the great 
 capital of industry, peace, and cotton, harangues some of the most 
 eminent members, I believe, of the Peace Society. . . . ' I will have 
 no compromise,' said the First Minister of the Crown ; ' I will have 
 no explanation not a word shall pass I will have the treaty, the 
 whole treaty, and nothing but the treaty.' Russia, indeed, was pre- 
 pared to give it to us. But the noble Lord excites the passions of 
 the people. He says: 'There will be no wavering ;' and the whole 
 country, though they did not know why, were perfectly prepared to 
 go to war with Russia again, and I believe that at that moment 
 the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) 
 might have had an income tax of 20 per cent. . . . Understand. that
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 505 
 
 duplicity brought against the Russian Minister,* and 
 he wound up by drawing an effective picture of the 
 distress which this aggressive policy caused to the 
 people. f This speech soon met with its reward. 
 The policy of Lord Palmerston in China excited a 
 large amount of disapproval in the House of Com- 
 mons; and Mr. Cobden, on the part of the peace 
 party, moved a vote of want of confidence. Cobden 
 was supported by Lord John Russell and Mr. 
 Gladstone, and his motion led to a combination of 
 parties against the Government, Lord John Russell, 
 Mr. Gladstone, the advocates of peace, and the entire 
 body of the Conservatives voting all together. In the 
 course of the debates which took place, the lawfulness 
 of forming such a combination against the Govern- 
 ment was one of the subjects most warmly debated ^ 
 and Mr. Disraeli, who, when his Government was 
 about to fall in 1852, had made so violent an attack 
 
 from the first Kussia never was in a position to strike a blow." 
 Hansard, 3 S. cxliv. 118-19. 
 
 * " Sir, I am told that the Russian Minister behaved very ill. Oh, 
 wicked Baron Brunnow 1 The Russian Minister was actually so 
 flagitious as to look after the interests of his master. Oh, ungrateful 
 Baron Brunnow, who, after all the civility and hospitality he received 
 in London, did not when in Paris do for Lord Clarendon that which 
 Lord Clarendon ought to have done for himself 1" Ibid. 116. 
 
 f " In this state of affairs . . . this innocent, suffering, energetic, 
 industrial, commercial, overtaxed people of England are resigned to 
 their position, and are even enthusiastic in favour of the noble Lord, 
 because they think that the burdens they bear are the natural con- 
 sequences of the enormous dangers surrounding them, and that 
 the noble Lord is the only man who can extricate them from diffi- 
 culties which necessarily result from the condition of Europe." 
 Ibid. 123-4.
 
 506 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 upon coalitions,* now, in reply to Lord Palmerston, 
 entered into quite as vigorous a defence of that weapon 
 of party warfare.f 
 
 The Government wei'e defeated, and Lord Palmerstou 
 appealed to the country. J 
 
 The address which Mr. Disraeli issued to his con- 
 stituents upon this occasion is a very remarkable 
 document, and definitely marks out the line of action 
 which he adopted through the long period he was in 
 opposition to Lord Palmerstou. The policy of Lord 
 Palmerston is generally understood. It v/as a policy 
 of active interference in the affairs of other countries, 
 and of a strong, not to say aggressive, defence of 
 English rights throughout the world. In other words, 
 it was a policy which corresponds very clos3ly to what 
 is now designated as a " spirited foreign policy." To 
 this system Mr. Disraeli, during all these years from 
 1857 down to 1865, offered the diametrically opposite 
 
 * See ante, 472-3. 
 
 f "The First Minister is of all men," said he, 4- the man who 
 cannot bear a coalition. Why, Sir, he is the archetype of politick 
 combinations without avowed political principles. . . . The noble 
 Lord cannot bear coalitions ! The noble Lord has acted only with 
 those amongst whom he was born and bred in politics 1 That infant 
 Hercules was taken out of a Whig cradle ! And how consistent has 
 been his political life.l Looking back upon the past half -century 
 during which he has professed almost every principle, and connected 
 himself with almost every party, the noble Lord has raised a warning 
 voice to-night against coalitions, because he fears that a majority of 
 the House of Commons, ranking in its numbers some of the most 
 eminent members of the House, . . . may not approve a policy with 
 respect to China which has began in outrage, and which, if pursued 
 will end in ruin/' Hantard, 3 S. cxliv. 1839. 
 
 J Irving, 329.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 507 
 
 one of non-intervention, a policy of conciliation abroad, 
 and of peace, retrenchment, and the improvement of 
 the social condition of the people at home. The 
 address of 1857 puts these principles of Lord Beacons- 
 field in a very brief but in a very intelligible form. 
 Lord Palmerston he described ia this address as 
 occupying a false position. "He is," he said, "a Tory 
 chief of a Radical Cabinet." And then he went on 
 to describe as a result of this position that he was 
 "obliged to divert the attention of the people from 
 the consideration of their domestic affairs to the dis- 
 traction of foreign politics. His external system is 
 turbulent and aggressive, that his rule at home may 
 be tranquil and unassailed." And the consequence of 
 this was " excessive expenditure and the stoppage of 
 all social improvement." "His scheme of conduct" 
 was " so devoid of all political principle that, when 
 forced to appeal to the country, his only claim to 
 their confidence" was "his name." "Such arts and 
 resources" are described as more suitable to "the 
 despotic ruler of a continental state than to " a British 
 Minister governing a country proud, free, and pro- 
 gressive." Then Mr. Disraeli recommended as a counter 
 policy to all this, " Peace, Reduced Taxation, and 
 Social Improvement." * 
 
 * The following are the principal passages of this remarkable 
 address in full : " Lord Palmerston is an eminent man, who has 
 deserved well of his country ; but, as a Prime Minister, he occupies a 
 false position. He is a Tory chief of a Radical Cabinet. With no 
 domestic policy, he is obliged to divert the attention of the People, from 
 the consideration of their own affairs, to the distraction of Foreign
 
 508 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 In the course of his election Lord Beaconsfield 
 enlarged upon the principles contained in his address. 
 He described the war with Persia as the result of 
 ill-advised counsels, and pointed out how his ministry, 
 though having to deal with precisely the same diffi- 
 culty in Persia, succeeded by a policy of conciliation 
 and sense in avoiding the horrors of war.* He ex- 
 Politics. His external system is turbulent and aggressive, that his rule 
 at home may be tranquil and unassailed. Hence arises Excessive Ex- 
 penditure, Heavy Taxation, and the Stoppage of all Social Improve- 
 ment. His scheme of conduct is so devoid of ail Political Principle 
 that, when forced to Appeal to the People, his only claim to theii 
 confidence is his name. Such arts and resources may suit the despotic 
 ruler of a continental State excited by revolutions, but they do not 
 become a British Minister governing a country, proud, free, and 
 progressive, animated by glorious traditions and aspiring to future 
 excellence. . . . The general policy which I would enforce at this junc- 
 ture may be contained in these words Honourable Peace, Reduced 
 Taxation, and Social Improvement." Bvc~k* Uerald, March 21. 1867. 
 
 * " We have had a great deal of excitement with respect to the war 
 with Persia. It is a subject of great controversy whether the Govern- 
 ment of this country ought to have engaged in that war without 
 assembling and appealing to Parliament, and whether the course 
 pursued by the present Administration has been a just one ; but I 
 will not now enter into that question. It is generally thought that 
 if the city of Herat is in the possession of Persia our Indian Empire 
 is in danger. . . . Recently, that city having been captured by Persia, 
 a war was proclaimed, or rather undertaken, against Persia, without 
 the knowledge of Parliament. Very considerable expenses have been 
 incurred, and though we are told that peace has been effected, it 
 will always be a question whether the course pursued in respect of 
 Persia has been just and politic. Let me remind you that when the 
 Government of Lord Derby was in office the very same circumstance 
 occurred with respect to Persia as at the present day. The Shah of 
 Persia not only menaced, but besieged, attacked, and captured the 
 city of Herat. According to the political doctrines of this day our 
 Indian Empire was in danger. What was the course we took 1 Did 
 we invade Persia and make war without the cognizance of Parliament f 
 (Hear.) Did we involve this country in immense expenditure? Very
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 509 
 
 pressed his doubt as to whether Lord Palmerston, in 
 declaring war against Persia without the previous 
 consent of Parliament, was acting constitutionally ; 
 and the result of this warlike policy he described 
 as a country burdened by war taxes in time of 
 peace.* " I am told," he said, amid the laughter 
 
 different was the course we pursued. We had an efficient represen- 
 tative at the Court of Teheran Colonel Shiel. . . . We sent to him 
 the most energetic but conciliatory instructions. We told him to go 
 to the Shah of Persia and impress upon him that if he persisted in 
 the course he was pursuing we would adopt measures of earnest 
 stringency. We required him to give up Herat, and to return to his 
 own dominions, or we would invade his country, and take measures 
 which would render a repetition of his offence impossible. What did 
 the Shah do 1 He retired from Herat, and conceded all we required, 
 without our incurring those great expenses which have now been 
 incurred in respect to the Persian expedition, and without our enter- 
 ing into a course which I doubt that the spirit of the Constitution 
 would justify. We succeeded in effecting all the present Government 
 had done without turmoil and expense." Sucks Herald, April 4, 
 1857. 
 
 * " You must all be painfully conscious that the burthens upon your 
 industry and your property have been greatly augmented of late 
 years, and it appears to me that, peace having been concluded, the 
 duty of the House of Commons was calmly to survey the financial 
 condition of the country, and to consider by what prudent and proper 
 means we could alleviate the burthens of the people and obtain what 
 are the great blessings of peace lighter taxation and a freer course 
 for capital and industry. (Cheers.) Well, gentlemen, it was with 
 that object that I have expressed, and that my friends have expressed, 
 our opinion that considerable reduction should be effected in the 
 public expenditure. . . . You have also in time of peace war taxes 
 upon your tea and upon your sugar, and therefore we have not yet 
 returned to the position in which we had a right to expect that we 
 should find ourselves after the lapse of more than a year since peace 
 was concluded. In looking to the means by which a reduction of 
 taxation may be effected by which we may carry out the adopted 
 policy of Parliament by getting rid of the war taxes on tea and sugar, 
 and ultimately, in 1860, altogether abolishing the income tax, we 
 have to consider the expenditure of the country, not only upon the
 
 Sio LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 of his audience, " that this is a very spirited policy, 
 that there is nothing like making the influence of 
 England felt, and that there is nothing of which an 
 Englishman should be more proud than to feel that 
 he is like a Roman citizen in every part cf the 
 world."* But he went on to show that the spirited 
 foreign policy consisted of bullying weak countries 
 like Greece, Persia, and China, and in accepting " in 
 silence" "insults" from powerful nations like Russia, 
 Austria, and France.* 
 
 military and naval, but upon the civil establishments, and we have 
 also to consider the general policy of the country as it affects expen- 
 diture. It is a fact that the public expenditure has increased to an 
 enormous amount during the last few years." Ibid. 
 
 * Ibul. 
 
 f It is a policy which 1 am told is very popular ; it is a policy of 
 perpetual meddling in every part of the world (hear, hear), occasioning 
 disturbances which cause expense, and consequently lead to increased 
 estimates. I am told that this is a very spirited policy (lauphter), 
 that there is nothing like making the influence of England felt, and 
 that there is nothing of which an Englishman should be more proud 
 than to feel that he is like a Roman citizen Lrr every part of the 
 world (laughter and cheers). ... I fid- 1 , thai Greece and Persia 
 and China are perpetually the means by which the glory of British 
 arms is to be established and illustrated (hear, and a laugh), but 
 that we receive insults from Russia and Austria, and that two or three 
 vears ago we even received insults from France, which are passed 
 >ver in silence, but which, if these states had been weak, would have 
 been resented by the presence of admirals and generals. The practical 
 effect of this policy is to add to your expenditure 2,000 : 000 or 
 3.000 : 000 a year, and you must remember, when you consider whether 
 the income tax shall be reduced to 7d. or od., that the difference of 
 2,000,000 between the sums raised by those rates of duty is probably 
 the amount of expenditure occasioned by the expeditions and inter- 
 feronces resulting from your present policy. . . . How, then, can you 
 look forward to getting rid of the income tax, unless you exercise 
 strict control over the conduct of the Government with respect to 
 iiit'.'i ference in foreign countries ? (Hear, h^arl." Ibitf.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION: 511 
 
 The result of the General Election was a very con- 
 siderable majority in favour of Lord Palmerston and 
 his policy. 
 
 We must leave for the present the discussion of this 
 interesting phase in the opinions of Lord Beaconsfield 
 in foreign policy. We now wish to test him on the 
 question which we have already discussed in dealing 
 with the Crimean war on the attitude, namely, that 
 ought to be observed by an Opposition when the 
 Minister is dealing with a great external difficulty. 
 
 In the course of this session of 1857, Lord Pal- 
 merston stood face to face with one of the most 
 portentous crises an English Minister had ever yet en- 
 countered. In the beginning of June the first reports 
 began to reach England of the Indian Mutiny, and as 
 the days went by the news became more terrible. There 
 were accounts of massacres, of perilous sieges, and of 
 other events that for the time being threatened to 
 annihilate our rule in India, and at the same time 
 to carry along with it the massacre of every English 
 man, woman, and child there. Here, then, was an 
 occasion when the Opposition was bound to behave 
 with reticence and reserve. This, however, was not 
 the course pursued; and the very first person whom 
 the Opposition attacked was Lord Canning, the Indian 
 Viceroy, who was then endeavouring to crush this 
 fearful revolt against our rule. 
 
 On the 29th of June Mr. Disraeli made an attack 
 on both Lord Canning and Lord Palmerston's Ad- 
 ministration in the shape of a string of interrogatories.
 
 5 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 He described the Russian war, the war with China, 
 and that with Persia, as all entered upon by Lord 
 Palmerston for the purpose of keeping up English 
 prestige in India, and then he asked how far this 
 purpose could be said to have been served in presence 
 of the terrible events at that moment going on there.* 
 He declared that our whole position in that depen- 
 dency was imperilled; suggested even that we might 
 lose India ;f and asked the extraordinary question 
 if Lord Canning had resigned. Mr. Vernon Smith, 
 then President of the Board of Control, made a 
 very sharp reply to those strictures. Taking up 
 the query with regard to the resignation of Lord 
 Canning, Mr. Smith expressed his amazement that 
 the Governor-General should be thought to contem- 
 plate resignation in the midst of such an extraordinary 
 crisis ; and he declared that Lord Canning had behaved 
 with vigour and with judgment .\ 
 
 On the 27th of July Mr. Disraeli again returned 
 to the subject, and delivered a three-hours' oration on 
 the whole Indian question. He condemned very 
 strongly the annexations which had recently taken 
 place, especially the annexation of Oude, || and 
 wound up by the proposal that a Royal Commission 
 should be sent from the Queen to India to inquire 
 into the grievances of all classes. Mr. Vernon Smith 
 pertinently asked what was the use of this three- 
 hours' oration, and whether there was not very great 
 
 Annual Register, xcix. 132. \ Ibid. 132-3. I Ibid. 139. 
 t Ibid. IhU. 138.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION; 513 
 
 mischief in bringing forward this subject as Mr. 
 Disraeli had done;* and pointed out the pretty 
 obvious fact that the issue of a Commission in the 
 middle of a revolt would have the effect of superseding 
 the Governor-General ; and so would seriously weaken 
 his authority at the very moment when it required 
 the greatest support. A short debate followed. Sir 
 E. Perry and Mr. Whiteside supported the views of 
 Mr. Disraeli and his conduct in bringing forward the 
 question at that moment, f while Mr. Campbell said 
 that he had never heard a more unpatriotic and 
 injudicious speech.} There was another and more 
 significant proof of the manner in which Mr. Disraeli's 
 intervention was regarded. Lord John Russell, though 
 he was no longer a member of Lord Palmerston's 
 Ministry, thought it was so necessary to do away 
 with the effect of such apparent want of thorough 
 confidence in the Government, that he proposed an 
 address which amounted to an assurance of complete 
 faith in the Administration. The feeling of the 
 House was so strongly in favour of this course that 
 Mr. Disraeli had to withdraw his motion, and the 
 resolution of Lord John Russell was carried even 
 without a division.! 
 
 In the December of this year Parliament was un- 
 expectedly called together, the Government having 
 been compelled by a commercial crisis to violate the 
 law with regard to the Bank charter. In the debate 
 
 * Ibid. 139. J Ibid. 141. || Ibid. 142. 
 
 t Ibid. 140-41. Ibid. 
 
 33
 
 514 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 on the Address, Mr. Disraeli again returned to the 
 charge of aggression against the policy of Lord 
 Palmerston. He was surprised, in face of the line 
 of action adopted by the Premier, that we were still 
 at peace.* The act of Lord Palmerston, with which 
 Mr. Disraeli found most fault, was a speech delivered 
 at the Guildhall. This speech he condemned as an 
 "appeal" to "all the belligerent passions of the 
 country/' and as calculated to excite the dread that 
 we were on the eve of a resort to arms.f 
 
 * "It must be a source of the greatest satisfaction, if my inter- 
 pretation of one paragraph in the speech from" the Throne be 
 correct I mean that which declares that our relations with our 
 neighbours are of an amicable character. . . . The paragraph is as 
 follows : ' The nations of Europe are in the enjoyment of the 
 blessings of peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb.' Now, 
 several of my hon. Friends have put upon this passage an interpre- 
 tation that may be correct, but which I. taking a more hopeful view, 
 can scarcely suppose to be accurate. They seem to think that some- 
 thing like an expression of regret is conveyed in that paragraph as 
 if the noble Lord (Viscount Palinerston) had said, ' I have done all I 
 could to get up a difficulty with the European Powers. butNl am 
 sorry to say, I have not succeeded. We are still at peace; and I 
 am able to bring before you nothing, really nothing, that promises to 
 disturb the universal tranquillity ; ' as though in that bold language 
 which renders the noble Lord at all times popular, he said, ' I have 
 done my best, but for this once the turbulent and aggressive policy 
 has failed. I cannot help it, but we are in for it ; we are at present 
 all at peace.' (Loud laughter.)" Hansard, 3 S. cxlviii. 115. 
 
 f " Judging from the speech which the noble Lord p is reported to 
 have made on that occasion, I own I shared the prevailing alarm 
 that we were about to be involved again in those ditli' iilties in which 
 we have generally found ourselves under him, and from which he 
 is so proud to extricate us. An appeal was then made by the noble 
 Lord to all the belli<. r > : us of the country with that eloquence 
 
 and emphasis which the noble Lord always employs. Since that 
 memorable speech of old Harry Dundas, delivered during the re- 
 volutionary war, when In.- 'I'-Harc'l that one Englishman could beat
 
 A PA7WOTIC OPPOSITION. 515 
 
 In this same speech lie also reverted to the 
 Indian question, once more putting forth the an- 
 nexation of Oude as one of the chief causes of the 
 mutiny; and called upon the Government to make 
 a frank avowal of their intentions with regard to their 
 future administration of our gastern empire.* These 
 are the only points worth notice in his action in the 
 preliminary session. 
 
 When Parliament reassembled on February 4, 1858, 
 one of the first tasks of the Ministry was to propose 
 a vote of thanks to the Indian officials who had been 
 engaged in bringing the mutiny to a successful 
 termination; and in spite of the protests of his in- 
 timate friends, Messrs. Walpole,f Henley, and Drum- 
 mond.J Mr. Disraeli opposed the vote so far as Lord 
 Canning was concerned. 
 
 In the course of this session Lord Palmerston 
 brought ; .n the East Indian Bill, the object of which 
 was to do away with the double control of the East 
 India Company and the. Government, and fuse the 
 two authorities into the single one of the Crown. To 
 this bill Mr. Disraeli offered strenuous opposition 
 one of his arguments being that the distinction 
 between the English and Indian exchequers could 
 not be kept up. "The expenditure would," he said, 
 
 three Frenchmen, and which was recorded afterwards as a statistical 
 fact, I hardly know any speech which has produced so great an 
 effect, and which was more calculated to animate the heart of a 
 country on the eve of being tried by exigencies of the most perilous 
 character." Ibid. 116. 
 
 * Annual Register, xcix. 205. t Ibid. c. 13. % Ibid, 14.
 
 516 LORD BEACONSFTELD. 
 
 " be increased every year, and the question would oe 
 not of losing India, but of ruining England." * 
 
 Shortly after this a circumstance arose which once 
 more entirely changed Mr. Disraeli's position, and, 
 as a consequence, produced a change in his views. 
 The fearful attempt which had been made by Orsini 
 on the life of the Emperor Napoleon had produced 
 a considerable tension between this country and 
 France, the chief reason being that some persons 
 implicated in the conspiracy were resident in this 
 country, but could not by the existing law be handed 
 over to the French authorities. Lord Palmerston, 
 anxious to keep up a good understanding between 
 the two countries, and at the same time to help in 
 putting down the crime of political assassination, 
 brought in his famous Bill to amend the Conspiracy 
 Law. This bill was supported at first, amongst others, 
 by Mr. Disraeli.t After a while, however, the bill 
 became extremely unpopular, raised a storm of indig- 
 nation throughout the country, and produced a com- 
 bination of parties against the Ministry. Mr. Disraeli, 
 thereupon, swallowed his former expressions of ap- 
 proval, joined the enemies of the Ministry,^ and so, 
 by the much-abused weapon of coalition, once more 
 succeeded in defeating Lord Palmerston, and in. 
 obtaining his place. 
 
 The new Derby-Disraeli administration was like 
 the first Ministry under the same auspices in this, that 
 it was impossible to get anything from the Govern- 
 * Ibid. 29. t Ibid. 41-2. * Ibid. 49-50.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION 517 
 
 ment like a clear exposition of their policy. They 
 were notoriously a Government in a minority; and 
 Mr. Disraeli acted as he has always done when in that 
 position, by purchasing the right to hold office at 
 the cost of proposing as little as possible himself, and 
 accepting everything proposed by anybody else. 
 One of his first acts was to take up the East India 
 question, and to propose a bill which, in the main 
 point of fusing the authority of the East India Com- 
 pany and the Crown, was identical with the measure 
 of Lord Palmerston he had shortly before opposed. 
 However, this new bill contained some novel propo- 
 sitions, the credit of which entirely belonged to the 
 existing Ministry. It was proposed that there should 
 be a council of eighteen members, half of whom were 
 to be elective. Pour of these elective members were 
 to be chosen by ex-Indian officials resident in England, 
 and the remainder were to be elected by the parliamen- 
 tary constituency in five of the large cities of the United 
 Kingdom London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, 
 and Belfast.* This extraordinary proposal was received 
 with universal disapproval. It was evident that if it 
 were persisted in, it would prove fatal to the bill, and 
 it was generally considered that Mr. Disraeli would 
 elude the difficulty by his characteristic plan of making 
 a complete surrender. On Parliament reassembling 
 after the Easter recess on April 1 2, he, however, gave 
 no signs whatever of the course which he was about 
 to pursue, but contented himself with saying that the 
 * lUd. 69-70.
 
 518 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 second reading of the East Indian Bill would be pro- 
 posed as soon as possible after the introduction of the 
 Budget.* Hereupon Lord John Russell came to Mr. 
 Disraeli's rescue, and pointing out the enormous diffi- 
 culties which attended the settlement of this East 
 Indian question, and the necessity there was that it 
 should be done with once for all, suggested that the 
 House should proceed by resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli jumped at the offer with "an eager- 
 ness," writes the Annual Register, " which occasioned 
 some amusement to the House ; " f and indeed the 
 statement of Mr. Disraeli in reply to the proposition 
 might well cause a very considerable amount of amuse- 
 ment. His modest proposition was that Lord John 
 Russell should take the management of the question 
 entirely out of the hands of the Ministry, and having 
 conducted it to a successful issue in the shape of 
 resolutions, leave to them the easy task of putting 
 those resolutions into the shape of a bill. In other 
 words, the chief representative of the Ministry pro- 
 posed that a leader of the Opposition should take 
 upon himself the duty of bringing in, and carrying 
 through, the chief ministerial measure of the session ! 
 Mr. Disraeli was obliging enough, however, to add 
 that if Lord John Russell did not accept this mag- 
 nanimous offer, the Government themselves would 
 undertake to perform their duty. " He would not 
 shrink," said Mr. Disraeli, "from " the responsibility 
 
 * lliil. 73. 
 f Ibid. 74.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 519 
 
 of " proposing resolutions/' in case Lord John Russell 
 did not consent to do so.* 
 
 Of course this ridiculous proposition to relegate 
 to a private member the chief duty of the Ministry, 
 was rejected, and the Government ultimately brought 
 in a bill, which was known as the East India Bill 
 No. 3, to distinguish it from the measure of Lord 
 Palmerston, and that of Mr. Disraeli himself, which 
 had ended in failure. As to the discussions on this 
 important measure, I think it necessary to take notice 
 of only one, and that arose on a proposal of Mr. 
 Gladstone to add a clause declaring " That except for 
 repelling actual invasion, or under other sudden and 
 urgent necessity, Her Majesty's forces in the East 
 Indies shall not be employed in any military opera- 
 tion beyond the external frontier of Her Majesty's 
 Indian possessions, without the consent of Parliament 
 
 * Annual Register, c. 74. The whole of the exquisite passage in 
 which Mr. Disraeli made these notable proposals is worth quoting. 
 " The course suggested by the noble Lord," he said, " would be much 
 more convenient than that proposed by the Administration. If it 
 were agreeable to the House, he would not shrink from proposing 
 resolutions. At the same time he intimated that, considering the 
 noble Lord's great experience and ability, the undertaking could not 
 be in better hands than Lord John Russell's." As the noble Lord 
 recommended this mode of proceeding, and as he possesses in this 
 House an authority which no one more deservedly exercises, I must 
 say it would be more agreeable to me if he would propose the resolu- 
 tions (a laugh) but, as I before said, I shall not shrink from the 
 responsibility of doing so. (Laughter and cheers.) But there should 
 be no unnecessary delay. The resolutions should be placed before 
 the House as soon as convenient to the noble Lord ; " we shall be 
 ready to give up this day week, or Friday fortnight." With ample 
 discussion devoid of party feeling the country will be satisfied that 
 the best plan has been adopted."
 
 520 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to the purposes thereof." This amendment the 
 Government promptly accepted with a slight altera- 
 tion, and Mr. Disraeli was among those who gave 
 to Mr. Gladstone's proposition the most earnest and 
 effective support.* 
 
 It must be added that the clause was afterwards 
 modified in the House of Lords, in a way that con- 
 siderably limits its application, and that both Lord 
 Derby and Mr. Disraeli accompanied their adhesion to 
 the clause by insisting on those modifications. t 
 
 In the course of the session an extraordinary episode 
 took place which for a time threatened to wreck the 
 Government. Lord Canning sent to England the draft 
 of a proclamation which proposed to make extensive 
 alterations in the tenure of land in Oude. Without 
 
 * After pointing out that though the constitution gave power 
 of peace or war to the Sovereign, thig prerogative was bestowed in 
 reference to England, and not to India, be went on to remark that in 
 England the House of Commons, which had to vote the supplies 
 for carrying on the war, had by that means a legitimate and con- 
 stitutional mode of expressing its opinion. " But," proceeded Mr. 
 Disraeli, " if the power of declaring war and peace was left entirely 
 in the hands of the Sovereign in India, there were not the means of 
 controlling its exercise that existed in this country, and a policy 
 might be pursued entirely injurious to the national interests." 
 Hansard, 8 8. cli. 1014. And in another place he declared that 
 the proposed alteration "did not involve any invasion of the preroga 
 tive that the Crown exercised under the constitution of the country, 
 but was a salutary and politic provision." Hansard, cl. 1015. 
 
 f The clause as amended by Lord Derby ran" Except for pre- 
 venting or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian posses- 
 sions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of 
 India shall not, without the consent of Parliament, be applicable 
 to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond 
 the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces 
 charged upon such revenues." Ibid, cli. 1696.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 521 
 
 waiting for the document itself, or for the letters 
 of explanation which might accompany it, Lord 
 Ellenborough, who was then President of the Board 
 of Control, wrote a very strongly worded despatch 
 of condemnation. A copy of this despatch he sent 
 to Lord Granville, as a friend of Lord Canning, and to 
 Mr. Bright as leader of the party which advocated con- 
 ciliatory treatment of the natives of India. He did not 
 intend that the despatch should be made public, but 
 it came by an accident before Parliament. A storm 
 was raised, several motions of censure were entered 
 on the books, and for some time it appeared more 
 than likely that the Government would be wrecked 
 upon this question. Lord Ellenborough partly averted 
 the blow by resigning. After this, the debates on the 
 various motions dragged for a considerable time along, 
 and before they could reach their conclusion, news had 
 come from India that Sir James Outram had made 
 similar objections to the Canning proclamation as Lord 
 Ellenborough. The consequence was that, one after 
 the other, the motions implying censure on the Govern- 
 ment were withdrawn ; and the event, which at one 
 time threatened to bring the Government to premature 
 extinction, ended by considerably strengthening their 
 position and weakening that of their opponents. Mr. 
 Disraeli was so delighted with this result, that, in 
 addressing a meeting of his constituents at Slough,* 
 
 * This is the passage of the Slough speech which attracted most 
 attention : " There is nothing like that last Friday evening in the 
 history of the House of Commons. We came down to the house 
 expecting to divide at four o'clock in the morning ; I myself probably
 
 j22 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ne indulged in some attacks upon his opponents which 
 called upon him several severe rejoinders. 
 
 Of Mr. Disraeli's conduct during the rest of this 
 session it is unnecessary to say anything further than 
 that he was again placed in some difficulty by the 
 introduction of a Bill for the Admission of Jews to 
 Parliament, which was opposed by Lord Derby * and 
 by Sir Frederick Thesiger, who had then just been ap- 
 pointed Lord Chancellor under the title of Lord Chelms- 
 ford.f The amusing part of the discussion was that 
 Mr. Newdegate, in denouncing the measure, referred to 
 the writings of the elder and younger Disraeli for his 
 arguments against the proposal. He quoted the elder 
 Disraeli to prove the want of moral obligations in 
 the Jews ; and " Coningsby " was his authority for the 
 damning objection against their admission to Parlia- 
 ment, that the first Jesuits were all Jews. % Mr. Disraeli 
 
 expecting to deliver an address two hours after midnight ; and I 
 believe that, even with the consciousness of a good cause, that is no 
 mean effort. Well, gentlemen, we were all assembled ; our benches 
 with their serried ranks seemed to rival those of our proud opponents ; 
 when suddenly there arose a wail of distress, but not from us. I c:in 
 only liken the scene to the mutiny of the Bengal army. Regiment after 
 regiment, corps after corps, general after general, all acknowledged 
 that they could not march through Coventry. It was like a con- 
 vulsion of nature rather than an ordinary transaction of human life. 
 I can only liken it to one of those earthquakes which take place in 
 Calabria and Peru. There was a rumbling murmur, a groan, a shriek, 
 a sound of distant thunder. No one knew whether it came from 
 the top or the bottom of the house. There was a rent, a fissure in 
 the ground, and then a village disappeared, then a tall tower toppled 
 down, and the whole of the Opposition benches became one great 
 dissolving view of anarchy." Moletworth, vol. iii. 126. 
 
 * Annual Register, c. lot. 
 
 t 154-5. J Ibil. 152.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 523 
 
 must have been rather startled to see to what purposes 
 the eulogies of his race which he put into the mouth 
 of Sidonia, could be turned by a member of the party 
 of which he was the leader. Finally, on this session 
 let me say that it is to Mr. Disraeli that we owe the 
 measures by which the river Thames is purified as it 
 passes through London. 
 
 When the Ministry met Parliament in 1859, the 
 chief points of interest were, first, the threatened war 
 between France and Austria in reference to the affairs 
 of Italy; and, secondly, the Reform Bill which the 
 Conservative Ministry announced their intention of 
 producing. 
 
 With regard to the foreign question, the Conservative 
 party generally, and its chiefs, gave it pretty clearly 
 to be understood that they were strongly in favour of 
 the status quo in Lombardy and Venice, and that they 
 had no sympathy whatever with the efforts of Victor 
 Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, to change the existing 
 state of things in the Peninsula. Of the Reform Bill 
 which Mr. Disraeli introduced in the House of Com- 
 mons, it is not necessary to say much more of it than 
 that its provisions made no considerable addition to 
 the electorate generally, but added a number of what 
 came afterwards to be called "fancy franchises." 
 The only attempt it made at lowering the qualifi- 
 cation was that the county qualification was reduced 
 to the same level as that in the towns namely, 
 to 10. This, Mr. Disraeli calculated, would add 
 200,000 to the county electorate. While making this
 
 524 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 addition on the one hand, Mr. Disraeli with the other 
 made almost as large a reduction in the number of 
 electors, by proposing that the freeholders of the town 
 should be prevented from having a vote in the county, 
 the result of which would be to disfranchise 90,000 or 
 100,000 of the electors.* The first effect of the in- 
 troduction of this measure was to produce the resig- 
 nation of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley ; Mr. Walpole 
 bluntly declaring that such a Bill, if introduced 
 by Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell, would 
 have been opposed in a body by the Conservative 
 party.f 
 
 Such a Bill for reforming the representation of the 
 people was, of course, a mere pretence, and so was met 
 with the united opposition of the Liberal party. The 
 clause which had the effect of disfranchising the free- 
 holders in the towns proved especially obnoxious, and 
 Lord John Russell promptly gave notice of an amend- 
 ment on the second reading, which would have the 
 effect of rejecting the Bill because of that clause. Mr. 
 Disraeli, after his manner, endeavoured to meet the 
 storm by yielding to it. He proposed a change in the 
 freehold clause, the effect of which would be to give 
 the freeholder the right of choosing, if he pleased, to 
 vote for the county, but at the same time preventing 
 him, if he chose for the county, from voting also in 
 the town. This concession, however, did not satisfy 
 the Liberal party ; on a division the Bill was defeated 
 
 * Annual Register, ci. 62 55. 
 f 2bul. 68.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 525 
 
 by a majority of 39, and the Ministry thereupon 
 appealed to the country.* 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's address to his constituents was par- 
 ticularly skilful. He represented that the Liberal 
 party was hopelessly split into hostile sections, that 
 the critical state of affairs on the Continent required 
 the Queen to have a strong Government, and that the 
 Conservative party alone offered materials for forming 
 such a Government, t 
 
 The result of the elections was that 302 Conserva- 
 tives and 350 Liberals were returned ; and imme- 
 diately after Parliament assembled, the Liberal party, 
 through Lord Hartington, proposed a vote of no confi- 
 dence. The vote was carried by a large majority, and 
 the Ministry resigned.^ 
 
 * In the course of his speech, introducing his Reform Bill, Mr. 
 Disraeli used these words: "Well, then, if the House of Commons 
 loses its hold over the Executive of the country, what happens? 
 We fall back on a bureaucratic system, and we should find our- 
 selves, after all our struggles, in the very same position which, in 
 1640, we had to extricate ourselves frc :\ Your administration 
 would be carried on by a Court Minister, perhaps a Court minion." 
 Hansard, 3 S. clii. 981. 
 
 f Molesworth, iii. 138. 
 
 J In the course of the debate upon this motion there was a severe 
 rencontre between Mr. Disraeli and Sir James Graham. The latter 
 had, during the elections, used some very strong language about 
 the tactics of the Government for obtaining votes. Mr. Disraeli in re- 
 plying to these suggestions said : " When I saw in the newspapers the 
 name ' City of Carlisle,' I naturally looked at what was taking place 
 in that quarter. But reading, I fear a little incorrectly, I confess I 
 did mistake, at the time, the speech which appears to have been made 
 by a distinguished Member of this House for that of the young gentle- 
 man that he was introducing to his constituents. When I read that 
 charge upon the Ministry which we were told was to be the basis of 
 a Parliamentary vote of want of confidence, when I read statements
 
 526 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The record of Mr. Disraeli's parliamentary career 
 during 1860 to 1865 is comparatively uneventful. 
 During those years Lord Palmerston had attained such 
 an overwhelming popularity in the country, and that 
 popularity was due so much to his personal charac- 
 teristics as distinct from party connections, that it 
 was quite vain to make any attempt to dislodge him 
 from power. In that period the House of Commons 
 presented the curious spectacle of a Premier who 
 frequently found on the opposite side support against 
 the more extreme and discontented elements of his 
 own party ; in fact, it was a period when anything 
 
 made without the slightest foundation and with a bitterness which 
 seemed to me to be perfectly gratuitous, I could not help saying ' Young 
 men will be young men.' Youth is, as we all know, somewhat reckless 
 in assertion, and when we are juvenile and curly one takes pride in 
 sarcasm and invective. ... I felt and I am sure my colleagues shared 
 the same sentiments that when that young gentleman entered this 
 House, he might, when gazing upon the venerable form, and listening 
 to the accents of benignant wisdom that fell from the lips of the right 
 hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle, he might learn how reckless 
 assertion in time may mature into accuracy of statement, and how 
 bitterness and invective, however organic, can be controlled by the vicis- 
 situdes of a wise experience. . . . The Earl of Derby has treated that 
 assertion, quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, with silent contempt. 
 All the other assertions made at the time have been answered in detail, 
 and therefore I suppose he thought the time might come when, the 
 subject being fairly before the House, he could leave it to me to say 
 for him, what I do say now, that that statement was an impudent 
 fabrication." Hansard, 3 S. cliv. 127. Sir James Graham's reply was 
 equally unsparing. He complained first of the phrase " impudent 
 fabrication." But Mr. Disraeli explained that he had not applied the 
 words to Sir J. Graham himself, but to the authority on whom he 
 had founded his statements. The Speaker having been called upon, 
 declared that he also had so understood Mr. Disraeli's phrase. Sir 
 James Graham then proceeded : " Certainly, Sir, what the right hon. 
 Gentleman has said, confirmed l>y your high and
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 527 
 
 like acrimonious party conflict or bitterness was sus- 
 pended. 
 
 During those years, Mr. Disraeli was fighting a 
 hopeless battle : but he still kept on preaching that 
 policy of peace, non-intervention, and economy, 
 of which I have recently spoken. He preached, 
 however, to a world that did not listen : and his 
 teaching, in place of lowering, seemed but to in- 
 crease the prestige and power of his rival. Those 
 years of vain effort were not, it will be seen, lost 
 upon him. He did not perceive in vain that the 
 apostle of peace abroad and domestic improvement 
 
 authority, is some satisfaction to my wounded feelings. (A laugh, 
 and cheers.) But the right hon. Gentleman went on to remark upon 
 the mild influences of age, presenting in his own person a contra- 
 diction to the Horatian maxim, i Senit albcscens animos capillus ; ' 
 because he was an illustration of the fact that one might lose one's 
 curls and still retain one's taste for sarcasm. (Laughter and cheers.) 
 I must say, Sir, on this occasion, that I had the honour of a seat in the 
 House when the right hon. Gentleman first took his place in it. I 
 early, indeed immediately, recognized his great abilities, and, without 
 envy, without the slightest grudging, I have watched his rise to his 
 present pre-eminence. But intemperate language in a position such 
 as the right hon. Gentleman occupies is always a proof to me of a 
 falling cause (cheers) and I regard that speech , and those expres- 
 sions, as a happy omen of the coming success of this motion. 
 (Renewed cheers.) The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I 
 express to him an opinion. I regard him as the Eed Indian of debate. 
 (Laughter.) By the use of the tomahawk he has cut his way to 
 power, and by a recurrence to the scalping system he hopes to pre- 
 vent the loss of it. (Cheers and laughter.) When the right hon. 
 Gentleman uses towards one who offered him no offence (oh ! oh 1) 
 language of the tone and character which he has applied to me, I say 
 this, that I was astonished by the rudeness of the assault (oh I oh 1 
 and cheers) but I really forgive it on account of the feeling of anger 
 and of disappointment at blighted hopes by which it was dictated. 
 (Oh 1 oh I and cheers.) " Ircinrfs Annals ofow Time, 391.
 
 528 LORD BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 at home was impotent against one who practised 
 the opposite creed of vigorous assertion of English 
 prestige and active English intervention ; he saw, 
 learned, and digested the lesson that the popular 
 Minister in England for a time, at least is he who 
 appeals to belligerent emotions, national vanity, and 
 hereditary prejudices against one foreign Power in 
 particular. 
 
 We are now, however, dealing with the period 
 when, as yet, he either had not discovered this truth, 
 or found it impossible, from his position, to make use 
 of it. Accordingly, in the debate on the Address, 
 we find him singing the glories of non-intervention in 
 tones that delighted the souls of men like Mr. Bright 
 and Mr. Cobden, and that on one occasion extorted 
 from the latter the declaration that the vote he gave 
 against the Ministry of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli 
 was the one which he most regretted of all he had 
 ever given.* 
 
 * Mr. Disraeli said " There is no doubt, however, that the House 
 was opposed to our going into the Congress, and that it was in favour 
 of that policy which is popularly known by the name of the policy 
 of non-interference. I say popularly known by that name, because 
 I do not know any member of this House- -either among my 
 colleagues or among those who sit on the othei side of the House 
 who has ever maintained the monstrous proposition that England 
 ought never, under any circumstances, to interfere in the affair.-; 
 of foreign states. There are conditions under which it may be our 
 imperative duty to interfere. We may clearly interfere in the 
 affairs of foreign countries when the interest or the honour of 
 England are at stake, or when, in our opinion, the independence of 
 Europe is menaced. But a great responsibility devolves upon that 
 Minister who has to decide when those conditions have arisen ; ami 
 he who makes a mistake upon that subject, he who involves bi.<
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 529 
 
 Another topic on which Mr. Disraeli most strongly 
 insisted in those years was the right of the House 
 of Commons to be treated with the utmost frankness 
 by the Ministry. As has been seen in one of the 
 
 country in interference or in war under the idea that the interests 
 or honour of the country are concerned, when neither is substantially 
 involved he who involves his country in interference or war 
 because he believes the independence of Europe is menaced, when, 
 in fact, the independence of Europe is not in danger makes, of 
 course, a great a fatal mistake. The general principle that we 
 ought not to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations unless there 
 is a clear necessity, and that, generally speaking, it ought to be held 
 a political dogma that the people of other countries should settle 
 their own affairs without the introduction of foreign influence or 
 foreign power, is one which, I think the House does not only accept, 
 but 1 trust, will carefully adhere to. That was the policy which the 
 late Government maintained six months ago, when there was some 
 wavering in the faith of that policy, and some person high in 
 authority spoke of the possibility of England being humiliated by 
 not taking what is called a leading part in the settlement of foreign 
 questions. I ask those who then wavered or who indulged in such 
 observations to contrast the position of England now, when after six 
 months we still have to acknowledge the blessings of non-inter- 
 ference in the affairs of our neighbours, notwithstanding the efforts 
 which have been made to interfere, and to which I shall presently 
 refer I ask them to contrast the position of England with that 
 of any other country in the world. Has not the adhesion to the 
 policy of non-interference by England been most beneficial 1 Has 
 there ever been a period when England has occupied a prouder or 
 more powerful position than that which she at present fills ? As, 
 therefore, she has attained that position while adhering to the policy 
 of non-interference, I trust that the House of Commons, which, on 
 the last night of the Session, clearly expressed its opinion in favour 
 of that policy, will at the commencement of the present Session, 
 take this opportunity of asking explanations of Her Majesty's 
 Government, or, in other words, will show to Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment that if they continue in that policy they will receive the 
 support of the House; but that if they diverge from it they must 
 offer to the House reasons far graver than any that have yet reached 
 my ear, and arguments of more weighty import than I believe will 
 be introduced, into this debate." Hansard, clvi. 95-6. 
 
 34
 
 >jt> LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 years already dealt with, he was vigilantly on the 
 watch to see if the Government had made any 
 arrangements or treaties without the knowledge of 
 Parliament : and if he discovered, or fancied he dis- 
 covered, the existence of such things, he immediately 
 proclaimed it from the housetops, and was inarticulate 
 with rage at the invasion of the rights of Parliament 
 which such conduct involved. In the speech on the 
 Address to which I am now alluding, he sharply ques- 
 tioned the Ministry as to whether they had during the 
 recess sought to enter into an agreement with the 
 French Government for the settlement of the affairs of 
 Italy. He pointed out how such an agreement would, 
 to his mind, be in direct antagonism with the opinion 
 which Parliament had expressed before its rising in 
 favour of a policy of non-intervention ; and he com- 
 plained bitterly of the delay of the Premier in pro- 
 ducing papers on these and other questions on which 
 Parliament had a right to information.* 
 
 * " Now, I should like to know what was the intimation which Her 
 Majesty's Government received, which induced them to consent to 
 enter into a Congress. But what I want to know from Her Majesty's 
 Government still more than this is, why, in the month of August, 
 when Parliament was sitting the very month that Parliament was 
 prorogued, the very month that the House of Commons had expressed 
 in debate, scarcely with any exception, ita belief that the main- 
 tenance of a policy of non-interference in the affairs of Italy was 
 necessary and politic I want to know if, in that very month of 
 August, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, made overtures to the 
 French Government in order to enter into a special agreement for the 
 settlement of the affairs of Italy ? We are, indeed, promised in tli e 
 gracious Speech that papers on this subject will soon be laid before 
 us. On that 1 would make two observations. I will say to the noble 
 Lord the First Minister that there are no promises that he has
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 531 
 
 Next, he described the nature of this agreement to 
 be an undertaking between France and England to 
 prevent by force of arms any interference by a foreign 
 power in the internal affairs of Italy ; and he pointed 
 out with vigour the enormous responsibilities which 
 any such engagement would involve.* 
 
 made so frequently as promises for the production of papers to the 
 House ; and, of all Ministers, there is no one of them of whom it can 
 be alleged, as of the noble Lord, that so great an interval was allowed 
 to elapse between the promise of papers and their actual production. 
 Papers are promised at the beginning of the Session, and they are 
 produced at the end of it. Therefore when the noble Lord says 
 that papers will be laid on the table of the House, let me remind 
 ' the two noble lords ' to use the language of the seconder of the 
 Address that there has been a formal account of all the negotiations 
 that hare taken place between the Government of the Queen and 
 the Government of the Emperor of the French already published. 
 Is it to be our lot that we are not to receive information from the 
 Ministers of our own Sovereign respecting our own affairs, but that 
 we are to be indebted for the information to the condescending 
 candour of a foreign potentate ? " Ibid. 97-8. 
 
 * " I beg the House to watch very narrowly this proceeding. This 
 was nothing more nor less than a proposition of an alliance offensive 
 and defensive between France and England to prevent interference 
 by any Power in the aifairs of Italy. I dare say, from the language 
 of the Royal Speech, that this very sentence may refer to a renewed 
 effort for the same object an object at the first blush innocent, 
 and some might think praiseworthy, because it is Her Majesty, the 
 Speech says, who endeavours to obtain for the people of Italy freedom 
 from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns. 
 But look at what might be the consequences to this country if that 
 alliance had been entered into, and which, according to the state- 
 ment which I am assured is authoritative and authentic, was mainly 
 refused by the English Government in these words The British 
 Cabinet, while expressing their readiness to support the principle of 
 non-interference, either at the Congress or in their communications 
 with Foreign Powers, pointed out the impossibility of the Cabinet 
 pledging itself without the consent of Parliament to a course of 
 policy that might involve hostilities. Now Parliament has assembled 
 and we have in the speech from the Throne this somewhat am-
 
 53* LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 In discussing the French Treaty, he had a still 
 better opportunity of expatiating on the constitutional 
 rights of Parliament. His contention was that, in 
 the form in which the Treaty was presented to the 
 House of Commons, certain points were offered for 
 discussion which were really faits accomplis; and 
 he contended that such action rendered discussion a 
 mockery, and brought the Parliament into discredit. 
 He likewise spoke with force and truth on the hesita- 
 tion which a Minister ought to have in dealing with 
 a question so delicate as the respective privileges of 
 the Crown and of the House of Commons ; and how 
 carefully a Minister ought to avoid even the semblance 
 of bringing them into collision.* 
 
 biguoua sentence, and which would have been to me altogether 
 obscure had we not cognisance of the preceding events to which I 
 have referred. We have it stated here that Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment will endeavour to obtain for Italy freedom from foreign inter- 
 ference by force of arms in its internal concerns, and that freedom 
 it would appear is to be secured by this joint note of France and 
 England, which makes interference by other Powers a casus belli. 
 Observe what might happen. When you enter into a treaty you 
 are not to look merely to the obvious and the probable engage- 
 ments which you may be called upon to perform ; but you are bound 
 to contemplate every possible liability which, by so doing, you may 
 incur. That is a rule of prudence universally acknowledged and 
 invariably pursued." Ibid. 99-100. 
 
 * " Sir," said Mr. Disraeli, " the relations between the Crown and 
 this House are of a very peculiar and delicate character ; and it 
 should be our first study not to let them generate into mere 
 formality. And for the Crown to send down a Message to this House, 
 announcing that She had concluded a Treaty with the Emperor of 
 the French, and inviting our consideration to it, and calling on us to 
 grant Her Majesty the means to carry it into effect, when Her Majesty 
 must have been duly informed by Her Ministers that \ve had parxed 
 with all those privileges of Parliament which secured our constitu- 
 tional control over treaties, would be a course which I think no
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 533 
 
 In this Session, the only other act of Mr. Disraeli 
 calling for particular comment is that he opposed the 
 6 Franchise Bill introduced by the Government. He 
 did not divide on the second reading, and he adopted, 
 in dealing with this question, the plan I have pointed 
 out as being characteristic of his action for many years 
 past on the question ; that is to say, he opposed the 
 scheme of the Liberals, and at the same time left him- 
 self an opportunity of dealing with the question by-and- 
 
 Minister would be justified in advising his Sovereign to follow, and 
 would be at the same time a mockery to the Crown, and I need 
 not say, an insult to the Commons of the United Kingdom." Ibid. 
 1364-5. To this point he recurred over and over again. "A great 
 Minister," he said shortly afterwards, " whom I shall have to quote in 
 some subsequent remarks, has touched, I think, with great eloquence 
 and truth upon the true union which may be effected between the 
 prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of Parliament upon 
 this important subject of treaties. He said, ' It is the happy circum- 
 stance of our Constitution that it gives to the Crown the sole 
 prerogative of negotiating and concluding treaties, but it gives the 
 judgment, the revision, and the execution of those treaties to the 
 privileges of the people.' But I want to know how we can have 
 judgment, how we can effect revision, and how we can exercise 
 control over the execution of a treaty, if we have already parted with 
 those privileges, the possession and the exercise of which form, as it 
 were, the privity between the House and the prerogative of the Crown!" 
 Ibid. 1365-6. "Free Trade principles," he said further on, "may 
 be, and no doubt are, very good things, but I may be permitted to 
 say that constitutional principles are better ; and allow me to remind 
 the House that they are much older. Now. this Treaty of Commerce 
 before us appears to be an instrument which has been devised to 
 silence the voice of our Legislature. Do not let it turn out that, 
 in carrying it into effect another Legislature is deprived of its 
 privileges." Ibid. 1374. And, answering some objection, the speech 
 wound up with the vigorous declaration that " the time has not yet 
 come when an English Minister can feel that he is in a false position 
 because he defers to the privileges of the House of Commons, and 
 acknowledges the authority of Parliament." Ibid.
 
 534 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 by, in case a favourable opportunity for doing so should 
 arise. It is noteworthy, however, in connection with 
 declarations afterwards made and enactments subse- 
 quently passed by Mr. Disraeli on this question of the 
 franchise, that the principal ground of his hostility to 
 the reduction to 6 was that it would largely increase 
 the number of votes of the working classes. The 
 result of this would be, he declared, to enable those 
 classes to combine and overpower the other portions 
 of the community. This statement appears the more 
 remarkable when it is known that the entire urban 
 electorate of England and Wales, according to the cal- 
 culation of Lord John Russell, by whom the Bill was 
 introduced, would only be increased from 440,000 to 
 634,000 that is, by 194,000 votes. Even supposing 
 that the new electors would be exclusively from the 
 working class, Mr. Disraeli's statement amounted to 
 this, that the addition of less than 200,000 working 
 men to the electorate would have the effect of giving 
 them power to swamp all the other classes of voters.* 
 The Address from the Throne at the opening of the 
 session of 1861 contained no allusion to the question of 
 Reform, and the leader of the Opposition, in place of 
 
 " The working classes of this country," said Mr. Disraeli, " had 
 shown a remarkable talent for organization, and a power of dis- 
 cipline and combination inferior to none, and to these classes the Bill 
 was about to give predominant power. He thought a measure which 
 founded the constituency upon the principle of numbers, not fitness 
 and which added 200,000 electors, composing one homogeneous clas8 : 
 having the same interest, who would neutralize the voices of the 
 present borough constituency, was not a wise and well-considered 
 one." Annual Register, cii. 101.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 535 
 
 blaming the Liberal Administration for its neglect of 
 one of the first and most important of Liberal mea- 
 sures, was highly delighted and warmly approved. 
 He " thought the Government could not be censured 
 for omitting the topic in the Royal Speech, and he 
 was not displeased at the omission." 
 
 Turning to the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston, 
 Mr. Disraeli uttered a protest against the Premier's 
 system of " secret diplomacy " ; f renewed his con- 
 demnation of Lord Palmerston's "pursuing the 
 phantom of an United Italy " ; J and with his cha- 
 racteristically audacious forgetfulness of passages in 
 his own career, accused the Ministry of " fishing " for 
 a policy from Parliament. 
 
 By the beginning of 1862 the Government had to 
 deal with the question of the Civil War in America. 
 Mr. Disraeli was wise enough to advocate a policy of 
 complete neutrality ; || and to this policy, to his ever- 
 lasting credit, notwithstanding the rabid fervour of 
 a large number of his supporters in favour of the 
 Southern States, he adhered, throughout the entire 
 civil conflict. Considering the foreign policy of Lord 
 Palmerston, he condemned it, as he had consistently 
 done, for its activity, and recommended disarmament 
 as the true course to be adopted for maintaining tran- 
 quillity ; denouncing " bloated armaments " in time of 
 peace 1[ with a fervour that recalled the orations of 
 
 * Hid. ciii. 10. Ibid. 
 
 f Ibid. 10. || Annual Register, civ. 9. 
 
 Ibid. 11. 11 Ibid. 80.
 
 536 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Mr. Bright.* His attitude, also, in a debate in reference 
 
 * The phrase " bloated armaments " was used in a debate on the 
 Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, May 8. One of the questions 
 which Mr. Disraeli most carefully considered in this speech was, 
 whether England required a larger force for her defence ; and this 
 question he decided emphatically in the negative. He examined 
 the three grounds which could be assigned for an increase of her arma- 
 ments : (1) self-defence ; (2) " to obtain a great object of material im- 
 portance ; " and (3) " to use a phrase which has been introduced into 
 this debate, to maintain her due influence in the councils of Europe." 
 Hansard, 3 S. clxvi 1408. As to the first ground, England was suffi- 
 ciently prepared for self-du-fence already ; as to the second the desira- 
 bilit" of acquiring additional territory he dismissed it with scornful 
 impatience. " Now," he said, " I am quite at a loss to fix upon any point 
 of material importance which this country aspires to. It appears to me 
 that England is in possession of everything which a free, proud, and 
 rational country can desire, and I entirely dismiss any consideration 
 under that head. " Ibid. He then went on to consider the third ground 
 the influence which England ought to maintain in the councils of 
 Europe ; and on that point he was equally emphatic in his con- 
 demnation of an increase of our forces. " What," he asked, ' ' is this 
 moral power to exercise which is now the policy of England ? I will 
 tell you what moral power means. It ineana garrisons doubled and 
 trebled. It means squadrons turned into fleets ; and in an age of 
 mechanical invention to which there is no assignable limit, it means 
 perpetual stimulus given to the study of the science of. destruction." 
 Ibid. 1421-2. "The consequence," he pi\oeeded, "of the policy of 
 what is called moral power that is to say, warlike armaments in time 
 of peace of a dictatorial policy never conceding, scorning conciliation, 
 shrinking from compromise and never having forbearance is that you 
 find yourselves involved in war. Your armaments lead to rival arma- 
 ments ; and it is an inevitable necessity that any country which is 
 obliged to incur a warlike expenditure in times of peace for any 
 considerable period, ultimately takes refuge from the intolerable 
 position in which it must find itself, in an attempt to realise some 
 result by a state of war." Ibid. 1422. He next proceeded to argue 
 against the idea that England was justified in entertaining any fear a 
 of France. "The military restlessness of France," he said, "ia more 
 than satiated. France requires repose ; France requires peace ; France 
 requires economy ; France requires commerce. Commerce, economy, 
 and peace constitute the natural and normal policy of England ; 
 and I say it is an opportunity for the noble Lord, possessing the
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 537 
 
 to Canada is worthy of some notice. During the 
 
 confidence of the House, and armed with the resources of this country, 
 to appeal to one who still, in official parlance, is our ally, and who 
 might, under the noble Lord's influence, still become our friend it 
 is, I say, in the noble Lord's power to couie to some cordial understand- 
 ing, sensible as well as cordial, between this country and France 
 ... to put an end to these bloated armaments which naturally involve 
 states in financial embarrassments." Ibid. 1425-6. He took every 
 opportunity, in this same session, of preaching that necessity for re- 
 trenchment, upon which during these years he was insisting in season 
 and out of season. He was favourable to the idea of Mr. Stansfeld's motion , 
 calling for a reduction in our expenditure (Annual Register, cxv. 91), 
 and both in the debate on the Fortifications and Works Bill, on 
 June 23, and in a debate on the Administration of Lord Palmerston on 
 August 1, advocated the same idea. In the first he accused the Premier 
 of escaping the consequences of his excessive expenditure by throwing 
 the burden on posterity. " We have," said Mr. Disraeli, " had a war 
 expenditure in time of peace, combined, and erroneously combined, 
 with a system of finance that only a peace expenditure could justify. 
 The consequences of that combination may alarm us and other 
 Members of this House ; but when these consequences begin to appear 
 and they may be nearer than we suppose ihey will perhaps be no 
 source of alarm to the noble Lord, because when his financial em- 
 barrassments commence, he is perfectly ready to draw upon posterity. 
 To-night he is establishing a precedent which, if sanctioned by the 
 House, will allow him to engage the expenditure of the country IE 
 worthless purposes of any sort with impunity." Ibid, clxvii. 956-7. In 
 the second speech that on the Administrai.'^n of Lord Palmerston he 
 declared that the Premier had spent 12,000,000 on the dockyards 
 alone since he had obtained power. " What," asked Mr. Disraeli, 
 "have we got for that money ? I say that 12,000,000 were never ex- 
 pended in a manner more thoughtless, more inefficient, and producing 
 less results." Ibid, clxviii. 1136. He condemned the war in China 
 as " entered into in the most rash and imprudent manner part and 
 parcel, indeed, of a most rash and imprudent system " (Ibid. 1137-8); 
 he accused Palmerston of meaning "recklessly to play" with the 
 different parties in the House, " for the gratification of his own am- 
 bition" (Ibid. 1139) ; and finally he summed up his idea of what the 
 foreign policy of England ought to be, by declaring that we should 
 be "vigilant to guard and prompt to vindicate the honour of the 
 country," but that we ought at the same time to " hold aloof from 
 that turbulent diplomacy which only distracts the mind of the peopi*
 
 538 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 period when a conflict appeared probable between 
 this country and the United States in reference to 
 what is known as the Trent affair, the Home Govern- 
 ment despatched to Canada a body of 3,000 men, 
 raising the force of British troops in the Dominion to 
 10,000. Curiously enough, the Conservative party 
 found great fault with this measure, and took up, in 
 dealing with the question, the ground that, by thus 
 retaining a large force in our colonies, we diminished 
 their necessity for, and accordingly their own power 
 of, self-defence. Mr. Adderley (now Lord Norton), 
 who introduced a motion on the question, said that we 
 ought to adopt towards Canada one of two courses, 
 either to largely increase our force there, or to let it be 
 distinctly understood by the Canadians that unless 
 measures were taken for their self-defence, the British 
 troops in the colony would be withdrawn.* And 
 Mr. Disraeli joined in the complaint that by sending 
 this force to Canada we did the colony harm, "thereby 
 damping the ardour of the Canadians by indicating 
 a desire to monopolise their defence." f 
 
 from internal improvement." It would be better for us "to lighten 
 taxation, " " frigidly but wisely to administer the public treasury." 
 Ibid. 1140. I think I might leave my contention that during the ad- 
 ministration of Lord Palmerston Mr. Disraeli preached the thoroughly 
 Radical doctrine of peace, retrenchment, and internal reform, to rest on 
 his conduct in this single session of 1862. Of course, the reader will 
 know that I am not blaming him for preaching such doctrines, or that I 
 dissent from them. My point is, that while he taught such articles of 
 public policy at one period of his career, he professed quite the opposite 
 creed at another period : that, in addition to the sin of propagating 
 false doctrine, he wart also guilty of the offence of apostasy." 
 * rind. 118. f IK*. 119.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION 539 
 
 In 1863, also, the civil war in America presented the 
 chief subject of parliamentary discussion. Mr. Disraeli, 
 while having the good sense to denounce the indica- 
 tions both on the part of the Government and by a 
 section of its own supporters of a desire to give a 
 recognition to the rebellious States, indulged in some 
 prophecies about the future of America which are ex- 
 tremely amusing reading at the present time.* 
 
 In the debate on the Address in 1864, Mr. Disraeli 
 made some attempt to rouse the Parliament from its 
 subjection to the influence of Lord Palmerston, and 
 described in somewhat contemptuous terms the un- 
 hesitating obedience which it gave on all occasions to 
 what the Minister desired. He described the House of 
 Commons as "fast drawing to that satisfactory con- 
 dition which subsists between members of the French 
 Chambers and their master; " f and then renewed his old 
 charge that the Government endeavoured to obtain a 
 policy for the House of Commons, instead of suggesting 
 one themselves. " Humiliate us if you like," said Mr. 
 Disraeli. " Degrade us if we must submit to it. But, 
 at any rate, do not call on us to bear responsibility." \ 
 
 * " I cannot conceal from myself the conviction that whoever in 
 this House may be young enough to live to witness the ultimate con- 
 sequences of this civil war will see, whenever the waters have sub- 
 sided, a different America from that which was known to our fathers, 
 and even from that of which this generation has had so much expe- 
 rience. It will be an America of armies, of diplomacy, of rival States 
 and manoeuvring Cabinets, of frequent turbulence, and probably of 
 frequent wars." Annual Register, 1863, N. S., cv. 21. 
 
 f Annual Register, 1864, N. S., cvi. 16. 
 
 t Ibid. 16.
 
 540 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Next, dealing with the question of peace or war, he 
 said, " If we believe that this country is engaged in 
 a just and fair quarrel, Parliament will support the 
 Government, of whomsoever it may be formed. But 
 let us be sure about the policy which we are pursuing. 
 Let us be quite sure, if we go to war, first of all that 
 it is a necessary and just war; and, secondly, if now 
 necessary, whether it might not have been prevented 
 
 by more astute and skilful management If 
 
 you have a policy, let it be brought forward fairly and 
 candidly." * 
 
 In the course of this session, an episode occurred 
 which, though it has no reference to a political ques- 
 tion of any great importance, yet throws a strong light 
 on some very important and characteristic traits in 
 the personal character of Lord Beaconsfield. At this 
 period Mr. Stansfeld was one of the Junior Lords of 
 the Admiralty. The Procureur-Imperial of France, 
 while engaged in prosecuting a man named Greco and 
 others for a conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor ot 
 the French, made a statement to the effect that one of 
 the accused persons had been found in possession of 
 a letter telling him to write for money to Mr. Flowers, 
 at 35, Thurloe Square, Brompton. This was the 
 address of Mr. Slansfeld, and that gentleman admitted 
 that he had allowed the Italian patriot Mazzini to have 
 his letters addressed to 35, Thurloe Square, under the 
 name of M. Fiori (the Italian equivalent for Flowers). 
 The explanation, as was put forward more clearly 
 Ibid. 17.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 541 
 
 by Mr. P. A. Taylor, was to the effect that it would 
 have been absurd to expect that any letters addressed 
 to Mazzini in his own name from Italy would have 
 had the least chance of reaching him. As Mr. Taylor 
 remarked, "any letters so addressed might as well 
 be burned as expected to be delivered to him in 
 London."* Mr. Stansfeld at the same time denied 
 that he had any knowledge whatever of the nature of 
 the correspondence which passed between Mazzini and 
 his friends. Mr. Disraeli made use of the occasion to 
 deliver two most vehement attacks upon Mr. Stansfeld 
 and against Mazzini. f 
 
 In the first of these speeches (March 14), he de- 
 scribed Mazzini as "not only the votary and advocate, 
 but the great promoter of assassination," \ and in the 
 second (March 17), he accused Mr. Stansfeld of being 
 in correspondence with " the assassins of Europe," 
 "the advocates of anarchy throughout the Continent ;" 
 " of the men who point their poniards at the breast of 
 our allies." 
 
 Mr. Bright replied to Mr. Disraeli, calling him to 
 account for the excessive bitterness of his onslaught 
 on Mr. Stansfeld. Keferring to some of the quotations 
 
 * Annual Register, 1864, N. S., 64. 
 
 f It is singularly noteworthy that Mr. Disraeli afterwards in 
 "Lothair" introduces Mazzini as one of his characters, under the 
 name of Mirafiori, a name suggested, it will be seen, by this debate, 
 &nd he gives a very different (and indeed favourable) picture of him 
 from that which he presents in the discussion on Mr. Stansfeld's 
 action. 
 
 J Hansard, 3 S. clxxiii. 1938. 
 
 Ibid, clxxiv. 271-2.
 
 54 T.ORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 made from writings of Mazzini, Mr. Bright remarked 
 that one of those quotations came from a date so far 
 back as thirty years before. "I don't know Mazzini's 
 age," continued Mr. Bright, "but I believe that he 
 might be at the time five-and-twenty. Consider 
 what his compatriots in Italy have suffered. I think 
 I have read that the right hon. Gentleman who just 
 sat down, in one of his early writings, expressed 
 opinions it may be merely to excite a sensation 
 amongst his readers but still opinions very much 
 like those to which the hon. Baronet has alluded to- 
 night."* 
 
 The allusion of Mr. Bright was to a passage in the 
 " Revolutionary Epick " which certainly had the ap- 
 pearance of defending assassination in some instances. 
 Mr. Disraeli immediately stood up, and exclaimed, 
 " There is not the slightest foundation for that state- 
 ment. I give it the most unequivocal contradiction ; " 
 and this statement, according to the report in the 
 Mornvng Star of the following day (March 18), 
 was received by the Opposition with "cheers, and 
 renewed cheers." Mr. Bright accepted the explana- 
 tion.! 
 
 But the most curious part of the whole transaction 
 i> that Mr. Disraeli, not satisfied with giving a con- 
 tradiction in the House of Commons, published a new 
 
 * Hansard, 8 8. clxxiv. 275. 
 
 f "Doubtless, then," he said, "those who quoted writings said 
 to be the right hon. Gentleman's were in error. I accept the right 
 hon. Gentleman's statement freely, but I was not about to blame 
 him." Ibid. 276.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 
 
 543 
 
 edition of his " Revolutionary Epick/' in order to con- 
 firm the truth of his statement. When the new 
 edition came to be compared with the one previously 
 published in 1834, it was discovered that the passage 
 referring to assassination, to which Mr. Bright had 
 alluded, had been so garbled as to convey quite a 
 different meaning.* 
 
 * I place side by side the passages as they appear in the two 
 editions, leaving the reader to form his own conclusions : 
 
 EDITION OP 1864. 
 
 Dark Pharaoh's doom 
 Shall cool your chariot wheels, 
 
 and hallowed be 
 The regicidal steel that shall 
 
 redeem 
 A nation's woe. 
 
 Lyridon. Canto xxii. 107. 
 
 EDITION OP 1834. 
 
 Pharaoh's doom 
 
 Shall cool those chariot-wheels 
 now hot with blood ; 
 
 And blessed be the hand that 
 dares to reave 
 
 The regicidal steel that shall 
 redeem 
 
 A nation's sorrow with a tyrant's 
 blood ! 
 Lyridon. Canto xxiv. 127. Part ii. 
 
 Another important passage was also so softened down as to be 
 
 essentially different in meaning, as will be seen from putting extracts 
 
 from the two editions side by side : 
 
 EDITION op 1834. EDITION OP 1864. 
 
 From the first moment that the Since the wolf her mother, 
 
 wolf her mother, Stern nurse of sterner children, 
 
 Stern nurse of sterner children, 
 poured her stream 
 
 Of martial milk from her im- 
 mortal dug, 
 
 The spirit of her strong career 
 was mine; 
 
 And the bold Brutus but pro- 
 pelled the blow, 
 
 Her own and nature's laws alike 
 approved. 
 
 Lyridon. Canto lii. 108. 
 
 It might be argued, in favour of Lord Beaconsfield, that he is not 
 
 to be held responsible for the opinions he puts in the mouth of one 
 
 from her dug 
 Immortal poured her stream, 
 
 Koine's strong career 
 Was mine ; the blow bold Brutus 
 
 struck, her fate. 
 
 Lyndon. Canto xi. 96.
 
 544 LORD BEACONSFIEL&. 
 
 The reader has been made so familiar with adventures 
 of a like nature in the course of Lord Beaconsfield's 
 career, that I need not here further dwell upon this 
 episode. This only is worthy of observation in refer- 
 ence to the matter, that it is rather astonishing to find 
 Mr. Disraeli carrying into the maturity of middle age, 
 and into the importance of his great position, the 
 extraordinary and fantastic tricks with truth which 
 
 of his characters ; but his own act deprives him of this escape. If 
 those passages in the edition of 1834 were innocent, why did he 
 garble them in the subsequent edition ? The new edition, I ought 
 to mention, was prefaced by a dedication to Lord Stanley (now 
 Lord Derby). Mr. Disraeli declares he had sometimes regrettedi 
 as it had " long been improbable " he '' should ever publish another 
 work," that he could never avail himself of the most graceful 
 privilege of a writer, and inscribe upon a page the name of one to 
 whom " I am indebted for an interesting and faithful friendship." 
 " But," proceeds Lord Beaconsfield, " as the unforeseen always 
 occurs, an occasion has offered for the pleasing office, which I 
 could never have contemplated." Then he proceeds to say that 
 thirty years before, he had printed a portion of a poem, "the nature 
 of which " had " unexpectedly become the subject of public contro- 
 versy." Only fifty copies had been printed, and as the controversy 
 as to its contents might become " recurrent and interminable," he 
 thinks the " simplest course, and one which might save me trouble 
 hereafter," would be to republish the Epick. The new edition 
 was " printed from the only copy in my possession, and which, with 
 slight exceptions, was correct in 1837, when after three years' 
 reflection, I had resolved not only to correct, but to complete the 
 work." Finally, we are told that the " corrections are purely 
 literary." The reader knows that the Epick was published first in 
 1834. To say that the corrections made in the edition of 1834 were 
 " purely literary " was, of course, the reverse of true. It appears 
 to me that Mr. Disraeli tries to muddle the question by talking of 
 1837, so as to avoid the direct statement that the 1864 edition had 
 no corrections but " purely literary " ones on the edition of 1834. 
 The suggestion, of course, however, is that the 1834 and the 1864 
 editions were the same. The reader can now judge of the veracity of 
 that suggestion
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 545 
 
 constituted one of the most characteristic features in 
 his early years of struggle and obscurity.* 
 
 In the session of 1865 Mr. Disraeli distinguished 
 himself by again pandering to the religious and political 
 prejudices of his supporters in opposing two wise and 
 just measures. He renewed his opposition to the 
 abolition of the offensive oaths which Roman Catholic 
 members were obliged to take on entering the House.t 
 In speaking on Mr. Baines' bill proposing an alter- 
 ation in the borough franchise, he opposed Reform in 
 words that his after-conduct made extremely memo- 
 rable. 
 
 " All that has occurred," he said, " all that I have 
 observed, all the results of my reflections, lead me to 
 
 * Speaking during the recess, Mr. Disraeli discussed in a speech 
 before the Oxford Diocesan Society (Nov. 25, 1864), the much-vexed 
 question as to the origin of man. " The question is this : Is a man 
 an ape or an angel ? My lord, I am on the side of the angels." 
 Irving, 532. In " Tancred " the same question is discussed in a similar 
 manner. Talking of " The Revelation of Chaos," by which I think 
 the " Vestiges of Creation " is meant, Lord Beaconsfield, with bright 
 sarcasm, makes a young lady, who is an esprit fort, thus describe the 
 doctrine of evolution : " But what is most interesting, is the way 
 in which man has been developed. You know, all is development. 
 The principle is perpetually going on. First, there was nothing ; 
 then, there was something ; then I forget the next I think there 
 were shells ; then fishes ; then we came. Let me see did we come 
 next ? Never mind that ; we came at last. And the next change 
 then, will be something very superior to us something with wings. 
 Ah 1 that's it : we were fishes, and I believe we shall be crows 1 " 
 Tancred, new edition, 109. There are numberless other passages in 
 Lord Beaconsfield's writings and speeches which display the same 
 vehement hostility as those just quoted to atheistic teaching. He 
 appears to me to have the thoroughly Hebrew belief in the personal 
 God of the Old Testament. 
 
 f Annual Register, cvii. 86 . 
 
 35
 
 546 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 this more and more that the principle upon which 
 the constituencies of this country should be increased 
 is one not of radical, but, I may say, of lateral 
 reform the extension of the franchise, not its 
 degradation."* 
 
 In the General Election of 1865, Mr. Disraeli again 
 stood for Bucks, and was again elected. As to the 
 address which he delivered on his election, I need 
 only refer to the passage in which he reiterated the 
 opinions he had so often expressed in favour of a 
 foreign policy of conciliation and non-intervention.! 
 
 I have now finished my survey of Mr. Disraeli's 
 action throughout the many years in which he was 
 leader of the Opposition, and the Liberal party was 
 mainly represented by Lord Palrnerston. I shall briefly 
 summarise what I have written by saying that his 
 
 * Ibid. 113. 
 
 t " I am," he said, " not in favour of non-intenrention ; because 
 there is no such word in the English language. But if you mean 
 oy that barbarism that you don't think it for the interest of England 
 that England, under any circumstances, should meddle with the 
 affairs of other countries. I am equally opposed to that view. There 
 are occasions when the honour and interests of England may 
 authorise an interference ; but I think it requires an unmistakable 
 expression of feeling on the part of the nation before you can deter- 
 mine that its honour is concerned, and it requires on the part of the 
 Minister great sagacity, great knowledge, and the possession of the 
 highest qualities of a public man, before he can decide even that the 
 interests of England are concerned in each case." Sucks Herald, 
 July 16, 1865. " I am myself," he proceeded, " in favour of a Con- 
 servative foreign policy a policy which believes that the tranquillity 
 of the world is the interest of England, that peace is the normal 
 aim, and that in the tranquillity of the world the state or best 
 objects of English ambition may be legitimately obtained. I do not 
 think it is the duty or interest of England to ally itself with the
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 547 
 
 policy was characterised by three leading principles : 
 (1) No disinclination to embarrass the Government 
 when dealing with a foreign question of great diffi- 
 culty ; (2) Hostility to anything like extensive Re- 
 form ; and (3) Constant adherence to the Radical creed 
 of peace, retrenchment, and internal reform. We 
 approach a period when we shall see how far he was 
 true in office to those principles he had so strenuously 
 and persistently advocated during his many years 
 of opposition. 
 
 The death of Lord Palmerston, in 1865, led to the 
 Premiership of Earl Russell, and the assumption by 
 Mr. Gladstone of the post of leader of the House of 
 Commons. The new Ministers had not long been in 
 power when, true to their traditions, they determined 
 to bring in a Reform Bill. The measure introduced by 
 them was of a very moderate character indeed. While 
 
 revolutionary party of the world. If you do, I don't see how you 
 can avoid war ; but if you hold to the great principle of a Conserva- 
 tive foreign policy, you have a greater chance of avoiding it. I 
 look on the power of England as a moderating and mediating power ; 
 and if war occurs in the world it is the business of England by her 
 counsels, to prevent it if possible, and if she fails in that, to shorten 
 its duration and soften its acerbity." Ibid. And then he made the 
 following remarkable declaration : " Since I have been in Parliament 
 now twenty-seven years there has only occurred one occasion on 
 which war was justifiable on our part, and even then it was a war 
 which we could not enter on without hesitation, but still it was a 
 war necessary for the interests of the world. That was the Crimean 
 war, and on that ground I supported it. I have seen no cause since 
 for the warlike interference of England in the affairs of Europe or 
 America. I think it a fair boast for a Government if they can 
 show that they have maintained the country at peace. But I am 
 bound to say that the allegation on the part of the present Govern- 
 ment cannot be sustained." Ibid.
 
 548 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 it reduced the county franchise to 14, it lowered that 
 in the towns to 7. The reader will rememher that 
 the bill introduced by the Conservative Ministry in 
 1859 reduced the county franchise to 10, while the 
 bill of Lord John Russell, introduced in the year 
 following, lowered the county franchise to 10 and 
 the borough franchise to 6. In other words, the 
 Reform Bill of 1866 proposed a higher franchise for 
 the counties than that proposed by Mr. Disraeli him- 
 self in 1859 ; and a higher, both as regards the counties 
 and the boroughs, than the bill brought in by Lord 
 John Russell in 1860. There was, therefore, every 
 reason to hope that this bill would pass easily through 
 the House of Commons. However, the Parliament 
 which had been elected under the auspices of Lord 
 Palmerston, though containing a Liberal majority, con- 
 sisted of Liberals rather of the Whig type than of the 
 more advanced school. The result was that a com- 
 bination of parties was made against the measure, the 
 anti-reforming Liberals joining with the Conservatives. 
 Shortly after the introduction of the measure, Earl 
 Grosvenor gave notice of an amendment, the effect of 
 which was that the House would not deal with the 
 question of the franchise until the Government told 
 them what they were afterwards prepared to do on the 
 question of the redistribution of seats. The bill was 
 brought on for second reading on the 12th of April ; 
 Earl Grosvenor moved his amendment, and a debate 
 ensued which <-xMided over eight nights. It was on 
 the last night of the debate, and immediately before
 
 A PATRIOTIC OF POSITION. 549 
 
 Mr. Gladstone rose to reply, that Mr. Disraeli expressed 
 his opinions upon the Bill. The speech had the same 
 characteristics which I have noted in nearly all those 
 on the question of Reform which Mr. Disraeli had 
 delivered in previous years. He guarded himself from 
 declarations which would preclude him from ever deal- 
 ing with the question, but at the same time invented 
 reasons for professing to believe that the bill before 
 the House did not deal satisfactorily with the subject. 
 Notwithstanding the mystery in which he endeavoured 
 to involve his meaning, there are several passages 
 which clearly show that his main objection to the bill 
 was, that under it too large a proportion of the work- 
 ing classes would be admitted to the franchise.* 
 
 The amendment of Earl Grosvenor was lost by a 
 majority of five, 313 to 318. On May 7, Mr. Gladstone, 
 yielding to the objections of the House, brought in his 
 Redistribution Bill. This measure was carried on the 
 
 * " The elements of the estate of the Commons must be numerous, 
 and they must be ample, in an age like this, but tJiey must be clwice. 
 Our constituent body should be numerous enough to be independent, 
 and select enough to 1)6 responsible" Hansard, clxxxiii. 97. After this, 
 endeavouring to reconcile his opposition to the present reduction of 
 the franchise with the expression of an opinion not unfavourable to a 
 similar reduction in 1859, he endeavoured to show that a great 
 change had come over public opinion since then. In his opinion, 
 now, " the men who formed the impartial and intelligent opinion 
 of the country " thought " that, though they are desirous that the 
 choicest members of the working classes should form a part and no 
 unimportant portion of the estate of the Commons, they recoil from 
 and reject a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise.'' - 
 Ibid. 98-9. The reader will not be unamused to find the old figment 
 of the estate reappearing in Mr. Disraeli'a speculations on the consti- 
 tution of the House of Commons.
 
 550 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 14th, and then both it and the Franchise Bill were 
 amalgamated. The two bills struggled on for some 
 time with varying fortunes, but on June 18th an 
 amendment of Lord Dunkellin, making the qualifica- 
 tion dependent, not on rental, but on rating value, was 
 carried by 315 to 304. Earl Russell and Mr. Gladstone 
 resigned, and Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli once more 
 took the reins of Government. 
 
 The gigantic and to some extent dangerous agitation 
 in favour of Reform which followed the fall of the 
 Gladstone Government, induced some members of the 
 Derby Administration to come to the conclusion that 
 the subject could no longer be shelved. Accordingly, 
 when Parliament met, the Queen's speech was found 
 to contain a paragraph announcing that the Govern- 
 ment were about to deal with the question. This 
 paragraph asked the House to discuss the proposals of 
 the Ministry "in a spirit of moderation and mutual 
 forbearance," and trusted that the result would be the 
 production of a measure which, without unduly dis- 
 turbing the balance of political power, " should freely 
 extend the elective franchise." 
 
 On February llth, Mr. Disraeli explained to the 
 House of Commons the meaning of these words, and 
 the explanation at once amazed and amused the 
 House. 
 
 " Sir," said he, " the meaning that they " the 
 Ministers "attribute to those words is that, under 
 the circumstances in which the House finds itself, 
 it was in our opinion expedient that Parliamentary
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 551 
 
 Reform should no longer be a question which should 
 decide the fate of Ministries." * 
 
 These words, it is scarcely necessary to say, are 
 utterly subservient of the principles upon which the 
 Ministry hold office in a constitutionally governed 
 country ; nor is it necessary to more than recall, in a 
 word to the reader, that Lord Beaconsfield himself has 
 pointed out scores of times in his writings and speeches, 
 that it is the duty of a Ministry to propose a policy to 
 the legislature, and to stand or fall by that policy. The 
 question of Reform was the chief question which at 
 this moment divided parties, and no Government had 
 a right to hold office except on the condition of some 
 proposal on that subject upon which they were ready 
 to stake their existence. Besides, it was on this very 
 question of Reform that Mr. Disraeli had just succeeded 
 in overthrowing the Government of Lord Russell and 
 Mr. Gladstone. In the neat and laconic words of Punch, 
 Mr. Disraeli's calm proposal was " Heads I win, tails 
 you lose." 
 
 In the course of this speech Mr. Disraeli made several 
 statements of an extraordinary but to us familiar cha- 
 racter. As his Ministry was now dealing with the 
 question of Reform, he found it necessary to prove not 
 that he and his party had changed their opinions upon 
 the question but that in all along opposing Reform, 
 they had been really in its favour. In other words, 
 he resorted to exactly the same tactics as he employed 
 when he came into office in 1852. Then he obtained 
 * Hansard, 3 S. clxxxv. 215
 
 552 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 power as a friend of Protection and an enemy of Free 
 Trade. Now he had obtained power as a friend of a 
 restricted and an enemy of an extended franchise. But 
 as in 1852 he endeavoured to show that while opposing 
 Free Trade he was steadily supporting it, so he endea- 
 voured to prove now that in opposing the extension 
 of the franchise, he was really all the time in its favour. 
 In working out this strange thesis, he made the mar- 
 vellous assertion that Reform had never been a party 
 question, and he pledged himself to the assertion that 
 Lord Derby, the late Duke of Richmond, Lord George 
 Bentinck, and others "came to the resolution that if 
 Lord John Russell gave up the Act of 1832, nothing 
 would induce them to take up a position of opposition 
 to Parliamentary Reform ; " " and their course," added 
 Mr. Disraeli, " has been consistent throughout. There 
 never was a Bill brought forward on the subject of 
 which the second reading was opposed by us."* 
 
 With regard to the "resolutions" of Lord Derby 
 and others, I confess I should much prefer to hear their 
 own testimony to that of Mr. Disraeli : I pass, then, to 
 Mr. Disraeli's assertions about his own conduct. It is 
 quite true that he did not oppose the second reading 
 of the various Reform Bills, but the suggestion that 
 he did not obstruct the question of Reform is utterly 
 and audaciously false. He did not oppose the second 
 reading for two very good reasons: first, because he 
 was in a hopeless minority; and, secondly, because 
 there was quite enough of false Liberalism on the 
 * Ibid. 223.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 553 
 
 Treasury Bench, and on the other Liberal benches 
 generally, to defeat the attempts of the different 
 Ministries to deal with the question. In point of 
 fact, then, the reason why Mr. Disraeli and his friends 
 had not opposed the second reading of those Reform 
 Bills was not that he or his party did not wish them 
 to be defeated, but that they thought it strategically 
 better to allow the Bills to be defeated by the false 
 sections of the Liberal party itself. Mr. Disraeli, to 
 prove his case, should have shown that he and his 
 party had resisted all temptations to defeat Reform 
 which the divided state of the Liberal party placed in 
 their way. He should have shown that he and his 
 party had not eagerly joined in every combination 
 against Reform, and rejoiced over every successive 
 defeat of every successive measure for its advancement. 
 And Mr. Disraeli personally should have done more. 
 He should have been able to blot for ever words from 
 his own mouth session after session, time after time, 
 against any real extension of franchise, which are in- 
 scribed on the immutable tablets of Hansard. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli wound up his ingenuous speech by the 
 statement that he thought the best plan for proceeding 
 with the subject was by resolution, and he invited the 
 House to co-operate with him in passing these resolu- 
 tions, in terms as 'umble as could have been employed 
 by Uriah Heep himself.* When we contrast the 
 
 * " And although we are not prepared in any way to shrink from 
 the leading principles of the policy that we hope may be sanctioned, 
 we still believe that in a question of this paramount importance, if
 
 554 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 almost cringing demeanour of Lord Beaconsfield to 
 Parliament when he was in a minority with the con- 
 tempt he afterwards displayed towards the same body 
 when a large and stupid majority allowed him to play 
 the dictator, we have another proof of the fact that 
 those who in adversity are the most abject, are in 
 prosperity the most insolent. 
 
 When the Resolutions were put on the table, they 
 were found to be of the most vague and abstract 
 character. The first, for instance, confined itself to the 
 elementary assertion that the number of electors for 
 boroughs and towns in England and Wales ought to 
 be increased. February 25 was the day fixed for the 
 consideration of these Resolutions ; but when that day 
 arrived, Mr. Disraeli made an extraordinary change of 
 front: in place of proposing the Resolutions, he proceeded 
 to detail to the House the outlines of a Bill This, of 
 course, was altogether different from his original plan, 
 which was that the Resolutions should be passed first, 
 and a Bill after. Obviously, if a Bill were prepared by 
 the Government, the Resolutions were unnecessary. For 
 
 the House deigns to co-operate with us and come into council with 
 us, many suggestions of great value will be made which may add to 
 the fulness and completion of the consummation. I can only say on 
 the part of my colleagues that those suggestions will be received not 
 merely with candour, but, if found to deserve the acceptance of the 
 House and appear for tke public advantage, they will be accepted 
 with gratitude." Hansard, 3 8. clxxxv. 241. Immediately after- 
 wards he says : " We shall enter into the Committee and avail our- 
 selves of all that the learning, the genius, the experience of the House 
 can suggest for the solution of this question ; and to all we shall give 
 a cordial and a candid deference.' 1 Ibid. 242.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 555 
 
 instance, one of the proposals of the new Bill was that the 
 franchise in the towns should be reduced to a 6 rating: 
 
 O 
 
 qualification. That single proposal immediately dis- 
 posed of no less than the first four of the Resolutions. A 
 6 rating franchise increased the electorate, and there- 
 fore disposed of the first Resolution, which laid down 
 the abstract proposition that the number of the electors 
 ought to be increased : it lowered the qualification, and 
 therefore disposed of the second Resolution, which 
 simply stated that the qualifying value should be 
 reduced; it was founded on the principle of rating, 
 and therefore disposed of the fourth Resolution, which 
 simply affirmed that the qualification should be based 
 on rating: and it disposed of the third Resolution, 
 which stated that the alterations made in the franchise 
 should not give any class a predominating influence, 
 because Mr. Disraeli would have doubtless contended 
 that such would have been the effect of his proposal. 
 In the face of those facts, it was monstrously absurd 
 to proceed simultaneously with the Resolutions and 
 the Bill. This was pointed out by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. 
 Lowe, and Mr. Bright in succession. But Mr. Disraeli 
 had carefully avoided giving any indication in his 
 introductory speech as to what he intended to do with 
 his Resolutions. Mr. Walpole was, therefore, allowed 
 to say that the withdrawal of the Resolutions would 
 be an " utter mistake." * When, however, it came 
 to Mr. Disraeli's turn to make a reply, he threw Mr. 
 
 * Ibid. 975.
 
 5$8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 " was born and died on Monday evening, the 25th of 
 February." * 
 
 Mr. Disraeli gave the House of Commons two ex- 
 positions of the Ministerial change. In the first, he 
 merely said a few formal words, in which nothing 
 calls for comment except the fact that he expressed 
 regret for the loss of but one of his three colleagues ; 
 and that colleague was not Lord Cranborne (now 
 Marquis of Salisbury), nor the Earl of Carnarvon. 
 This was on March 4. 
 
 On March 5, the day following, he entered into the 
 second and more detailed history of the reasons why 
 the 6 Rating Bill had been abandoned. The expla- 
 nation he gave, the reader will be prepared to know, 
 was rather strange, and did not well bear the exami- 
 nation to which it was afterwards subjected. The 
 reasons for abandoning the Bill, which Mr. Disraeli gave, 
 were three. First, Lord Derby and he had learned that 
 the Bill was not acceptable to the House of Commons 
 generally. But how, in the face of the fact that the 
 Bill had not even been printed, did Lord Derby and 
 Mr. Disraeli learn that it was not acceptable to the 
 House of Commons generally ? The second reason was 
 that the Bill was found to be particularly objectionable 
 to the Tory party. But as they, any more than the 
 Liberals, had not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill 
 in print, it was hard to understand how they could 
 have so readily condemned the measure; and would 
 they have found a 6 Rating Bill objectionable if they 
 
 * Ibid. 1354.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 559 
 
 knew that it was the alternative of a Bill founded 
 on a household franchise ? Finally, the third reason 
 which Mr. Disraeli offered was that the Ministry had 
 been informed that at a meeting in Mr. Gladstone's 
 house the Liberal party had agreed to accept no Bill 
 which did not reduce the franchise to a 5 rating; 
 but this reason was even worse than the other two. 
 As Mr. Gladstone afterwards stated, no such resolu- 
 tion had been adopted by the Liberals at the meeting 
 alluded to ; and in fact the question of a 5 rating 
 had practically not been referred to at all.* 
 
 And thus we see that this explanation of a revo- 
 lutionary change in the plan of a Ministry in dealing 
 with a question so great as the representation of the 
 people was justified by reasons of which two were open 
 to considerable doubt, and the third was based on a 
 rumour that turned out to be completely unfounded ! 
 
 On May 18, Mr. Disraeli laid before the House the 
 great and final measure of" the Government. Its main 
 and essential feature was that it gave a vote to every- 
 
 * This statement about the meeting at Mr. Gladstone's was at once 
 received by the Opposition with cries of " No, no 1 " Mr. Disraeli 
 endeavoured to retrieve his position by saying that that was the 
 information which had reached him and his colleagues. " Probably," 
 he went on to say, " it was not accurate, and much of the information 
 which reaches you about us is equally unauthentic." Hansard, clxxxv. 
 1343. Mr. Gladstone gave a very crushing rejoinder to this attempt of 
 Mr. Disraeli to escape from his difficulty : " The right hon. Gentle- 
 man says that if he has received inaccurate information, we also *re 
 subject to the like misfortune. That may be so, but the difference 
 is this we do not found our statements in Parliament upon it, nor 
 do we, upon inaccurate information, base decisions of vital conse- 
 quence in matters of public policy " Ibid. 1356.
 
 558 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 " was born and died on Monday evening, the 25th of 
 February."* 
 
 Mr. Disraeli gave the House of Commons two ex- 
 positions of the Ministerial change. In the first, he 
 merely said a few formal words, in which nothing 
 calls for comment except the fact that he expressed 
 regret for the loss of but one of his three colleagues ; 
 and that colleague was not Lord Cranborne (now 
 Marquis of Salisbury), nor the Earl of Carnarvon. 
 This was on March 4. 
 
 On March 5, the day following, he entered into the 
 second and more detailed history of the reasons why 
 the 6 Rating Bill had been abandoned. The expla- 
 nation he gave, the reader will be prepared to know, 
 was rather strange, and did not well bear the exami- 
 nation to which it was afterwards subjected. The 
 reasons for abandoning the Bill, which Mr. Disraeli gave, 
 were three. First, Lord Derby and he had learned that 
 the Bill was not acceptable to the House of Commons 
 generally. But how, in the face of the fact that the 
 Bill had not even been printed, did Lord Derby and 
 Mr. Disraeli learn that it was not acceptable to the 
 House of Commons generally ? The second reason was 
 that the Bill was found to be particularly objectionable 
 to the Tory party. But as they, any more than the 
 Liberals, had not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill 
 in print, it was hard to understand how they could 
 have so readily condemned the measure ; and would 
 they have found a 6 Rating Bill objectionable if they 
 
 * Ilnd. 1354.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 559 
 
 knew that it was the alternative of a Bill founded 
 on a household franchise ? Finally, the third reason 
 which Mr. Disraeli offered was that the Ministry had 
 been informed that at a meeting in Mr. Gladstone's 
 house the Liberal party had agreed to accept no Bill 
 which did not reduce the franchise to a 5 rating; 
 but this reason was even worse than the other two. 
 As Mr. Gladstone afterwards stated, no such resolu- 
 tion had been adopted by the Liberals at the meeting 
 alluded to ; and in fact the question of a 5 rating 
 had practically not been referred to at all.* 
 
 And thus we see that this explanation of a revo- 
 lutionary change in the plan of a Ministry in dealing 
 with a question so great as the representation of the 
 people was justified by reasons of which two were open 
 to considerable doubt, and the third was based on a 
 rumour that turned out to be completely unfounded ! 
 
 On May 18, Mr. Disraeli laid before the House the 
 great and final measure of the Government. Its main 
 and essential feature was that it gave a vote to every- 
 
 * This statement about the meeting at Mr. Gladstone's was at onoe 
 received by the Opposition with cries of " No, no I " Mr. Disraeli 
 endeavoured to retrieve his position by saying that that was the 
 information which had reached him and his colleagues. " Probably," 
 he went on to say, " it was not accurate, and much of the information 
 which reaches you about us is equally unauthentic." Hansard, chcxxv. 
 1343. Mr. Gladstone gave a very crushing rejoinder to this attempt of 
 Mr. Disraeli to escape from his difficulty : " The right hon. Gentle- 
 man says that if he has received inaccurate information, we also JCQ 
 subject to the like misfortune. That may be so, but the difference 
 is this we do not found our statements in Parliament upon it, nor 
 do we, upon inaccurate information, base decisions of vital conse- 
 quence in matters of public policy " Ibid. 1356.
 
 560 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 body in England and Wales who was the occupier of 
 a house. In other words, the chief spokesman of the 
 Tory party, which had always opposed a reduction 
 of the franchise, reduced it to an extent infinitely 
 beyond any contemplated by even the most Liberal 
 Ministry that had yet been in office. To this 
 stupendous desertion of principle it is only necessary 
 to point ; comment would only weaken the effect of 
 the mere statement of fact. Nor need I more than 
 make a passing observation on the essential difference 
 between this surrender of principle by Mr. Disraeli, 
 and that surrender of principle by Peel in 1S4G, on 
 the denunciation of which Lord Beaconsfield laid the 
 foundation of his future greatness. It was not, as 
 Mr. Disraeli himself was careful to inform the House, 
 it was not upon the question of Free Trade and Pro- 
 tection, pure and simple, that Peel had succeeded in 
 ousting Lord John Russell from office. The Corn Law 
 and the Tariff of 1842 went almost as far in a Free- 
 Trade direction as Russell would have been willing at 
 that period to advance. In Mr. Disraeli's case, on the 
 contrary, he had succeeded to office distinctly on this 
 question of the franchise. And, again, Peel's surrender 
 of Protection was deferred for five years after his rise 
 to power, and did not take place on the very morrow 
 of the day on which he had succeeded in overthrowing 
 a Free-Trade Ministry. Mr. Disraeli's proposal of a 
 revolutionary reduction in the franchise, on the con- 
 trary, followed, without the interval of even a single 
 session, on his defeat of a Ministry which proposed a
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 561 
 
 moderate reduction of the franchise. On every occasion 
 up to 1874, on which Lord Beaconsfield attained power, 
 he was guilty of a completer and more sudden act of 
 tergiversation than that of the Minister whom he had 
 denounced and dethroned. 
 
 I have said that the main proposal in Mr. Disraeli's 
 Bill was that there should be household suffrage. He 
 saddled this proposal, however, with conditions which, 
 if retained, would have to a considerable extent 
 destroyed its effect. To those conditions I call par- 
 ticular attention. They are the compensations which 
 did in the opinion of Lord Derby, and did not in that 
 of Lords Cranborne and Carnarvon, and General 
 Peel, so neutralise the basis of household suffrage as 
 to make the measure moderate, in place of extreme. 
 Moreover, these conditions, the reader will find, are 
 not merely qualifying features of the Bill, but are part 
 and parcel of the Bill itself. 
 
 One of the provisions of the measure was dual 
 voting. There were also, in addition to the household 
 franchise, a number of what are called " fancy fran- 
 chises." For instance, everybody who paid 20s. yearly* 
 in direct taxation was entitled to a vote ; so was any 
 person who had 50 in the funds or a savings bank;f 
 and there was also an educational qualification. : It 
 will be seen at once how the clause upon dual voting 
 would act. A householder who paid 20s. yearly in 
 direct taxation would under the dual voting system 
 
 * Hansard, clxxxvi. 17. J Ibid. 
 
 f Ibid, 18. 
 
 36
 
 562 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 have one vote as a householder and a second vote as 
 paying this direct tax. In other words, as Mr. Gladstone 
 put it afterwards, a person could purchase an additional 
 vote upon payment of 20s. yearly.* 
 
 But ridiculous as was this proposal of dual voting, 
 and liable as it was to produce the most extraordinary 
 injustices in operation, there was another provision of 
 the Bill which was even more ridiculous, and which 
 would have produced more unjust and absurd con- 
 sequences. In the course of his speech Mr. Disraeli 
 made the statement that in the previous session 
 the House of Commons "had asserted a principle 
 with regard to the borough franchise ; " f or, as he put 
 it a few moments afterwards, "a great decision was 
 arrived at by the unerring instinct of the House." 
 This great decision, arrived at by the "unerring in- 
 stinct " of the House, Mr. Disraeli described to be that 
 a vote should be granted to those only who were rated 
 to the poor, and who themselves paid their rates. || 
 
 Now what will the reader think when he finds that 
 
 * Ibid. 41-2. "But," said Mr. Gladstone, " when the right lion. 
 Gentleman proposes a franchise not only for income tax, but for 
 assessed taxes, I declare, and I will show and not I alone, but all who 
 take the pains to consider the subject that the proposal of the right 
 hon. Gentleman is simply equivalent to a proclamation to every man 
 with a purse in his pocket that he may make votes on any scale he 
 pleases for 20*. a year. A man who chooses to dab a little hair-powder 
 on his head is liable to pay 23*. a year. A mau who chooses to pay the 
 servants' tax may have the vote. A man who chooses to hand about, 
 not the body, but the property, of a miserable three-legged jade may 
 qualify 365 persons with a single horse that may not perhaps havo 
 cost him 3." 
 
 t 2bU. 9. J Ibid. 10. Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 563 
 
 this great decision, arrived at by the " unerring instinct" 
 of the House, had not been arrived at by the House at 
 all ? The allusion of Mr. Disraeli evidently was to the 
 amendment of Lord Dunkellin, the carrying of which 
 by a majority of eleven had overthrown the Russell 
 Ministry. But what was the nature of that amend- 
 ment ? It was not that a man should be rated to the 
 poor and should himself pay his rates. It was that 
 the qualification to the vote should depend on the 
 rating, and not the rental value of a house ; taking no 
 notice whatever of the fact whether the occupant 
 himself was rated, or himself paid his rates.* And, 
 moreover, Mr. Gladstone had pointed out, in the course 
 of the debate in the previous session on this amend- 
 
 * Ibid. 29-30. "And the right hon. Gentleman," said Mr. Gladstone, 
 "says that last summer the House of Commons, by its unerring 
 instinct, and without knowing it, established this great principle of 
 rating. And how did it establish it ? .... Why, Sir, the right hon. 
 Gentleman says it was done by adopting the Motion made by my 
 noble Friend the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin), the effect of 
 which was that the basis of the franchise was to be found in admitting 
 to the constituencies only men who were rated to the relief of the poor 
 and who paid their rates. These are the two columns of the Consti- 
 tution," said Mr. Gladstone, " and these two columns were built up on 
 the night when my noble Friend succeeded in defeating the measure 
 of the Government. Well, Sir, I go back to the Motion of my noble 
 Friend the Member for Galway, and I affirm that it had no more to do 
 with either the one or the other of those columns of the Constitution 
 than chalk has to do with cheese. The Motion of the noble Member 
 for Galway simply provided that the pecuniary measure of the fran- 
 chise should be founded upon rateable value instead of gross estimated 
 rental. It was perfectly indifferent, as far as that motion was con- 
 cerned, whether a man were rated or not, and whether he paid his 
 rates or not ; and under the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord I 
 would undertake to get rid completely of all personal liability to 
 rating and obligation to pay rates."
 
 564 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ment of Lord Dunkellin's, the limits of its effect. Ho 
 had said that if the amendment were to mean that 
 the occupant should be rated to the poor, and pay 
 his rates himself, it would require enlargement. As 
 it stood, however, it simply made the franchise de- 
 pendent on the rateable and not the rental value of 
 the house.* 
 
 I have now shown how utterly incorrect Mr. 
 Disraeli was in putting forward a decision of the 
 House of Commons as giving authority for his pro- 
 posal. Let us now see what the effect of his proposal 
 would be. His proposition was that nobody should 
 have a vote unless he himself were rated for the poor, 
 and he himself paid the rates. According to Mr. 
 Disraeli himself, the effect would be to disfranchise 
 nearly five-sevenths of the householders of England, f 
 And so a measure which professed to give a vote 
 to all the householders of England, came, by this 
 rating regulation, to give it to less than one-third of 
 them. Here is how Mr. Disraeli's proposal produced 
 such an extraordinary result. In a large number 
 of boroughs, the rates were paid, not by the tenant, 
 but by the landlord. This mode of collection was 
 established by a statute known as the Small Tene- 
 ments Act. The ' reason of this enactment was the 
 obvious one that the collection of rates from the many 
 and generally speaking poor tenants would have been 
 
 ibid. 30. 
 
 f Ibid. 11-12. His calculation was that there were 237,000 persons 
 rated and paid their rates ; those would receive votes ; while 486,000 
 householders, not paying their rates personally, would not.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 565 
 
 a much more expensive process than their collection 
 from the single and in most cases wealthier landlord. 
 The rating which the landlord paid was of course added 
 to the rent which he charged. The Small Tenements 
 Act applied, according to Mr. Disraeli himself, to fifty- 
 eight boroughs entirely, and to portions of ninety more.* 
 The householder who thus paid his rates, not personally, 
 but indirectly through his landlord, came to be known 
 as the compound householder. Mr. Disraeli's proposal 
 gave the vote to the householder who paid directly ; 
 it took it away from the householder who paid the 
 rate through his landlord. In other words, it dis- 
 franchised all the compound householders in England 
 and Wales! And as this proposal came to be more 
 thoroughly sifted in its details, it was found to in- 
 volve consequences even more monstrously absurd. 
 It was shown afterwards that, owing to local Acts, 
 the registration of compound occupiers varied in 
 parishes even side by side with each other. Thus, 
 to take the remarkable instance pointed out by Mr. 
 Gladstone, 5,781 compound householders were placed 
 on the parliamentary registry in the borough of 
 Lambeth, while in the neighbouring borough of St. 
 Giles, only five compound householders out of 4,921 
 tenements, at and above 10 rental, were on the 
 registry.! And thus Mr. Disraeli's proposal would 
 have the effect of giving five householders a vote in 
 St. Giles, Camberwell, and nearly 6,000 a vote in 
 Lambeth. There were many other strange results 
 * Ibid. 12. t MM. 32-3.
 
 566 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 involved in connection with Mr. Disraeli's extra- 
 ordinary bill, which I cannot stop to go into. Let 
 me pass on to Mr. Disraeli's proposal for dealing 
 with the question of the county franchise. In 
 approaching this question he had also before him a 
 great decision to which the " unerring instinct " of the 
 House had led it in the previous session. While Lord 
 Dunkellin's amendment in favour of rating against 
 rental value in boroughs had been carried, a similar 
 amendment, proposed by Sir Rainald Knightley, in 
 favour of rating instead of a rental value in the 
 counties, had been rejected. Mr. Disraeli, who found 
 one great decision arrived at by the " unerring in- 
 stinct" of the House as sacredly binding, treated the 
 second great decision, made by the same " unerring 
 instinct," as having no importance whatever. Accord- 
 ingly, he threw overboard the vote of the House of 
 Commons on the county franchise, and proposed a 
 15 franchise in counties, founded on a rating value.* 
 Mr. Gladstone, who rose immediately after Mr. 
 Disraeli, announced open war against the absurd and 
 unjust restrictions with which Mr. Disraeli sought to 
 
 * Ibid. 20-21. It almost takes one's breath away to read the auda- 
 cious misrepresentations in which Mr. Disraeli ventured to indulge in 
 reference to this vote on the county franchise. He described the vote 
 as " brought on in a languid House," amid ominous cries of " Oh, 
 oh I " from the Opposition. Then he substituted "in a very thin 
 House." This provoked another burst of exclamatory scepticism, and 
 accordingly Mr. Disraeli endeavoured to change his ground. " It n-n* 
 decided, I grant, in a very full I/GUM." Hansard, clxxxvi. 20. This, 
 of course, was the point at issue. The importance of the decision of 
 the House obviously depended, not on the number of people who were 
 present when the discussion begun, but upon tlio mimlxT \vliu
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 567 
 
 load his measure. To the dual vote, Mr. Gladstone 
 would give his " implacable hostility ; " * indeed, that 
 proposal he described as "dead already;"! and, the 
 other checks were dismissed with equally contemptuous 
 disapproval. Mr. Gladstone summarised their fate in 
 a single significant word : they should, he said, " go." \ 
 
 This was assuredly a strange, not to say unpre- 
 cedented announcement by the leader of an Opposition 
 with regard to a Government measure. It meant that 
 the proposal of the Ministry was to be so utterly trans- 
 formed, as to be essentially different from its original 
 shape; and that this was to be done in obedience to 
 the wishes of the party out of office. In other words, 
 it was a complete reversal of the old constitutional 
 doctrine that the party in power should also represent 
 the principles which the majority of the House ot 
 Commons approved. 
 
 And the House of Commons recognized this strange 
 revolution in the ordinary state of parliamentary 
 affairs. Was Mr. Disraeli, the man in power, going to 
 resist or yield to those imperious demands of Mr. 
 Gladstone, the man out of office ? This was a point 
 on which Lord Cranborne (now the Marquis of 
 Salisbury) was particularly anxious to be informed. 
 As he justly said, the Bill as it now stood would be 
 quite different from a Bill modified according to Mr. 
 Gladstone's dictation. If modified as Mr. Gladstone 
 demanded, the Bill would establish household suffrage 
 pure and simple; and this was a proposition which 
 * Ibid. 41. t Ibid. 41. J Ibid.
 
 5 68 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Lord CranDorne expected to see met by "a firm I 
 might almost say indignant refusal." " Just think for 
 a moment," went on his lordship, " of the figure they " 
 the Government "would assume, the aspect they 
 would wear in the eyes of their countrymen, if, after 
 all we did last year, they became the instruments ot 
 engrafting household suffrage pure and simple upon 
 the constitution of this country."* Lord Cranborne 
 might have added, that, in addition to the general 
 breach of principle which would be involved in sucli 
 action by the Ministry, there would be the breach of a 
 particular and recent engagement to himself and the 
 two other gentlemen who had left the Ministry. They 
 had been, as I have already remarked, given distinctly 
 to understand that the Ministry would stand by the 
 checks, which would make household suffrage a re- 
 stricted instead of a revolutionary reduction of the 
 franchise. 
 
 I need not weary the reader with any details as to 
 what followed. He by this time, probably, is sufficiently 
 familiar with Mr. Disraeli's line of ministerial conduct 
 to anticipate the result. He will not, therefore, be 
 surprised to hear that Mr. Disraeli sacrificed practi- 
 cally every one of the checks upon household suffrage 
 to which the Liberal party was opposed. The main 
 principle of Mr. Disraeli's Bill was that no householder 
 should have a vote who did not personally pay his 
 rates to the poor; and the effect of this, as I have shown, 
 would be to practically disfranchise the whole body 
 Ibid. 84-6.
 
 A PATriOTIC OPPOSITION. 569 
 
 of compound householders. An amendment was pro- 
 posed by Mr. Hodgkinson, which provided that the 
 occupier, in future, instead of the landlord, should be 
 rated for personal rates. The amendment, in other 
 words, by abolishing the arrangement by which the 
 landlord paid the rates in place of the occupier, 
 abolished what was called the compound householder, 
 and, as a consequence, the compound householder's 
 disfranchisement. To the amazement of all sides of the 
 House, Mr. Disraeli gave his " cordial acquiescence " * 
 to this revolutionary change in his measure, and, 
 indeed, was so eager in his welcome of the amend- 
 ment that he proposed to accept it almost with- 
 out further discussion. Lord Cranborne, however, 
 strongly protested against "a change which involves 
 the certain admission, instead of the contingent and 
 doubtful admission, of some 500,000 people to the 
 franchise," "without giving to the House and the 
 country more than three hours, at least, to think over 
 the alteration proposed." t Mr. Disraeli consented, 
 in answer to this vigorous protest, to postpone the 
 final settlement of the point; but he ultimately 
 accepted Mr. Hodgkinson's proposal, slightly varied in 
 unimportant details. 
 
 The dual vote was abandoned even more readily, 
 and Mr. Gladstone's statement that it was dead the 
 very evening it was born, turned out correct : the 
 dual vote was surrendered before the bill was read a 
 
 Ibid, clxxxvii. 725. 
 f Ibid. 766.
 
 570 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 second time, Mr. Disraeli pronouncing its epitaph 
 with the caiin observation that he had hoped that 
 some stray philosopher would have risen to say some- 
 thing in its behalf, and "lent dignity to our forlorn 
 position."* Again, Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens proposed 
 a resolution establishing the lodger franchise. This 
 was a proposal at utter variance with what Mr. 
 Disraeli stated was the central principle of his Bill, 
 the great principle which the House, with " unerring 
 instinct," had arrived at in the previous session, and 
 which Mr. Disraeli felt bound to follow in his new- 
 Bill. Mr. Disraeli insisted that nobody should have a 
 vote unless he was rated to the poor and paid his rates. 
 But the lodger, it is scarcely necessary to point out, is 
 not rated to the poor, and does not pay his rates. Mr. 
 Disraeli, notwithstanding, accepted Mr. M'Cullagh 
 Torrens' proposal, and promised himself to bring in a 
 clause embodying it. He lowered the county quali- 
 fication from 15 to 12. He abandoned the two 
 fancy franchises the educational and the pecuniary 
 without even going to a division. He abandoned the 
 clause allowing the use of voting papers, although 
 he declared it " founded on truth and justice ; " and 
 he abandoned the proposal to join the University of 
 Durham with that of London in electing a member. 
 Finally, after he had strongly condemned and suc- 
 ceeded in defeating the motion of Mr. Laing,| to give a 
 
 * Ibid, clxxxvi. 663. 
 
 f " I believe," said Mr. Disraeli, "that the tendency of our modern 
 civilization is rather to reduce than to increase the number of repre- 
 sentatives of large towns." Ibid, clxxxvii. 1960. Referring to the
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 571 
 
 third member to towns with over 150,000 inhabitants, 
 Mr. Disraeli accepted the almost identical proposition 
 to give an additional member to Liverpool, Manchester, 
 and Birmingham, although he had allowed a subor- 
 dinate to vehemently denounce the proposal in an 
 earlier part of the evening.* 
 
 On the third reading, this successive surrender, 
 one after another, of the principles of the Bill, until 
 it became utterly transformed from its original shape, 
 was sharply attacked by Lord Cranborne. The 
 noble lord pointed out that every single one of the 
 alterations demanded by Mr. Gladstone in the Bill 
 had been made ; denounced this acceptance of a de- 
 mocratic measure by men who had always professed 
 to be the opponents of democracy ; and in a tine 
 peroration, described Mr. Disraeli's conduct as "a 
 policy of legerdemain," and as involving a political 
 betrayal which had no parallel in our parliamentary 
 annals.t 
 
 particular case of Manchester, he said, " I believe that two Members 
 for Manchester will do their business much better than a larger 
 number." Ibid. 1959. 
 
 * Mr. Adderley (now Lord Norton), speaking on the part of the 
 Government on this question, said that " if they accepted the 
 principle involved in this clause, they would adopt a total innovation 
 
 upon an old-established principle of our representation It 
 
 was the introduction of the American principle of representation by 
 numbers, and an abandonment of the English principle of representa- 
 tion of places The new principle would degrade the functions 
 
 of the members of that House " Ibid, clxxxviii. 814. It 
 
 would " turn the members themselves into mere counters, and degrade 
 the principle of a deliberative assembly." Ibid. 817. 
 
 t I append some of the principal passages from this vigorous 
 speech. " I see with enormous astonishment that the passing of this 
 Bill is spoken of as a Conservative triumph I wish to know
 
 57 2 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 I need not pause to quote the speeches of some othe 
 Conservative members who protested against the 
 betrayal by a Conservative Government of Conserva- 
 tive principles ; nor need I make any further reference 
 to Mr. Disraeli's reply than that he repeated some ot 
 his most notoriously inaccurate statements, and that, 
 in fact, he " brazened " the thing out. Suffice it to 
 
 whether this Bill, as is generally supposed, is exclusively the off- 
 spring of the Government, or whether the right hon. Gentleman the 
 Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) has not had some- 
 thing to do with it. If he has, it follows as an indisputable axiom 
 that it cannot be a Conservative triumph. Now I heard the demands 
 which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire 
 made on the second reading of the Bill. . . . Most of the Members on 
 this side of the House who heard the speech made by the right hon. 
 Gentleman on that occasion, thought that it was imperious in its 
 tone, and I do not deny that there was a stringency in the language 
 employed which could only have been justified by the character of 
 those to whom it was addressed. Imperious language can only be 
 justified by the obsequiousness with which it is obeyed. Now I 
 have sketched lightly the demands made on that occassion by the 
 right hon. Gentleman. They are ten in number: First, he demanded 
 the lodger franchise. Well, the lodger franchise has been given. 
 tSecondly, and this is the only doubtful one, provisions to prevent 
 traffic in votes. Such provisions, however, are to be contained in 
 another Bill. The right hon. Gentleman next demanded the abolition 
 of obnoxious distinctions between cornpounders and non-compounders. 
 Not only have these obnoxious distinctions been abolished, but all 
 distinctions whatever have disappeared. The fourth demand of the 
 right hon. Gentleman was that the taxing franchise should be 
 omitted. It has been omitted. Fifthly, that the dual vote should 
 be omitted. It has been omitted. Sixthly, that the redistribution 
 of seats must be considerably enlarged. It has been enlarged full 
 60 per cent. Seventhly, that the county franchise must be reduced. 
 It has been reduced to something like the point at which it stood in 
 the proposal of last year. Eighthly, that the voting papers must 
 be omitted. To my extreme regret, the voting lapa.s huvo 
 omitted. The last two demands were that the educational and 
 savings banks franchises should be omitted. .... The campaign
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 573 
 
 quote as a specimen the one statement that this 
 revolutionary measure of Reform embodied " the 
 chief principles of the policy which we " the Con- 
 
 whicli we are now concluding, the battle which you (the Opposition) 
 have now won, was begun in the year 1852, when Lord Derby 
 declared himself the bulwark against the advance of democracy. 
 From that time forward his party took their tone, on all occasions, 
 from their Leader's declaration. It was the natural attitude which 
 they should assume, the consistent course which taey should pursue 
 on every occasion, that they should struggle to resist any further 
 encroachments upon the limits prescribed by the Act of 1832. In 
 the year 1859, after resisting time after time the proposals of the 
 hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) and other hon. Members, they 
 brought forward a Bill with the avowed intention of withstanding 
 any further inroad upon the borough constituency. In the year 1860 
 they strenuously opposed the proposal of Lord Palmerston to the 
 same effect. And so it went on ; and this is the end of it this ia 
 the ignominious conclusion that Lord Derby's Government the 
 Tory Government the Government of those Statesmen who prompted 
 and encouraged that steadfast resistance, should in the end have pro- 
 posed a change far more sweeping and extensive than any man had 
 before submitted to the House of Commons. Of all the strange and 
 mysterious marvels which we have seen in the course of the present 
 Session, the one which has been to me the most strange is that the 
 right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have 
 in this House and elsewhere denied that he and his party have 
 changed their opinions. Why, Sir, when I remember last year .... 
 when I remember what we all consulted together about last year, 
 what we all desired together to do, what we were urged to do by our 
 Leaders, what was the watchword between man and man, and when 
 we all met together what was the common object which we all agreed 
 in promoting, I am surprised that, after so short an interval of time 
 has elapsed, they venture to say that they have not changed their 
 opinions. I can only say that I was closely acquainted with the 
 movements of last year, and I heard all the exhortations which were 
 addressed to us .... and when such a statement is made I feel bound 
 in my own defence to relieve myself of the charge of seeming factious- 
 ness, by making this statement, that never, from the beginning to the 
 end of this campaign, was a word hinted that could lead us to believe 
 that Lord Derby and the Conservative Leaders would have brought 
 in a measure more extreme in the way of enfranchisement than
 
 574 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 servative leaders " have professed, and that we have 
 always advocated " ! * 
 
 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. 
 Gladstone). If, as he seems sometimes to have intimated, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had any such scheme in his breast. I 
 can only say that he covered it with an impenetrable veil with a 
 silence that was undoubtedly most judicious, because if the lea^t 
 hint had escaped him of what he intended to do, he never would 
 have gained, on the 18th of June, that majority which placed him in 
 
 power After all, our theory of government is not that a 
 
 certain number of statesmen should place themselves in office and 
 do whatever the House of Commons bids them. Our theory of 
 government is, that on each side of the House, there should be men 
 supporting definite opinions, and that what they have supported in 
 opposition they should adhere to in office ; and that every one should 
 know, from the fact of their being in office, that those particular 
 opinions will be supported. If you reverse that, and declare that, 
 no matter what a man has supported in opposition, the moment he 
 gets into office it shall be open to him to reverse and repudiate it 
 all, you practically destroy the whole basis on which our form of 
 Government rests, and you make the House of Commons a mere 
 scrambling place for office. You practically banish all honourable 
 men from the political arena, and you will find, in the long run, 
 that the time will come when your statesmen will become nothing 
 but political adventurers ; and that professions of opinion will be 
 looked upon as so many political manoeuvres for the purpose of 
 
 attaining office I entreat hon. Gentlemen opposite me not 
 
 to believe that my feelings on this subject are dictated simply by my 
 hostility to this particular measure, though I object to it most 
 strongly, as the Honse is aware. But even if I took a contrary view 
 if I deemed it to be most advantageous, I still should deeply ! 
 that the position of the Executive should have been so degraded as 
 it has been it the present Session; I should deeply regret to find 
 that the House of Commons has applauded a policy of legerdemain ; 
 and I should, above all things, regret that this great gift to the 
 people if gift you think it should have been purchased at the cost 
 of a political betrayal which has no parallel in our Parliamentary 
 annals, which strikes at the root of all that mutual confidence which 
 is the very soul of our party Government, and on which only the 
 strength and freedom of our representative institutions can be sus- 
 tained." Hansard, 3 S. clxxxviii. 15271539. 
 * Ibid. 1611.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 575 
 
 After Parliament had separated, the country was 
 treated to another lengthy and elaborate explanation 
 of Mr. Disraeli's action. On October 29 he was enter- 
 tained at a banquet in Edinburgh. What I have 
 already written spares me the necessity of entering 
 into anything like a detailed reference to the remark- 
 able oration he delivered on that occasion. I have 
 quoted in an early part of this book one of its leading 
 passages, the main effect of which was that the Tory 
 party would be foolish in leaving to the Liberals the 
 sole right of dealing with the question of Reform. I 
 have shown how utterly at variance the opinions 
 laid down in that passage are with the conduct of 
 Mr. Disraeli when he found it convenient to accuse 
 Sir Robert Peel of tergiversation, and so I may let 
 that part of the speech drop. But there was anothei 
 remarkable passage, which attracted a large amount 
 of attention, and with regard to which Mr. Disraeli 
 played a characteristic trick. Describing his action 
 with regard to his own party on this question of Reform, 
 he said, " I had to prepare the mind of the country, 
 and to educate, if it be not too arrogant to use such 
 a phrase, I had to educate our party; for a large 
 party requires its attention, of course, to be called 
 to questions of this character with some degree ot 
 pressure : I had to prepare the mind of Parliament 
 and the county on this question of Reform." * 
 
 The plain interpretation of this passage was that 
 Mr. Disraeli had to lead his blind and benighted 
 * Scotsman, Oct. 30, 1867.
 
 576 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 followers into paths which they did not expect. In 
 making this arrogant boast of his own deceptive 
 powers, Mr. Disraeli was, as everybody knew, describing 
 with perfect truth the relations between himself and 
 his followers. It was quite true that Mr. Disraeli had 
 throughout his whole tenure of office as Conserva- 
 tive leader employed his arts in making his party 
 abandon the hapless and senseless principles which 
 he and they had professed in opposition. When he 
 came into power in 1852, his entire plan of action 
 was designed to the purpose of making his party, 
 which was obstinately Protectionist, adopt Free Trade ; 
 and his means for accomplishing this end was to 
 so mystify and confuse the issues as to make his 
 followers really think that they were supporting Pro- 
 tection when they were actually adopting Free Trade : 
 and similarly in 1867, after he had given voice 
 for years to the hostility to any reduction of the 
 franchise, which was the leading principle of his 
 party, he employed all his arts to make his party 
 abandon their hostility to Reform by making out 
 that household suffrage and hostility to Reform 
 meant one and the same thing. 
 
 Nevertheless, the country, naturally enough, was 
 astonished at this burst of egotistic frankness; and 
 Mr. Disraeli found it necessary to make some departure 
 from the amplenesses of confession into which the in- 
 discretion of his triumph and his vanity had led him. 
 Accordingly he produced an official copy of his speech, 
 and in this official report the vain-glorious and significant
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 577 
 
 " I " is toned down to the softer and less candid " we." 
 I have, however, taken the trouble to compare the 
 reports of his speech which appeared in three Edin- 
 burgh papers on the day after its delivery, and I find 
 that in every single one of them in the Scotsman, 
 in the Edinburgh Evening Courant, and in the Edin- 
 burgh Daily Review the passage stands with the " I," 
 and not with the " we." I place in a note the passage 
 in the speech as it appears in the Edinburgh papers 
 and as it afterwards appeared in the official report 
 published by Mr. Disraeli.* 
 
 I have not time to comment in detail on the winter 
 session which took place in consequence of the Abyssi- 
 nian expedition, and I pass on without any further delay 
 
 * THE OFFICIAL REPORT. EDINBURGH DAILY REVIEW. 
 
 " We had to prepare the mind " I had to prepare the mind of 
 of the country, to educate if it the country, and to educate if 
 be not arrogant to use such a it be not arrogant to use such 
 phrase to educate our party on a phrase to educate our party, 
 this subject of Reform. It is a It is a large party, and requires 
 large party ; and its attention its attention to be called to ques- 
 can only be obtained to the con- tions of this kind with some 
 sideration of a great question by pressure." 
 the pressure which is secured by 
 
 frequent discussion." The Chcm- EDINBURGH EVENING COURANT. 
 cellar of the Exchequer in Scot- " I had to prepare the mind of 
 land, 11. the countryto educate, if it be 
 
 not too arrogant to use such a 
 phrase to educate our party, 
 which is a large party, and of 
 course requires its attention to be 
 called to-questions of this character 
 with some pressure ; and I had to 
 prepare the mind of Parliament 
 and of the country in this question 
 of Reform." 
 I have already given the version of the Scotsman in the text. I am 
 
 37
 
 578 LOUD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to February 17, when it became known that Lord 
 Derby was seriously ill. On the 25th following Lord 
 Derby resigned, and on the 26th it was announced 
 that Mr. Disraeli had received from the Queen a 
 letter . stating that he had been selected as the 
 successor to the Premiership. A curious incident was 
 connected with this announcement of the Queen's 
 intention. Her Majesty's secretary at that time was 
 General Grey, whom we knew long ago as Colonel 
 Grey, and as a candidate for the representation of 
 High Wycombe. It was the successful rival of his 
 youth that was the bearer to Mr. Disraeli of the letter 
 announcing his accession to the object of his lifelong 
 ambition.* 
 
 On February 27, Mr. Disraeli kissed hands on his 
 appointment, and two days afterwards he signalized 
 his accession to office by appointing Lord Cairns as 
 successor in the Chancellorship to Lord Chelmsford. 
 Lord Chelmsford had been, as will be remembered, a 
 bitter and obstinate enemy of the emancipation of the 
 Jews ; and an impression was left that the new Premier 
 had not dismissed his old and venerable colleague with 
 as much courtesy as might have been expected. 
 
 not sure whether the report in the Evening Courant is an independent 
 one ; as it appears to have been an evening paper at this period it is 
 now published every morning it may have copied its report from 
 one in a morning journal. However, the agreement between the 
 Scotsman and Daily Review as to the use of the word " I," while they 
 disagree in some other points is sufficient evidence that it was the 
 boastful first person singular, and not the more modest first person 
 plural, that Mr. Disraeli really employed. 
 * The Orel, quoted in Irving, 661.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 579 
 
 On March 5, Mr. Disraeli took his seat in the House 
 of Commons for the first time as Premier. He made a 
 very short speech, and there was nothing particularly 
 definite in what he said. He could only state that 
 his policy would be one of peace, but not of peace at 
 any price ; that it would be a liberal policy a " truly 
 liberal " policy.* 
 
 He was not left long to enjoy the position he had 
 gained. 
 
 The affairs of Ireland had now reached a point when 
 it was no longer possible to leave them neglected. On 
 March 10, the late Mr. John Francis Maguire proposed 
 the appointment of a committee to inquire into the 
 condition of that country. Lord Mayo was put up on 
 the part of the Government to enunciate the policy of 
 the Ministry, and it was evident that the object was 
 to stay the impending attack on the Irish Church, 
 and the injustice of Irish landlords, by a series of half 
 measures. One of the proposals was very skilfully 
 contrived. It was to give at the same time an increase 
 of. the Regium donum to the Presbyterians, and a 
 charter to the Catholic University; and, although on this 
 point the Ministry were studiously vague, to bestow 
 upon the Irish clergy a State subsidy. However, these 
 proposals met with but very little favour. Mr. Bright, 
 amongst others, described them as recalling the moun- 
 tebank of Addison who offered to the country people 
 pills that were very good against the earthquake.! On 
 March 16 the debate was wound up by Mr. Gladstone 
 * Irving, 664. t find. 666-7.
 
 5&> LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Gladstone gave it plainly to be 
 understood that the Irish Church could no longer be 
 allowed to exist, and that he and the Liberal party 
 generally were prepared to carry through its disen- 
 dowment and its disestablishment. Mr. Disraeli, in 
 reply, endeavoured to explain away some of the am- 
 biguous language of Lord Mayo, and announced his 
 hostility to the proposed abolition of the Irish Church. 
 He argued, among other things, that as the people of 
 Ireland were a religious people, the Roman Catholic 
 majority, who formed five-sixths of the population, 
 were extremely anxious to pay for the religious ser- 
 vices of the remaining one -sixth. Perhaps the most 
 remarkable part of his speech was that in which he 
 referred to his address on Ireland in 1844, of which I 
 have already given the reader a sketch, and to which 
 I promised to return on a future occasion. In that 
 speech, it will be remembered, Mr. Disraeli stated 
 that the evils of Ireland were, among other things, "a 
 starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an 
 alien Church."* As the proposals of Mr. Gladstone 
 and the Liberal party were to help that starving 
 population, to deprive that absentee aristocracy of 
 their right of robbing their tenants, and to abolish 
 that alien Church which was the symbol of the humili- 
 ation of the Catholic people, there was no possible 
 way that Mr. Disraeli could reconcile with the speech 
 of 1844 his present hostility to all those remedial 
 measures. He endeavoured accordingly to get out of 
 * See ante, 254-5.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 581 
 
 the matter by some irrelevant jokes, and some mystify- 
 ing language, that, so far as they suggested anything 
 at all, suggested what was palpably false. He de- 
 clared that when he made the speech from which 
 quotations had been made, it appeared to him that 
 nobody would listen to it. " It seemed to me," said 
 Mr. Disraeli, "that I was pouring water upon sand, 
 but it seems now that the water came from a golden 
 goblet."* 
 
 I do not want to deny the skill and the grace 
 with which Mr. Disraeli meets the charge, but I need 
 scarcely point out to the reader that he utterly evades 
 the real point at issue. The question was not of the 
 largeness or the smallness of the audience by which 
 Mr. Disraeli's words were heard, nor whether his words 
 were met with approval or derision by those to whom 
 they were addressed. The question was, Did he use 
 the words ? Did they represent his real opinions ? And 
 if they did, how could he reconcile his expression of 
 diametrically opposite principles at-a subsequent period ? 
 Mr. Disraeli might, indeed, have shown himself con- 
 sistent in one way, but that was a way it would not 
 have been quite convenient for him to adopt. He 
 could have said that when he made the speech in 1844 
 he had as I think I have proved lost all hope of 
 gratifying his ambitious longings in the Conservative 
 party of which Peel was the chief, and, therefore, had 
 thought it was high time for him to try his chance 
 with the opposite side by preaching Liberal doctrines 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cxc. 1791.
 
 582 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and praising Russell, the Liberal leader. At the present 
 moment the position was different. He had stayed 
 with the Tory party, had prospered, was now its chief, 
 and accordingly, as it was his interest, or appeared to 
 be his interest, in 1844 to preach Liberal, so now it was 
 his interest to preach Conservative doctrines on the 
 Irish question. Thus he was perfectly consistent. It 
 was his interest to preach one thing in 1844, and he 
 preached it ; it was his interest to preach the opposite 
 doctrines in 1868, and he preached them. In this form 
 of consistency Lord Beaconsfield is one of the most 
 consistent statesmen that ever lived. 
 
 But I have not quite done with this passage. Mr. 
 Disraeli went on to say that if he wanted to vindicate 
 the words quoted against him, there were many re- 
 marks which he " might legitimately make." * 
 
 " I might remark, that speech was made before the 
 change of locomotion, and the sale of a large portion 
 of the soil of Ireland, which has established a resi- 
 dent proprietary instead of an absentee aristocracy : " t 
 and then he declared that in his " conscience the sen- 
 timent of that speech was right. It may have been 
 expressed with the heedless rhetoric which I suppose 
 is the appanage of all who sit below the gangway; 
 but in my historical conscience, the sentiment of that 
 speech was right." % Here Mr. Disraeli appears in the 
 character of a manufacturer of a new kind of conscience. 
 Such a novel production was certainly necessary if one 
 were to understand what was the particular kind of 
 Ibid. f Ibid. I Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 583 
 
 conscience of which Mr. Disraeli boasted the possession. 
 A historical conscience must be taken to mean that a, 
 man can reconcile to such a conscience the preaching 
 of opposite doctrines on the same state of circum- 
 stances. Lord Beaconsfield has given us quite enough 
 of that form of conscience. 
 
 The counter-proposals of Mr. Disraeli through Lord 
 Mayo died almost as soon as they were born, and on 
 the 23rd of March Mr. Gladstone gave notice of his 
 famous Resolutions on the Irish Church. Finding that 
 defeat in the House of Commons was inevitable, Mr. 
 Disraeli at once set to work to rouse the spirit of bigotry 
 which lies latent in the English people whenever the 
 Church of Rome is flaunted in their face. Writing to 
 the Earl of Dartmouth, he declared that the crisis was 
 not in Ireland. " In my opinion," said he, " the crisis 
 of England is rather at hand ; " * and in justification 
 of this statement he said that there was a powerful 
 party about to destroy "that sacred union between 
 the Church and State which has hitherto been the 
 chief means of our civilization, and is the only security 
 for our religious liberty." t The Ministry met Mr. 
 Gladstone's resolution by an amendment proposed 
 by Lord Stanley (now Lord Derby), the effect ot 
 which was not that the Irish Church should not be 
 disestablished and disendowed, but that any pro- 
 position tending to that result ought to be reserved 
 for the decision of a new Parliament. { In other 
 words, Mr. Disraeli was trying whether he could 
 * Irving, 670. f Ibid. t Ibid. 67L
 
 584 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 leave open to himself a means of escape by which 
 he could in time adopt the principles he was now 
 opposing. A result followed, very extraordinary in 
 ordinary constitutional circumstances, but very familiar 
 in times when Mr. Disraeli held a seat of power and 
 authority. From the Treasury Bench opinions were 
 delivered which were directly contradictory of each 
 other. To judge from the speech of one Minister, the 
 defence of the Irish Church was necessary to the tem- 
 poral, if not the eternal welfare of the British people, 
 and was a position from which the Conservative party 
 could never recede ; but while the House of Commons 
 was still ringing with these words of lofty piety and 
 heroic resolve, another Minister was standing up to 
 hint that the Irish Church was not of so much im- 
 portance after all, and that the Conservative party, if 
 they were only left their good time, would deal with 
 it quite as effectively as the best Liberals or wildest 
 Radicals could desire. 
 
 But the game did not succeed. It was seen that the 
 fight must be a real stand-up contest ; and Mr. Disraeli, 
 in spite of all his subterfuge and tricks, had to definitely 
 take up his position as the advocate of a principle in 
 which he did not believe, and the mouthpiece of a 
 bigotry which he heartily despised. 
 
 Lord Cranborne (now Marquis of Salisbury) was 
 one of the chief mediums of dragging Mr. Disraeli 
 forth from the maze of equivoque and calculated con- 
 tradiction in which he was endeavouring to hide 
 himself. He denounced, in the bitterness of a sin-
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 585 
 
 cerity that had not yet fully submitted itself to the 
 educating powers of Lord Beaconsfield, the double 
 game the Premier was playing ; * and Mr. Lowe, who 
 was also a very keen critic of Mr. Disraeli, described 
 
 " Therefore, while giving the right hon. Gentlemen credit for 
 sincerity in the views they have expressed, I am utterly sceptical of 
 their power to restrain their erratic Leader. And I am bound to say 
 that the right hon. Gentleman will have language of his own which 
 he can quote in support of whatever policy he may feel disposed to 
 adopt ; for it is part of the political skill of the right hon. Gentleman 
 to be able to refer to phrases of his own in favour of any course he 
 may deem it advisable to take. For instance, if it should suit him to 
 take the Protestant line, here is the Dartmouth letter ; should it suit 
 him to take the opposite course, he can always refer to his speech of 
 1844, the spirit of which, as I heard him declare the other evening, is 
 still right" Hansard, 3 S. cxci. 636-7. Then, having referred to the 
 tactics by which Mr. Disraeli had carried the Reform Bill in the pre- 
 vious session, Lord Cranborne proceeded : " Here, again, we have 
 the same phenomenon an opinion steadily maintained by the Con- 
 servative when out of office is changed when in office for the same 
 plea for delay, and the same admission that considerable modification 
 is required. What will be the result 1 If we are to judge by what 
 has happened before, the result will be that those Gentlemen from the 
 north of Ireland who are especially anxious for the maintenance of 
 the Established Church in Ireland exactly as it is, will find themselves 
 much as we who were in favour of restricted borough suffrage were 
 last year they will probably find themselves voting very humbly 
 next year, in the wake of the right hon. Gentleman, for the total dis- 
 establishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. ... I cannot 
 help feeling that this is one of the Motions which, to use the expressive 
 words of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne). are con- 
 structed on the principle of ' cross-fishing ' that the motion is one 
 which is intended to fish on both sides of the House. It whispers to 
 the Gentlemen from the north of Ireland, ' Vote for me ; I am the 
 champion of the Protestant Church. I am seeking for delay in order 
 to secure your interests.' It whispers to other hon. Gentlemen, ' Vote 
 for me ; I am educating my party, and the moment that the process 
 is complete all your wishes shall be fulfilled.' . . . I do not pretend 
 to predict the probable course of the right hon. Gentleman at the 
 head of the Government. I should as soon undertake to tell you 
 which way the weather-cock would point to-morrow." Ibid. 538-9.
 
 586 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 him as " the great Protestant champion whose expe- 
 rience of mankind had taught him to rely much on 
 their gullibility." * 
 
 On March 30, the debate on Mr. Gladstone's Reso- 
 lutions began ; and on April 3, Mr. Disraeli made 
 his reply. He answered the heavy indictment of 
 Lord Cranborne (now Lord Salisbury) with his cha- 
 racteristic evasion of the real charge, and with personal 
 sarcasm. f But the conclusion of this harangue was 
 the part which excited most attention. Taking up 
 the words of his letter to Lord Dartmouth, Mr. Disraeli 
 sounded still louder the horrid cry of " No Popery." He 
 announced the wondrous discovery that " the High 
 Church Ritualists of England and the Irish followers 
 
 * Ibid. 738. 
 
 f " Perhaps I ought to notice the remarks which were made by the 
 noble Lord the Member for Stamford. The noble Lord saw in this 
 amendment, of which I have given the House the plain history I eay 
 the plain and true history the noble Lord saw in the language of the 
 amendment, great cause for mistrust and want of confidence. He saw 
 immediately that we were about to betray the trust with which he 
 deems us to be invested. The noble Lord is at no time wanting in 
 imputing to us being influenced by not the most amiable motives that 
 can regulate the conduct of public men. I do not quarrel with the 
 invective of the noble Lord. The noble Lord is a man of great talent, 
 and he has vigour in his language. There is great vigour in his 
 invective, and no want of vindictiveness. I admit that now speaking 
 as a critic, and perhaps not an impartial one, I must say I think it 
 wants finish. Considering that the noble Lord has studied his subject, 
 and that he has written anonymous articles against me before and 
 since I was his colleague I do not know whether he wrote them 
 when I was his colleague I think it might have been accomplished 
 more ad ungiiem. There is one thing the noble Lord never pardons, 
 and that is the passing of the Reform Act last year. . . . Sir, the only 
 objection which I have to these attacks of the noble Lord is that they 
 invariably produce an echo from the other side. That, it seems to me,
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 587 
 
 of the Pope had been long in secret combination, and 
 are now in open confederacy." * 
 
 When the House laughed at this wild attempt at 
 playing the part of the champion of the faith, Mr. 
 Disraeli, as was his wont, went on to repeat the asser- 
 tions, in which he himself did not believe, with louder 
 emphasis of his belief than before. "Yes," he said, 
 "but it is a fact. It is confessed by those who at- 
 tempted to prevent this combination, to mitigate the 
 occurrence, to avoid the conjuncture which we always 
 felt would be most dangerous to the country. ... I am 
 perfectly aware of the great difficulties that we have 
 to encounter. I know the almost superhuman power 
 of this combination. They have their hand almost 
 upon the realm of England. Under the guise of 
 Liberalism, under the pretence of legislating in the 
 spirit of the age, they are, as they think, about to 
 seize upon the supreme authority of the realm. But 
 this I can say, that so long as, by the favour of the 
 Queen, I stand here, I will oppose to the utmost of my 
 ability the attempt they are making." f 
 
 is now almost a Parliamentary law. When the bark is heard from 
 this side, the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) emerges, I will 
 not say from his cave, but. perhaps, from a more cynical habitation. 
 He joins immediately in the chorus of reciprocal malignity 
 
 'And hails with horrid melody the moon.'" 
 
 Ibid. 900-901. Immediately after making this onslaught, Mr. 
 Disraeli declared that he was only acting thus in self-defence. " I 
 have never attacked any one in my life " at which there were loud 
 cries of " Oh 1 " and " Peel I " " unless," Mr. Disraeli went on, "I 
 was first assailed" 1 Ibid. 901-902. The reader knows how true 
 this assertion is. 
 
 * Ibid. 924. f Ibid. 923.
 
 588 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 After this splendid outburst, according to which, 
 Mr. Gladstone, and those who voted for the abolition 
 of the Irish Church, meant to dethrone the Queen, or 
 something horrible of that kind, it is not surprising to 
 find Mr. Disraeli declaring that the policy of the right 
 hon. Gentleman would "change the character of this 
 country." " It will deprive the subjects of Her Majesty 
 of some of their most precious privileges, and it will 
 dangerously touch the tenure of the Crown." * 
 
 I will not repeat the disagreeable commentaries of 
 the time as to the mental condition of Mr. Disraeli 
 when he uttered these prophecies of darkest gloom. I 
 will only point out this that not a single one of the con- 
 sequences, or anything like what he predicted from the 
 abolition of the Irish Church, has occurred ; that the 
 High Church Ritualists and the Roman Catholics are as 
 far as ever from forming a secret combination or an 
 open confederacy against the Crown ; that none of the 
 most precious privileges of the subjects of Her Majesty 
 have been taken away from Her Majesty's subjects; that 
 "if the tenure of the Crown" be dangerously touched 
 in those days, it is not because of the abolition of the 
 Irish Church, but because of the fantastic tricks Lord 
 Beaconsfield himself has played with the Crown. I 
 have given, in the speech just quoted, the first instance 
 of that use of the name of the Sovereign to which in 
 these days we have become habituated ; but there are 
 several worse instances than the one I have just dealt 
 with. During this great conflict, on which on one 
 Ibid.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 589 
 
 side were religious tolerance and the rights of consci- 
 ence, and on the other dark bigotry and the spirit of 
 religious persecution, Mr. Disraeli on every possible 
 occasion put forward the Queen as fighting in the 
 ranks of the enemies of justice and religious equality. 
 Never has there been a Minister who, while professing, 
 I may almost say, slavish admiration of the throne, 
 has done more to bring that power into disrepute, dis- 
 respect, and danger. 
 
 On the night of the speech of Mr. Disraeli which I have 
 last noticed, the House, by a majority of 60, decided to 
 enter into a Committee on Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions. 
 
 A few days afterwards, Mr. Disraeli made another 
 attempt to raise the " No Popery " cry. The Rev. Mr. 
 Baker, the vicar of Addington, having written to him, 
 to ask an explanation of his extraordinary attack 
 upon the High Church party, Mr. Disraeli replied in a 
 letter which, not satisfied with the language of an 
 ordinary layman, he dated, after the manner of 
 High Church clerics, Maunday Thursday. In this 
 epistle he repeated the statement that the "extreme 
 faction" in the English Church had been for some 
 time in secret combination, and was now in open 
 confederacy with the Church of Rome. " As I hold," 
 continued the writer, "that the dissolution of the 
 union between Church and State will cause per- 
 manently a greater revolution in this country than 
 foreign conquest, I shall use my utmost energies to 
 defeat these fatal machinations." * The words of this 
 * Irving, 673.
 
 590 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 letter themselves carry with them the stamp of their 
 insincerity. I have often already remarked that Lord 
 Beaconsfield, in common with persons of his character, 
 destroys his part by over-acting it. Be it remarked, 
 too, that this man, who was thus endeavouring to stir 
 up in this country a cry against what he calls Irish 
 Romanists, was at that very moment, or a few moments 
 before, in negotiation with these same Irish Romanists 
 for giving them a charter for their university. And 
 be it remembered, too, that this man, who was pro- 
 fessing to consider the disruption of the union between 
 Church and State as a calamity of such terrible 
 consequence, and who was speaking of the Anglican 
 communion with an unctuous piety that would have 
 done credit to a Bishop, is really in no sense a 
 Christian at all. I have examined, in discussing his 
 arguments in favour of the emancipation of the Jews, 
 the picture which he gave of the relations between 
 the Jewish faith and the Christian religion, and I have 
 shown that his view of the Christian faith proves 
 that he has no conception even of its very basis. 
 What are we to think of a man who thus uses religion 
 as the tool of his ambition ? If there be a subject 
 which ought to be safe from the intrigues and the 
 meanness of politics, it is the subject of religion. If 
 there be a feeling in the human heart which even an 
 unscrupulous man might be expected to refrain from 
 playing upon, it is the feeling of religion. It marks a 
 very advanced stage indeed of insincerity and of heart- 
 lessness to drag men's altars and men's God into the
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 591 
 
 mire of one's own mean interests. But what cared 
 Mr. Disraeli ? He had only his part to play of a clever 
 foreigner trifling with the interests and playing upon 
 the passions of the people to whose race he was proud 
 not to belong, and in whose creed he scorned to believe. 
 
 On April 30, the discussion on Mr. Gladstone's 
 first resolution came to an end. I need not take 
 any notice of Mr. Disraeli's speech further than to 
 say that he again resorted to the device of repre- 
 senting the attack on the Irish Church as an attack 
 on the prerogatives of the Crown.* Mr. Gladstone's 
 resolution was carried by a majority of 65 votes 
 330 to 265 ; and Mr. Disraeli immediately moved the 
 adjournment of the House, so as to give the Ministers 
 time to consider their position. 
 
 On May 4, Mr. Disraeli announced the intentions of 
 the Government, and very curious intentions they 
 were. He declared, in the first place, that they had 
 resolved to dissolve Parliament.! As was pointed out 
 immediately afterwards by Mr. Gladstone, it was quite 
 unprecedented in the history of this country that a 
 Government defeated by two such majorities as 60 
 and 65 should resort to a dissolution. J But that was 
 not all : he next informed the House that this disso- 
 lution was not to take place immediately ; that they 
 were to wait until the new Reform Act came into 
 operation, which would be in the following November ; 
 and that the House should give to the Government, 
 
 * Hansard, cxci. 1673. 
 
 f Ibid. 1705. % Ilid. 1711.
 
 592 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 during this interval, " their cordial co-operation." * In 
 other words, the Ministry which had been defeated by 
 overwhelming majorities, and which had thus lost in 
 the completest manner the confidence of the House, 
 was, with the cordial co-operation of the House of Com- 
 mons, to exercise all the power and influence of the 
 Government for six months longer. But this was not 
 the most extraordinary part of this explanation. In 
 detailing his interviews with the Queen, Mr. Disraeli 
 managed to convey the impression thai; his remaining 
 in office was not so much his own desire as the desire 
 of Her Majesty herself. He put it that he had given 
 Her Majesty two alternatives either that she should 
 accept his resignation or a dissolution of Parliament ; 
 and that Her Majesty, after the consideration of a day, 
 chose the alternative of retaining the services of Mr. 
 Disraeli.t And he went on also to make Her Majesty 
 responsible for deferring the appeal to the con- 
 stituencies for the period of six months, until the new 
 Reform Act came into operation. J This was an 
 entirely novel position for a Ministry to assume. As 
 
 Ibid, 1706. 
 
 t Ibid. 1705-6. 
 
 * Ibid. 1706. 
 
 That I may not be supposed to misrepresent Mr. Disraeli, I give his 
 own words : " After that vote, I lost no time in soliciting Her Majesty 
 to be graciously pleased to grant me an audience, and, with that 
 promptitude which Her Majesty always displays when the public 
 interest is at stake, she granted that audience immediately, so that 
 I had the advantage of being in audience of Her Majesty on the after- 
 noon of the very day on which the vote was taken. On that occasion 
 1 placed I am sure fairly and completely before Her Majesty the 
 position of the Government and the position of parties, and the
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 593 
 
 Mr. Ayrton very neatly put it, Mr. Disraeli wished to 
 appear " a suffering Minister who was holding office by 
 the wish of the Queen for the benefit of the people. A 
 Minister in that position," went on the then member for 
 
 position of the country with respect to them ; and I told Her Majesty, 
 with Her permission, that, under the circumstances with which from 
 my previous narrative the House is perfectly acquainted the advice 
 which Her Majesty's Ministers would, in the full spirit of the consti- 
 tution, offer to Her Majesty would be that Her Majesty should dissolve 
 this Parliament, and take the opinion of the country as to the conduct 
 of Her Ministers and the question of the Irish Church. But at the same 
 time, with the full concurrence of my Colleagues, I represented to Her 
 Majesty that there were important occasions on which it was wise that 
 the Sovereign should not be embarrassed by personal claims, however 
 constitutional, valid, or meritorious ; and that if Her Majesty were of 
 opinion that the question at issue could be more satisfactorily settled, 
 or the just interests of the country more studied, by the immediate 
 retirement of the present Government from Office, we were prepared 
 to quit Her Majesty's service immediately, with no other feeling but 
 that which every Minister who has served the Queen must possess 
 namely, of gratitude to Her Majesty for the warm constitutional 
 support which She always gives to her Ministers, and I may add as 
 it is a truth which cannot be concealed for the aid and assistance 
 which every Minister receives from a Sovereign who now has had such 
 vast experience of public affairs. In fact, Sir, I tendered my resig- 
 nation to the Queen. Her Majesty commanded me to attend Her in 
 audience on the next day, when Her Majesty was pleased to express Her 
 pleasure not to accept the resignation of Her Ministry, and Her readi- 
 ness to dissolve this Parliament so soon as the state of public business 
 would permit. Under these circumstances, I advised Her Majesty 
 that, although the present constituency was no doubt as morally com- 
 petent to decide upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church 
 as the representatives of the constituency of this House, still it was 
 the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers that every effort should be 
 made with a view to that appeal, if possible, being directed to the new 
 constituency which the wisdom of Parliament created last year ; and 
 I expressed to Her Majesty that, if we had the cordial co-operation 
 of Parliament, I was advised by those who were experienced and 
 skilful in these matters that it would be possible to make arrange 
 ments by which the dissolution would take place in the autumn of 
 this year." Hansard, 3 S. cxci. 1705-6. 
 
 38
 
 594 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Tower Hamlets, " carried with him an enormous 
 amount of sympathy, and throughout the whole 
 country such a suffering Minister must receive an 
 assistance and support which would not be accorded 
 to a Minister who held office on his own advice and 
 responsibility against the twice-repeated judgments 
 of the House of Commons." * Several other speakers 
 called attention, in a like manner, to Mr. Disraeli's 
 unconstitutional dissolution, and scandalous introduc- 
 tion of the Queen's ngm3. 
 
 The subject was again brought before the House on 
 the following day by Mr. Gladstone, and it had, in the 
 meantime, been further complicated by a statement 
 of the Duke of Richmond's in the House of Lords, 
 which gave a different interpretation of the interviews 
 between the Prime Minister and the Queen, and which 
 represented Her Majesty still further in the character 
 of an advocate of the Ministry against the Opposition. 
 Mr. Gladstone put the case against Mr. Disraeli very 
 well bysaying that "for the first time, I believe, in recent 
 history, certainly within the recollection of the present 
 generation, or, as far as I know, within any other 
 recollection, the Minister seemed to make Her Majesty 
 the suggester of the course which was about to be pur- 
 sued by the Government, instead of the accepter or 
 rejecter of the simple and single advice tendered by them 
 to her, as has been the case on every foraier occasion." t 
 The debate did not advance the matter much further, 
 for nothing could be got from Mr. Disraeli but evasive 
 
 * Ibid. 1724-5. t Ibid. 1788.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 595 
 
 replies, in which he spoke, in a manner I will not cha- 
 racterise, of his interviews with the Queen. The general 
 impression, however, which he left remained the same 
 that the Queen had two alternatives that of accepting 
 the resignation of Mr. Disraeli, or that of agreeing to a 
 dissolution, and that of these two alternatives she chose 
 Mr. Disraeli's remaining in office. A few days afterwards 
 the Prime Minister received just punishment for thus 
 placing the Queen on the side of one of the political 
 parties of the country, and that the party which was 
 fighting under the banner of religious intolerance. 
 Mr. Bright, referring to Mr. Disraeli's accounts of his 
 interviews with the Queen, declared them to have been 
 " a mixture of pompousness and sometimes of servility," 
 and denounced in scathing terms the injury to the 
 country, and the greater injury to the Crown, by 
 representing the Queen in the character of an enemy 
 to the cause of religious freedom. Mr. Disraeli made 
 a weak reply to this just attack, without disproving 
 any of Mr. Bright's charges.* 
 
 * I give a few extracts from Mr. Bright's speech. " I have not 
 been endeavouring to climb the ladder of Parliamentary promotion 
 and notoriety. (' Oh ! ') No, Sir, I have only had the single object 
 so far as I have had anything to do with Irish questions to 
 promote what appeared to be just to that country, and which 
 would tend to the advantage of the United Kingdom. The right 
 hon. Gentleman the other night, with a mixture of pompousness and 
 sometimes of servility, talked at large of the interviews which he had 
 with his Sovereign. I venture to say that a Minister who deceives Iris 
 Sovereign is as guilty as the conspirator who would dethrone her. 
 (' Oh ! ') I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with deceiving his 
 Sovereign; but if he had not changed the opinion which he held 
 twenty-five years ago, and which he has said in the main was right 
 then I fear that he has not stated all that it was his dutv to state in
 
 596 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 It is not necessary for me to more than allude in a 
 word or two to what took place during the remainder 
 of this session. Mr. Gladstone carried, it is known, his 
 Resolutions and his Suspensory Bill. The Government 
 were besides defeated over and over again on their 
 Irish and Scotch Reform Bills ; but Mr. Disraeli was not 
 
 the interviews which he had with his Sovereign. Let me tell hon. 
 Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, that 
 any man in this country who puts the Sovereign in the front of a great 
 struggle like this into which it may be we are about to enter who 
 points to the Irish people, and says from the floor of this House ' Your 
 Queen holds the flag under which we, the enemies of religious 
 equality and justice to Ireland, are marshalled,' I say that the 
 Minister who does that is guilty of a very high crime and a great 
 misdemeanour against his Sovereign and against his country. And 
 there is no honour, and there is no reputation, there is no glory, there 
 is no future name that any Minister can gain by conduct like this that 
 will acquit hi to posterity of one of the most grievous offences against 
 his country which a Prime Minister can possibly commit." Hansard, 
 3 S. cxci. 1942-3. The reply of Mr. Disraeli was as follows: " Sir, I shall 
 not condescend to notice at length the observations of the hon. Member 
 for Birmingham. He says that when it was my duty to make a com- 
 munication to the House, of the greatest importance, and which I 
 certainly wished to make as I hoped I did make it in a manner not 
 unbecoming the occasion I was at once ' pompous and servile.' Well, 
 Sir, if it suits the heat of party acrimony to impute such qualities 
 to me, any Gentleman may do so ; but I am in the memory and in the 
 feeling of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and fortunately 
 there are Gentlemen on both sides of this House they will judge of the 
 accuracy of this representation of my conduct. It is to their feeling 
 and to their sentiment on both sides of the House that I must appeal ; 
 and no words of mine, if the charge be true, can vindicate me. The 
 hon. Gentleman says that he will make no charge against me and then 
 he makes insinuations which, if he believes, he ought to bring forth 
 boldly as charges. I defy the hon. Member for Birmingham, not- 
 withstanding his stale invective, to come down to this House and 
 substantiate any charge of the kind which he has presumed only to 
 insinuate. Let him prefer those charges; I will meet him; and I 
 will appeal to the verdict only of Gentlemen who sit on the same 
 side of the House as himself." Ibid. 1947.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 597 
 
 to be moved from his place. At last Parliament was 
 dissolved, and then began that tempestuous agitation 
 on the Irish Church which is not yet forgotten. On 
 October 2, Mr. Disraeli issued an address to his con- 
 stituents, in which all the terrible consequences which 
 would follow from the abolition of the Irish Church 
 were recapitulated. Once more the attempt was made 
 to play on the bigotry of the country ; and the hated 
 figures of the Pope and the Church of Rome were 
 dangled before the English constituencies in the hope 
 that the demon of bigotry might be evoked in aid of 
 Mr. Disraeli and his Government. Those fell efforts 
 fortunately failed ; and when the verdict of the con- 
 stituencies was taken, it was so overwhelming against 
 Mr. Disraeli that he resigned office without waiting for 
 the meeting of Parliament. 
 
 I need not more than refer in a sentence to Mr. 
 Disraeli's action during the Ministry of Mr. Gladstone. 
 Suffice it to say, that to all the measures of reform which 
 that Ministry introduced, and which entitle it to the 
 credit of being the most beneficent Ministry ever known 
 in our history, Mr. Disraeli was opposed. His most 
 important speech during this period was delivered 
 outside Parliament, at a demonstration in his honour 
 in Manchester, in the course of which he employed 
 against the Ministers one of the happiest illustrations 
 in all his speeches, and laid down Sanitas sanitatum et 
 omnia sanitas as the motto of the Conservative party. 
 
 * Mr. Disraeli was describing the difference in the Gladstone 
 Ministry between their earlier and their later years of existence. "B>*-
 
 598 LORD BEACONSPIELD. 
 
 A more interesting event in the life of Mr. Disraeli 
 
 Gentlemen," he said, " as time progressed it was not difficult to perceive 
 that extravagance was being substituted for energy by the Government. 
 The unnatural stimulus was subsiding ; their paroxysm ended in pros- 
 tration. Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alter- 
 nated between a menace and a sigh. As I sit opposite the Treasury 
 Bench, the Ministers remind me of one of those marine landscapes not 
 unusual on the coast of South America : you behold a range of exhausted 
 volcanoes ; not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest ; but the situation 
 is still dangerous there are occasional earthquakes, and ever and anon 
 the dark rumbling of the sea." Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli 
 at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, April 2, 1872. By Authority. 
 
 The phrase " exhausted volcanoes " has a suspicious resemblance to 
 ' extinct volcanoes," a phrase employed in Hope's " Anastasius.''' The 
 writer is describing the change in the appearance of the fortress in 
 Rhodes. " Its wide ramparts," he says, "its lofty bulwarks, its crested 
 batteries of a black and rugged stone, deprived as they now were of the 
 once thundering engines of fire and destruction, looked like the silenced 
 crater of an extinct volcano, still frowning upon the fertile plain below, 
 though its devastating powers are no longer feared." Fourth edition, 
 i. 273. The resemblance between the two passages is not very close, 
 except in the single phrase alluded to. " Anastasius " is a work with 
 which Lord Beaconsfield was very well familiar. He tells us himself 
 that DEEPDENE, the seat of Mr. Henry Hope, the eldest son of the 
 author of " Anastasius " (Mr. Thomas Hope), was the rendezvous of the 
 Young England party (General Preface, xii.) ; and to Mr. Henry Hope 
 "Coningsby" is dedicated. Let me make the passing remark on this 
 dedication, that Lord Beaconsfield states that one of his objects in 
 writing "Coningsby" was "to scatter some suggestions that may tend 
 to elevate the tone of public life." This is cool in the man who has 
 degraded the public life of England more than any English statesman 
 who ever lived. To return to "Anastasius," "Tancred" bears traces 
 here and there of the influence of Hope's work. But I cannot find any 
 passage in the work of Lord Beaconsfield in which there is a resem- 
 blance in words as well as in ideas to " Anastasius." In the next and 
 following pages, however, I shall prove charges of plagiarism against 
 Lord Beaconsfield of a very serious character. Though " Tancred " is 
 one of Lord Beaconsfield's happiest efforte, and though in parts it ia 
 fine, yet its distance from really high art will be brought home to the 
 mind by reading it immediately after " Anastasius." Both are Eastern 
 tales : but the one is a work of genius ; the other the unequal produc- 
 tion of a but half -skilled workman.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 599 
 
 in this interval was his resumption, after more than 
 twenty years, of the novelist's pen. In May, 1870, he 
 produced "Lothair." The novel bears the closest 
 resemblance to the productions of his earlier days; 
 as in them, passages of splendid diction alternate with 
 passages of the most vapid inanity ; and the book 
 strange to say is characterised, too, by its admiring 
 descriptions of the nobility their mansions and 
 their luxurious surroundings, a form of mean adu- 
 lation of which one would think Mr. Disraeli's attain- 
 ment of one of the highest positions in England 
 might have cured him. There are some clever 
 sketches of contemporary characters; there are here 
 and there bright epigrams ; but the book is dreary 
 and prolix, and the bright passages are the exception, 
 the dull the rule. So far as the book could be said 
 to have any purpose at all, it was a strong attack upon 
 the Roman Catholic Church.* 
 
 * An article in the Dublin Review points out a very singular resem- 
 blance between Mr. Disraeli's novel and one of Miss Amelia B. Edwards', 
 entitled "Half a Million of Money." See Dublin Review, xv., 1870. I 
 will select this place for giving some even graver instances of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's appropriation of other people's literary goods. In the 
 first edition of "Venetia." Mr. Disraeli, in speaking of Byron under the 
 name of Cadurcis, "conveyed" a whole passage from Macaulay's Essay 
 in the Edinburgh Review on Byron. It was the well-known piece of 
 satire on England's periodic fits of persecuting Puritanism. The Essay 
 had not been republished then, for Macaulay had not yet reached his 
 position of fame. The plagiarism, however, was noticed, and pointed 
 out, Lord Beaconsfield got over the exposure by tacking on, in a sub- 
 sequent edition, " These observations of a well-known writer apply to 
 the case of Lord Cadurcis." Jeaffreson, " Novels and Novelists," ii. 243. 
 The passage will be found in chap xviii. p. 320, in Book IV. of the last 
 (1878) edition. I have another instance of plagiarism, however, which
 
 6oo 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 In January, 1874, Mr. Gladstone dissolved Parlia- 
 ment and appealed to the country, and the result, as 
 
 is worse, and which can only be paralleled by the case in which Lord 
 Beaconsfield passed off a whole passage of a French Review as his own. 
 One of the finest, perhaps the finest, passage in all his speeches, is the 
 peroration of his speech on the Corn Law Bill (May 16, 1846). I shall 
 put that passage side by side with one from a work of the late Mr. 
 Urquhart : 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. MR. URQUHART. 
 
 " I know, Sir, that all confidence 
 in public men is lost. But, Sir, I 
 have faith in the primitive and en- 
 during elements of the English 
 character. It may be vain now, in 
 the midnight of their intoxication, 
 to tell them that there will be an 
 awakening of bitterness ; it may be 
 idle now, in the spring-tide of their 
 economic frenzy, to warn them that 
 there may be an ebb of trouble. 
 But the dark and inevitable hour 
 will arrive. Then, when their spirit 
 is softened by misfortune, they will 
 recur to those principles that made 
 England great, and which, in our 
 belief, can alone keep England 
 great. Then, too, perchance they 
 may remember, not with unkind- 
 ness, those who, betrayed and de- 
 serted, were neither ashamed nor 
 afraid to struggle for the 'good old 
 cause' the cause with which are 
 associated principles the most popu- 
 lar, sentiments the most entirely 
 national the cause of labour the 
 cause of the people the cause of 
 England." Jfantard, 3 S. Ixxxvi 
 677. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli had the coolness to introduce Mr. Qoldwin Smith in 
 1 Lot hair " under a fictitious name, and accuse him with obsequious- 
 
 " It is in this midnight of your 
 intoxication, that I declare to you 
 an awakening of bitterness, it is 
 at this spring- tide of your joy, that 
 I tell you that an ebb of troubles 
 is at hand. A voice of warning 
 and of sorrow I raise, although 
 it be alone ; and if its sounds 
 cannot disturb your slumber, and 
 if its sense cannot pierce your 
 breasts, its tone will be preserved, 
 and will sink upon your spirits 
 when they are softened by misfor- 
 tune." Diplomatic Transactions 
 in Central Asia. London, 1841; 
 p. 289.
 
 A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION. 601 
 
 everybody knows, was that Mr. Disraeli was returned 
 to office by a large majority. 
 
 ness towards the nobility, a charge which all who have the honour 
 of Mr. Smith's acquaintance knew to be ludicrously wide of fact. 
 Mr. Smith replied in a letter in which he characterised this attack 
 in terms of just severity.
 
 602 LORD BEACONSFIKLD. 
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 DICTATOR. 
 
 MR. DISRAELI was now in a position entirely difterem 
 from any he had previously occupied. Up to this, 
 when he had held office he was the Minister of a 
 minority, and he was able to carry out nothing but 
 the wishes of his opponents. Now he was in a 
 position of power, with an overwhelming majority, 
 and he was left almost perfectly free play for the 
 development of his own ideas and character. I shall 
 pass over with just a glance or two the first years of 
 his Premiership, because they had reference almost 
 entirely to domestic concerns, and pass on as quickly 
 as I can to the later years, which were principally 
 concerned with foreign policy. His conduct on one 
 domestic question is the only one that requires 
 any particular comment. In 1874, Mr. Russell 
 Gurney brought in a Bill which 'afterwards became 
 law as the Public Worship Act. The object of this 
 Bill, as is well known, was to repress what were 
 considered the excesses of one of the parties in the 
 English Church. The Bill met with the ooposition of
 
 DICTATOR. 603 
 
 several able men in both Houses, apart altogether 
 from considerations of party. However, it was a Bill 
 for which there was at the moment a public outcry ; 
 and when its fate might still be said to some extent 
 to hang in the balance, Mr. Disraeli intervened and 
 made a vehement speech in favour of its proposals. 
 " I take," said he, speaking of the purposes of the 
 measure, " the primary object of this Bill, whose 
 powers, if it be enacted, will be applied and extended 
 impartially to all subjects of Her Majesty, to be this, 
 to put down Ritualism."* And the result of this 
 interference on the part of Mr. Disraeli was that the 
 Bill was quickly passed through both Houses, and 
 became law. Indeed, so violent was his advocacy of 
 this measure that he went so far as to deliver an 
 invective on one of his most important colleagues. 
 He described the Marquis of Salisbury, who had 
 opposed the measure, as " a master of flouts and gibes 
 and sneers ; " * and it is generally understood that but 
 for some explanations on both sides this speech would 
 have led to the resignation of that Minister. The 
 reader has not, I hope, forgotten the contributions 
 which Mr. Disraeli gave to the literature of Young 
 England. If there be one thing more than another 
 distinctly laid down in those contributions, it is a 
 strong preference for that school in the English Church 
 which has developed into Ritualism. I have quoted 
 several passages in which some of the most charac- 
 teristic practices of the Roman Catholic Church are 
 * Hansard, 3 S. cczxi. 78. * Ibid.
 
 604 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 spoken of with a strong suggestion of the desirability 
 of imitating them. I have quoted other passages in 
 which an elaborate ritual is distinctly laid down as 
 one of the greatest aids to devotion. In other words, 
 I think I have shown clearly that the Young England 
 party, of which Mr. Disraeli was the leader, if not 
 the founder, was a party which in religion was in its 
 days called Tractarian, and in ours would be, at least, 
 partially represented by what are called Ritualists. 
 Another thing worthy of attention is that in the 
 speeches of Lord Beaconsfield's early manhood, there 
 is constant denunciation of the Erastian system of 
 the interference of the State in the affairs of the 
 Church. Yet this is the man who strongly supports 
 a bill which introduces the interference of the State 
 in the affairs of the English Church to a degree never 
 before paralleled; and this is the man who supports 
 a bill, the object of which, in his own words, is " to 
 put down Ritualism." 
 
 We all know what the effects of that measure have 
 been. A state of distraction and of incessant quarrel 
 has been introduced into the English Church which is 
 unprecedented in its history. These quarrels have 
 been fought out in public law courts at great expense, 
 with hot passion 4 and where there was before at worst 
 an armed neutrality, there is now an internecine war. 
 I say nothing as to the question whether the Church 
 Establishment is or is not a good institution ; but this 
 I do say, that there is no man of sense who does not 
 believe that, if it be ultimately disestablished, one of
 
 DICTATOR. 605 
 
 the causes will be the Public Worship Act which Mr. 
 Disraeli insisted on having passed. I do not suppose 
 that the prospect of such a result would much disturb 
 Lord Beaconsfield's peace of mind. Whatever the 
 result of the bill, his conduct in the matter is 
 inexcusable. He preached Ritualism at one time 
 when Ritualism served his ends, and he preached the 
 putting down of Ritualism when the putting down 
 of Ritualism suited his purposes. In both the one 
 case and the other he employed the sacred name of 
 religion and men's spiritual instincts for the purp*ose of 
 gratifying his own desires. I pass, without further 
 comment on his home action during these years, to the 
 consideration of his conduct on the Eastern question.* 
 
 * It is worth while, perhaps, devoting just an allusion or two in a note 
 to an occurrence in Lord Beaconsfield's Premiership which bears a strong 
 family resemblance to some of the other acts in his career to which I 
 have called attention. In the course of the session of 1877 (July 16), 
 Mr. J. Holms, the member for Hackney, drew attention to the appoint- 
 ment of Mr. T. D. Pigott to the office of Comptroller of the Stationery 
 Department. Mr. Holms showed that this was one of the many depart- 
 ments which had been investigated by a special committee appointed in 
 1873 "to inquire into and report upon the existing principles and practice 
 which in the several public departments and bodies regulate the purchase 
 and sale of materials and stores." The Committee had discovered that 
 this department had been very much mismanaged. It had been taken in 
 hand by the Treasury from the year 1874, and the amount of waste 
 on it in previous years will be judged from the fact that in the year 
 1876 there was a saving on certain items of the vote of 495,000 of a 
 sum of 45,000, or nearly 9 per cent. (speech of Mr. John Holms, 
 Hansard, 3 S. ccxxxv. 1330); and according to the information of Mr. 
 Holms an additional saving of 25,000 was anticipated on other votes in 
 the following year, making altogether a saving of 70,000; all this being 
 in the work done for the Home Department alone. Ibid. The Select 
 Committee, not unnaturally, in the face of such facts, recommended that 
 the head of the department should be a person practically as well ac- 
 quainted with the trade as if he were a stationer. Ibid. 1332. It should
 
 606 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Before dealing with the policy which Lord Beacons- 
 field pursued on this great question, it will perhaps 
 be instructive to consider the dispositions with which 
 
 also be mentioned that up to this time the appointment to this office 
 had been considered a reward for literary services to a political party. 
 For instance, Sir Robert Peel appointed to the office the well-known 
 Conservative litterateur, Mr. J. R. M'Culloch ; and his successor, Mr. 
 W. R. Greg, was also distinguished for the services his pen had rendered 
 to political literature. On the resignation of Mr. Greg, Lord Beacons- 
 field had the disposal of the office, and the gentleman on whom he con- 
 ferred it was Mr. T. D. Pigott. It was not easy to discover any public 
 reasons for such a choice. Mr. Pigott was not a distinguished literary 
 man, and as a civil servant " he was one of a hundred and one junior 
 clerks in the War Office, being 69th upon the list. Ibid. 1332. What 
 made the matter worse was that the next officer in rank to Mr. Greg 
 a Mr. Reid was generally regarded as a very efficient civil servant. 
 and, if I be not mistaken, well qualified for the post. Mr. Holms vt-ry 
 properly brought this strange transaction before the House of Commons, 
 suggesting that the Premier's only reason for thus raising this young 
 man to such a good post in the face of the recent recommendations of the 
 Select Committee, and of the strong grounds by which these recommen- 
 dations were backed up, was that Mr. Pigott was the son of the late 
 rector of Hughenden, who, he believed, with his family, had rendered 
 valuable assistance to the Premier (Ibid. 1333). So strong did the case 
 appear that even in the present House of Commons a vote of censure on 
 Lord Beaconsfield was carried by a majority of four votes 156 to 152. 
 Lord Beaconsfield made a set speech in reply to this speech ; and, 
 indeed, actually took the trouble of announcing his purpose beforehand, 
 so that he had the gratification of having a large audience. The 
 address had an enormous success. According to the Tints (July 20, 
 1877), the speech ''showed" that Lord Beaconsfield's "powers of 
 defence " were ' not impaired." " The defence, we hasten to say," 
 wrote the Daily News (same date), " was complete. ' Let me very 
 briefly discuss how far those eulogisms were deserred. The Premier 
 met the recommendation of the Committee that the Comptroller should 
 be a person acquainted with the stationery trade by the remark that 
 if he had to follow such a recommendation "to appoint a station" r 
 or a printer,"" I should have had to appoint some person who had 
 retired from business, or some person from whom business had re- 
 tired." Ibid. 1480 (?). Of course the House laughed ; it is not hard, 
 however, to show if it be necessary to deal seriously with such trifling
 
 DICTATOR. 607 
 
 he would approach its consideration. One of the 
 most remarkable phenomena in the course of the war 
 between Russia and Turkey was the extraordinary 
 
 that this answer is no answer at all. One need not be a stationer on 
 one's own account to know all about stationery ; a clerk in a stationer's 
 shop on 30*. a week may know the business quite as well as the master 
 stationer himself. How few managers of stationers' establishments in 
 London would not have been delighted to get Mr. Pigott's place ? Lord 
 Beaconsfield is too great a man, of course, to know anything of the 
 feelings with which ordinary beings regard 800 a year ; accordingly he 
 speaks of that income as something beneath contempt. Other people 
 who have not the Premier's lofty notions know that a permanent salary 
 of 800 under Government, and with a pension, would secure the 
 highest ability in the ranks of clerks. Let us pass on to the more 
 personal and interesting part of Lord Beaconsfield' s narrative. Answer- 
 ing the suggestion of Mr. Holms that the appointment was due to his 
 acquaintance with Mr. Pigott and his father, Lord Beaconsfield declared 
 that he had no personal acquaintance with Mr. Pigott. " I do not know 
 him," said the Premier, "even by sight," (Ibid. 1486) ; and as to his 
 father, the answer was still more triumphant. "Thirty years ago." 
 said Lord Beaconsfield, " there was a vicar in my parish of the name 
 
 of Pigott, and he certainly was the father to Mr. Digby Pigott 
 
 Shortly after I succeeded to that property Mr. Pigott gave up his living, 
 and retired to a distant county. I have never had any relations with 
 him. With regard to our intimate friendship and his electioneering 
 assistance, all I know of his interference in county elections is, that 
 before he departed from the county of Buckingham he registered a vote 
 against me." Ibid. 1485. The assertion with regard to young Mr. Pigott 
 may be correct ; as may also another statement Lord Beaconsfield made 
 with regard to him, that he owed the place, not to Lord Beaconsfield's own 
 motion, but to the recommendation of " a gentleman who has as large 
 an experience of public business in our public offices as probably any 
 living person." Ibid. 1485. It is rather remarkable, however, that the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer though doubtless he has not " as large an 
 experience of public business in our public offices" as the mysterious 
 pei-son whom Lord Beaconsfield dangles before our awed imaginations 
 taking care not to mention his name ; it is rather remarkable, I 
 say, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of Lord Beaconsfield as 
 " having watched his," Mr. Pigott's, ''career with some interest on account 
 of his connexion with a former vicar of Hughenden." Ibid. 1339. Sir 
 Stafford Northcote. however, may have misunderstood his chief ; and
 
 6o8 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 unanimity with which the Jews of eveiy part of the 
 world took the side of the Sultan against the Czar. 
 People living within the same frontiers, speaking 
 the same language, professing the same creed, with 
 exactly the same interests, have held the most oppo- 
 site views upon this Russo-Turkish question. In this 
 country to take the most striking example the 
 people, agreed for the most part on the main question 
 of religion, of the same race, with the same great 
 interests to conserve, differed with a bitterness almost 
 unexampled in their domestic or in their foreign con- 
 troversies. But here are the Jews, dispersed over 
 every part of the globe, speaking different tongues, 
 divided in nearly every sympathy, separated, in fact, 
 by everything that can separate man, except the one 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield's account may be correct with respect to Mr. Pigott 
 junior. But there is no such escape for him with respect to Mr. Pigott 
 senior. He declares that that gentleman voted against him. The only 
 elections for Bucks at which Lord Beaconsfield was opposed were in 1852 
 and 1874. At the latter contest, Mr. Pigott could not vote either for or 
 against Mr. Disraeli, for he -was dead; he died on December 10, 1852 
 (Gentleman's Magazine. N.S., xxxix. 327) ; in the former contest he did 
 not vote at all. (I state this on the authority of an extract from the 
 polling-book, with which Mr. Holms has supplied me.) Indeed it would 
 have been hard for Mr. Pigott to have voted against Lord Beaconsfield 
 at the time, seeing that he had been before the occurrence of the election 
 appointed to the living of Ashwellthorpe with Wreningham, in Norfolk. 
 (" Clergy List for 1852," 211.) And Lord Beaconsfield, as the patron 
 of the living of Hughenden, had appointed Mr. C. W. Chubbe as Mr. 
 Pigott's successor the year before the election took place. Ibid. 101 
 Accordingly he had the best reason for knowing the facts. I have 
 shown, therefore, that Mr. Pigott, who according to Lord Beaconsfield 
 had voted against him, had never voted for or against him ; and that 
 Lord Beaconsfield had most excellent reasons for knowing this. With 
 this, and the other facts I have stated, the reader will judge how far 
 Lord Beaconsfield deserved the encomiums his explanation received.
 
 DICTATOR. 609 
 
 point of race, all united in their feelings on this 
 great contest ! 
 
 It is not very hard to understand this preference. 
 In the first place, the Turk gives ordinarily to his 
 subjects a contemptuous toleration, while the Russian 
 Government is known to be even still one of the most 
 determined oppressors of the Jewish race. But this 
 is not the only or perhaps even the deepest cause of 
 this phenomenon. For many ages more in the past 
 than in the present, of course there has been among 
 large sections of the Jews the strongest sympathy 
 with the Mohammedan peoples. A common enemy is 
 a great bond of friendship, and as the Christian was 
 equally the enemy of the Mohammedan and the Jew, 
 they were thereby brought into a certain alliance 
 with one another. This alliance has been m<5st close 
 on many occasions. In the time of the Crusaders, 
 the Jews were the friends who aided the Moham- 
 medans in keeping back the tide of Christian in- 
 vasion which was floating against the East, and in 
 Spain the Jews were the constant friends and allies 
 of the Moorish against the Christian inhabitants of 
 the country. The alliance must have been very close 
 in the past indeed to have left such deep tracer 
 behind. 
 
 Now I think I shall be able to prove that Mr. 
 Disraeli treated this whole question from the stand 
 point of the Jew. I find in several of his works these 
 feelings of kinsmanship between the Mussulman and 
 the Jew distinctly laid down. In " Coningsby," Sidonia 
 
 39
 
 6io LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the representative Jew insists on this affinity be- 
 tween the two races, and the community of their 
 interests against those of the Christian, over and over 
 again. And be it remarked that these passages were 
 written so far back as 1842, when there can be little 
 doubt that Mr. Disraeli was writing so far as he 
 could write anything without any possibility of fore- 
 seeing the events of the last two years. They, there- 
 fore, may be taken as the expressions of his genuine 
 feelings upon the question ; and his general view then 
 upon this question of Turkey is that as a Jew he is 
 a kinsman of the Turk, and that, as a Jew, he feels 
 bound to make common cause with the Turk against 
 the Christian.* 
 
 * The passages in Lord Beaconsfield's works in which he expresses 
 this strong ffcling of the kinsmanship of the Jew and the Mohammedan, 
 and their bond of hate against the Christian, are innumerable. I can 
 here only give a few of the most prominent. Thus, in "Coningsby," he 
 describes the Saracens of Spain as probably descendants of some of the lost 
 tribes of Israel. " Whence," he writes, " came those Mosaic Arabs, whose 
 passage across the Strait from Africa to Europe long preceded the 
 invasion of the Mohammedan Arabs, it is now impossible to ascertain. 
 Their traditions tell us that from time immemorial they had sojourned 
 in Africa ; and it is not improbable that they may have been the 
 descendants of some of the earlier dispersions, like those Hebrew 
 colonies that we find in China, and who probably emigrated from Persia 
 in the days of the great monarchies." (New edition, 209.) Then he 
 proceeds to clearly trace how those descendants of a common stock 
 were, in spite of their difference of creed, brought more closely together 
 by the persecuting spirit of the Christians. " There is no doubt," writes 
 Lord Beaconsfield, " the Council of Toledo led, as directly as the lust 
 of Roderick, to the invasion of Spain by the Moslem in Arabs. The 
 Jewish population suffering under the most sanguinary and atrocious 
 persecution, looied to their sympathising brethren of the Crescent, whose 
 camps already gleamed on the opposite shore. The overthrow of the 
 Qothic kingdom* a-as as much achieved by the superior information which
 
 DICTATOR. 611 
 
 And mark the magnificent prospect which unfolded 
 itself before the eyes of Lord Beaconsfield in this con- 
 troversy ! Here he was the ruler of a great Christian 
 empire to some extent the arbiter of the destinies of 
 all the Christian countries of Europe ! Would not the 
 
 the Saracens received from their suffering kinsmen, as by the resistless 
 valour of the Desert. The Saracen kingdoms were established. That 
 fair and unrivalled civilisation arose which preserved for Europe arts and 
 letters when Christendom was plunged in darkness. The children of 
 Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges 
 with themselves. During these halcyon centuries, it is difficult to 
 distinguish the follower of Moses from the votary of Mahomet. Both 
 alike built palaces, gardens, and fountains, filled equally the highest 
 offices of the State, competed in an extensive and enlightened commerce, 
 and rivalled each other in renowned universities." Ibid. 209-10. This 
 is followed by a passage in which the persecutions of the Inquisition 
 are graphically described ; and then comes the question " Where i 
 Spain ? Its fall, its unparalleled and its irremediable fall, is mainly to- 
 be attributed to the expulsion of that large portion of its subjects, the 
 most industrious and intelligent, who traced their origin to the Mosaic 
 and Mohammedan Arabs" (212). In :< Tancred" we have the same 
 ideas reproduced : let a few quotations suffice. " ' Then how do you 
 know that Mahomet was not inspired ? ' said Fakredeen. ' Far be it 
 from me to impugn the divine commission of any of the seed of Abra- 
 ham,' replied Tancred ; 'there are doctors of our Church who recognise 
 the sacred office of Mahomet, though they hold it to be, what divine 
 commissions, with the great exception, have ever been limited and 
 local.' 'God has never spoken to a European?' said Fakredeen, in- 
 quiringly. 'Never!'" (New edition, 261.) And in another place 
 occurs this passage : " On the top of Mount Sinai are two ruins a 
 Christian church and a Mohammedan mosque. In this, the subliiuest 
 scene of Arabian glory, Israel and Ishmael alike raised their altars to> 
 the great God of Abraham. Why are they in ruins?" Ibid. 289. 
 Those passages alone, I think, would suffice to show the truth of my 
 argument, that the Eastern policy of Lord Beaconsfield was a Hebrew 
 or, to use what he himself considers the proper name for the tvvo> 
 peoples, different in creeds but alike in race was an Arab policy. 
 People who will persist in thinking that it was an English policy can 
 only be those who have not read Lord Beaconsfield's works, or v.-ho, 
 having read, have not intelligence to interpret them.
 
 612 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 shame of Israel be indeed blotted out, and its glory 
 reach a sublimer height than it had ever touched even 
 in its stupendous past, if in the nineteenth century 
 of Christendom this nineteenth century of Jewish 
 persecution, Jewish degradation, Jewish humiliation 
 by Christians, a single Jew could mould the whole 
 policy of Christendom to Jewish aims, could make it 
 friendly to the friends and hostile to the foes of Judsea ! 
 And would not this magnificent triumph be the 
 sublimer to the mind of Lord Beaconsfield if it could 
 be carried out under the guise of serving the interest 
 of the Christians themselves ? I have said that the 
 great ideal of Lord Beaconsfield 's youth and manhood, 
 the ideal he bodies forth in all his earlier and sin- 
 cerer utterances, was that of triumphant imposture. 
 To deceive mankind, to make them his game, to play 
 upon their passions without feeling them, to trifle witli 
 their most sacred interests so as to advance his own 
 this was the sublime goal which he set for himself in 
 his youth. And thus his position as English Premier 
 in this Russo-Turkish war offered to him an oppor- 
 tunity for attaining a more sublime triumph for his 
 sympathies and antipathies as a Jew, and his longings 
 as a man, than had ever yet presented itself, even in 
 his singularly prosperous and distinguished career. 
 
 But those were not the only reasons which inclined 
 Lord Beaconsfield to take the side of the Turk. It is 
 not in accordance with my view of his character to 
 imagine that even his strongest and sincerest sympa- 
 thies, or his most eager desires, would be allowed by
 
 DICTATOR. 613 
 
 him to interfere with his interests. In this case, how- 
 ever, with that clearness of perception which I grant 
 him in all things affecting himself as he never thinks 
 of anything else but self, it is no wonder that his 
 perception of his own interests should be clear he 
 saw that his interests and his desires jumped together. 
 For a time, it certainly did seem that there was an- 
 tagonism between the two. The tempest of manly 
 horror and just anger which passed over the country 
 in the autumn of 1876, for a period seemed destined 
 to submerge Lord Beaconsfield and everybody else, who 
 was on the side of the Turk. But Lord Beaconsfield 
 knows the English people : it is a knowledge of which 
 he often boasts ; and the boast is made in the tone of 
 the foreigner who is eyeing with tolerant contempt 
 from the easy height of his own superior blood the 
 vagaries of an eccentric, vulgar, if not barbarous race. 
 And that is the view of every genuine Jew for the 
 Christian people among whom he lives. He bows 
 down within the recesses of his heart before his own 
 people, as still, if not the chosen of God, yet as im- 
 measurably supreme among men; and other nations 
 are but the mushroom races, whose fathers were bar- 
 barians when Judaea was the land of civilization. Let 
 me not be misunderstood. I am not blaming the Jew 
 for feeling thus. The feeling is most natural. The 
 Jew can look back to a most glorious past ; and it 
 is the more natural that he should feed his imagina- 
 tion on the glories of that past, because of the lowly 
 position'to which the rise of Christianity has reduced
 
 614 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 his race. I am only pointing out how this feeling 
 operated on the mind of Lord Beaconsfield when deal- 
 ing with the affairs of the English people. It is one 
 of the most important factors in the case, without the 
 consideration of which the case cannot be understood ; 
 and it is for this reason, and not from any share 
 in vulgar bigotry myself nor any desire to excite it 
 in others, that I speak of it in dealing \vith Lord 
 Beaconsfield 's conduct during the Russo-Turkish war.* 
 
 * Everybody knows that Lord Beaconsfield's works teem with 
 passages in which the superiority of the Jewish to all other races is 
 preached. I have given passages enough already from his works on 
 that point. I propose now to add a few which prove that this respect 
 for his own race is accompanied with ite natural complement of con- 
 tempt for other races. He makes Sidonia over and over again declare 
 that he would not contaminate his pure Jewish blood by mingling it 
 with the impure blood of the Gentile. Take this passage, for instance : 
 Sidonia loquitur. " He calls me his cousin ; he is a Nuevo of the 
 fourteenth century. Very orthodox ; but the tone of the old land and 
 the old language have come out in him, as they will, though his blood 
 is no longer clear, but has been modified by many Gothic inter- 
 marriages, which was never our case. We are pure Sephardim." 
 Tancred, new edition, 125. So Jewish blood is spoken of : take this 
 for a specimen of the way the Gentiles are discussed. "We ought 
 never to be surprised at anything that is done by the English," observed 
 Fakredeen ; " who are, after all, in a certain sense, savages. " Ibid. 
 436-7. These words Lord Beaconsfield puts into the mouth of one 
 of his characters ; but here is the way he speaks in his own person of 
 the nations of Christendom. " And yet some flat-nosed Frank, full 
 of bustle and puffed up with self-conceit (a race spawned perhaps in 
 the morasses of some- northern forest hardly yet cleared), talks of 
 Progress ! " Ibid. 226-7. I must content myself with giving these 
 passages in this place ; there are scores of others of a like import 
 throughout his works. These words of contempt for tbe Christians were 
 written before Lord Beacousfield had attained to any great eminence 
 among Christians. If he despised them before he was one of their 
 rulers, how much more must he do so since they became his subjects ; 
 nnd especially since they allowed him to fight the battle of J\idwa while 
 they 'persisted in thinking it was the battle of England I
 
 DICTATOR. 615 
 
 To resume, then. Lord Beaconsfield boasts of his 
 knowledge of the English people. Acting on that 
 knowledge, he calculated that the new and suddenly 
 awakened sympathy for the Bulgarians might be made 
 to pass away in time, and to give way to the older 
 and more firmly rooted feeling of hatred to Russia. 
 He knew that hate of Russia was one of the most 
 deeply rooted feelings in the English mind, and he 
 knew also that in the circumstances of the two empires, 
 abundant grounds of plausible appearance could be 
 given for justifying this hate. That calculation, 
 which was not very flattering to the good sense of 
 the English public mind, unfortunately proved too 
 true. The history of Lord Palmerston's almost dic- 
 tatorial years of reign while he was in hopeless oppo- 
 sition, were also not lost upon Lord Beaconsfield 
 During those years, as I have shown, he had preached 
 incessantly the creed of non-intervention in European 
 quarrels, and that creed had been preached to the wind ; 
 while during the same period Lord Palmerston had been 
 preaching the opposite gospel of active intervention and 
 active hate of Russia, and had prospered upon it. Lord 
 Beaconsfield, too, knew the English people sufficiently 
 to calculate that appeals to the passions of hate, of 
 defiance, of lust of conquest, would not be made in 
 vain. There is no nation, indeed, which is not ready 
 to yield to these passions if they be played on by a 
 skilful master in favourable circumstances. As Lord 
 Granville said with remarkable sagacity in answer to 
 a deputation during the Russo-Turkish complications,
 
 616 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 it is not possible for any Opposition to prevent a 
 Government from going to war that has determined 
 upon doing it. War, as he justly said, can be created 
 by an appeal to feelings which are sometimes very 
 noble, and sometimes very base. And so a tempest 
 of public passion can be manufactured against which 
 the dictates of sense and justice are absolutely im- 
 potent. These three, then, appear to me the chief 
 motives which dictated the whole of Lord Beacons- 
 field's policy during the Russo-Turkish war : first, 
 the desire to carry out a Hebrew policy ; secondly, 
 the desire to carry out that policy with the aid of 
 Christendom ; and thirdly, the belief that hatred of 
 Russia and an appeal to warlike passions were the 
 cards most likely to turn up trumps in the game of 
 politics. 
 
 I now proceed to point out how, as it appears to 
 me, Lord Beaconsfield played his game. It will not 
 be expected of me that, on a controversy so recent, I 
 should enter into into anything like lengthy details. 
 It will be sufficient for my present purposes if 1 
 simply touch upon landmarks in the long-continued 
 controversy. 
 
 The beginning, as everybody knows, of the great 
 events that culminated in the Treaty of Berlin, was a 
 small insurrection in the provinces of Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina. The first important intervention of the 
 English Government in respect of this insurrection 
 took place in August, 1875, when the then Foreign 
 Minister requested Austria, Servia, and Montenegro to
 
 DICTATOR. 617 
 
 assist in putting down the insurrection.* Shortly after 
 this came the proposal that the Consuls of the different 
 powers should proceed to the scene of the insurrection, 
 and endeavour to restore tranquillity. To this pro- 
 posal Lord Beaconsfield's Government consented with 
 reluctance, and only finally consented at the desire 
 of the Turkish Government itself. The Premier, too, 
 laid down distinctly that the proper policy of England 
 in this quarrel between Turkey and her subjects 
 was that of strict non-intervention. The status quo 
 in Turkey should be maintained, and the duty of the 
 English Government was to "deprecate interference 
 with its condition," in order to allow Turkey and its 
 subjects, in the course of time, " to find that condition 
 which suited them best.f The plain interpretation 
 of these words is that Turkey and her rebellious 
 subjects should be allowed to fight it out until Turkey 
 had succeeded in crushing the rebels. The mission 
 of the Consuls failed, as it had a right to fail ; and 
 the next proposal came in the shape of the Andrassy 
 Note. This Note, as is known, was drawn up by the 
 Ministers of Austria, Germany, and Russia, and pro- 
 posed nothing greater than the establishment of com- 
 plete religious liberty, the abolition of tax farming, a 
 change in the government of Bosnia and Herzogovina, 
 the appointment of a mixed commission of Mussulmans 
 
 * In describing the earlier stages of the Eastern Question, I have 
 followed the guidance of Mr. Sedley Taylor, in his excellent pamphlet 
 on the conduct of the Ministry on the Eastern Question. 
 
 t Hansard, 3 S. ccxxxi. 206.
 
 618 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and Christians to carry out those reforms, and the 
 improvement of the state of the rural population. 
 To this Note Lord Beaconsfield's Government gave an 
 assent which amounted to almost neutralising its 
 effects, and there was in Constantinople the "most 
 lively satisfaction" thereupon. The Note was de- 
 livered, the Porte promised to obey its commands, and 
 nothing was done. In May, another attempt was 
 made to bring about satisfactory relations between 
 Turkey and her subjects, and this time it took the 
 shape of the Berlin Memorandum. The proposals of 
 this document, like those in the Andrassy Note, wt-re 
 of a most mild character. They were simply that 
 there should be an armistice for two months between 
 the insurgents and the Porte, and that during this 
 period an attempt should be made to produce the 
 return of peace. Among the bases for negotiations 
 was laid down the not very extravagant demand 
 that the Porte should find materials to rebuild the 
 houses and churches of the refugees which had been 
 destroyed. It must be remembered, too, that even 
 this last modest suggestion was only a suggestion, 
 and not a demand. To this Note, drawn up by 
 Germany in union with Austria and Rus.sia, the 
 French and Italian Governments formed so little 
 objection that they sent their adhesion by telegraph. 
 The English Government, however, as everybody 
 knows, refused their adhesion ; and Mr. Disraeli was 
 enabled, accordingly, to announce in the House of 
 Commons, with gleeful satisfaction, that the Note would
 
 DICTATOR. 619 
 
 never be presented.* And this decision was main- 
 tained notwithstanding the most earnest remonstrances 
 of all the other powers. The Italian Foreign Minister 
 regretted the decision of the English Ministry. The 
 French Foreign Minister expressed "surprise and 
 regret." Prince Gortsehakoff also "deeply regretted" 
 it. Count Andrassy was ready to delay the proposals 
 in the hope that Her Majesty's Government might 
 still be induced to give their co-operation ; and Prince 
 Bismarck expressed his readiness to accept any reason- 
 able amendment in the Memorandum the English 
 Government might propose. But all those appeals 
 were in vain. Mr. Disraeli succeeded in breaking up 
 the European concert, and in retaining for the Turkish 
 Government the right to proceed in its own way of 
 dealing with its subjects who were at peace and at 
 war with her. Meantime, Turkey and its subjects 
 were following out the advice of Mr. Disraeli, and were 
 endeavouring "to find that condition which suited 
 both of them best." The Berlin Memorandum was 
 communicated on May 13, and was rejected on May 19, 
 by the English Government; it was during this period 
 that a portion of the Bulgarian massacres took place. 
 The reader may start back in the thought that I 
 am going to inflict upon him that oft -repeated tale 
 of horror heaped upon horror. But I cannot wholly 
 shirk the disagreeable question, whether it be pala- 
 table or not. I can only promise to be as brief as 
 I can. The reports of those horrors began to make 
 
 * Hansard, 3 S. ccxxix. 1521.
 
 620 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 their appearance on June 23, in the Daily News. 
 Mr. Disraeli was questioned as to these reports in the 
 House of Commons, and his invariable reply was to 
 throw doubt on their containing anything like an 
 approach to the truth. On July 10, 1876, he declared 
 that " the Government was in constant communication 
 with the Consuls at Belgrade, Ragusa, Chettinge, and 
 other places;"* and from none of these places had 
 come the information which confirmed the statement 
 of the Daily News. It was immediately pointed out 
 to him by Mr. Evelyn Ashley, that none of the three 
 places he had named were in Turkey at all, and that 
 the nearest of them was 200 miles from the scene of 
 the alleged massacres in Turkey. Had the Govern- 
 ment, Mr. Ashley pertinently asked, received any 
 information from their Consul at Adrianople or 
 Philippopolis ? Mr. Disraeli's answer was that the 
 Government was in "constant communication" with 
 the Consuls, not only in the places he had named, 
 but also " with those at the places in the Turkish 
 dominions to which the hon. member for Poole 
 (Mr. E. Ashley) had referred, but that in none of 
 these communications had any of these details been 
 mentioned.! This was most important information. 
 Philippopolis, one of the towns named by Mr. Evelyn 
 Ashley, was almost at the door of the place where 
 these massacres were said to have taken place. If, 
 therefore, the Consul posted there had reported that 
 there were no massacres, his evidence was almost a 
 Hansard, 3 8. ccxxx. 1181. " t TbM. 1186.
 
 DICTATOR. 621 
 
 complete refutation of the whole story. What will 
 be thought of Mr. Disraeli when the reader hears 
 that there was no Consul at Philippopolis to hold 
 communication with the Government constant or 
 otherwise ? * 
 
 On July 17, Mr. Disraeli was again questioned as 
 the truth of the shocking reports that were still 
 appearing in the Daily News. Again his answer was 
 of a reassuring character, and he went out of the way 
 to say that the Circassians who were charged with 
 these horrible doings were a maligned race. They had 
 "lived peacefully for twenty years," "their conduct 
 has been satisfactory, and there has been no imputation 
 upon them of savage or turbulent behaviour. They 
 have cultivated farms and built villages, and during 
 the whole period I think there has been no complaint 
 of these men."f Astonishing as was this picture of 
 the gentle Circassian, it was more astonishing to find 
 that Mr. Disraeli, in the very speech in which he made 
 this statement with regard to them, quoted a despatch 
 from Sir Henry Elliot in which that notoriously Turco- 
 phile diplomatist declared that there " is evidence that 
 the employment of Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks had 
 led to the atrocities which were to be expected." J 
 
 * This fact comes out in a despatch which Sir H. Elliot writes 
 to Lord Derby. In this despatch Sir H. Elliot says : " Since I 
 wrote my preceding despatch, the Greek Minister has called 
 upon me, and spoke of a report he had received from his Consul at 
 Philippopolis where there there is no British Consular Agent." 
 Turkey, No. 3, 1876. 539. 
 
 f Hansard, 3 S. ccxxx. 1488. J Ibid. 1489.
 
 622 LORD BBACONSFIELD. 
 
 This is the place to speak of the evidence with 
 regard to the question raised by the correspondence in 
 the Daily News to which Mr. Disraeli gave the replies 
 I have described. These replies were given, as has 
 been seen, in July. It is now plainly proved from the 
 public papers that from May onwards the Government 
 had been in the receipt of despatches which warned 
 them that the Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians were 
 about to be employed in putting down the so-called 
 Bulgarian insurrection, and that horrible atrocities 
 were to be expected as a result of the employment of 
 those irregulars.* 
 
 * I quote the quotations in Mr. Sedley Taylor's pamphlet. 
 
 M. Kyriatz, Eski-Zagra, to Vice-Consul Dubuis (received by 
 Lord Derby May 19) : " The Governor-General of the vilayet has 
 telegraphed to the Eaimakam of Lazara to arm all the Mussulman-;. 
 and to make them patrol the towns throughout the night, to avert 
 any attack to be feared on the part of the Bulgarians. . . . I believe I 
 am fulfilling a duty in ... calling your attention to the imprudence 
 of the measures taken by the Government in arming all the Mussul- 
 mans, who, as they are well known in this neighbourhood to be of 
 the most savage disposition, will be guilty of every kind of excess." 
 Turkey, No. 3 (1876), No. 252, Enclosure 2 in No. 272. Vice- 
 Consul Dupuis, Adrianople, to Sir H. Elliot (received by Lord Derby 
 May 23) : " 1 likewise inform your Excellency that the local autho- 
 rities, as well as the Turkish Beys here, are displaying great activity 
 in the enrolment of Bashi-Bazouks and other volunteers." . . . "I 
 hear that in consequence of the disorders said to have been com- 
 mitted by the Bashi-Bazouks, the bazaars and shops in Philippopolis 
 and Tatar-Bazardjik .are closed, aud the inhabitants are leaving in 
 numbers. ... A friend of mine, who returned last night, tells me 
 that the state of the country between Philippopolis, Bellova, and 
 Otleukeuis is deplorable to behold ; that villages are burning in all 
 directions of the compass ; that in consequence of ignorance and 
 apathy on the part of the Turkish functionaries the greatest disorder 
 and confusion prevails there. It is reported that while gunpowder is 
 being openly sold to the Turkish inhabitants in this city, it is refused to 
 the Christians." Ibid., Enclosure 1 in No. 289. Same to same : (i Hadji
 
 DICTA TOR. 623 
 
 The most remarkable of these despatches were two 
 of Consul Reade, of Rustchuk, which were received by 
 Lord Derby on June 2 and 7 respectively. In the 
 first of these despatches the Consul remarks that the 
 "arming of the Mussulmans and Circassians in the 
 Vilayet, and the letting loose of the latter on the Bul- 
 garians simply reported to be in revolt," was a " grave 
 matter." " The lawless character of these Circassians," 
 said Consul Reade, "is notorious; they are not to be 
 trusted at any time ; to employ them, therefore, in the 
 way I have stated at the present moment, is, in my 
 opinion, to drive many who have hitherto remained 
 quiet, to revolt."* And in the same despatch the 
 
 Achmet Aga, Rasim Bey, and other Turks of note here, are showing 
 their patriotism by arming and maintaining at their own expense a 
 corps of 200 Bashi-Bazouks each, for operations in the Balkans. 
 Ib id., Enclosure 3 in No. 249. Vice- Consul Dupuis to Sir H. Elliot, 
 received by Lord Derby June 2) : " The general topic of conversation 
 here the last few days is that the Bulgarians of the village of Otleukeui 
 refusing to surrender, and taking refuge in a church or monastery, 
 were bombarded by the troops under Hafiz Pasha, when upwards of 
 three hundred men, women, and children were slaughtered. . . . 
 The last item of intelligence 1 hear is that the troops have surrounded 
 the village of Avradano, and that unless it surrenders it is feared the 
 inhabitants will share the same fate as those of Otleukeui. Extra- 
 ordinary activity is being displayed here by the authorities and others- 
 in recruiting, arming, and forwarding to the disturbed districts Bashi- 
 Bazouks and Circassians. ... I do not hear of any disorders having 
 been committed by these troops in Adrianople; but I am assured 
 that, once outside the city, they gave themselves up to all kinds of 
 violence, and to the firing on women and other defenceless people in 
 the villages and roads in this vicinity." Ibid., Enclosure 1 in No 343. 
 Same to same : " Reports continue to reach me of acts of insubordi- 
 nationj excesses, and disorders by the Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians, 
 who, it is stated, rob, plunder, kill, and levy black-mail on peaceable 
 people." Ibid., Enclosure 2 in No. 343. 
 
 * Turkey, No. 3, 1876, Enclosure in No. 346.
 
 624 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Consul spoke of the Mussulmans generally being 
 armed on penalty of punishment; and in the second 
 despatch this same Consul said, " What is condemned 
 by every one .... is the arming and employment of 
 
 Circassians Those men cannot be kept under 
 
 any sort of control; and whenever an opportunity 
 offers, they do not hesitate to take advantage of it, 
 and the consequence is that we are daily hearing of 
 the grossest acts of violence on their part." * And 
 Sir Henry Elliot himself, as has already been seen in 
 describing a speech of Lord Beaconsfield, made use of 
 these words in a despatch which was received by Lord 
 Derby on June 8, 1876 : " The Bulgarian insurrection 
 appears unquestionably to be put down, although, I 
 regret to say, with cruelty, and in some places with 
 brutality. . . . There is evidence that the employment 
 of Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks has led to the atroci- 
 ties which were to be expected." f The despatches of 
 which I have given these two specimens were received 
 between the months of May and June, and in the face 
 of those facts Mr. Disraeli in July was denying the 
 existence of the Bulgarian atrocities, and giving the 
 Circassians the reputation of Arcadian innocence! But 
 this was not the strongest confirmation which the 
 Ministry had received of the reports in the Daily News. 
 On June 28, Lord Derby received from Consul Reade, 
 whom I have already mentioned, a despatch in whicli 
 he says that information had reached him that the 
 Circassians " are committing atrocities, chiefly among 
 Ibid., Enclosure in No. 382. i Ibid., No. 443.
 
 DICTATOR. 625 
 
 the villages near the Balkans, which keep the whole 
 of that quarter in a state of the greatest terror." He 
 mentioned the rumour that the Circassians were " kid- 
 napping children of Bulgarians killed in the late 
 affairs ; " and then he went on to say, " From what I 
 can make out, I am really inclined to think that the 
 object at this moment, in the late disturbed districts 
 of Tirnova, is to diminish the number of Bulgarians 
 as much as possible, for it is said that the Circassians 
 seem to be doing all this with the connivance of its 
 authorities." In other words, in the opinion of Consul 
 Reade, the object of the Porte was to authorise whole- 
 sale massacres, so as to reduce the population of the 
 unbelieving and rebellious subjects. In this same 
 despatch Consul Reade declared that a Mussulman 
 had been heard by a Bulgarian boasting in a cafe at 
 Rustchuk that " even our schoolboys killed their five 
 or six Bulgarians." "He praised the Circassians as 
 having done great things, having for their motto, ' Let 
 the Giaour die strike him let him perish ; ' and this 
 Turk, in addition, was reported to have said that 
 most of those who were killed were innocent and 
 unarmed, that the number of the slain were pro- 
 bably nearer 25,000 or 26,000 than 5,000 or 6,000, and 
 to have wound up his tale by the statement that this 
 was a great loss to the country, as most of them were 
 tax-paying people." 
 
 This despatch, I say, had been received by Lord Derby 
 on June 28, and on July 31 Mr. Disraeli was asked 
 what he thought of this communication ; and what 
 
 40
 
 625 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 did he think of it ? He dismissed it contemptuously 
 as utterly untrustworthy rubbish. " I was not jus- 
 tified," said he, "for a moment to adopt that coffee- 
 house babble brought by an anonymous Bulgarian to 
 a Consul as at all furnishing a basis of belief that 
 the accounts subsequently received had any justifica- 
 tion."* Again, on August 11, he was taxed upon the 
 state of affairs in Turkey, and again all these stories 
 of atrocities were dismissed as gross exaggerations 
 manufactured for party purposes; and the integrity 
 and independence of the Ottoman Empire were still 
 held up as the leading principle upon which the 
 foreign policy of the English Government should be 
 founded, f 
 
 These words are made the more memorable by a fact 
 which was known to scarcely anybody by whom they 
 were heard. Shortly after he had made this speech, 
 Mr. Disraeli got up from his seat, went out, and never 
 again returned to the House of Commons as one of its 
 members. The next morning it was announced that 
 he was about to be raised to the Peerage. The title he 
 chose struck a large number of people with surprise, 
 and a little disgust. It was known that the title was 
 one for which the patent had actually been made out 
 for Edmund Burke, and by which he would have been 
 known to posterity if the hand of death had not inter- 
 fered with him and the conferring of the honour. I say 
 nothing as to what would be the result of a comparison 
 of the careers of Burke and Lord Beaconsfield, but I 
 Hansard, ccxxxi. 203. i Ibid. 1145.
 
 DICTATOR. 627 
 
 think it does not require any reasoning to show that 
 if Lord Beaconsfield were a man of ordinary instincts, 
 he would have hesitated before he took the title which 
 was associated in history with the illustrious name of 
 another statesman. 
 
 Meantime the stories of the Bulgarian atrocities 
 were appearing in the newspapers. The Daily News 
 was, as already indicated, chief, if not first,* among 
 the public journals in publishing accounts of the 
 atrocities in Bulgaria. Informed by Mr. Pears, their 
 correspondent in Constantinople, of what was going 
 on, the proprietors of that paper despatched a special 
 commissioner to investigate the facts on the spot. 
 The gentleman selected was the late Mr. J. A. 
 MacGahan. Never was there a happier choice for a 
 journalistic task. I knew Mr. MacGahan well; I 
 believe I can claim the privilege of having been one 
 of his most intimate friends. For such a task as 
 investigating the Bulgarian horrors he had all the 
 requisites : courage to face the frowns of the Turkish 
 authorities, perseverance to overcome the myriad- 
 shaped obstacles they might put in his way; he was 
 a man of good judgment and of unfailing accuracy 
 as well as imagination ; and his pen, while pictu- 
 resque, never was tempted into the least sacrifice of 
 fact to effect. 
 
 Poor MacGahan ! let me turn aside for a moment to 
 pay a brief tribute to the memory of one of the finest 
 
 * A writer in the S}>eclator, I believe, claims to have first attempted 
 to draw the attention of the public to the subject.
 
 628 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 characters I ever knew, a man of a bravery that no 
 danger could shake, of a modesty that no triumph 
 could disturb ; with a disposition so beautiful that he 
 left not one enemy behind, and many friends, to whom 
 his death must always leave life less bright. 
 
 The Eastern question was finally solved by the arms 
 of the heroic soldiers of Russia. But to two men, neither 
 of whom was a soldier, the great work of liberating the 
 enslaved Christians of the East from the vilest tyranny 
 that ever cursed the world, owes, perhaps, as much 
 as to the legionaries of the Czar. One of those men 
 was Mr. Gladstone, the other was Mr. J. A. MacGahan. 
 Journalism has had many and glorious triumphs ; but 
 the proudest achievement which brightens its annals 
 is the salvation of a country by the pen of a special 
 correspondent. It is some satisfaction to find that the 
 people of Bulgaria are sensible of MacGahan s great 
 services ; his name is now the subject of their popular 
 ballads, and will probably be enshrined for ever in 
 their grateful memories. But, alas ! the instrument of 
 all this mighty good died at thirty-three in a Constan- 
 tinople hospital ! 
 
 And what was the story Mr. MacGahan had to tell ? 
 He had to tell that sixty or seventy villages had been 
 burned; that something like 15,000 or 16,000 people 
 had been slaughtered ; * that a large number of those 
 dead were women and children ; f that the bodies of 
 
 * " The Turkish Atrocities in Bulgaria : Letters of the Special Com- 
 miBsioner of the Daily News, J. A. MacGahan, Ecq." 11. 
 f Ibid. 12.
 
 DICTATOR. 629 
 
 men were flung to dogs ; that the women, and even 
 the little children of both sexes, were subjected to the 
 vilest outrages ; * and that all those outrages were com- 
 mitted without anything like real provocation on the 
 part of the Bulgarians.! In the course of his inquiries 
 Mr. MacGahan visited several of the villages in Bul- 
 garia : he visited Raddovo, Otluk-Kui or Panagurishti, 
 Perustitza, Avrat-Alan, Klissura, and Batak. And 
 now let me give a brief summary of what he learned 
 at each of those places. At Eaddovo he found that ot 
 160 houses, not one had been left standing. As the 
 inhabitants had all fled before the arrival of the Turks, 
 only twenty-two men had been killed, while all the 
 women and children had escaped.^ And at Raddovo, 
 accordingly, the people had only to put up with the 
 trifling inconvenience of trying to live without their 
 houses, their furniture, or their means of existence. 
 At Avrat-Alan he found that the people of the town, 
 having surrendered in time, were spared ; while 200 
 or 300 who were flying through the fields were killed ; 
 and all the women in the place, with scarcely an 
 exception, were violated by soldiers who were still 
 reeking with the blood of a massacre close by, of 
 which I shall have to speak immediately. jj At Klis- 
 sura, not one of 700 houses was left standmg.il The 
 people were thus condemned to starvation ; and besides 
 this, though MacGahan does not note the fact, 250 
 
 * Hid. Ibid. 17. 
 
 + Ibid. 13. || Ibid. 85-6. 
 
 Ibid. 16. f Ibid. 72.
 
 630 LORD BEAC0^ 7 SFIELD. 
 
 people were killed.* We have now gone through 
 three villages : in two of those all the houses had been 
 destroyed, and some hundreds of the inhabitants killed ; 
 in the third, the houses were not burned, but were 
 plundered; and while the men in the town were 
 spared, about 250 in the fields were killed, and all the 
 women were violated. Those are horrors sufficient to 
 excite indignation enough, but they appear as mere 
 trifling incidents in comparison with the diabolical 
 outrages which took place in other villages. At 
 Otluk-Kui a rising occurred on the 2nd of May ; ten 
 days afterwards, Hafiz Pasha, with regulars, Bashi- 
 Bazouks, and two or three pieces of artillery, arrived 
 before the place. The insurrection immediately col- 
 lapsed, one body of the insurgents who were 250 
 in all having fled, and the other taken a wrong 
 direction.! There was, therefore, nothing for Hafiz 
 Pasha to do but to enter the town and take possession. 
 Instead of doing that, he bombarded the place without 
 asking it to surrender, a fate which was the more 
 terrible because the ordinary population had been 
 increased by 5,000 or 6,000 refugees from neighbouring 
 
 villages.^ 
 
 Till midnight of the 12th the bombardment con- 
 tinued. " Then the loud-mouthed dogs of war ceased 
 their clamour ; they had done their work ; it was now 
 the turn of the sabre." During the night and the 
 following morning the soldiers entered the town; it 
 
 Baring's Report. \ Ibid. 43. 
 
 f MacGahan, 42-3. Ibid.
 
 DICTATOR. 631 
 
 was pillaged and then fired; neither age nor sex 
 was spared, and 3,000 people men, women, and 
 children were killed.* Not a woman in the place 
 appeared to have escaped outrage.f "Mothers were 
 outraged in the presence of their daughters ; young 
 girls, in the presence of their mothers, of their sisters 
 and brothers."} A girl of ten years was violated, 
 another of twelve ; and of a dozen of girls from 
 twelve to fifteen years old, two were outraged and 
 killed, and the remainder outraged. || A young girl <*f 
 sixteen was outraged by three or four Bashi-Bazouks 
 in presence of her father, who was aged and blind, 
 and then was killed by the same bullet as she was 
 endeavouring to save the old man's life.TF 
 
 Perustitza consisted of 350 houses, and had 2,000 or 
 2,500 inhabitants.** According to the account which 
 the people themselves gave to Mr. MacGahan, they 
 applied several times for the protection of regular 
 troops to Aziz Pasha, without avail. ft Achmet-Aga 
 meantime offered them the protection of Bashi- 
 Bazouks ; but having some natural distrust of such 
 shepherds, they refused the assistance, and in conse- 
 quence of some circumstances that were in dispute, 
 killed the two bearers of this message.!} The villagers 
 now prepared for defence, making one of their churches 
 their citadel. On Tuesday morning, May 11, the 
 
 * Ibid. A Ibid. ft IUd. 53-5. 
 
 f Ibid. 45. IT Ibid. 46-7. jj Ibid. 54. 
 
 j Ibid. 46. ** Ibid. 52. Ibid. 55. 
 Ibid.
 
 6p LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Bashi-Bazouks appeared.* Some of the people went 
 out, gave up their arms, and were killed. Some fled 
 to the fields, and, whenever overtaken by the Bashi- 
 Bazouks, were killed. The remainder stuck to the 
 church.f On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 
 the Bashi-Bazouks, employed themselves in pillaging 
 and burning the surrounding villages, occasionally 
 firing a shot at the church in which the villagers had 
 taken refuge. \ Meantime the people remained in the 
 church, so closely packed that it was impossible to lie 
 down, terrified by the occasional shots and by the glare 
 of the burning villages around. On the Thursday 
 afternoon Aziz Pasha arrived with his regulars, and, 
 according to MacGahan, before he had summoned the 
 people to surrender, began the bombardment of the 
 church, fl The villagers were so panic-struck that they 
 fled to another church, where they were less protected 
 than before.1T Aziz Pasha bombarded this as he had 
 bombarded the other church.** The people had, mean- 
 time, sent messengers to Aziz Pasha asking for peace; 
 some of those were killed before they reached Aziz 
 Pasha,tt others were killed on their way back. On the 
 Friday night, when this bombardment in the second 
 church was taking place, at least one man killed his 
 wife and children and then himself.} \ On Saturday, at 
 last, the people went out, and were spared. About 
 
 Ibid. 66. li Ibid. 69. ft Jbid. 65-6, and Mr. Baring', 
 
 t /bid. f Ibid. 69-60. Report. 
 
 J Ibid. 67. Ibid. 60-81. Ibid. 61. 
 
 f Ibid. 68. ft IK*. 63-4.
 
 DICTATOR. 633 
 
 1,000 or 1,600 had been killed.* But all these 
 horrors, great as they are, sink into insignificance 
 beside those of Batak. 
 
 While Mr. MacGahan was at Pestera, a number of 
 people crowded round the place where he was staying, 
 whom at first he supposed to belong to the town itself; 
 they turned out, however, to be fugitives from Batak. f 
 They came to tell the strangers the story of the 
 tragedy enacted in their home. One remarkwhich 
 Mr. MacGahan makes at this point of his narrative is 
 worthy of observation. He was acquainted with the 
 Russian language, having lived for some time at St. 
 Petersburg, and having, by an act of daring rarely 
 paralleled, succeeded in accompanying the Russian 
 army during the Khivan expedition. He declares 
 that the language of those Bulgarians was so like 
 Russian, that he could understand a great deal of 
 it. He describes the people as singularly like the 
 Russians in features, expression, and tone of voice. 
 He asks, with some appearance of reason, if we 
 should be surprised that under these circumstances 
 the Russians should have sympathised with the Bul- 
 garian subjects of Turkey's foul tyranny. J In that 
 strange fit of madness which passed over this country 
 under the malign influence of Lord Beaconsfield, one 
 of the most curious phenomena was the obstinate 
 blindness with which people refused to accept facts 
 which were as well ascertained as the daily rising of 
 
 Ibid. 18. J Ibid. 19-20. 
 
 t Ibid. 62.
 
 $34 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 the sun. At first sight it would appear scarcely 
 credible that any one could doubt that a people should 
 have the keenest sympathy with another people on 
 their border, belonging to the same race, speaking 
 almost the same tongue, professing the same creed, 
 whose men were massacred, whose women were out- 
 raged and massacred, whose children were outraged 
 and massacred by men of another race, a different 
 religion, another tongue! Yet there were people in 
 England ready to deny that the Sclav Christians of 
 Russia could have any real feeling for the Sclav 
 Christians of Bulgaria whom Turkey so ruthlessly 
 oppressed! Nay, this blindness to patent fact went 
 further. The very men who at one season were 
 strongest in their belief, loudest in their denunciation 
 of the atrocities I am now describing, in another season, 
 from a change in their mood, and without any change 
 whatever in the facts, were actually ready to as strongly 
 disbelieve that there were ever any such atrocities at 
 all, and to as vehemently denounce anybody who echoed 
 their own denunciations of a short time previously ! 
 
 To return to MacGahan's narrative. The fugitives 
 whom he met at Pestera followed him and his com- 
 panions in a procession to Batak.* As they approached 
 the doomed village, they began to find signs of the 
 great disaster : they met mills that were silent, and they 
 saw hill-sides covered with over-ripe corn, rotting for 
 want of hands to reap it But such signs of ravage were 
 soon forgotten in the sight that next met their eyes. 
 Ibid. 20.
 
 DICTATOR. 635 
 
 On a slope overlooking the town they observed a 
 number of dogs, which ran away angry at their ap- 
 proach ; and on going near, iound these animals had 
 been feasting on a large heap of dead.* That heap, 
 MacGahan afterwards found out, consisted of 200 young 
 girls, who had been kept prisoners for some days, out- 
 raged, and finally beheaded ! t " From my saddle," he 
 writes, "L counted about a hundred skulls, not including 
 those that were hidden beneath the others in the 
 ghastly heap, nor those that were scattered far and 
 wide through the fields." From this spot they looked 
 down on the town. Not a roof, not a whole wall 
 was left standing; and there came up to their ears 
 " a low, plaintive wail, like the ' keening ' of the Irish 
 over their dead." They descended into the town ; 
 they saw in the houses women wailing over their lost 
 husbands, brothers, children, " beating their heads and 
 wringing their hands." || " This was the explanation of 
 the curious sound we had heard when up on the hill. 
 As we advanced there were more and more; some 
 sitting on the heaps of stones that covered the floors 
 of their houses ; others walking up and down before 
 their doors, wringing their hands and repeating the same 
 
 despairing wail As we proceeded, most of them 
 
 fell into line behind us, and they finally formed a pro- 
 cession of four or five hundred people, mostly women 
 and children, who followed us about wherever we went 
 with their mournful cries. Such a sound as their 
 
 * Ibid. 22. J Ibid. 23. |i Ibid. 23-1 
 
 t Ibid. 32-3. Ibid. 22.
 
 636 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 united voices sent up to heaven I hope never to hear 
 again." 
 
 As they passed on, they saw the corpse of a young 
 girl not more than fifteen. " There was a large gash 
 in the skull, to which a mass of rich brown hair, 
 nearly a yard long, still clung, trailing in the dust."* 
 Next they saw " the skeletons of two children lying 
 side by side," " with frightful sabre cuts in their 
 little skulk" t As they approached the middle of 
 the town, " bones, skeletons, and skulls became more 
 numerous." 'There was not a house beneath the 
 ruins of which we did not perceive human remains, 
 and the street besides was strewn with them." \ 
 " Before many of the doorways women were walking 
 up and down wailing their funeral chant." One of 
 them dragged MacGahan to see the corpse of a young 
 girl " I could only turn round," he says, " and walk 
 out sick at heart, leaving her alone with her skele- 
 ton." fl A few steps further, he saw another woman 
 " rocking herself to and fro, and uttering moans heart- 
 rending beyond anything I could have imagined." 
 " Her head was buried in her hands, while her fingers 
 were unconsciously twisting and tearing her hair, as 
 she gazed into her lap, where lay three little skulls 
 with the hair still clinging to them." IT They next 
 came to the school-house and the church. In the 
 school lay "the bones and ashes of two hundred women 
 burnt alive within those four walls." "Just beside 
 
 '/. 26. j ibid. 27. 
 
 t HM. Ibid,
 
 DICTATOR. 637 
 
 the school-house is a broad shallow pit; there were 
 burned a hundred bodies two weeks after the mas- 
 sacre."* They entered the churchyard. The whole 
 of the little churchyard was heaped up with deao 
 bodies to the depth of three or four feetf " We 
 were told that there were three thousand people 
 lying here in this little churchyard alone, and we 
 could well believe it." % And of those three thousand, 
 many, if not most, were women and children. 
 
 Next they looked into the church. " What we 
 saw there was too frightful for more than a hasty 
 glance." || " An immense number of bodies had been 
 partly burnt there, and the charred and blackened 
 remains, that seemed to fill it half-way up to the low 
 dark arches, and made them lower and darker still, 
 were lying in a state of putrefaction too frightful to 
 look upon. I had never imagined anything so hor- 
 rible. We all turned away sick and faint, and stag- 
 gered out of the fearful pest-house, glad to get out 
 into the street again." IF Everywhere throughout the 
 town they saw similar scenes. "Skeletons of men 
 
 Hid. 28. f -^^ t IVM- 29- 
 
 " It was a fearful sight a sight to haunt one through life. There 
 were little curly heads there in that festering mass, crushed down by 
 heavy stones ; little feet not as long as your finger on which the flesh 
 was dried hard, by the ardent heat, before it had tune to decompose ; 
 little baby hands stretched out as if for help ; babes that had died 
 wondering at the bright gleam of sabres and the red hands of the 
 fierce-eyed men who wielded them ; children who had died shrinking 
 with fright and terror ; . young girls who had died sobbing and begging 
 for mercy ; mothers who died trying to shield then- little ones with 
 their own weak bodies, all lying together, festering in one horrid mass." 
 Ibid. 29. 
 
 y Ibid. 29. 1 Ibid. 29.
 
 638 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 with the clothing and flesh still hanging to, and 
 rotting together; skulls of women, with the hair 
 dragging in the dust; bones of children and of 
 infanta everywhere."* Here they were shown a 
 house where twenty people had been burned alive; 
 another, where twelve girls had been slaughtered, 
 "as their bones amply testified. "f What showed 
 most plainly the completeness of the massacre was 
 the desolation of entire families. An old woman 
 told MacGahan that she had three sons, who were all 
 married, and had twelve children: of all those nine- 
 teen people, but this poor old woman remained. J Out 
 of another family of thirty-nine, only eight were left; 
 out of one of twenty-five, but seven; of twenty, but 
 eight." And finally, MacGahan, estimating the entire 
 loss of life, says that of " the eight or nine thousand 
 people who made up the population of the place, there 
 are only twelve or fifteen hundred left !" || 
 
 Such was the story told by Mr. MacGahan, and such 
 was the story a considerable part of which had been 
 published at the very time Lord Beaconsfield was 
 declaring that the outrages in Bulgaria were grossly 
 exaggerated. MacGahan 's statements were immediately 
 confirmed by Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the then American 
 Secretary of Legation, and now American Consul at 
 Birmingham ; and let me say parenthetically that to 
 this distinguished litterateur the work of Christian 
 redemption in the East owes infinite gratitude. But 
 
 * 
 
 * Ibid. 2%30. Ibid. 
 
 i bi d. si. | ibid. 30.
 
 DICTATOR. 639 
 
 confirmation of Mr. MacGahan's story, even stronger 
 than that of Mr. Schuyler's, was soon to come: 
 worried by persistent interrogation in the House of 
 Commons, the Ministry at last were compelled to 
 send one of their employes to investigate the cir- 
 cumstances. I do not wish to question in the least 
 the impartiality of Mr. Walter Baring, but I think 
 I am safe in saying that he had no sympathy with 
 those who sought to emancipate the Bulgarians 
 from Turkish rule, and that he approached the in- 
 vestigation of those horrors with no predisposition 
 to accept the current rumours. There was. I ven- 
 ture to think, a strong expectation that his report 
 would annihilate the statements of MacGahan in 
 the Daily News. And even when the report was 
 presented, Sir Henry Elliot made the comment that 
 it showed some of the statements made to be " vastly 
 exaggerated."* Let us then compare the statements 
 of Mr. Baring's report with those in MacGahan's letters. 
 MacGahan. stated that in Raddovo, out of 160 houses, 
 not one was left standing, and that about twenty -two 
 men were killed. Mr. Baring states that the place 
 was totally burnt ; puts down the number of houses 
 destined as 177, and the number of people killed as 
 twenty -five that is to say, he gives a larger estimate 
 than MacGahan of the houses destroyed and people 
 killed in this village.f MacGahan's statement with 
 
 * Despatch to Lord Derby dated September 5, 1876. 
 f The town which Mr. MacGahan calls Raddovo appears in Mr. 
 Baring's report as Radilovo.
 
 <40 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 regard to Klissura is that not one out of 700 houses 
 was left standing ; but he says nothing of the number 
 of persons killed. Mr. Baring's statement in regard 
 to Klissura is that, out of 800 houses, not one was left 
 standing ; and besides thus increasing by a hundred 
 MacGahan's estimate of the houses destroyed, adds 
 the information that 250 people were killed. In the 
 case of Avrat-Alan, the statement of Mr. MacGahan is 
 that the Turks, sated with then- feast of blood and 
 lust at Otluk-Kui, had confined themselves to pil- 
 laging all the houses and outraging all the women. 
 Mr. Baring's statement is, that the place " was com- 
 pletely pillaged," and that " 130 people, including 
 strangers, were killed." He says nothing either in 
 denial 01 confirmation of the outrages on women, 
 but he alludes to a shocking story about a boy. 
 Mr. MacGahan tells us that in Otluk-Kui one-fourth 
 of the houses were burned ; and he estimates the 
 number of killed at about 3,000 ; 400 being in- 
 habitants of the town, and the remainder strangers. 
 Mr. Baring, estimating the entire number of houses 
 at 2,000, says that between 400 and 500 or about 
 one-fourth, as Mr. MacGahan puts it were burned. 
 With regard to the number of persons killed, Mr. 
 Baring puts down the number of inhabitants killed 
 as 763 that is, nearly double the number given by 
 MacGahan; while the strangers killed he puts down 
 as 1,000. Mr. Baring's total estimate, then, of persons 
 kiUed is 1,763, while Mr. MacGahan's is 3,000. This 
 is certainly a considerable discrepancy, but Mr.
 
 DICTATOR. 641 
 
 MacGahan in this case gives his numbers with some 
 doubt, remarking that Hafiz Pasha had, unlike 
 Achmet Aga, the murderer of Batak, buried his dead, 
 and so destroyed the best evidence of his guilt.* 
 The case of Otluk-Kui is accordingly one in which 
 much was left to conjecture, and in which two persons 
 anxious for the truth might honestly differ : in any 
 case, Mr. Baring's lower estimate of 1,763 is sufficient 
 to show that there was a horrible massacre. In 
 Perustiza, there were, according to Mr. MacGahan, 350 
 houses, of which not one was left standing ; and he 
 estimates the number of persons killed as from 1,000 
 to 1,500. Mr. Baring also states that out of 350 houses 
 not one was left standing, but his estimate of the killed 
 does not go beyond 750, "among whom," he says, 
 " there are many women and children." He also 
 tells practically the same story of the siege of the 
 two churches as Mr. MacGahan. Finally, as to the 
 case of Batak, the agreement of Mr. Baring's account 
 with that of Mr. MacGahan is still more complete. 
 MacGahan states that all the houses were burned; so 
 does Mr. Baring. Mr. Baring estimates the number 
 of persons killed in the church and churchyard at but 
 1,000 or 1,200, but he gives quite as horrible a picture 
 of the scene as Mr. MacGahan. He tells the same 
 tale of seeing the corpses unburied two months and 
 a half after the massacre, of girls slashed by yata- 
 ghans, with their hair still on the ground, f And with 
 
 * Mr. Schuyler gives the same estimate as Mr. MacGahan. 
 
 f "1 visited this valley of the shadow of death on the 31st July, more 
 
 41
 
 642 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 regard to the church, he adds the additional detail 
 to Mr. MacGahan's account, that the Bashi-Bazouks 
 tore off the tiles of the church, and "threw burning 
 pieces of wood, and rags steeped in petroleum, among 
 the mass of the unhappy human beings inside." 
 
 Outside the town, Mr. MacGahan counted about a 
 hundred skulls from his saddle; Mr. Baring counted 
 sixty. Mr. MacGahan says the bodies there were be- 
 headed ; so does Mr. Baring. Mr. MacGahan says they 
 were all woiren ; Mr. Baring says many were women.* 
 Mr. MacGahan gives no details of persons tortured ; 
 Mr. Baring gives the names of two persons who were 
 roasted, and one whose ears, nose, hands, and feet were 
 cut off. Finally, Mr. MacGahan estimates the number 
 of killed at 6,500 ; Mr. Baring, at 5,000. Such a differ- 
 ence in such immensity of atrocity is not material. As 
 Mr. Baring remarks of his estimate, " whether the slain 
 are to be counted by hundreds or by thousands, does 
 not lessen in the least degree the criminality }f the 
 slayers. The intention was to exterminate all except 
 
 than two mouths and a half after the massacre ; but still the stench 
 WM so overpowering that one could hardly force one's way into the 
 churchyard. In the street at every step lay human remains, rotting and 
 weltering in the aummer sun here a skull of an old woman, with the 
 grey hair attached to it theio the false tress of some unhappy girl, 
 alaahed in half by a yataghan ; the head which it had adorned had been 
 probably carried off to be devoured by some of the dogs, who up to this 
 have been the only scavengers." 
 
 " Juat outeide the village I counted more than sixty akulls in a little 
 
 Uow, and it wa evident from their appearance that nearly all of 
 
 >n bad been severed from their bodies by axes and yataghans. 
 
 e remain, of female wearing appw^J scattered about, it is plain 
 
 way of the pereooa here maanacred were women."
 
 DICTATOR. 643 
 
 those few girls (probably about eighty) whom they 
 carried off to satisfy their lusts. Those that escaped 
 owed their safety to their own good fortune, and not 
 to the tender mercy of their neighbours." 
 
 I have now traced the reports of Mr. MacGahan and 
 Mr. Baring in reference to the principal villages which 
 the former visited, and I claim to have shown that, to 
 all practical purposes, the reports agree. In some 
 cases, Mr. MacGahan's estimate of the houses destroyed 
 and the persons killed is higher than that of Mr. 
 Baring; in other cases, Mr. Baring's estimate is 
 higher than that of Mr. MacGahan. But they are 
 agreed in giving the same picture of villages entirely 
 destroyed, and of men, women, and children massa- 
 cred ruthlessly. But Mr. Baring, having visited more 
 places than Mr. MacGahan, gives even a darker, because 
 a fuller picture. Mr. Baring gives fuller details of 
 the massacre at Bazardjik by the heroic Chefket 
 Pasha, to which Mr. MacGahan but cursorily alludes ; 
 and he also describes the scenes of horror to the north 
 of the Balkans, while all those mentioned by Mr. Mac- 
 Gahan took place to the south. Mr. Baring corroborates 
 Mr. MacGahan not only in the main point of the number 
 of persons killed, but in other important particulars also. 
 He agrees with Mr. MacGahan, that this destruction of 
 their houses would expose the surviving villagers to 
 death by famine, and he confirms the statement that 
 from those plundered wretches the inhuman autho- 
 rities of Constantinople were still levying taxes ! Mr. 
 MacGahan says the leaders in the atrocities were deco-
 
 644 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 rated. Mr. Baring comments with scorn on the same 
 fact. 
 
 But one point more remains. What was the provo- 
 cation given for this massacre? On this* point, the 
 difference between Mr. MacGahan and Mr. Baring is 
 great at first sight, and small on examination. Mr. 
 Baring attributes the insurrection mainly to foreign 
 emissaries ; but a fuse cannot hurt where there is no 
 gunpowder ; and if the misgovernment in Bulgaria were 
 not frightful, no foreign emissaries could have induced 
 the Bulgarians to encounter the horrible risks of insur- 
 rection. He himself concedes the whole point, when 
 he says that "wherever there is Turkish rule, there, 
 owing to its inherent faults, there will be Christian 
 discontent." And now as to the overt acts which the 
 Christians committed in carrying out their rebellion. 
 At Raddovo, two Turks were killed ; at Klissura, thir- 
 teen ; at Perustitza, three ; and at Batak, three. At 
 Avrat-Alan alone was there anything like killing on 
 a large scale, for there the Bulgarians killed sixty-six 
 Mohammedan gipsies. So far as to men : as to women, 
 I find no mention of any having been killed at Klis- 
 sura ; none were killed at Raddovo ; none were killed 
 at Perustitza ; two were killed at Otluk-Kui ; and one 
 at Avrat-Alan. - Of the two killed at Otluk-Kui, one, 
 according to Mr. MacGahan, was killed by accident;* 
 the other, Mr. MacGahan states, used a sabre, and Mr. 
 Baring confirms the report. And thus, the number of 
 Mien killed, without provocation and purposely, in 
 
 MacGahan, 41.
 
 DICTATOR. 645 
 
 these five villages, amounts to one ! And be it re- 
 marked that in the two villages which suffered most, 
 not one Turkish woman was killed, accidentally or 
 otherwise. Not one Turkish woman was killed in 
 Perustitza; not one Turkish woman was killed in Batak. 
 Finally, as to the places where insurrection took 
 the shape of armed defence, the insurrection broke 
 miserably down almost at the first sight of attack. 
 The villages, where those poor shadows of a rising 
 flitted ghastly on the scene for a few brief days, were 
 chiefly Klissura, Otluk-Kui, Avrat-Alan, and Perus- 
 titza. At Klissura, Mr. Baring does not believe " the 
 story of the Bashi-Bazouks having summoned the 
 villagers to surrender." At Otluk-Kiu, the resistance 
 Hafiz Pasha met "was very slight." At Avrat-Alan, 
 when Hafiz Pasha came, "the inhabitants made im- 
 mediate submission." And as to Perustitza, he does 
 not find that any summons was sent to surrender by 
 Reschid Pasha, commander of the regulars; and he 
 declares that, while resistance was offered to the Bashi- 
 Bazouks, that "offered to his" Reschid's ''regulars 
 would probably not have been severe." This, then, is 
 Mr. Baring's account of the provocation : in but one 
 case was any considerable body of Turks killed ; but 
 two women were killed without provocation one of 
 those two, according to Mr. MacGahan, being shot by 
 accident ; the insurgents made scarcely any resistance ; 
 and they were not asked in the worst cases to surrender 
 at all. Let us sum up the case, as given by Mr. Baring, 
 in just two instances out of the many. At Perustitza,
 
 646 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 three Turkish men were killed, but no Turkish woman; 
 750 Christians, among whom were " many women and 
 children," were killed. At Batak, three Turkish men 
 were killed, but no Turkish woman ; and 5,000 Chris- 
 tian men, women, and children were killed. Finally, 
 Mr. Baring only gives one case of a Turkish woman 
 being outraged, and not one case of a Turkish child 
 being ill-treated. 
 
 Such was the story of Bulgaria. We all remember 
 the effect which Mr. MacGahan's letters produced on 
 the English people ; how a tempest of righteous indig- 
 nation swept over the country, and the awakened and 
 shocked conscience of the nation spoke with a clear- 
 ness, a unanimity, a thunderous swell, that has been 
 declared by competent judges unparalleled in our 
 history. But one thing was now wanting to give 
 its full force to this great national awakening from 
 ignorant participation in a heinous crime: it wanted 
 the guidance of a fit leader, and the fit leader ap- 
 peared. 
 
 In September of 1876, Mr. Gladstone published his 
 pamphlet on the " Bulgarian Horrors," and from that 
 moment forward he has stood forth as the protagonist 
 of the Christian cause of the East. In advocating that 
 cause, he has had to endure bitter adversity, he has 
 had to pass through a whirlwind of vituperation ; from 
 scarcely any variety of charge that can be brought 
 against a statesman or a man, has he been held free, 
 He has been accused of the high crime of treason, and 
 the low weakness of personal jealousy ; he has been 
 described at once as a most calculating conspirator,
 
 DICTATOR. 647 
 
 and a trifler of hysterical impulsiveness. Cynics have 
 sneered at him ; scribes have attempted to write him 
 down ; mobs have hissed at him. But he can bear 
 within his bosom a consciousness that may make his 
 heart swell the prouder because of those displays of 
 unscrupulous, unfeeling, and brutal hate. Through- 
 out all this great contest, he has carried with him 
 the approval of all that is ablest intellectually and 
 highest morally throughout the world. In 1876, he 
 could look back on a career of magnificent beneficence : 
 he had administered the finances of England as they 
 had never been administered before ; he had freed the 
 Irish Catholic from the yoke of religious ascendency, 
 and the Irish tenant from legalized plunder ; he had 
 rescued the English army from the foul contamination 
 of purchased rank, and the voter from the tyranny 
 of the landlord and the corruption of the capitalist; 
 and for the first time, after her six centuries of Par- 
 liamentary rule, England received from his hands a 
 real Education Act. But great as were these achieve- 
 ments, they sink into insignificance in the minds of 
 many before his work on the Eastern question. His 
 single voice has saved England from a great national 
 crime; has shaken a foul and apparently everlasting 
 tyranny to atoms ; and has elevated to the dignity 
 of freemen the most utterly enslaved populations in 
 the civilized world. That single achievement entitles 
 him to a place among the highest, the noblest, and 
 the greatest benefactors of the human race. 
 
 During all this period of public passion Lord 
 Beaconsfield obstinately held his peace. At last it
 
 g^ LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 was announced that the world was about to hear what 
 he had to say, and everybody looked forward with the 
 most feverish expectations to the speech he was going 
 to deliver. Aylesbury, as is known, was the place 
 chosen for this most important pronouncement. It 
 is easy to guess what kind of speech the public ex- 
 pected. The Bulgarian atrocities had by this time 
 been proved beyond the smallest shadow of doubt; 
 and they were shown to have reached proportions 
 in point of number, of unspeakable cruelty, ghastly 
 horror, almost unparalleled in the history of man- 
 kind. Lord Beaconsfield, under those circumstances, 
 had a duty to perform, which might have been 
 humiliating in the eyes of the mean, but would be 
 glorious in those of the generous. He had mocked 
 at the reports of those atrocities as exaggerations, 
 fables, coffee-house babble. And he had declined to 
 consider them as offering any ground for considera- 
 tion in forming his policy. But unquestionable 
 facts now stood before him in terrible contradiction 
 to his light-hearted denials; and the whole country 
 lay ready to his hand to follow him in a change 
 from the old bad ways o: alliance with the Turk. 
 Would he be honest enough to admit that he had 
 been wrong grossly wrong? Had he a heart big 
 enough to respond to the generous passion of the 
 English people ? The memory is still fresh of the 
 way in which those expectations were answered. 
 Lord Beaconsfield made no apology for his past errors 
 as to fact; and was still determined to stick by the
 
 DICTATOR. 049 
 
 Turk. Nay, more ; he managed in this same speech 
 to make one most important addition to the already 
 lofty structure of his misstatements on the Eastern 
 question. A very common complaint against him 
 had been that, when he rejected the Berlin Memoran- 
 dum, he had not met that proposal by a counter-plan 
 of his own. His reply was that this was altogether 
 a misrepresentation. His Government had made pro- 
 posals of their own: those proposals had been the 
 subject " of daily and hourly communication between 
 the other Powers and England," and they were just 
 on the point of leading to a beneficent peace when 
 Servia declared war. What will the reader say when 
 he learns that there is almost overwhelming ground 
 for believing that there is not one word of foundation 
 for this immense superstructure of statement ?* 
 
 * " On having recourse," comments Mr. Sedley Taylor on this 
 passage, "to the Blue Book where these asserted negotiations ought 
 to be detailed in their due order, it is most staggering to discover 
 not a vestige of them, or of anything like them. The following 
 question then arises : At what point between the rejection of the 
 Berlin Memorandum by Lord Derby's despatch of May 19. and the 
 declaration of war by the Prince of Servia on July 1, can all this 
 ' laying down of principles,' all this ' daily and hourly communi- 
 cation with the other Powers,' have occurred ? This question 
 admits of being answered by an application of what mathematicians 
 call the ' method of exhaustion,' as follows : These negotiations 
 did not begin immediately after the rejection of the Berlin pro- 
 posals ; for Lord Derby told the House of Lords (Hansard, 
 Tuly 31,) it would have been unreasonable to expect the Northern 
 Powers at what was a moment of some soreness to have at once 
 accepted a proposal on a different basis, even if the Government 
 had had such a proposal to make.' A week later these negotiations 
 had not been commenced ; for on May 27 Lord Derby told the
 
 550 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 " Well," said Lord Beaconsfield, " we did propose 
 some on our own part. My noble friend Lord 
 Derby .... lost no time in laying down the 
 principles upon which he thought that the relations 
 between the Porte and its Christian subjects ought 
 to be established/' " These communications," he con- 
 tinued, " were occurring constantly, I may say, between 
 Her Majesty's Government and the five other Powers. 
 
 If you ask me," he went on to say, " to 
 
 sum up in two sentences the result of what was, of 
 course, daily and hourly communication between the 
 
 French Ambassador (Turkey, No. 3, 1876, No. 305.) that in his 
 opinion, ' unless something could be done to detach Montenegro 
 from the insurgents, or effectually prevent thoir receiving assistance 
 through and from Montenegro, no useful result in the way of pacifi- 
 cation could be expected.' Up to June 2, these negotiations had not 
 been started ; for on that day Lord Derby wrote to our Ambassador 
 at Vienna (Ibid. No. 348) that Her Majesty's Government were 
 
 unable to do more than express their regret at not being able to act 
 with the other Powers who had concurred in the Berlin proposals.' 
 On June 12, these negotiations were still not on foot ; for on that day 
 Ix>rd Derby told the Russian Envoy (Ibid. No. 427) that in his view 
 
 nothing remained except to allow the renewal of the struggle until 
 success should have declared itself ... on one side or the other. ' Up 
 to June 19 the Great Powers knew nothing of these negotiations ; 
 for on that day the Russian Ambassador in London, (Ibid. No. 472,) 
 by direction of Prince Gortschakoff, called at the Foreign Office to ;i*k 
 Lord Derby if the London Cabinet had any plan for effecting a paci- 
 fic ;ition, to communicate it to that of St. Petersburg. Up to June 22 
 tbeae negotiations were still non-existent ; for on that day Lord Derby 
 told the Austrian Ambassador (Ibid. No. 481) that Her Majesty's 
 Government were 'ready to take part in the work of pacification 
 when they saw a chance of doing so with effect. That if they now 
 abstained, it waa only because they saw nothing to be done. When 
 circumstances led them to alter that opinion their inaction would 
 
 On June 28 these negotiations were still uncommenf cd : for
 
 DICTATOR. 651 
 
 Powers or their representatives in England, I must 
 tell you this, that in the late spring of this year, 
 peace, and peace on principles which would have been 
 approved by every wise and good man, might have 
 been accomplished. What happened ? That happened 
 which was not expected. Servia declared war upon 
 Turkey." What are we to say to such a Minister ? I 
 have in the course of this narrative given instance after 
 instance, until I have probably wearied the reader, of 
 statements of Lord Beaconsfield's which were in the 
 grossest and most palpable contradiction with fact. I 
 
 on that day Lord Derby stated to Count Schouvaloff (Ibid. No. 502) 
 that he ' thought it premature to say more than that Her Majesty's 
 Government would gladly concur in any practicable plan for the 
 amelioration of the local government of the Turkish provinces.' 
 Finally, up to June 29 no ' principles ' had been ' laid down ' by 
 Lord Derby ; ' for in his despatch of that date to the Russian Ambas- 
 sador (Ibid. No. 506) all is still in the future. 'Her Majesty's 
 Government will willingly join, in recommending such reforms in the 
 administration of the revolted provinces, as on full examination they 
 may believe to be practicable.' This brings us to within two days of 
 that on which the war manifesto of the Prince of Servia was issued 
 (July 1). We seem thus forced to the conclusion that this whole 
 asserted chain of negotiations had no real existence, and was wholly 
 conjured up by the imagination of our Prime Minister. It would be 
 ungenerous to withhold from Lord Derby the tribute, of respectful 
 sympathy due to a statesman who must negotiate with foreign diplo- 
 mats under a liability to such irruptions, on the part of his chief, 
 from the regions of romance. To Lord Beaconsfield, absorbed as he 
 seems to have been in maintaining the integrity of Turkey, some less 
 dangerous mode of handling that of Great Britain might with advan- 
 tage have been recommended." TJie Conduct of Her Majesty's 
 Ministers on the Eastern Question, by Sedley Taylor, M.A., 32 34. 
 Lord Beaconsfield afterwards made the explanation that negotiations 
 were going on, although not recorded in the Blue Books 1 Very 
 strange, if true I
 
 652 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 may be accused, and I fear justly accused, of being 
 monotonous in my repetition of those charges against 
 Lord Beaconsfield, but the monotony of iny exposure 
 is the result of the monotony of his imposture. It is 
 the same story from beginning to end. I am not the 
 biographer of a creature of my imagination, and to me 
 is not given the privilege of fashioning the actions 
 and the character of the man whose life I am describing 
 in obedience to what I might consider the laws of art 
 or of probability. I cannot relieve my picture with 
 light and shade. I have to stick obstinately to fact ; 
 and if I have to repeat myself over and over again, it 
 is because Lord Beaconsfield is the same from the time 
 when as a stripling he sought election in 1832, down 
 to this very moment when he is seventy-four years of 
 age, and the ruler of this great Empire. It is not my 
 fault that he has carried into manhood and into old 
 age the follies, the faults, and the scandals of his youth. 
 It might have been expected, even from him, that the 
 responsibilities of his great station would have exercised 
 some sobering influence upon his character, and some 
 purifying effect upon his principles of conduct; but, as 
 in the instance just quoted, I find him again making the 
 most unfounded statements, although the Premier of 
 England, and although every one of those statements 
 affected the existence of millions of human beings in the 
 present, and millions of human beings in the future. 
 
 This then was the reply Lord Beaconsfield had to give 
 to that tremendous storm of righteous public indig- 
 nation. Not one word of real sympathy had he for the
 
 DICTATOR. 653 
 
 victims of Turkish massacres, Turkish lust, and Turkish 
 atrocities of every imaginable character. The cries ot 
 these widows and children pierced not his ear and 
 moved not his heart ; and he worked on steadily in 
 his firm purpose of pursuing the Hebrew and Turkish 
 policy in spite of whatever misery to Christian man 
 and woman and child that policy might involve.* 
 This, too, was the speech by which he first signalised 
 his attainment of the title which was destined for the 
 ever-memorable statesman, whose lofty soul and whose 
 great heart have, as much as his splendid intellect, 
 secured for him everlasting fame. 
 
 Let me make about this Aylesbury speech one 
 remark more. Everybody who is frank must acknow- 
 ledge that Lord Beaconsfield, when he first had to 
 deal with this Eastern difficulty, was met by a tradi- 
 tional policy which had been approved of by nearly 
 all his predecessors. Nobody can fairly deny that 
 the maintenance of the independence and integrity 
 of Turkey was one of the most firm traditions of 
 English policy, and was one which the people of 
 England had been taught by the majority of their 
 rulers to consider as one of England's greatest inte- 
 rests. But the Bulgarian atrocities, coining with the 
 
 * Another cause for the indifference of Lord Beaconsfield and all 
 his fellow-Jews to the sufferings of the Turkish Christians is that, 
 unfortunately, some of those previously emancipated employed their 
 liberty in oppressing the Hebrew race with the ferocity of the Middle 
 Ages. Vindictiveness is not a passion wholly foreign to Lord Bea- 
 consiield's nature; and I have little doubt that, in his anti-Christian 
 policy, he was not uninfluenced by a desire to avenge the wrongs his 
 race had suffered in those Eastern regions.
 
 654 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 thunderous awakening of an earthquake, had swept 
 awav for the moment this whole policy founded on 
 falsehood and injustice, and it was quite open to Lord 
 Beaconstield, if his heart were at all susceptible to the 
 enlightening influence of the voice of humanity and 
 justice, to have changed his opinions, and to have ac- 
 cepted, as the English people did, the reversal of his 
 preconceived views. He had the fullest opportunity at 
 that moment of making a new and glorious departure 
 in the foreign policy of this country in the East. But 
 he rejected the grand occasion. From first to last his 
 policy was persistently, uniformly, without interrup- 
 tion, a policy of friendship to the Turk and the 
 oppressor, and hate to the Christian and the oppressed.* 
 He took no advantage of the noble passions that 
 were then existing in the public mind, to lead on the 
 people still further on the right path upon which they 
 had so enthusiastically entered. It must also be 
 
 Let my use of the word ' Christian " in discussing this question 
 not be misunderstood. I hare no desire whatever to discuss the 
 question on a religions basis. If the majority of the Turkish subjects 
 were Mussulmans whom a Christian confederation of Pashas at 
 Constantinople were plundering, ravaging, and assassinating, mj 
 opinion would be just as strongly in favour of the Mussulman 
 majority, and as strongly against the Christian minority, as it is 
 now in favour of the Christian majority and against the Mahometan 
 minority. My use of the word " Christian " must therefore be taken 
 simply as an employment of one of the terms by which those sub- 
 jects of Turkey are best known. The only occasion on which I use 
 it. meaning it to bear its distinctly religious signification, is when I 
 am speaking of the policy of Lord Beaconsfield personally. It is 
 pan of my caw against him that he viewed this whole Eastern 
 controversy from the Jew's standpoint from the standpoint of the 
 enemy and not the friend of Christians.
 
 DICTATOR. 655 
 
 remembered, that Lord Beaconsfield had an oppor- 
 tunity, in the disposition of his colleagues, as in the 
 transformation of public opinion, for revolutionising 
 his policy. It is now as well known as any fact in 
 the whole history of those negotiations, that Lord 
 Derby, Lord Carnarvon, and in the beginning Lord 
 Salisbury, would have been only too willing to have 
 given up fighting for the infamous cause of the Turk. 
 It is, therefore, clear that Lord Beaconsfield could 
 have carried his own Cabinet with him, as well as 
 the English people, in the new and more glorious 
 objects of defending the oppressed. Therefore I say 
 that on him individually, as distinct from his pre- 
 decessors, rests the responsibility of keeping this 
 country in the old bad ways of supporting Turkish 
 tyranny. On him rests the responsibility of having 
 turned enlightened public opinion back into dark- 
 ness, of having once more sunk the aroused public 
 conscience into the mire of international immorality, 
 of having sealed up those wells of truly human feelings 
 which were then opened. It is to him, therefore, and 
 to him only, we must ascribe one of the blackest pages 
 of national immorality with which the annals of our 
 history are darkened. 
 
 The next occasion on which Lord Beaconsfield 
 favoured the country with an exposition of his policy 
 was at the Guildhall Banquet on November 9, 1876. 
 In this speech he repeated his Aylesbury fable as to 
 the negotiations on a basis proposed by England, and 
 he denounced, in most vehement terms, the conduct of
 
 656 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the heroic principality of Servia in entering upon a 
 terribly unequal fight with the common oppressor of 
 the Christian Slavs. He declared his firm intention 
 to stand by the old policy of maintaining the inde- 
 pendence and integrity of Turkey, and he wound up 
 with a bellicose challenge to all the world on the part 
 of England. " We have nothing to gain by war. We 
 are essentially a non-aggressive power. There are no 
 cities and no provinces that we desire to appropriate. 
 .... But if the struggle comes, it should be recol- 
 lected that there is no country so prepared for war as 
 England (loud and renewed applause) because there 
 is no country whose resources are so great. In a 
 righteous cause and I trust that England will never 
 embark in a war except in a righteous cause, a cause 
 that concerns her liberty, her independence, or her 
 empire England is not a country that will have to 
 inquire whether she can enter into a second or a third 
 campaign. In a righteous cause England will com- 
 mence a fight that will not end until right is done. 
 (Loud and prolonged applause.)"* 
 
 I hurry on from this to the time when, after 
 severe pressure, he consented to send Lord Salisbury 
 to the Constantinople Conference. When that Con- 
 ference failed, it became evident that nothing was 
 to be obtained from Turkey by persuasion, that she 
 had determined to still go on oppressing in her old 
 way, and that the only guarantee she was ready to 
 give waa a guarantee that had become as utterly 
 
 * Daily Nttet, Nov. 10, 1876.
 
 DICTATOR. 657 
 
 worthless as the oath of a convicted perjurer: the 
 guarantee of her promises a hundred times renewed, 
 and a hundred times broken. Under those circum- 
 stances, as united Europe did not intervene, Russia 
 took up the cause of her oppressed brethren, and 
 entered upon what the Spectator correctly described 
 as the most just and necessary war of our time.* I 
 do not intend here to overload my pages with argu- 
 ments in favour of this opinion, for the controversy is 
 too recent. I must content myself with saying that 
 if ever a proposition appeared to me true, it is the 
 proposition of the Spectator that the Russian war was 
 a most just and a most necessary war. England did 
 not intervene, but we have the strongest evidence 
 the evidence of Lord Beaconsfield's own words that 
 if he had had his way, she would have intervened, 
 and the arms of England would have been joined to 
 those of Turkey in preserving the intolerable horrors 
 of Turkish rule. The opposition of his colleagues, 
 and the fortunately still healthy public opinion of the 
 country, stood in the way of this tremendous national 
 crime. The force of the Liberal party had compelled 
 his Foreign Secretary to write a despatch in which 
 those Bulgarian horrors, the existence of which he had 
 dismissed as vain delusions, as " coifee-house babble," 
 were admitted to be founded on fact; those Circassians 
 whom Lord Beaconsfield had described as innocent and 
 peaceful agriculturists, were declared to be fiends of 
 cruelty; and a demand was made that Chefket Pasha, 
 
 * April 28, 1877. 
 
 42
 
 658 LORD BEACONSF1ELD. 
 
 their ringleader, should be hanged. But for these 
 circumstances we might have beheld the soldiers of 
 England side by side with those of Turkey engaged in 
 the unholy work of maintaining Turkish oppression. 
 I need not dwell on the many incidents that took 
 place during the progress of the war. Suffice it to say 
 that in every point of her advance in her work of 
 emancipation, Russia found herself thwarted by the 
 English Prime Minister, and that her hand any day 
 might have been stayed, had Lord Beaconsfield only 
 obtained the assistance of some other European Powei 
 in carrying out his malign policy. 
 
 At last the Russians had succeeded in beating dowr. 
 the opposition of their enemy, complete victory had 
 been achieved, and they were approaching within 
 sight of Constantinople. We all know what took 
 place then ; how there were movements of English 
 fleets and English soldiers, and for a moment we 
 seemed to stand on the dizzy brink of war. 
 
 Who that has ever lived through it can forget that 
 terri ble time ? There was no cause tor which we could 
 go to war except an unholy one. There was no interest 
 of ours really threatened. There was no possible 
 excuse which would bear the examination of a second 
 why we should uppeal to arms ; and yet every day was 
 filled with warlike rumours, and every morning we 
 rose with the expectation of finding this country com- 
 mitted to a contest with Russia. There is a phenomenon 
 in the climate of London at certain periods of the year, 
 with which its inhabitants are too familiar. There are
 
 DICTATOR. 659 
 
 days when the sky is clouded, the atmosphere heavily 
 laden, and the light is drear and ghastly. Under the 
 influence of such atmospheric surroundings, the mind 
 is assailed by thoughts of some impending catastrophe 
 horrible, appalling, resistless, shapeless. Such was 
 the moral condition of this country during the closing 
 days of the war. We saw impending upon us a terrible 
 doom. We knew not why it approached, or how it 
 could be averted ; but there it moved steadily step by 
 step upon us, while we stood awaiting its advance in 
 dazed and impotent horror. 
 
 This terrible time is marked by other scenes upon 
 which we can look back with little less of shame or 
 disgust. When the friends of sense, justice, and peace 
 endeavoured to arrest the threatening catastrophe, 
 Rowdyism was proclaimed king. The bibulous patron 
 of the music hall, the unfledged medical student, 
 the whole mass of ignorance, ruffianism, and folly, 
 bore down any attempt of intelligence, or honest} 7 ", or 
 humanity to make itself heard. Authority, meantime, 
 looked on and applauded. When a wretched fellow in 
 a music hall sang his more wretched rhymes, tbx 
 highest authority in the realm was advised to send 
 him a letter of congratulation on his patriotic verses 
 When a mob assailed a body of peaceful citizens of 
 London in expressing their opinions, the ringleader 
 was a Lord Mayor, who has since received his pitiful 
 reward ; and the Ministers were not ashamed to receive 
 the representatives of rowdyism in private conclave. 
 Nor was this the only form of strange combination
 
 660 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 which that portentous season brought forth. The 
 cynicism of the highest coalesced with the blood- 
 thirstiness in the lowest classes ; the levity of the richest 
 with the darkness of the most needy. Pall Mall became 
 as brutal as Ratcliffe Highway ; and while our piiro- 
 Uuses screached after their manner for slaughter, the 
 ladies of fashion exercised their immemorial privilege of 
 lowering their thumbs that the gashed might also die. 
 It seemed as if the whole of the country had gone mad. 
 Every bad national passion that can lie concealed in 
 the heart of a nation was roused to fury : the hate of 
 right, the love of wrong, the lust for blood, became the 
 ruling frenzy. On this foul tide the barque of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's fortunes floated with all sails set, trium- 
 phantly, proudly, most appropriately. The lower a 
 nation's mood, the higher rise such as he. 
 
 The Hebrew Premier had indeed reduced the Gentiles 
 to an abyssmal depth of degradation. But Lord 
 Beaconsfield wanted to raise himself still higher, and 
 therefore it became necessary that he should drag 
 down the English people still lower. He had changed 
 the country from being the pole-star of the oppressed, 
 to the friend, the ally, the chief support of a most 
 guilty oppressor. The nation of Wilberforce had 
 become the nation of Beaconsfield ; the emancipator 
 of the negro had been changed to the fellow-tyrant of 
 the Bulgarian.* This, in all conscience, was trans- 
 
 The similarity of the cause of the Bulgarian to that of the negro 
 !TC hat been too much lost sight of in the Eastern controversy. 
 The central point in the whole question 11 the rest being merely 
 rabridiary U, that on the one side there were persons in a state of
 
 DICTATOR. 661 
 
 formation sufficiently lamentable. But England, while 
 thus interfering with the liberty of others, had, at 
 least, preserved her own. That also Lord Beaconsfield 
 set himself to restrict. 
 
 The reader will perhaps remember those extracts I 
 made from Lord Beaconsfield's chief work during his 
 Young England imposture. Lord Beaconsfield lays 
 down in "Coningsby" over and over again the doctrine 
 that Parliamentary institutions were ridiculous and 
 efiete, and that the true mode of government was 
 through the monarch and the multitude.* One of the 
 many advantages, as I have remarked in an early part 
 
 absolute servitude, and on the other side their masters. Some of the 
 muddle-headed people, who took the side of Turkey, and, so doing, 
 thought they were upholding the honour of England, would have 
 been indignant if they had been asked whether they thought the 
 maintenance of negro slavery would add to English glory. Yet the 
 case of the Bulgarian was even stronger than that of the negro. 
 Mr. Gladstone put this important part of the Liberal case well in 
 one of his Essays. " Our duty," he wrote, " the duty of those with 
 whom I sympathise, is to be true to our text such as it has been from 
 the fi:st. and to recollect that this question is, above all and before 
 all things, the question of the subject races ; of redeeming, from a 
 servitude worse than that of the negro, a population twice that of the 
 negroes ever held in slavery ; and a population who, before the yoke 
 was laid upon their necks, were our compeers, our equal competitors 
 in the race of civilization." "The Peace to Come," Nineteenth Cen- 
 tury, iii. 212. And again: " Her domination over the subject races 
 has been incurable, just as slavery was incurable ; or (to take a vastly 
 milder instance), just as Protestant ascendency in Ireland was in- 
 curable. The thing is incurable, but not the men who have to do with 
 the thing. To make them curable, you have to take them out of a 
 position which is false, and to leave them in a position which is true, 
 sound, and normal. Let the daily power of the Turk in Bulgaria be 
 destroyed, as the power of the slaveholder has been destroyed in 
 every Christian country except one.'' Ibid. 219. 
 * See ante, 232 23 i.
 
 662 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of this work, we have derived from the last Premier- 
 ship of Lord Beaconsfield is that we have seen the 
 realization in every-day life of some of the worst and 
 wildest dreams of Mr. Disraeli's romances. I do not 
 profess to know whether Lord Beaconsfield really 
 believes in the " monarch and the multitude " as an 
 abstract proposition. He had, when it suited his 
 purpose, preached, as has been seen, the opposite 
 doctrine of the sublimity of Parliament and the 
 loftiness of its privileges. At this juncture, however, 
 he found that the monarch and the multitude happened 
 to be on his side, and, accordingly, the doctrine recom- 
 mended itself immensely to that keen perception of 
 his own interest which does duty with him for convic- 
 tion. With his romancer's eye to dramatic effect, he 
 was captured, too, by the idea of converting the dreams 
 of his earlier years into world-moving facts. He could 
 see before his eyes the historian of the future drawing 
 that most wonderful picture of the novelist's dreams 
 accomplished; and how his vain bosom has swelled 
 before that prospect ! 
 
 Thus came this new phase in our history, that we 
 who had independent Parliaments, when no other 
 country in Europe had dreamt of representative insti- 
 tutions, even in its highest aspirations after liberty, 
 that we who had kept that great institution sacred and 
 unsullied in spite of a long succession of kings, we, 
 who had grown through freedom to be one of the great- 
 est of empires, we, who for centuries had been the 
 pattern of popular liberty with all the world through
 
 DICTA TOR, 663 
 
 our Parliamentary institutions, we, under the spell 
 of our Oriental dictator, were taught to trample our 
 representative institutions under foot. On April 16, 
 1878, the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissed the 
 House of Commons with the assurance that the situ- 
 ation was all tranquil, and that our legislators might 
 go to their homes in the utmost security of mind. On 
 the very following morning England learned that the 
 Indian troops had been ordered to Malta ! And by- 
 and-by came a more flagrant breach of our constitu- 
 tional liberties. 
 
 Well, we escaped the perils of a war with Russia in 
 spite of everything that had been done to precipitate 
 such a conflict. Then came the San Stefano Treaty. 
 To that treaty the English Government at once raised 
 objections. A mode of escape from the difficulty was 
 proposed. It was accepted by all the other great 
 powers, including Austria, whose interests are far more 
 seriously threatened by a Russian advance in Turkey 
 than are the interests of England. Again Lord Beacons- 
 field broke up the European concert, and again we 
 stood face to face with the horrible contingency of 
 an utterly causeless war. I am not going over the 
 dreary negotiations which took place upon this diffi- 
 culty created by the English Prime Minister. Suffice 
 it to say that before the question was settled, two of 
 the ablest and honestest of his colleagues had finally, 
 in spite of the immense temptations to the contrary, 
 separated themselves from any responsibility in Lord 
 Beaconsfield's unholy enterprises.
 
 664 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The Berlin Congress was at last arranged, and then 
 the question came by whom we should be represented. 
 Those who knew Lord Beaconsfield's career were not at 
 all astonished to learn that he himself had resolved 
 to be one of the plenipotentiaries of England on the 
 occasion. In his early days one of his favourite 
 dreams had been to take part in a European Congress. 
 In " Vivian Grey," in which under a fictitious name 
 he describes his own longings and the achievements he 
 was performing in imagination, the hero is described 
 as ingeniously defeating the most elaborate schemes 
 of a skilled and veteran diplomatist. In " Contarini 
 Fleming," again, as I have shown in passages I have 
 quoted from that work, he was playing the same 
 part of a triumphant negotiator amid the councils of 
 Europe. And now that the opportunity came of 
 carrying those boyish dreams into realization, of course 
 he seized upon it. 
 
 The cause which, according to themselves, the 
 English delegates went to Berlin to represent, was 
 the cause of the public law of Europe. The basis 
 of all their objections to the proposals of Russia, 
 proposals backed by Europe, the principle upon 
 which they were ready to plunge this country int.) 
 war, was that a European Council alone could modify 
 the arrangement which a previous European Council 
 had made. Their demand, therefore, all through \ 
 that, as the San Stefano Treaty materially modified the 
 European agreement of 1856, the San Stefano Treaty 
 in all and every part should be brought before another
 
 DICTA TOR. 665 
 
 European Council. What happened? One evening 
 the whole country was startled by the intelligence 
 published in a newspaper friendly to the Adminis- 
 tration, that our delegates the representatives of 
 European law, the advocates, even to the extent of 
 war, of every new modification in the Paris Treaty 
 being submitted in its entirety to a European Council 
 had themselves made a secret and single-handed 
 engagement before they had entered into the European 
 Council at all, and that this engagement made the 
 most serious changes in the provisions of the Paris 
 Treaty. Everybody remembers well the candid an- 
 swer which his lordship of Salisbury gave to the first 
 question asked about this extraordinary arrangement 
 when it appeared in the shape of a mere brief sketch. 
 After a while the Globe was able to prove its words 
 by the production of the entire agreement. Tricky 
 answers could no longer be tried, and Europe therefore 
 learnt that these people, who were talking of play- 
 ing a thoroughly honest game, had gone into the 
 Council of Europe with loaded dice, and cards up 
 every sleeve. 
 
 The result of the Berlin Conference is known. The 
 whole aim of our representatives there was to restore 
 to the ruthless grasp of Turkey as many as possible 
 of the unfortunate subjects whom Russia, after tre- 
 mendous sacrifices of blood and money, had rescued; 
 and everybody knows that, to the everlasting shame 
 of our representatives, and also to the shame of our 
 countiy, those efforts, to a considerable extent, pre-
 
 666 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 vailed. Everybody knows, too, that glorying in their 
 shame, the Ministry afterwards published a map in 
 which they showed by colours the tract of territory 
 which their efforts had succeeded in handing once 
 more over to the ruthless oppressor. 
 
 But the strangest and most senseless phenomenon 
 was yet to come. Just as the Council of Europe was 
 about to break up, the people learned through the 
 newspapers that the Ministry had undertaken, on 
 their own responsibility, an additional burden, whose 
 far-reaching consequences not even yet can any one 
 foretell. For this act, again, we have to come back 
 to the early imaginings of Lord Beaconsfield's fiction. 
 In "Tancred" we tind it laid down that England was, 
 in time, to seek to become an Eastern Power, and 
 that when she again helped Turkey she was to have 
 Cyprus and the protectorate of Asia as her reward.* 
 
 " Let the Queen of the Engliah collect a great fleet, let her stow 
 away all her treasure, bullion, gold plate, and precious arms ; be 
 accompanied by all her court and chief people, and transfer the seat 
 of her empire from London to Delhi. There she will find an immense 
 empire ready made, a first-rate army, and a large revenue. In the 
 meantime I will arrange with Mehemet AIL He shall have Bagdad 
 and Mesopotamia, and pour the Bedoueen cavalry into Persia. I will 
 take care of Syria and Asia Minor. The only way to manage the 
 Afghani it by Persia and by the Arabs. We will acknowledge the 
 Empress of India as our suzerain, and secure for her the Levantine 
 coast. If she like, she shall have Alexandria as she now has Malta ; 
 it could be arranged. Your queen is young ; she has an a- 
 Aberdeen and Sir Peel will never give her this advice ; their habits 
 are formed. They are too old. too rutet. But, you see 1 the greatest 
 empire that ever existed ; besides which she gets rid of the embarrass - 
 meat of her Chambers 1 and quite practicable ; for the only difficult 
 part, the conquest of India, which baffled Alexander, is all done !"
 
 DICTATOR. 667 
 
 It was much more important to Lord Beaconsfield 
 that again the future historian should be able to point 
 to this dramatic coincidence of his career, than that 
 the interests of this great empire should be most 
 seriously imperilled. To this being " reckless of all 
 things save his own prosperity," what is England, what 
 is Europe, what is the whole world, provided incense 
 be offered to the god of self whom alone he adores ? 
 Here, again, was a trampling upon the parliamentary 
 institutions of this country which not the wildest 
 dreamer would have ever thought possible. Here, 
 again, was an example of the manner in which our 
 Ministry understood their position as the advocates 
 of the law of Europe ! 
 
 I do not intend to stop on my way to discuss at 
 any length the Anglo-Turkish Convention. Suffice it 
 to say that to my mind even the advocates of the 
 Ministry themselves have already discovered that the 
 Anglo-Turkish Convention, so far as it might have 
 conferred any benefit on this country, has already 
 been tried and found wanting ; and that, so far as 
 it may lay on us heavy responsibility, it still un- 
 happily remains. The island of Cyprus the acqui- 
 sition of which was supposed to be such a wondrous 
 exploit has proved to be but a poor gain, and the 
 promised reforms in Asia Minor, which were to be the 
 
 Tancred, new ed., 263. And with regard to Cyprus " the English 
 
 want Cyprus, and they will take it as compensation The 
 
 English will not do the business of the Turks again for nothing." 
 Ibid. 237-8.
 
 668 LOUD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 basis of our accepting the protectorate, have yet to 
 
 come.* 
 
 The Treaty of Berlin I cannot stay to discuss. In 
 my opinion, that Treaty is practically dead already. 
 As long, of course, as the present Ministry are in power, 
 it will be their policy to maintain that document ; but 
 he must indeed be a strange being who can suppose 
 that the barrier of the Balkans can keep apart the 
 Bulgarian people similar in race, in religion, in 
 memories, the one free, the other still enslaved ; and 
 it appears to me that the Ministerial triumph over 
 humanity in the transformation of the San Stefano 
 Treaty into the Berlin Treaty, had not even the small 
 compensation of a triumph over Russia. As Mr. 
 Gladstone has justly pointed out, the greatest barrier 
 to a Russian advance on Constantinople are indepen- 
 dent states. But we have taken the precaution to 
 
 * Since I wrote those lines, events have occurred which still further 
 confirm the truth of those views. The Turks themselves, and Lord 
 Salisbury and Sir Austen Layard confess unwittingly, probably, and 
 not, of course, willingly that all hopes of reform in Asia are illusory 
 without the aid of English money : and money from England the 
 Turks won't get What a commentary on the war-passion of last year 
 are the events connected with the Rhodope grant ! The strongest 
 Ministry of our generation could not obtain from a Turcophile and 
 moat favourable House of Commons a few thousands for starving Turks. 
 And a private subscription, headed by the Premier, the Foreign 
 Secretary, and the Rothschilds, ended in a killing frost and a few 
 thousands 1 And for this people, for whom we would not subscribe 
 a tithe of the money sent to China, our light-hearted Ministerial is LS 
 were calling on us a short time ago to sacrifice millions of English 
 money, aa well as thousands of English lives I If there had been a 
 war, where would England, where would Lord Beaconsfield be now ? 
 Heavena I what an escape we have had I
 
 DICTATOR. 669 
 
 destroy one of these barriers, and have left still an 
 enslaved Sclav population on which Russia can intrigue 
 against the continuance of the peace of Turkey. 
 
 On Tuesday, July 16, Lord Beaconsfield and Lord 
 Salisbury made their entrance into London. The 
 crowd which was gratified by such poor trickery in 
 diplomacy, and by the acquisition of a miserable and 
 useless little island, and a still more useless protec- 
 torate, held high holiday, and the English Plenipo- 
 tentiaries found before them a decorated platform and 
 multitudes enthusiastically cheering them. " Imagine," 
 writest he Daily Telegraph fit chronicler of such a 
 day ! " a crimson-covered gallery built up against the 
 western wall, and seeming to rise out of a bank of 
 bloom, with here and there a palm or fern to serve 
 as a foil to the splendour of colour. Fancy the lamp- 
 posts made into things of beauty by spirals of flowers 
 and leaves. Picture tall palms lifting their graceful 
 forms from masses of other flowers and ferns. Think 
 of the platform bordered with plants in beds, looking 
 as natural as though a supernatural gardener by 'so 
 potent art' had made them grow there. Imagine 
 orange trees shedding around light reflected from 
 their leaves of lustrous green ; then more ferns and 
 flowers crowning and glorifying the little wooden 
 offices (!), erst as prosaic in appearance as in use (!) " ; 
 and so on. " When . . . the bell," says our writer, 
 describing another incident, " announced the ap- 
 proach of the train, the whole station, from the 
 crimson gallery, crowded with rank and fashion, to
 
 67 o LORD BEACONSFtELD. 
 
 the farthest platform filled with Greenwich pas- 
 sengers, and to the highest hotel window, with its 
 row of heads, woke up to demonstrative life. Then, 
 too, the usual exclamations indicative of relieved 
 suspense were heard on every hand nay, not the 
 usual exclamations. People did not say to one 
 another, referring to the train, ' Here she comes ! ' 
 nor, speaking of its passengers, with a comprehensive- 
 ness that took in even the stoker, ' Here they come ! ' 
 The remark was, ' Here he comes ! ' and there could 
 be no mistake about the pronoun. As the train 
 glided alongside the crimson platform, every eye 
 searched for him. Where was he ? Eager eyes 
 watched every opening door, till, at last, a half-score 
 of equally eager hands were seen thrust forward 
 to help the descent of a gentleman wearing a long 
 grey travelling coat 'There he is!' . . . Men start.-! 
 up, hat in hand, and pushed their way among the 
 gathering, shouting mass on the platform, anxious 
 for a near view of the noble Earl, and hoping, perhaps, 
 to grasp his hand. Ladies even came forward, under 
 escort, with a like object, and it seemed at one time 
 as though the reception would embarrass by its ex- 
 ceeding warmth. ... As for the people on the plat- 
 form, they surrounded and followed the vehicle, 
 cheering as they went, and so passed through the 
 archway. But their applause was only as a river, 
 which, rushing between its banks, becomes lost in 
 the ocean. The multitude outside gave voice to- 
 gether, and swallowed up the stream of cheers on
 
 DICTATOR. 671 
 
 wnich floated into their sight the hero of the Berlin 
 Peace." 
 
 It is needless to follow the enthusiastic account 
 much further; suffice it to say that Lord Beaconsfield 
 met with a similar greeting on his way to Downing 
 Street. The " cheering came down like thunder." 
 Four "voices from north, south, east, and west con- 
 verged in a national and Trafalgar Square chorus." 
 The " compliment " was " one of tremendous import," 
 and so on. 
 
 This picture is certainly of all the pictures 'in 
 human history one of the strangest, if not the saddest. 
 Here were these multitudes of free English Christians 
 cheering the man who had given back more than a 
 million of Christians to the most degrading slavery, 
 as if he had conferred an everlasting honour upon 
 the name of England, and had most at heart the 
 interests of Christendom. To those benighted beings, 
 the acquisition of Cyprus and the protectorate of Asia 
 Minor were the great interests of the hour; but to 
 the future historian a little episode, of which these 
 cheering multitudes knew nothing, will probably ap- 
 pear the most interesting. 
 
 Again we quote our eloquent authority : " One 
 incident . . . must be recorded. Sir Moses Monte- 
 tiore, at the advanced age of ninety-five, had come 
 out to meet the Premier. Introduced by Lord Henry 
 Lennox, the Prime Minister grasped him warmly 
 by the hand, and seemed delighted with the kindly 
 veteran's welcome."
 
 6 7 1 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Certainly an " incident " that " must be recorded " ; 
 for, of the many during that strange day, it was the 
 incident most significant. By that small scene the 
 meaning of this apotheosis of Lord Beaconsfield by 
 a Christian people is written in letters of light. 
 That day represented the triumph, not of England, 
 not of an English policy, not of an Englishman. It 
 was the triumph of Judaea, a Jewish policy, a Jew. 
 The Hebrew, who drove through those crowds to 
 Downing Street, was dragging the whole of Christen- 
 dom behind the Juggernaut car over the rights of the 
 Turkish Christians, of which he was the charioteer. 
 
 " I have brought you," he said at Downing Street, 
 "peace with honour." I think I am anticipating the 
 verdict of a very near posterity when I say that what 
 Lord Beaconsfield that day brought England was war 
 with shame. 
 
 And here I leave him for the present. Such then as 
 I have described in language of severity, I admit, but 
 in the language of strict truth is the man to whom 
 England entrusts her destinies. It appears to me that 
 I have proved that if ever there were a man unworthy 
 of that lofty position, it is Lord Beaconsfield. It 
 appears to me that I have proved beyond a possi- 
 bility of doubt -in any reasonable mind, that through- 
 out his whole career his sole absorbing thought has 
 been himself, and that to carry out his own advance- 
 .t he has sacrificed every principle which men hold 
 dear. I have proved, I think, that all through his 
 life he has been fulfilling the candid utterances of his
 
 DICTATOR. 673 
 
 boyhood, and has been playing with every feeling, 
 with every public man, with every party, with every 
 interest of England, with the recklessness of the 
 foreigner to whom all these things were but as worth- 
 less cards in the great game of ambition he was play- 
 ing. I do not judge this man from the standpoint of 
 the Pharisee. I know that life is thorny and man is 
 vain ; that the politician is subject to even stronger 
 temptations than most other men, and that before these 
 temptations even the purest of mind and the most 
 honest of purpose have frequently fallen. If, there- 
 fore, in the course of Lord Beaconsfield's life, I could 
 point to nothing worse than occasional though great 
 errors and misdeeds, I should be ready to pass a more 
 favourable verdict upon him. Some of the most splen- 
 did figures in political history are besmirched all over. 
 When I bow down before the mighty genius and the 
 great services of Mirabeau, the pale ghost of Sophie Le 
 Monnier rises up to denounce him. There comes back 
 to me the memory of the dirty gold received probably 
 for dirty services in the garden of the Tuileries ; there 
 come back his hundred other crimes; but I recall at 
 the same time one thing in the man that if it cannot 
 destroy at least chastens our indignation. The great 
 French Tribune, amid the mire of his follies, his 
 excesses, and his crimes, had at least some genuine- 
 ness in him. He was, with all his faults, capable of sin- 
 cere conviction, and when animated by that conviction 
 he was as pure, as sincere, and as high of purpose as even 
 the man who had passed from the cradle to the grave 
 
 43
 
 674 LORD BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 without one great sin. But in Lord Beaconsfield I find 
 no such redeeming feature. That whole character, is 
 complete in its selfishness, that whole career is uniform 
 in its dishonesty. Throughout his whole life I do not 
 find even on a single occasion a generous emotion, one 
 self-sacrificing act, a moment of sincere conviction 
 except that of the almighty perfection of himself. I 
 find him uniform in all his dealings with his fellow- 
 man, and behind every word he utters I can only see the 
 ever-vigilant custodian of his own interests. And it is 
 
 O 
 
 this perfect uniformity in his character and career that 
 most estranges me. We know that too often in the 
 course of a man's life his original nature is warped. Dis- 
 appointment, suffering, unresisted temptations, harden 
 many a heart that was once soft, lower many a nature 
 that was once high. But even in their degradation 
 these men carry the relics of their better past. As the 
 completest wreck recalls most vividly the stately ship, 
 the wildest ruin the lofty mansion, the very reckless- 
 ness of such men's vice is the most eloquent testimony 
 to the elevation of their early strivings. But Lnl 
 Beaconsfield is the same from the beginning; as he is 
 in old age, as he was in middle age, so he was in 
 youth. His maturity without virtues is the natural 
 sequel to his youth without generous illusions. There 
 is throughout the same selfishness calm, patient, 
 unhasting, unresting. Such a man the myriads of 
 this mighty Empire accept as chief ruler; for such 
 a man millions of pure hearts beat with genuine 
 emotion; to such a man it is given to sway by his
 
 DICTA TOR. 675 
 
 single will your fortunes and mine, and even those of 
 the countless generations yet to come. Which shall 
 a near posterity most wonder at the audacity of the 
 impostor, or the blindness of the dupe ? the immen- 
 sity of the worship, or the pettiness of the idol ? 
 
 " Such is the world. Understand it, despise it, love 
 it; cheerfully hold on thy way through it with thy 
 eyes on higher loadstars."* 
 
 Carlyle: Miscellanies, v. 126. Cagliostro.
 
 6 77 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Aberdeen, Earl of, offers Q-. Smythe 
 office, 221. Offered an alliance 
 by Russell, 415. Refuses, 416. 
 Premier, 478. Asked by Russell 
 to supersede Newcastle, 492. 
 Defeated, and resigns, ib. Sacri- 
 ficed for blunders in Crimea, 
 500-501. 
 
 Abyssinia, expedition to, 577. 
 
 Achmet Aga at Perustitza, 631. 
 
 Achmet Aga Hadji,one of the heroes 
 of the Bulgarian atrocities, 622-3. 
 
 Akroyd, Mr. B., on condition of 
 Halifax, 358. 
 
 Agriculturists, interests of, 
 strongly attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 65-6 ; and vehe- 
 mently defended by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 75. 
 
 "Alarcos" published, 200. Ana- 
 lysed, 200-201. 
 
 Albert, Prince, rebukes opposition 
 to Palmerston, 499-500. 
 
 Alberoni, object of Lord Beacons- 
 field's early admiration, 25. 
 
 " Alroy " shows influence of Miss 
 D'Israeli, 2. Allusion in, to Lord 
 Beaconstield's travels, 18. Pub- 
 lished, 26. Its character, ib. 
 
 Alsace, 387. 
 
 Alv;mley, Lord, fights a duel with 
 Morgan O'Connell, 106-7. 
 
 America, civil war in, 535. 
 
 "Angela Pisani" published, 224. 
 Character of, ib. 
 
 " Anastasius," influence on Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 598. 
 
 Audrassy, Count, issues Note on 
 Turkey, 617. On English rejec- 
 tion of Berlin Memorandum, 619. 
 
 Anglo-Turkish, The, Convention, 
 666-8. 
 
 Annual Parliaments demanded in 
 National Petition. 181. 
 
 Anti-Corn-Law League position 
 in 1846, 280. Revived, 425. 
 
 Annual Register quoted, 365, 393, 
 479, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 
 487, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 
 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 501, 502, 
 503, 612, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 
 519, 522, 524, 534, 535, 637, 539, 
 540, 641, 545, 546. 
 
 Ashley ,Lord (Earl of Shaftesbury), 
 appearance in 1837, 158-9. An 
 opponent of Jewish Emancipa- 
 tion, 379. 
 
 Ashley, Mr. E., on Bulgarian atro- 
 cities, 620-21. 
 
 Ashworth, Mr. H., quotes Cobden 
 on Peel, 285 ; on Protection and 
 Free Trade ? 358 ; on condition 
 of Bolton,' ib. Quotes Cobden's 
 speech in '52, 425-6. 
 
 Asia Minor, Protectorate of, in- 
 consistent with Lord Beacons- 
 field's speech in 1841, 205-6. 
 English protectorate of, 666-7. 
 
 Assisi, Francis de, marrisige with 
 Queen Isabella, 365. 
 
 Austria annexes Cracow, 365. De- 
 fended by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 392. Intervenes between Russia 
 and England, 495. Requested by 
 Cabinet Ministers to assist in 
 putting down Bosnian insurrec- 
 tion, 616-17. Issues Andrassy 
 Note, 617 ; and joins in Berlin 
 Memorandum, 618. 
 
 Avrat-Alan, condition of, during
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Bulgarian atrocities, as described 
 by MacGahan, 629 ; and by 
 Bahng, 640. 
 
 Avlesbury, meeting at, attended by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 64. Scene of 
 an agricultural dinner, 72 ; Lord 
 Beaconsfield at, contrasted with 
 Lord Beaconsfield at Marylebone, 
 76-7. Lord Beaconsfield's speech 
 at, 648-53. 
 
 Ayrton, Rt Hon. A. 8., attacks 
 Lord Beaconsfield's introduction 
 of Queen's name, 593. 
 
 Aziz-Pasha leads the massacre at 
 Perustitza, 681-3. 
 
 Buines, Mr. K, proposes reduction 
 of franchise, 543. 
 
 Ballot supported by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 57, 59. Again supported by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 65. Again 
 supported by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 68. Dropped by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 78-9. Proposed by Grote, 
 181. Opposed by Lord Beacons- 
 field, ib. 
 
 Balkans, condition of villages in, 
 during Bulgarian atrocities, 625. 
 
 Baker, Rev. Mr. (of Addington), 
 receives Maunday Thursday 
 letter, 589. 
 
 Bandiera Brothers, 263. 
 
 Bank Charter Act suspended, 371, 
 513. 
 
 Bankes, Mr., votes against Peel, 
 357. Referred to by Morning 
 Chronicle, 391. 
 
 Baring, F. T., appearance in 1837, 
 156. 
 
 Baring, Sir T., resigns High 
 Wycombc, 44. Receives letter 
 from J. Hume, 49-50. 
 
 Baring, Mr., opposes Gladstone's 
 proposed raising of 2,000,000, 
 487. 
 
 Baring, Mr. Walter, commissioned 
 to inquire into Bulgarian atro- 
 cities', 689. His report, 639-46. 
 Statement contrasted with Mr. 
 MacGahan's, ib. 
 
 Basevi, George or Joshua, uncle of 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 1. 
 
 Baahi-Bazouks, employment of, 
 denounced by Sir H. Elliot, 621 ; 
 and by several English Consuls, 
 622-8. At Otluk-Kui, 630; at 
 Penutitza, 631-83 ; at Batak, 642. 
 
 Bass. Mr. M. T., M.P., member of 
 Westminster Reform Club, 100. 
 
 Batak, the massacre at, during 
 Bulgarian atrocities, described by 
 MacGahan, 634-8 ; and by Baring, 
 641-3; and by Schuyler, 641. 
 The rising, C44-6. 
 
 Bath contested by Mr. Roebuck as 
 Radical, 46-7. Rejects Mr. Roe- 
 buck in 1837, 161. 
 
 Bazardjik, the massacre at, 643. 
 State of, during Bulgarian atro- 
 cities, 622. 
 
 "Beaconsfield" a character in 
 "Vivian Grey," 34. 
 
 Beaconsfield residence of Burke,367. 
 
 Beales, Mr. E., M.A., member of 
 Westminster Reform Club, 100. 
 
 Beaumanoir stands for Belvoir 
 Castle in " Coningsby," 23G. 
 
 Beckford of Fonthill. described by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 16. Said 
 by Lord Beaconsfield to have 
 admired " Contarini Fleming," 
 19. 
 
 Belgrade, English Consul at, 620. 
 
 Bentinck. Lord George, anxious to 
 get Lord Beaconstield into Par- 
 liament, 77-8. Helps to organize 
 opposition to Peel, 297-8. Opposes 
 second reading of Corn Law Bill, 
 302. Worthless speech extrava- 
 gantly eulogised by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 302-3. Supports first read- 
 ing of Coercion Bill, 309. Raises 
 a debate on a phrase of Peel's, 
 310. Advised by Lord Beacons- 
 field to oppose second reading 
 of Coercion Bill, 322, although 
 he had vehemently supported 
 introduction, ib. Accepts the 
 advice, 323. His excuse ex- 
 amined, 323-4. Resolves to de- 
 termine the opposition by a 
 violent speech, 326. Accordingly 
 attacks supporters of Peel in 
 coarse language, ib. Accuses Peel 
 of treachery to Canning and of 
 falsehood, 326-7. Were those 
 charges suggested by Lord Bea- 
 consfield ? 328-32. His attack on 
 Peel a mean party move, 332. 
 Answered by Peel, 332-3, 845-54. 
 His attack unanimously condem- 
 ned, 354-5 ; yet persists in renew- 
 ing it, 355. Opposes abolition of 
 protection on sugar, 860-61. De-
 
 INDEX. 
 
 679 
 
 feated, 361. Takes seal on front 
 Opposition bench, 362. Proposes 
 counter scheme for dealing with 
 Ireland, 363. Again defeated, 
 364. Attacks Palmerston's 
 Spanish policy, ib. ; and policy 
 towards Russia, 365. Opposes 
 all economical reforms, 366. In 
 favour of Jewish emancipation, 
 375. Requested by Protection- 
 ists to abstain from voting, ib. ; 
 but speaks and votes, 376. Re- 
 signs leadership of Protection- 
 ists. 376-7 ; and leaves place on 
 front Opposition bench, 377. 
 Conduct contrasted with that of 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 377-381. Was 
 Lord Beaconsfield trying to cut 
 him out ? 371, 388. Death, 390. 
 Lord Beaconsfield's conduct to- 
 wards, 437-8. 
 
 Bentincks, The, vote against Peel, 
 356. 
 
 Beresford, Major, referred to by 
 Morning Chronicle, 391. 
 
 Beresford-Hope,Mr.,fellow-student 
 of G. Smythe, 219. 
 
 Berlin. The Memorandum issued, 
 618 ; proposals, ib. ; rejected, 619. 
 Congress at, 664-7. Treaty, 
 668-9. 
 
 Bernal, Mr., appearance in 1837, 
 159. 
 
 Berkeley, Mr. G-., in 1837, 160. 
 Proposes a five-shilling import 
 duty, 406. 
 
 Beverley represented by Mr. Hogg, 
 261. 
 
 Birmingham disturbed by Chartists, 
 182. Represented by Mr. Bright, 
 596. 
 
 Bismarck (Prince), on English rejec- 
 tion of Berlin Memorandum, 619. 
 
 Blanc, Louis, description by, of 
 Carrel-Girardin duel, 87. 
 
 Blessington, Countess of, youth 
 and married life, 10-11. Com- 
 panion of Count D'Orsay, 11-12. 
 Celebrated hostess, 13-14. Her 
 guests, ib. Entertains Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 15-17. One of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's early teachers, 228. 
 
 Blessiugton, Earl of, husband of 
 Lady Biessington, 11. 
 
 Blunt, H. W., signatory of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's baptismal certifi- 
 catCj 9. 
 
 Bchn, Mr. H. G., gives account of 
 Miss D'Israeli, 3-4. 
 
 Bolton, condition in '42, 358. 
 
 Bolingbroke, Lord, quoted in 
 " Vivian Grey," 32 ; and fre- 
 quently in real life, 61. Lord 
 Beacousfield compares himself to, 
 121-2. Eulogised for deserting 
 Tory principles in office, 123. His 
 writings really Liberal, 124. 
 Parallel between his religious 
 unscrupulousness and Lord Bea- 
 consfield's, 274-5. 
 
 Bonham, Mr., accused by Lord 
 Beaconsfield of connection with 
 Despard's Plot, 265-6. Charge 
 shown by Peel unfounded, 266. 
 
 Bosnia, Insurrection in, beginning 
 of Eastern Question, 616. The 
 Andrassy Note, 617. 
 
 Bradenham House, Bucks, taken 
 by I. D'Israeli, 44. 
 
 Bright, Mr. John, in 1837, 162. In 
 the Anti-Corn-Law League, 280. 
 On condition of Sheffield, 358. At- 
 tacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 386. 
 Contemptuously replies, 386-7. 
 Again attacked, 387. On tactics 
 of Lord Beaconsfield in 1852, 435; 
 on Lord Beaconsfield's first Bud- 
 get, 439. On Villiers' motion, 
 460. Denounces Palmerston, 498. 
 Opinions on armies supported by 
 Lord Beaconsfield. 536. Accuses 
 Lord Beaconsfield of defending 
 assassination in " Revolutionary 
 Epick," 541-2. The result, 542-4. 
 Objects to simultaneous discus- 
 sion on Lord Beaconsfield's Reso- 
 lution and Reform Bill, 555. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's Irish policy, 
 577. Denounces Lord Beacons- 
 field's use of Queen's name, 595-6. 
 The reply, 596. 
 
 Bristow, Col., nominator of Colonel 
 Grey, 63. 
 
 Brooks's Club, Lord Alvanley's 
 requisition to, 106-7. 
 
 Brotherton, Mr., in 1837, 160. 
 
 Brougham, Lord, attacked by 
 "Runnymede," 145-6. In 1837, 
 162. 
 
 Brownlow, Mr., on Catholic Ques- 
 tion, 347. 
 
 Brumnael, 241. 
 
 Brunnow, Baron, Russian Minister, 
 505.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Buck, Mr., votes against Peel, 357. 
 
 Buckingham,Dukcof (the late),pre- 
 sides at meeting at Aylesbury, 73. 
 
 " Buckinghamshire, History of." 
 See Sheahan. 
 
 Bucks contested by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 367. Associations with 
 Burke and Hampden, ib. 
 
 liuckt Gazette contains letters of J. 
 Hume, etc., 50. Attacks Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 60-52. Comments 
 on result of election, 54-55. Con- 
 tains speech of Lord Beacons- 
 field, 62-64. Again attacks Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 64. 
 
 linckt Herald supports Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 50. Approves his 
 oratory, 52. Speech of Lord 
 Beaconsfield in, 73-6. Quoted, 
 :w;:i-71. Reports Lord Beacons- 
 field's speech, 546-7. 
 
 Bulgaria, massacres in, 619. Re- 
 ported in Daily \ercs, 620. 
 Subject of questions in the 
 House of Commons, 620-21 ; 
 625-6. Atrocities described by 
 English Consuls, 622-5. 
 
 Bulgarians, treatment of, described 
 by Consul Reade, 625 ; by Mac- 
 Gahan, 628-38; by Schuyler, 638-9: 
 and by Baring, 639-46 ; effect of 
 story on English public, 646. 
 
 Buller, Mr. C., in 1837, 160. 
 
 Bnller, Sir J. Y., proposes vote 
 against Ministry, 184. Votes 
 against Peel, 357. 
 
 Bulwer, E. L., tee Lytton, Lord 
 f the late). 
 
 Bulwer, Sir H.. expelled from 
 Madrid. 387. 
 
 Bunsen, Chevalier, blamed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 387. 
 
 Bnrdett, Sir F.. writes a letter in 
 
 favour of Lord Beaconsfield, 
 
 48. Appearance in 1837, 159. 
 
 upid from Radical to Tory, 
 
 ib. Subscribes to Spottiswoode 
 
 Subscription, 164. Attacks O'Con- 
 
 nell, 165. Attacked in return, ib. 
 
 ion for Catholic Relief, 346. 
 
 Burke, Edmund, treatment of, by 
 Whigs, (ienonnccd by Lord Bea- 
 consfield. 64. Eulogised in "Vin- 
 : ion," 121. Associations with 
 Bucks, 867. Destined to re- 
 ceive title of Lord Beaconsfield, 
 IM.7. 
 
 Burrell, Sir 0., votes against Peel, 
 
 356. 
 Byron, Lord, as portrayed in 
 
 Venetia," 198-200. 
 
 Cadurcis, character in " Venetia," 
 198; 599. 
 
 Cagliostro, as described by Car- 
 lyle, 675. 
 
 Cairns, Earl, in 1837, 162. 
 
 Calne represented by Mr. Lowe, 
 587. 
 
 Camberwell (St. Giles'), compound 
 householders in, 565. 
 
 Cambridge University attended by 
 G. Smythe, Lord J. Manners, 
 Lord Lyttelton, Lord Penzance, 
 and Mr. A. B. Hope, 218-19. 
 Influenced by the Tractarian 
 movement, 227. 
 
 Campbell, Mr., denounces Lord 
 Beaconsfield as unpatriotic, 513. 
 
 Canada discussed by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 537-8. 
 
 Canning, George, quoted by Peel, 
 266. Relations with Peel alluded 
 to by Lord Beaconsfield, 2(!7-8. 
 Peel's reply, 268-9. Said by Ben- 
 tinck to have been hunted to 
 death by Peel, 326-7. Peel's 
 reply, 332-3. Story rehashed by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 333-45. Ex- 
 travagantly eulogised by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 341 ; though for- 
 merly severely satirized, 342-3. 
 PeeUs reply, 345-54. 
 
 Canning, Lord, Viceroy of India, 
 attacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 511-12. 
 
 Canning, Mrs., anger at adhesion 
 of her husband's friends to Wel- 
 lington, 328. 
 
 Canterbury represented by G. 
 Smythe, 219. 
 
 Carabas, Marquess of, character 
 in "Vivian Grey," 31. 
 
 Cardwell, Lord, Memoirs of Peel 
 quoted, 210. 
 
 Carington, Lord (the 2nd). See 
 Smith. Hon. R. 
 
 Carlisle, Earl of, nee Lord Morpeth. 
 
 Carlyle, Thomas, on Cagliostro, 
 676. 
 
 Carnarvon, Earl of, resigns, 556. 
 On household suffrage, 557, 561. 
 
 Carrel, Armand, duel with Girardin, 
 87.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 68 1 
 
 Castlereagh, Lord, ridiculed in 
 
 " Coningsby," 232. 
 Catholics, appealed to by Lord 
 Beaconsfield against Peel, 276. 
 Peel accused of inconsistency 
 towards, 340. Accused by Lord 
 Beaconsfield of conspiracy with. 
 Eitualists, 588, 589-90. 
 Cavendish, Mr., elected for Bucks, 
 370. Commented on by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 370-71. 
 Cayley, Mr., opposes increase of 
 Malt Tax, 485. 
 
 Cecil, Lord Eobert. See Marquis 
 of Salisbury. 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. J., compared to 
 reformer of 1832, 46. A Liberal, 
 though no Whig, 62. 
 
 Chandos, Marquis of (afterwards 
 Duke of Buckingham), leader of 
 the agriculturists, 71-2; the hero 
 of an Ayjesbury dinner, 73. Eulo- 
 gised by Lord Beaconsfield, 75-6. 
 A friend of Lord Beaconsfield. 78. 
 Retires from office in '41, 209; 
 and leads opposition against Peel 
 in '46, 286. 
 
 Charles Albert condemned by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 392. 
 
 Charles I. celebrated by Lord 
 J. Manners, 216-17. 
 
 Charter, see National Petition. 
 
 Chartists present National Petition, 
 179. Lord Beaconsfield' s atti- 
 tude towards, 179-182. Create 
 disturbances, 182 ; hold conven- 
 tion, ib. Again discussed by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 183. Motion 
 'on prisoners, 184. 
 
 Cheetham, Mr., violently de- 
 nounces Peel, 400-401 . 
 
 Chefket Pasha, the leader of the 
 massacre at Bazardjik, 643. De- 
 nounced by Lord Derby, 657-8. 
 
 Chelmsford, Lord (Sir F. Thesiger), 
 defeats Russell Ministry. 418. 
 Declaration on Protection in '52, 
 429. Opposes emancipation of 
 Jews, 490. Dismissed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 578. 
 
 Chettinge, English Consul in, 620. 
 
 China, war with, 503, 505, 510. 
 
 Christianity, relations to Judaism 
 according to Lord Beaconsfield, 
 381-384. 
 
 Christopher, Mr., opposes Peel's 
 Corn Bill in 1841, 210. Votes 
 
 against Peel, 357. On restora- 
 tion of Protection. 428-9, 446. 
 Chancellor of the Duchy of 
 Lancaster, 428-9. 
 
 Chubb, Rev. Mr., Vicar of Hugh- 
 enden, 608. 
 
 Church, Irish, reduction of, advo- 
 cated by Lord Beaconsfield, 79-80. 
 and condemned by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 90 ; denounced by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 253-4 ; defended by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 580 et seq. 
 
 Circassians as described by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 621 ; and by others, 
 621-5. 
 
 Clarendon, Earl of (the late), sati- 
 rized by Lord Beaconsfield, 504. 
 
 Cleveland, character in " Vivian 
 Grey," 37. 
 
 Cobden, R., in 1837, 162. Doc- 
 trines practically adonted by 
 Peel in 1842, 208. " Painful 
 scene with Peel, 261-2. Scene 
 alluded to by Lord Beaconsfield 
 in 1845, 261 ; and in 1846, 301 ; 
 Speech on the allusion, 301-2. 
 Supports Maynooth Grant, 274. 
 On Peel's position in '46, 285. In 
 the Anti-Corn-Law League, 280. 
 Opposes Coercion Bill. 306. TTsea 
 a phrase which originates a 
 stormy scene, 306-7. Repudiates 
 Lord Beaconsfield's interpreta- 
 tion of his words, 309. Attacked 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 386. Con- 
 temptuously replies, ib. Again 
 attacked, 387. On tactics of Lord 
 Beaconsfield in 1852, 435. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's treatment of 
 Peel, 451-2. On Villiers' motion, 
 460. Criticises Lord Beacons- 
 field's Budget, 471. Denounces 
 Palmerston, 498. Denounces Lord 
 Beaconsfield for duplicity on 
 question of Protection, 403-5. 
 Again denounces Lord Beacons- 
 field for duplicity, 406-7. De- 
 nounces Derby Ministry, 425-6. 
 On tactics of Lord Beaconsfield 
 in '52, 435. Proposes vote of cen- 
 sure on China war, 505. 
 Cockburn, Sir A., on policy of Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield in '52, 433. 
 Coercion Bill (Irish) introduced by 
 Peel, 249. Discussed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 249-50. Introduced 
 by Peel, 303! Blocks Corn Law
 
 68* 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Bill, 304-6. Debate on introduc- 
 tion of, 305. Causes rapproche- 
 ment between Protectionist and 
 Irish member*, 305-6. Passes 
 first reading, 309. Second read- 
 ing opposed by Bentinck, 323. 
 Debate on second reading, 324. 
 Rejected, 855. Introduced by 
 Lord John Russell, 872. 
 
 Colchester addressed by Lord J. 
 Manners, 446. 
 
 Commons, tee House of Common*. 
 
 Conference, description of, in " Con- 
 larini Fleming," 22-3 ; at Vienna, 
 494 ; at Berlin, 618. 
 
 Congress, tee Conference. 
 
 " Coningsby " published, 229. De- 
 scription of Lord Monmouth, ib. ; 
 of Mr. Rigby, ib. Contrasted 
 with "Vanity Fair," 229-30. 
 Eulogises the powerful while 
 satirising the feeble, 230-31. 
 Flattering portrait of Lord Lons- 
 dale as Lord Eskdale, 231. The 
 Estate again, ib. Similarity of 
 ideas in " Vindication," ib. Sati- 
 rises Tories of Liverpool's time, 
 and denounces their doctrines, 
 231-2. Eulogises Peel, 332. 
 Calls him a distinguished person- 
 age, ib. ; a great man, ib. ; and 
 acquits him of intrigue, ib. In- 
 troduces Sidouia, who proclaims 
 the divinity of youth, ib. ; uni- 
 versal genius of Jews, ib. ; and 
 vehemently denounces Parlia- 
 mentary institutions, 232-3. 
 Those ideas realised, 233. Divine 
 Right taught, 233-4. Introduction 
 of the Beaumanoir family, 231. 
 Abject flattery of the nobility, 
 234-6 ; even of those who are 
 enemies of the author, 236. Pro- 
 poses the restoration of the may- 
 pole and of almsgiving, 237. 
 Jumbling of sacred and frivolous 
 themes, 288-9. The State to be 
 saved by its youth, 289. Young 
 England gospel summarised, ib. 
 Criticised by Thackeray, 240-41. 
 A ridiculous love story, '240. 
 Fortnightly Review on contradic- 
 tion of estimate on Lord J. 
 Russell in, with other estimates 
 in other works, 268-9. On rela- 
 tions of Canning and Peel, 348. 
 On relations of Jews and Moham- 
 
 medans, 610-11. Ideas carried 
 out in Lord Beaconsfield's second 
 Premiership, 661-3. 
 
 " Coningsby Harry," hero of 
 " Coningsby," 233-4. 
 
 Conservatives oppose Russell's 
 Education Grant. 179. Support 
 Protection in 1841 election, 202. 
 
 Constantinople, Conference at, 656. 
 
 " Contarini Fleming " published, 
 19. Its purpose, ib. Describes 
 under hero Lord Beacousfield's 
 own position, 19-20. Its cha- 
 racter, 20. Description of a 
 boyish ambition, ib. ; a school- 
 boy fight, 21 ; a Court intrigue, 
 ib. ; and a conference, 22. A 
 splendid passage, 22-3. A strange 
 prophecy, 23. Contrast of hero's 
 position and surroundings, 23-5. 
 Strange likeness to Lord Beacons- 
 field's own position iu England, 
 25. Description of Eastern 
 travels, ib. A love story, '25-6. 
 Dreams realised in Lord Bea- 
 consfield's Premiership, 664. 
 
 Corfu. Bandiera Brothers in, -'03. 
 
 Corn-Law, Abolition of, proposed 
 by Mr. Villiers, 184. Opposed by 
 Lord Beacontfield, ib. Reduction 
 on duty, a Whig proposal in 1841, 
 205. Modifications proposed by 
 Peel, 208. Those modifications 
 proved a step in direction of 
 free-trade \>y Peel's speeches, 
 208-9 ; by those of his opponents, 
 209-10; and by his "Memoirs," 
 210-11 ; yet supported by Lord 
 Beaconsneltl, 212-13. Denounced 
 by Russell, 280. Position of 
 Russell and Peel towards, con- 
 trasted, 281-3. Bill to repeal, 
 introduced by Peel, 297 ; dis- 
 cussed by Lord Beacousfield, 
 298-300 ; opposed by Bentinck, 
 802 ; second reading carried, 303 ; 
 and third in Commons. 320; and 
 second in Lords, ib. 
 
 Courtown, Lord, character iu " Vi- 
 vian Grey," :-7. 
 
 Cox, Mr., exposes at Tauntou Lord 
 Beaconsfield's early Radicalism, 
 134. 
 
 Coze on Peerage Bill, 120. 
 
 Cracow annexed by Austria, 365. 
 
 Cran borne, Viscount. See Marquis 
 of Salisbury.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 683 
 
 Crimean war, conduct of English 
 Opposition during, 480-81 et seq. 
 
 Croker, J. W., satirized in " Con- 
 ingsby," 229, 230.31. 
 
 Curiosities of literature quoted,4, 6. 
 
 Curteis, Mr., defends Lord Beacons- 
 field, 252. 
 
 Cyprus, occupation of, inconsistent 
 'with speech of Lord Beacons- 
 field in 1841, 205-6. Annexation 
 of, 666-7. 
 
 Daily News on Lord Beaconsfield's 
 first appointment as Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, 423 ; gives 
 report of Bulgarian massacres, 
 620 ; corroborated by English 
 Consuls, 622-5. Sends MacGahan 
 to Bulgaria, 627. His letters, 
 628-38. Accounts contrasted with 
 Mr. Baring's, 639-46. Reports 
 speech of Lord Beaconsfield, 656. 
 
 Daily Telegraph on Lord Beacons- 
 field's entry in London after 
 Berlin Treaty, 669-71. 
 
 Dante, Lord Beaconsfield compares 
 himself to, 85. 
 
 Dartmouth, Earl of. letter of Lord 
 Beaconsfield to, 583. 
 
 Day, Mr., guest of Mr. W. Mere- 
 dith, 3. 
 
 Denison, Mr. B., abandons Protec- 
 tion, 287. 
 
 Denmark, Lord Beaconsfield on, 410. 
 
 Deepdene, rendezvous of Young 
 England party, 528. 
 
 Derby, Earl of (the late), appear- 
 ance in 1837, 156. Deserts the 
 ' Liberals, 162. Takes no notice 
 of Lord Beaconsfield's maiden 
 speech, 175. Styled by Lord 
 Beaconsfield Rupert of Debate, 
 262. Besigns, 286. Asked to form 
 Government, 415. Fails to obtain 
 support of Peelites, 416. Not 
 inclined to accept Lord Beacons- 
 field's services, 416-17. Applies 
 for assistance to Mr. Gladstone, 
 417. Abandons attempt to form 
 Government, ib. Premier, 423. 
 Selection of colleagues, ib. On 
 Act of 1846, 426-7. Announces 
 policy of his Government, 427. 
 Election addresses of his col- 
 leagues, 428. On Lord Beacons- 
 field's first Budget, 440. Speech 
 contrasted with Lord Beacons- 
 
 field's, 442. Defeated, 476 Cha- 
 racter of his Ministry, 476-7. 
 Conduct as Opposition leader 
 during Crimean war, 480-81. 
 Opposes emancipation of Jews, 
 490. Asked to form Govern- 
 ment, 492. Proposes coalition 
 with Palmerston, Gladstone, 
 etc., 492-3. Offers to substi- 
 tute Palmerston for Disraeli 
 as leader, 493. Again Premier, 
 516 ; and again, 550. Inten- 
 tions on Reform as described by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 552. An- 
 nounces his abandonment of 8 
 Reform Bill, 556 ; and resigna- 
 tion of three ministers, 556-7. 
 Resigns, 578. 
 
 Derby, Earl of (the present), In 
 1837, 162; on Protection, 445-6. 
 " Revolutionary Epick "' dedi- 
 cated to, 544. Proposes amend- 
 ment to Mr. Gladstone's Irish 
 Church resolutions, 583. Sir H. 
 Elliot's despatch to, 621 ; and 
 despatches of various Consuls on 
 Bulgarian atrocities, 622-5. On 
 negotiations after Berlin Memo- 
 randum, 649-51. 
 
 Despard, Plot of, 265-7. 
 
 D'Esterre killed by O'Counell in a 
 duel, 106. 
 
 Devon represented by Mr. Buck, 
 357. 
 
 Dilke, Sir C., compared to reformer 
 of 1832, 46. A Liberal, though 
 no Whig, 62. 
 
 " Diplomatic Transactions in 
 Central Asia" plagiarised by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 600. 
 
 Disraeli,Benjamin, Earl of Beacons- 
 field, uncertainty as to date of 
 birth, 1 ; and place, ib. Paren- 
 tage, ib. ; and relatives, 2-3. 
 Descent, 3-5. Initiated into cove- 
 nant of Abraham, 6. Baptized, 
 7-9. Not sent to a fashionable 
 school, 8 ; 10. Early dreams, 10. 
 A guest of Lady Blessington, ib. 
 On Count D'Orsay, 13. Cha- 
 racter of the company he met, 
 13-14. Its influence upon him, 14. 
 A great dandy, 15-16. Publishes 
 "Vivian Grey," 15. Manner 
 and conversation in youth, )5-17. 
 Publishes second part of " Vivian 
 Grey." 17 ; " Pooanilla." ib. ; and
 
 68 4 
 
 INDEX 
 
 "Tonng Duke," it. Goes on 
 foreign tour, 18. Its influence, ib. 
 Publishes "Contarini Fleming,'' 
 19. Describes his own position 
 under the name of the hero, 19-20. 
 Character of the book, 20. De- 
 scription of bovish ambition, 
 ib. ; of a schoolboy fight, 21 ; 
 of a Court intrigue, 16. ; and of a 
 conference, 22. A fine passage, 
 2-2-3. A strange prophecy, 23. 
 Contrast of hero's position and 
 Mirroundings, 23-4. Strange 
 likeness to Lord Beaconsfield's 
 own position in England, 25. 
 Description of Eastern travels. 
 ib. A love story, 26-6. Meets 
 Lord Melbourne, 23-4. Publishes 
 "AJroy," 26. Character of book, 
 ib. "Vivian Grey" analysed, 27-42. 
 The key to his character, 41. 
 Publishes "Rise of I8kauder,"41. 
 " Infernal Marriage," it. " Ixion 
 in Heaven," it. Determines on 
 a political career, 43. Contests 
 High Wycombe, 44 ; as a Radi- 
 cal, 46-7. Obtains letters from 
 Joseph Hume, 47 ; O'Connell and 
 Bnlwer Lytton, 47-49 ; and Bur- 
 lett, 48. Hume's letter with- 
 drawn, 49-50. Attacked by Itvckt 
 <:<izette, 50. Enters Hi^h 
 Wycombe, 51. His appearance, 
 52. Speech on the hustings, 53-4. 
 Supported by Radicals, 54 ; and 
 by Tories, 16. Defeated, 54-5. 
 Radicals his principal supporters, 
 55. Controversy with Colonel 
 Grev, 66-7. Issues address to 
 Hieh Wycombe, 57-60; in favour 
 of Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, 
 and reduced expenditure, it. 
 Speaks at High Wycombe, 59-61 . 
 Speech remarkably like later 
 utterances, it. Nominated, 61. 
 His speech, 61-4. He stood as a 
 Liberal, although he abused 
 Whigs. 62-8. Again defeat* 
 Attends county nomination nt 
 Aylesbury, it. Difference in 
 .ttitude at first and second 
 < >mbe elections, 64-5. Issues 
 al address to Marylebone. 
 65. Advocates again Triennial 
 Parliament* and Ballot, ib. ; and 
 land Ux, 66-6. This a distinctly 
 Radical cry, 66; and a ques- 
 
 tion of the hour. it. Publishes 
 ' W hat is He ? " C7. Advocates 
 conlition of Tories and K.idicals, 
 C8 ; the Ballot and Triennial 
 Parliaments, it. His successive 
 changes of front in town and 
 country, 69-70. Seeks in agri- 
 culturists tools, 71-2. Attends 
 agricultural dinner at Ayles- 
 bury, 72. Neglected. 73-4. De- 
 clares a conspiracy exists against 
 agriculturists, 75 ; denounces 
 manufacturers, it. ; pays court 
 to Lord Chandos, 75-(i. EolD- 
 einm of yeomanry compare 
 wirh "Vivian Grey," 76; prin- 
 ciples at Marylebone and at 
 Aylesbnry diametrically opposite 
 7(1-7. Described by Greville as 
 mighty impartial, 77-8. Publishes 
 "The Crisis Examined," 79. 
 Strongly condemns Irish Tithes, 
 it.: recommends reduction of 
 Irish Church, 7t'-80 ; and mo- 
 dification of Church-rates, 80. 
 Strongly defends Peel from 
 charge of tergiversation, 80-81 ; 
 compares Reform Ministry to 
 Ducrow, 81-2. Rejected a third 
 time for Wycombe, 82 ; cheerful 
 in defeat, io. Publishes "Revo- 
 lutionary Epick," 83 ; extraor- 
 dinary preface, 83-5. Opposes 
 Labouchere at Taunton as a 
 Conservative, 87. Astonishment 
 at this announcement, 87-8. De- 
 scribed by Westminster Elector 
 as member of a Liberal ciub, 
 88. Opposes reduction of Irish 
 Church, 90 ; and abolition of 
 Irish Tithes, 90-91.; notwith- 
 standing his support of both 
 in "Crisis Examined,'' it. ; and 
 though tithes had just caused 
 terrible massacre, U1-2. Yet 
 claims perfect consistency, 92-3. 
 Endeavours to reconcile his pre- 
 sent hostility to, with his past 
 friendship for the Liberals. I*.".- 1. 
 His defence examined, 
 Denies charge of Westminster 
 Elector, 97. The charge proved 
 correct, 98-100. Attacks O'Con- 
 nell, 100-101. Stated a short 
 time previously to have eulo- 
 gised him, 102. Replied !> by 
 O'Connell. 102-5. Challenges
 
 INDEX. 
 
 685 
 
 O'Connell's son, 107. Challenge 
 declined, ib. Writes abusive let- 
 ter to O'Connell, 108-12. A man 
 of unfailing self-conceit, 113. 
 Publishes "Vindication of the 
 English Constitution," 114. An 
 egotistic anecdote, 115-16. The 
 Commons an Estate, 116. At- 
 tacks O'Connell, Hume, and 
 Marylebone Radicals, 117. In- 
 dicts the Whig party, 118. 
 Accuses them of limiting crea- 
 tion of Peers, ib. The charge 
 unfounded, 118-20. Eulogises 
 George III., 120 ; and Pitt, ib. 
 Describes Tory as national party, 
 ib. Portrays himself under Bol- 
 ingbroke, 120-22. Bolingbroke 
 praised for deserting Tory prin- 
 ciples in office, 123. Is this con- 
 duct justified? 124-5. Defends this 
 principle in Peel as well as Bol- 
 ingbroke, 125-6. " Vindication " 
 reviewed in Globe, 126-7. Replies, 
 128. Attacked by Globe, 128. 
 Replies in Times, 129. Gives 
 version of his relations with 
 O'Connell and Hume, 129-32. 
 The version examined, 132-5. 
 Again attacked by Globe, 134-5 ; 
 which produces letter of Bulwer 
 to prove his Radicalism, 134. 
 Denies that Hume wrote to him 
 directly, or that he ever s-aw 
 Hume at his house, 135-6. Globe 
 appeals to Scott and Hume, L36 ; 
 both assert that he called at 
 Hume's house, and that he ap- 
 plied as a Liberal, 136-41. Hume 
 asserts his letter was directed to 
 him, 138. These letters con- 
 clusive of his early Liberalise!, 
 139-40. Abusively replies to 
 Hume, 141-3; yet practically con- 
 firms Hume's assertions, 141-2 ; 
 while abusing Hume, mentions 
 former obligations, 142. This 
 alteration of praise and abuse 
 one of his worst characteristics, 
 142-3 ; compelled to acknow- 
 ledge that he received Hume's 
 letter direct, 143-4. The moral 
 of the Globe controversy, 144. 
 Begins " Runnymede Letters," 
 145. Attacks Melbourne, 145 ; 
 and Brougham, 145-6 ; and 
 Russell, 146 ; and Palmerston, 
 
 146-7 ; and Hobhouse. 147. Eulo- 
 gises Peel, 147-9. Attacks tht 
 late Earl Grey, 149. Charactei 
 of those letters, 149-50. Con 
 tests Maidstone, 150-54. Cha 
 racter of his address, 150-51. 
 Gives a new version of his rela- 
 tions with O'Connell, 151. The 
 version examined, 151-2 ; and 
 proved incorrect, 152-3; yet 
 claims complete consistency, 
 152-3. Opposed by Colonel 
 Thompson, 151. Their principles 
 compared. 153-4. Elected, 154. 
 Makes maiden speech, 1 54. Cha- 
 racter of the House he addressed. 
 154-61. Rises immediately after 
 O'Connell, 165-6. Uu favourable 
 reception, 167-70. Appearance 
 on the occasion, 171-2. Speech 
 not unlike future efforts, 172-3. 
 Judged by the Press, 173-5. Un- 
 noticed by Lord Stanley, 175. 
 Cheered by Peel, 175-6. Unde- 
 terred by failure, 177-9. A gam 
 addresses House, 179. Supports 
 Talfourd's Copyright Bill,179; op- 
 poses Russell's Education Grant, 
 ib. Professes sympathy with 
 Chartists, 179-80. This profes- 
 sion examined, 180-82. Opposes 
 increase of Police, 182. Attacked 
 by Mr. Fox Maule, 182. Replies, 
 
 183. Again advocates alliance 
 of Chartists and aristocracy, 183. 
 Asks explanations on Ministerial 
 changes, 183-4. Snubbed, 184. 
 Eulogises Peel, ib. Opposes 
 Villiers on Corn Laws, ib. ; and 
 supports Duncombe on Chartists, 
 
 184. Speaks on Sugar Duties, 185. 
 Highly eulogises Peel, 185-6. 
 Attacks Russell, 186. Again 
 eulogises Peel, 186-7 ; who is 
 approaching office, 187. Marries 
 Mrs. Lewis, ib. Contests Shrews- 
 bury, 188-95. Enters town, 181 ; 
 declares Wycombe his birthplace, 
 and the property of his father, 
 188-90. These statements ex- 
 amined, ib. Denies he had 
 O'Connell's assistance at Wy- 
 combe, 191. Is called a Win- 
 chester scholar, ib. This state- 
 ment examined, 192. Declares 
 Peel the greatest statesman of 
 his age, 193. Challenged to a
 
 686 
 
 INDEX 
 
 duel, 198. Assisted by his wife 
 in canvassing, 193-4. First 
 displays his crest, 194. Elected, 
 195. Pronounces vehement eulo- 
 gium on PeeL 195-6. Describes 
 himself as Peel's humble, but 
 fervent supporter, 195. Why 
 this adulation ? 196-7. Publishes 
 "Henrietta Temple," and "Ve- 
 netia," 197. Those works ana- 
 lysed, 197-200. Publishes " Alar- 
 cos," 200. A ridiculous failure, 
 200-201. Political and literary 
 success contrasted, 201. On 
 Parliament assembling (1841), 
 supports Peel's commercial mea- 
 sures, 202. Denies Free Tiade is 
 a monopoly of Whigs, "20'2-u ; 
 and maintains Peel can better 
 carry Free Trade measures, fi. 
 Denies election of '41 favourable 
 to Protection, 204. This state- 
 ment contrasted with later state- 
 ment, ib. Rebukes Whig Cabi- 
 net for using the Queen's name, 
 205-6. Inconsistent therein with 
 his own teaching, ib. Receives 
 no promotion from Peel, 206 ; 
 but conceals his disappointment, 
 206-7. Proposes a fusion of diplo- 
 matic and consular service, 207. 
 Severely ridiculed by Palmerston. 
 207. Coldly received by Peel, 
 207-8. Yet vigorously supports 
 Peel's new Corn Law, 212-13. 
 That law evidently in the direc- 
 tion of Free Trade, 208-11; and 
 opposed as such by ultra-Protec- 
 tionists, 209-11. Denies Peel is 
 guilty of inconsistency, 212-13; 
 and again contends the Tory 
 leaders have always favoured 
 Free Trade, 218 ; and that Peel 
 is acting exactly as his Tory 
 predecessors, t*. Re-asserts 
 those opinions, 218-14. Forms 
 Toung England, party, 214. 
 Contrasted with G. Smythe, 220. 
 Nature of their friendship, 221-4, 
 Distrusted by fathers of Lord J. 
 Manners and G. Smythe, 222-8. 
 Delivers address at Manchester 
 Athenaeum, 228. Unlikely from 
 birth and training to believe 
 Y"IUIK Knjrlund gospel, 225-8 ; 
 yt : zealously, 228-9. 
 
 PublUhe* u Conlngiby," 229. De- 
 
 scription of Lord Monmouth, ib. ; 
 of Mr. Rigby, ib. Contrasted 
 with Thackeray, 229-30. Eulo- 
 gises the powerful while sati- 
 rizing the feeble, 230-31. Flatter- 
 ing portrait of Lord Lonsdale 
 asLord Eakdale, 281. The Estates 
 again, ib. Similarity of ideas in 
 "Vindication," ib. Satirizes 
 Tories of Liverpool's time, and 
 denounces their doctrines, 231-2. 
 Eulogises Peel, 232. Calls him 
 a " distinguished personage," U>. 
 a " great man," ib. ; and acquits 
 him of intrigue, ib. Introduces 
 Sidonia, ib. ; who proclaims the 
 divinity of youth, ib.; and uni- 
 versal genius of Jews, ib. ; 
 and vehemently denounces Par- 
 liamentary institutions, 232-3. 
 Those ideas realised, 233. Di- 
 vine right taught, 233-4. Intro- 
 duction of the Beaumanoir 
 family, 234. Abject flattery of 
 the nobility, 234-6 ; even of those 
 who were enemies, 236. Pro- 
 poses restoration of the may- 
 pole, 237 ; and of almsgiving, ib. 
 Jumbling of sacred and frivolous 
 themes, 238-9. The State to be 
 saved by its youth, 239. Young 
 England summarized, ib. ; criti- 
 cised by Thackeray, 240-41. A 
 ridiculous love story, 240. Pub- 
 lishes "Sybil," 241. Its object, 
 241-2. The dramatis personce, 
 242-3. The days of the Abbots 
 recalled with regret, 243. Ritual- 
 ism highly praised, 243-4. De- 
 scriptions of working classes 
 mere daubs, 244-5. Egremont 
 the representative of Young En- 
 glandism, 245. The aristocrats 
 the natural leaders of the people, 
 245-6. Self-laudation, 24H-7. 
 Advances still coldly received 
 by Peel. 248-9. First encounter 
 with Peel, 249. Second, ib. Ac- 
 cuses Peel of an inconsistent 
 Irish policy. 249-50. Sneers at 
 Peel's want of courtesy and 
 explicitness, 251. Advocates 
 integrity of Turkey, ib. Attacked 
 by Lord Sandon, 252. I)ef' 
 by Huuie, ib. ; Palmanton, <'>. ; 
 Smythe, to. ; and Curteis, ib. Ac- 
 tion in 1844, 253. Declares Ire-
 
 INDEX. 
 
 687 
 
 land afflicted by a starving popu- 
 lation, an absentee aristocracy, 
 and an alien Church, 254. Pro- 
 bably contemplating change to 
 Liberal benches, 255-8. Defends 
 Ferrand, 259-60 ; alludes to pain- 
 ful scene in '43 between Peel and 
 Cobden, 261-2 ; satirizes Lord 
 Stanley, 262. Acknowledges 
 open hostility to Peel, ib. 
 flakes violent attack on Peel, 
 264. Accuses him of affecting 
 emotion, ib. ; and of selecting as 
 a colleague a confederate of 
 Despard, 265. Sarcastically an- 
 swered by Peel, ib. ; and proved 
 grossly inaccurate in his Despard 
 charge, 266. Abjectly apologises, 
 266-7. Again attacks Peel, 267. 
 Charges him with tyranny to 
 his supporters, 267 ; and with 
 stealing Whig principles, ib. 
 Ridicules his love of quotation, 
 268; and insinuates that he was 
 a treacherous friend of Canning's, 
 ib. Sneeringly answered by 
 Peel, 268-9. Again attacks Peel, 
 270-72. Charges him with betray- 
 ing the agriculturists. 270-71 ; and 
 with intended abandonment of 
 Protection, 271. Replied to by 
 Peel, 272-3 ; and shown to have 
 enthusiastically supported the 
 acts he was condemning, ib. Joins 
 the Conservative Rump against 
 Maynooth Grant, 274-5. Satirizes 
 Peel's love of precedent, 275. 
 Styles Peel a Parliamentary 
 middleman, 275-6. Calk on the 
 Catholics to oppose him, 276 ; 
 and the Whigs. 276-7. Action 
 in 1845 estimated, 277-8. Po- 
 sition in 1846, 287. Excellent 
 materials to work on, ib. De- 
 nounces Peel's adoption of Free 
 Trade, 287-8. Claims to have con- 
 sistently supported Protection, 
 289-90. This claim examined, ib, 
 Illustrates happily Peel's posi- 
 tion, 290-2. Charges him with 
 want of originality, 292. Mis- 
 represents an innocent phrase of 
 Peel's, 294-5. Denounces political 
 inconsistency, 295-6 ; yet himself 
 most inconsistent, 297". Opposes 
 Peel's measure, 298. Defines 
 party obligations, 298. His 
 
 definition contrasted witn his 
 own acts, 298-9 ; and with hia 
 own preaching in '35, 299-300 ; 
 and in '67. 300. Peel's " acts 
 in accordance with his teach- 
 ing, ib. Again alludes to old 
 quarrel between Cobden and 
 Peel. 301. Attacks Roebuck, ib. 
 Conduct contrasted with that 
 of Peel and Cobden. 301-2. Ex- 
 travagantly eulogises a worthless 
 speech of Bentinck, 302-3. Mis- 
 represents a phrase of Cobden's, 
 307-8 ; and an act of Peel's, ib. 
 Answered by Peel and Cob- 
 den, etc., 308-9. Apologises. 309. 
 His persistence in unfounded 
 charges, ib. Induces another 
 debate on a phrase of Peel's, 
 310. Misquotes Mill, ib. Ex- 
 posed by Roebuck. 311-12 ; and 
 accused of tergiversation, Ib. 
 His defence, 312. Calls O'Con- 
 nell a great man, ib. His in- 
 consistencies the natural out- 
 growth of his character, 313; and 
 career in perfect accord with 
 teaching of '' Vivian Grey." 
 313-15. Again attacks Peel. 316. 
 Stinging reply by Peel, 31(3-17. 
 Accused of seeking office under 
 Peel, 317. Makes a quibbling 
 reply, 318-20. Advises Bentinck 
 to oppose second reading of the 
 Coercion Bill, 322. Though Ben- 
 tinck had supported introduction, 
 ib. Suggests to Bentinck an 
 attack on Peel, in reference to 
 Canning and the Catholic claims, 
 328-32. Renews Bentinck's at- 
 tack on these points. 333-45. 
 Pronounces an extravagant eu- 
 loprium on Canning, 341. The 
 eulogium vulgar, ib. ; and proved 
 utterly insincere. 342-3. An- 
 swered by Peel, 345-54. Helps 
 to expel 'Peel from power, 358. 
 His success deserving of con- 
 tempt, not admiration, 359. Op. 
 poses abolition of protection on 
 sugar. 360. Great object to pre- 
 vent reconciliation between Peel 
 and Protectionists. 361. Takes 
 seat on front Opposition bench, 
 3R2-3. Supports Beutinck's Irish 
 scheme, 364. Attacks Palmer- 
 ston's Spanish policy, ib. ; and
 
 6*8 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 policy towards Russia, 865. Op- 
 poses all economical reforms, 366. 
 Poor wit, 366-7. Stands for 
 Bucks, 367. Reasons, ib. Con- 
 demns immediate attempt to re- 
 store Protection, 368-0. Dis- 
 honesty of his action, 369-70. 
 Elected for Bucks. 370. On future 
 hopes, 370-71. Position in new 
 Parliament, 372. Encounters 
 difficulty on Jewish disabilities, 
 372-3. Leader of an anti-Jewish 
 party, 373-4. Conduct contrasted 
 with Bentinck's, 377-381. Speaks 
 respectfully of the enemies of 
 the Jews, 379. Blames Russell 
 for dealing with the question, 
 379-80 ; and retains seat on front 
 Opposition bench, 380-81. Views 
 as to relations of Judaism and 
 Christianity, 381-84 ; maintains 
 they are practically the same, 
 381-2. This view examined, 382. 
 Claims Crucifixion as an honour 
 to the Jews, 382-3. Continuous 
 opposition to economical reform, 
 884-5. Poor quality of speeches, 
 385. Comedy of his appearance 
 M financier, 385-6. Attacks 
 Cobden and Bright, 386. Con- 
 temptuously answered, 386-7. 
 Again attacks Cobden and 
 Bright, 387. Approves Palmer- 
 ston's Prussian policy, ib. Scoffs 
 at German nationality, ib. Con- 
 demns Palmerston's Spanish 
 policy, 387-8. Reviews session, 
 088-90. Reasons for doing so 
 examined, 888-9. Character of 
 speech, 389-90. Was he try in g to 
 cat Bentinck out? 388. Freed from 
 Bentinck's rivalry, 390. Negoti- 
 ations for leadership, 390-92. 
 Proposes amendment to address, 
 391. Discussed by the Morning 
 Chronicle, 891-2. Again con- 
 demns Palmerston's encourage- 
 ment of Liberal movement on 
 Continent, 392. No sympathy 
 with Hungary or Italy. 
 Claims retrenchment as a Tory 
 principle, 898. Echoes gloomy 
 prophecies as to results of Free 
 Trade, 394. Rewarded in spite 
 of stupendous blunders, 894-6. 
 Next move in Protection, 896. 
 Proposes motion on local tax- 
 
 ation, 395-6. Absurd attack oii 
 the manufacturers, 396-7. Pro- 
 poses motion on state of the 
 nation, ib. Recognized as leader, 
 397. Suggests reciprocity as 
 substitute for Protection, 31)8. 
 This a partial abandonment of 
 Protection, 398-99. Opposed by 
 Peel, 399. Frequent in his at- 
 tacks on Peel, 399-400. Defeated, 
 400. OnProtectionist amendment, 
 402. Refuses to raise general 
 question of Protection and Free 
 Trade, 402-3. Denies laud de- 
 pended on any artificial la\v, 403. 
 Effect of the speech on the sub- 
 sequent debate, 403-4. De- 
 nounced by Cobden and others 
 for his policy of duplicitj', 401. 
 Proposes reduction of county 
 taxation, ib. Defends himself 
 for not bringing forward Pro- 
 tection directly. 405 ; and an- 
 nounces he will not ippe.il on 
 the subject to that Parliament, 
 ib. Opposed by Peel and Gra- 
 ham, but supported by Glad- 
 stone, 405-6. Effect on the di- 
 vision, 406. Supports Mr. Grant- 
 ley Berkeley's motion for a live- 
 shilling duty, ib. ; and again 
 declares he will not raise question 
 of Protection before that Parlia- 
 ment, 406-7. Again denounced by 
 Cobden for duplicity, 406-7. De- 
 clines to move vote of censure on 
 Palmerston's foreign policy, 407. 
 Speech on Roebuck's motion, 
 409-10. In the same lobby with 
 Peel. 410. Death of Peel, 410-11. 
 Effect on political fortunes, 
 411-12. Opposes extension pj 
 franchise in Ireland, 412 ; and in 
 England, ib. Accused of tergi- 
 versation by Sir B. Hall, 412-13. 
 His reply, 412-14. Again claims 
 High Wycombe as his place of 
 birth, 414. Continues his pre- 
 varicating policy on Protection, 
 ib, Success of motion on agri- 
 cultural distress, 414-15. Russell 
 tenders resignation, 415. Served 
 by this crisis. 4 lil. N-' Applied 
 to primarily by Lord Derby, 
 llfM7. Ui. 'Ecclesiastical Titles 
 Bill, 418. Conduct contrasted with 
 that of Graham and Gladstone,
 
 INDEX, 
 
 689 
 
 ib. Attacks Russell Ministry 
 on the Act, 420. On Russell's 
 Reform Bill, 420-21. Disclaims 
 "finality" in politics, 421. Ac- 
 cused by Sir G. Grey of duplicity 
 on Reform, ib. Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 423. Reception of 
 the appointment, 423-4. Vague 
 declarations, 429-30. Object. 
 430-31. Speech in Parliament, 
 431-3. Sharply criticised, 433. 
 Interrogated by Russell, 434. 
 Unsatisfactory answer, ib. Con- 
 demned by Mr. Osborne, 434-5 ; 
 by Sir B. Hall,435; by Cobden, ib.; 
 and by Mr. Bright, to. Introduces 
 Militia Bill, 436 ; and carries, 
 t'6. Introduces Budget, ib. 
 Free Trade character of Budget, 
 436-40. Conduct contrasted with 
 expressions of opinion in 
 " Life of Bentinck," 437-8. Dis- 
 cussed, 438-40. Declares time 
 for reviving Protection past, 441. 
 Again attacked by Lord J. Rus- 
 sell, 441-2. Denies he ever sought 
 restoration of Protection, 442. 
 This statement examined, 443-1. 
 Abandons fixed duty, 444-5. Con- 
 tradictory principles of sup- 
 porters, 445-6. Again repudiates 
 intention of restoring Protec- 
 tion, 445. The ambiguous royal 
 speech, 446-9. Announces adop- 
 tion of Free Trade, 450. Sug- 
 gests revision of taxation, 450-51; 
 not rebuked even by Peel's 
 friends, 451. Pronounces ora- 
 tion on Wellington, 452. Dis- 
 covered to have stolen a great 
 part from Thiers, 452-6. On 
 Villiers' motion, 457-9. Declares 
 he had never attempted to 
 restore Protection, ib. This 
 statement examined, 457-8. De- 
 clares he was not elected as a 
 Protectionist ; this statement 
 examined. 58. Appeals to gene- 
 rosity of others, 459. Examined 
 in this new character, ib. Pro- 
 poses an amendment almost the 
 same as that of Villiers, 459-60. 
 Rescued by Palmerston, 460-61 ; 
 and thus gives coup de grace 
 to Protection, 461. Attacked by 
 Lord Granby, ib. ; by Mr. Osborne, 
 461-2 ; and by Sidney Herbert, 
 
 462, who delivers scathing in- 
 vective on treatment of Peel, 
 462-4. Remains unmoved, 464-5. 
 His reflections, 465-6. Votes 
 against Protection, 466. Opposed 
 by those he had celebrated in 
 "Life of Bentinck," 466-7. Con- 
 trast of his position and theirs, 
 
 467. Proposes Budget, ib. 
 Speech discussed by Macaulay, 
 
 468. Abandonment of former 
 doctrines, 468-9. Proposes re- 
 duction of Malt Tax, 470 ; change 
 of Income Tax, ib.; and doubling 
 of House Tax, ib. Makes incor- 
 rigible blunders. 470-71. Budget 
 full of errors, ib. ; and sharply 
 criticised, 471. Tries to avert 
 fate, 471-2 ; foiled, 472. Resorts 
 to invective, 472-3. Scathing 
 analysis by Gladstone, 473-0. 
 Defeated, 476. Resigns, t'6. Es- 
 timate of Ministerial conduct, 
 476-7. Rumour of resignation, 
 478-9. Reply, 479. Speech on 
 French alliance, ib. Opposes 
 Gladstone's financial reforms, 
 t'6. Conduct of Opposition 
 during Crimeun war, 480-81. 
 Supports Layard's attack on 
 Ministry, 481. Again attacks the 
 Ministry, 481-2. Opposes Glad- 
 stone's doubling Income Tax, 
 483 ; and denounces war as 
 coalition war. 483-4 ; but pro- 
 poses no vote of censure, 484. 
 Denounces Ministry for conduct 
 on Reform, 484-5. On declara- 
 tion of war, again attacks Minis- 
 try, 485 ; and continues opposi- 
 tion to Gladstone's financial 
 proposals, ib. Defends right of 
 Opposition to criticise Minis- 
 try, 486-7. Opposes Gladstone's 
 proposal to raise 2,000,000, 487 ; 
 and attacks Ministry generally, 
 ib. Unexpectedly makes another 
 attack, 487-8. Answered by Rus- 
 sell, 488-9. Renews attack, 489. 
 Denounced by one of his own 
 supporters, 489-90. Conduct in 
 session of J854 estimated, 489-90. 
 Opposes abolition of religious 
 oaths, 490-91 ; and, as a result, 
 emancipation of Jews, ib. On 
 re-assembling of Parliament cri- 
 ticises action of Ministry in 
 
 44
 
 690 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tail, 491. Denounced by Russell 
 for unpatriotic conduct, tb. Rakes 
 up attacks on Louis Napoleon, ib.; 
 and highly eulogises Layard, ib. 
 Supports Roebuck's motion, 492 ; 
 and assails Russell, ib. Ready to 
 accept Palmerston's lead in Com- 
 mons, 493 ; bat negotiations fail, 
 ib. Attacks Palmerst on Adminis- 
 tration, 498-4. Denounces Pal- 
 merton's love of secrecy, 496. 
 Proposes vote of ceusure on Pal- 
 merston, 496-7 ; defeated by large 
 majority, 497. Joins in other at- 
 tacks on Ministry, 498. Rebuked 
 by Prince Consort, 499, 500. Sup- 
 ports Roebuck's vote of censure, 
 601. Action during the Crimean 
 war estimated, 601-2. Condemns 
 Palmerston's friendship to Italy, 
 602 ; and supports Austrian rule, 
 ib. Supports Cobden's motion on 
 China war, 605. Attacks Pal- 
 merston as aggressive in foreign, 
 and unprogressive in domestic, 
 policy, 606-10. Conduct during 
 Indian Mutiny, 511. Attacks 
 Lord Canning, ib. ; and Palmer- 
 ston, 511-12. Again returns to 
 the attack, 512; defeated, 513. 
 Again accuses Palinerston of 
 aggressive foreign policy. M 1-15 ; 
 and reverts to Indian question, 
 615. Opposes vote of thanks to 
 Lord Canning, 615. Censured by 
 his own supporters, ib. Opposes 
 Palmerston's Indian Bill, 615-16. 
 Supports Palmerston'sConspiracy 
 Bill, 616 j but afterwards op- 
 poses, ib. Again Minister, 16. 
 Takes np Palmerston's India 
 Bill, 517 ; which is threatened 
 with defeat, 617-18 ; rescued by 
 RiiMell, 618. A cool proposal, 
 618-519. On Gladstone's amend- 
 ment, 619-20. The Slough speech. 
 621-2. Appealed to by Mr. New- 
 degate against admission of Jews, 
 .1. Introduces Reform Bill, 
 623-4. On rights of House of Com- 
 mons, 625. Defeated, 524-6. Ap- 
 peals to the country, 525. Defeat- 
 ed, id. Rencontre with Graham, 
 626-7. Resigns, 525. Attitude 
 during Palmerston Ministry, 526- 
 J8. Strongly defends non-inter- 
 vention, 628-9. Denounces the 
 
 conclusion of secret treaties, 
 529-33. Condemns French treaty 
 as violation of privileges of 
 Commons, 532-3. Opposes Re- 
 form Bill, 533 ; principally be- 
 cause it would increase influence 
 of working classes, 534. Praises 
 the members of the Government 
 for neglecting Reform, 531-5. De- 
 nounces Premier for secret di- 
 plomacy in Italian policy, 5;>.">-7. 
 Adheres to neutrality in Ameri- 
 can war, 535. Denounces bloated 
 armaments, 535-8 ; excessive tax- 
 ation, 535-8. Supports Mr. Bright 
 on armaments, 636 ; on relations 
 with Canada, 637-8. Again de- 
 fends neutrality in American 
 war, 539. Complains of Palmer- 
 ston's degradation of Parliament, 
 ib. ; and war policy. 510. De- 
 nounces Stan-tVld. 511. ll.'snlt 
 of the attack. 512-3. Accused by 
 Bright of advocating assassi- 
 nation in "Revolutionary Epick," 
 ;"ill-'J. Indicrnantly denies the 
 :iiont, ;">r_>. I'niili.-hes uew 
 edition of " Revolutionary 
 Epick," 542-3. Garbles passage 
 on assassination, 543. Dedicates 
 new edition to present Lord 
 Derby, 511. Assertions in d -di- 
 cation examined, ib. "On the 
 side of the angel-." 515. Op- 
 poses abolition of offensive oaths, 
 tb. In favour of " lateral " not 
 radical reform, 545-6. Az:iia 
 elected for Bucks, 546. Strongly 
 advocates non-intervention and 
 pacific foreign policy, . r >li>-7. 
 Conduct in opposition to Pal- 
 merston estimated, ib: Opposes 
 the Russell-Gladstone Reform 
 Bill. 549 ; principally because of 
 increasing power to the working 
 classes, io. Again Minister, 550. 
 Declares Reform no longer a 
 party question, 550*51. Estimate 
 of such a declaration, 551. De- 
 clares Conservatives never op- 
 posed Reform. 551-2. This decla- 
 ration examined, 552-3. Pro- 
 poses proceeding by resolution. 
 553-4 ; bnt substitutes a bill 
 instead, 654. Announces aban- 
 donment of 6 Rating Bill, 
 555-6 ; and resignation of three
 
 INDEX, 
 
 691 
 
 ministers, 556-7. Explanation of 
 this move. 558-9. This expla- 
 nation examined, ib. Introduces 
 Household Suffrage Bill, 559-60. 
 This an act of gross tergiversation, 
 560-61. Statement on personal 
 rating, 562. Proposes disfran- 
 chisement of compound house- 
 holder, 564-5 ; and a rating fran- 
 chise in counties, 566. Position 
 as a minister, 567-8. Accepts 
 nearly all amendments of Oppo- 
 sition, 568-71. Denounced by 
 Lord Salisbury, 571-4. Character 
 of his reply, 572-4. Entertained 
 at Edinburgh, 575. Boasts of 
 having educated his party, ib. 
 Publishes garbled report of 
 Edinburgh speech, 577-8. Prime 
 Minister, 578. Dismisses Lord 
 Chelmsford, ib. Announces 
 policy, 579. Opposes abolition 
 of Irish Church, 580. Speech 
 contrasted with Irish speech of 
 1844, 580. His defence, 580-82. 
 This defence examined, 581-3. 
 Endeavours to raise No-Popery 
 cry, 583. The Dartmouth letter, 
 ib. Endeavours to evade ques- 
 tion of Irish Church, 583-4 ; but 
 foiled, 584. Denounced for 
 equivocation by Lord Salisbury, 
 584-5; and by 'Mr. Lowe, 585-6. 
 Replies, 586-7. Extraordinary 
 attack on Ritualists and Catho- 
 lics, 586-8. Declares attack on 
 Irish Church an attack on 
 Crown, 588. Effect of this use 
 of Queen's name, 588-9. Again 
 attempts No-Popery cry, 589. 
 Defeated on Gladstone resolu- 
 tions, tft . The Maunday Thurs- 
 day letter, 589-90. Not a true 
 Christian, 590 ; though thus 
 playing the Christian champion, 
 590-9] . Such conduct estimated. 
 ib. Again defeated on Irish 
 Church, 591. Explains inten- 
 tions, 591-2. Announces disso- 
 lution, 591 ; and throws respon- 
 sibility on Queen, 592-3. At- 
 tacked for introducing Queen's 
 name, by Mr. Ayrton, 593-4 ; 
 by Mr. Gladstone, 594 ; and by 
 Mr. Bright, 595-6. Replies, ib. 
 Defeated on Reform Bills, 596. 
 Address to constituents, 597. 
 
 Defeated at general election, ib. 
 Resigns, ib. Action during Glad- 
 stone Ministry, 597-8. Speech at 
 Manchester, 597-8. Influenced 
 by Hope's " Anastasins," 598. 
 Publishes " Lothair," 599. Guilty 
 of many plagiarisms, 599-600. 
 Again Premier, 601. Supports 
 Public Worship Act, 602-3 ; al- 
 though formerly Ritualistic, 
 603-4. Attacks Lord Salisbury, 
 603. The Pigott case, 605-8. 
 Policy on the Eastern Question, 
 606. Predisposition on such a 
 controversy, 607-8. Treated 
 Eastern Question from Jew- 
 ish standpoint, 609 ; expres- 
 sions in works as to affinity of 
 Jews and Mohammedans, 610-11 : 
 and their bond of hate against 
 Christians, ib. ; therefore a friend 
 to Turkey, 610. Magnificent 
 prospect offered in defending 
 Turkey, 611-12. This policy in 
 accordance with interests, 613. 
 His Jewish contempt for 
 Christian people, 613-14. Taught 
 by Palnierston that Russophobia 
 is the winning game, 615. 
 Declares for non-intervention 
 and statia quo in Turkey, 617 ; 
 reluctantly consents to Andrassy 
 Note, 618. Rejects Berlin 
 Memorandum, 619 ; and persists 
 in breaking up European concert 
 in spite of all remonstrances, ib. 
 Questioned as to reports of 
 Bulgarian massacres, 620-21. 
 Completely denies their accu- 
 racy, ib. Gross mistake as to 
 Phuippopolis, i&. Gives high cha- 
 racter of the Circassians, 621 ; 
 although he had ample oppor- 
 tunity of ascertaining the truth 
 of Bulgarian atrocities, 622-5. On 
 Consul Reade's despatch, 625-6. 
 Last speech in the House of Com- 
 mons, 626. Raised to peerage, 
 626-7. The Aylesbury speech, 
 647-52. Makes another incorrect 
 statement on Eastern Ques- 
 tion, 649-51. Uniformity of hia 
 inaccuracy, 651-2. Alone re- 
 sponsible for Tnrcophile policy, 
 653-5. The Guildhall speech, 
 655-6. Policy during Russo- 
 Turkish war, 657-8. Triumphant,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 660. Seta Parliament at defiance, 
 61-3. Again breaks up Euro- 
 pean concert on San Stefano 
 Treaty, 668. Attends Berlin 
 Congress, 664. Concludes Anglo- 
 Turkish Convention, 66G-8. 
 Enters London in triumph after 
 Berlin Treaty, 669-71. The Mon- 
 tefiorc episode, 671. Meaningof 
 this triumphant entry, 672. His 
 whole character estimated, 672-5. 
 
 Disraeli, B., grandfather of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 4. 
 
 D'Israeli, Isaac, father of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 1. Struck with 
 blindness, 2-3. Indifferent in 
 religion, 6. Breaks off connection 
 with Judaism, ib. Takes Bra- 
 denbam House, 44. 
 
 D'Israeli, James, brother to Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 2. Commissioner 
 of Inland Revenue. 3. Death, ib. 
 
 Disraeli, Maria, Viscountess Bea- 
 consfield, widow of Mr. W. Lewis, 
 187 ; marries Lord Beaconsfield. 
 6. ; assists him in canvass of 
 Shrewsbury, 193-4. 
 
 D'Israeli, Ralph, brother of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 2. Deputy Clerk 
 of Parliaments, 3. 
 
 D'Israeli, Sarah, sister of Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 2 ; traces of her influ- 
 ence in "Alroy," ib. Death, 
 ib.; boned in Willesden Ceme- 
 tery, Paddington, ib. Assists 
 her father in his blindness, 2-3. 
 Betrothed to Mr. Meredith, 3. 
 Retires to Twickenham, 4. Her 
 tomb, ib. 
 
 Disraeli, B., of Dublin, reputed 
 uncle of Lord Beaconsfield, 5. 
 
 " Dissertations on Parties" (Boling- 
 broke) contains Whig principles, 
 
 Divine Right rejected by Boling- 
 broke, according to Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 123. Advocated by 
 Lord J. Manners, 214-15, 216 ; 
 and by Lord Beaconsfield in 
 " Coningsby," 233-4. 
 
 Dod, date of Lord Beaconsfield's 
 birth in, 1. 
 
 Dort* County CKronick, speech 
 of Lord Beaconsfield in, 92. 
 
 Drummood, Mr., assassinated, 261. 
 
 Drummond, Mr. Henry, attacks 
 Lord Beaconsfield for embarrass 
 
 ing Aberdeen Ministry, 485-5 ; 
 and for censuring Lord Canni:,;.', 
 515. 
 
 Dublin Evening Post contains 
 report on Rathcormack massacre, 
 92. 
 
 Dublin represented by D. 0*Cou- 
 nell, 169. 
 
 Dublin Review on " Lothair," 599. 
 
 Ducrow, Reform Ministry com- 
 pared to, by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 81-2. 
 
 Duncombe, T., appearance in 1837, 
 157-8. Proposes better treatment 
 of Chartist prisoners, 184. One of 
 LordBeaconsfield's early teachers, 
 228. Obtains correspondence of 
 F. O'Connor for Lord Beacons- 
 field, 242. 
 
 Duncombes, The, vote against Peel, 
 357. 
 
 Dundas, Harry, 514. 
 
 Dunkellin, Lord, carries amend- 
 ment on Russell-Gladstone Re- 
 form BUI, 550. Use of the 
 amendment made by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 563-4, 566. 
 
 Dupuis, Vice-Consul, on arming of 
 Bashi-Bazouks, G'J-2-3. 
 
 Durham, Earl of, a Radical among 
 Whigs, 78 ; yet a friend of Lord 
 Beaconsfield s at the same time 
 as Lord Chandos an ultra-Tory, 
 77-8. Death, 162. 
 
 Edinburgh represented by Macau- 
 lay, 183. Lord Beaconsfield en- 
 tertained at, 575. 
 
 Edinburgh Daily Review reports 
 Lord Beaconsfield's Edinburgh 
 speech, 577. Report contrasted 
 with official report, 577-8. 
 
 Edinburgh Evening Courant reports 
 Lord Beaconsfield's speech, 577. 
 Report contrasted with official 
 report, 577-8. 
 
 Edinburgh Review on Lord Beacons- 
 field's place of education, 10. 
 Plagiarised by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 599-600. 
 
 Edwards, Miss A. B., authoress of 
 ' Half a Million of Monev," 51'.'. 
 Influence on " Lothair," A. 
 
 Egerton, Lord Francis, abandons 
 Protection, 287. 
 
 Bgremont, character in "Sybil," 
 245.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Egypt, an impalement in, described 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 16. A 
 Pacha of, described by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 115-16. 
 
 Ellenborough, Earl of, President 
 of Board of Control, 520. The 
 Canning proclamation, ib. Re- 
 signs, to. 
 
 Ellice, Rt. Hon. E., attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 81. 
 
 Elliott, Sir H., states there is no 
 English consul at Philippopolis, 
 621. Denounces employment of 
 Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks, 
 ib. On Baring's Bulgarian report, 
 639. 
 
 Ellis, Mrs., said to have had Lord 
 Beaconsfield baptized, 8. 
 
 Elmore, Dr. John, seconded Lord 
 Beaconsfield as mmber of Liberal 
 Club, 97-8. 
 
 " England's Trust " published, 214. 
 Analysed, 215-18. 
 
 Erastianism condemned in " Sybil," 
 244. 
 
 Eskdale, Lord, stands for Lord 
 Lonsdale in '' Coningsby," 231, 
 240. 
 
 Everingham, Lady, character in 
 " Coningsby," 238-8. 
 
 Evcringham, Lord, character in 
 " Coningsby," 237-3. 
 
 Examiner, The, on Peel in '41, 
 210-11. On Lord Beaconsfield's 
 first appointment as Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, 424. Quoted, 
 429-30. 
 
 " Fakredeen," a character in 
 "Tancred," 611. 
 
 Family Herald, compared to Lord 
 Beaconsfield's novels, 198. 
 
 Farmer, Captain, husband of Lady 
 Blessington, 11. 
 
 Ferrand, Mr., character, 259. Abu- 
 siveness, 260. Patronised by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, ib. Why, ib. 
 Attacks Sir J. Graham, 261. 
 Defended by Lord Beacons- 
 field, ib., and "399. 
 
 Fiusbury represented by Mr. Dun- 
 combe, 263. 
 
 Foiiblanque, A., meets Lord Bea- 
 consfield at Lady Blessington's, 
 17. A Liberal, though no Whig, 
 62. 
 
 Fonblanque, E. B. de, on friendship 
 
 of Lord Beaconsfield with Lord 
 J. Manners and the Hon. G-. 
 Smythe, 222-3. 
 
 Fortnightly Review on friendship of 
 Lord J. Manners and Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 236. On difference in 
 Lord Beaconsfield's estimates of 
 men, 258-9. 
 
 Forsyth, Mr., guest of Mr. Mere- 
 dith, 3. 
 
 Fox, 0, J., appealed to by Lord 
 Beaconsfield against Peel, 277. 
 
 Fox, W. J., in the Anti-Corn-La w 
 League, 280. 
 
 France, treaty with, condemned by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 532-3. Joins 
 in Berlin Memorandum, 618. 
 Foreign Minister regrets English 
 rejection of Berlin Memorandum, 
 619. 
 
 Francis, G. H., on orators of the 
 age, 155. On Lord Beaconsfield, 
 248-9. 
 
 Frederick the Great, Russell com- 
 pared to, by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 259. 
 
 Free Trade an issue in '41 election, 
 202; not a monopoly of theWhigs, 
 according to Lord Beaconsfield, 
 203 ; could according to the same 
 authority be carried by Peel, 
 202-3. This statement contrasted 
 with later statement by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 204, The result of 
 '41 election not hostile to, ib. 
 This statement contrasted with 
 later statement of Lord Beacons- 
 field, ib. Principles practically 
 professed by Peel in '41, 208 j and 
 partially adopted, 208-11. Ac- 
 cording to Lord Beaconsfield, a 
 Tory principle, 213-14. Adopted 
 by Whigs as a cry, 281. Peel and 
 Russell's position towards con- 
 trasted, 281-3. Adopted by Peel, 
 286. 
 
 Froude, Mr., student at Oxford, 227. 
 Influenced by Tractarianism, ib. 
 
 General Preface ("Lothair") on 
 Count D'Orsay, 13. On "Con- 
 tarini Fleming," 19. 
 
 Gentleman's Magazine on Lord 
 Beaconsfield's baptism, 8-9. Con- 
 tains death of Mr. Pigott, 608. 
 
 George III. eulogised in " Vindi- 
 cation," 120.
 
 694 
 
 1KDEX. 
 
 Gerard, character in " Sybil," 242. 
 
 Germany, joins in Andrassy Note, 
 617. Issues Berlin Memorandum, 
 618. 
 
 Gibson, Milner, Mr., propose* vote 
 of censure on Palmerston, 495. 
 Postpones motion, 496. 
 
 Gilbert, 8. W., works of, compared 
 ith Young England novels, 239. 
 
 Girardin, Mons. de, duel with 
 Carrel. 87. 
 
 Gladstone. Uight Hon. W. E., in 
 1837, 160-61. Vulgarly attacked 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 173. Sup- 
 ports Lord Beaconsfield's motion 
 for redaction of county taxation, 
 40o. Effect of his action, ib. 
 Offered office by Lord Derby, 
 417. Votes against Ecclesias- 
 tical Titles Bill, 418. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's explanations, 
 433; and first Budget, 438-9. 
 Answers Lord Beaconsfield's 
 invective, 473-5 ; and analyses 
 his Budget, 476. Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, 478. Financial 
 reforms opposed by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 479. Proposes doubling 
 of income tax, 482-3. Replies to 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 484. Proposes 
 to raise 2,000,000, 487. Again 
 offered office by Derby, 492-3. Re- 
 fuses, 493. Resigns, 494. Favour- 
 able to peace, 495. Asks Gibson 
 to withdraw motion, 495-6. Sup- 
 ports Cobden's motion on China 
 war, 505. Leader of the Honse of 
 Commons,547. IntroduoesReform 
 Bill, ib. Introduces Redistri- 
 bution Bill, 549. Carried, 649-50. 
 On Grosvenor's amendment, 548. 
 Resigns, 550. Objects to simul- 
 taneous discussion on Lord Bea- 
 consfield's resolution and bill. 
 656 ; on abandonment of .'' 
 Rating Bill, 657-9 ; on the Dual 
 vote, 562 ; on personal rating, 
 563-4 ; on compound house- 
 holder, 565. Demands wh< . 
 changes in Lord Beaconsfield's 
 Reform Bill, 66-7. Anomalous 
 position as Opposition leader, 
 567-8. All his suggestions ac- 
 cepted. 66-71. Position de- 
 scribed by Lord Salisbury, 572-4. 
 Announces intention to attack 
 Irish Church, 580. Announces 
 
 Irish Church resolutions, 58S. 
 Carries committee. 589 ; and first 
 resolution, 591. Condemns Lord 
 Beaconsfield's use of QueeVs 
 name, 594. Carries Suspensory 
 Bill, 596. Prime Minister, 597. 
 Dissolves Parliament, 600. One 
 of the Liberators of the East, 
 628. Publishes pamphlet on Bul- 
 garian horrors, 646 ; and becomes 
 foremost champion of Eastern 
 Christians, 646-7. Article in 
 Nineteenth Century, 660-61. On 
 Berlin Treaty, 668. 
 
 Globe, controversy with Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 126-144. On Mrs. Dis- 
 raeli's share in Shrewsbury elec- 
 tion, 194. On Lord Beaconsfield's 
 plagiarism from Thiers, 452-4. 
 Publishes Salisbnry-Schouvaloff 
 Memorandum, 665. 
 
 Goethe, said by Lord Beaconsfield 
 to have admired "Contarini 
 Fleming, "19. 
 
 Gortschakoff (Prince), on English 
 rejection of Berlin Memorandum, 
 619. 
 
 Graham, Sir James, in 1837, 161. At- 
 tacked by Mr. Ferrand, 2(i 1 . Home 
 Secretary, 262-3. Opens Mazzini's 
 letters, 263. Extremely unpopu- 
 lar, ib. Opposes Lord* Bencons- 
 field's motion for reduction of 
 county taxation, 405-6. Offered 
 an alliance with Russell, 415; 
 refuses, 416. Votes against Ec- 
 clesiastical Titles Bill, 418. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's explanations, 
 433. Attacks Lord Beacons 
 field's desertion of Protection, 
 465. Criticises Lord Beaconsfield 't 
 Budget, 471. Assailed by Lore 
 Beaconsfield, 472. Defended by 
 Gladstone, 475. First Lord ol 
 the Admiralty, 478. Replies to 
 Mr. Layard's attack on Ministry, 
 481. Attacks on Napoleon, 491. 
 Resigns, 494. 
 
 Granby, Marquis of, flattered by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 299, 315. 
 Opposes third reading of Corn 
 Law Bill, 315. Joint leader with 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 891-2. Re- 
 mains faithful to Protection. 
 461 ; although deserted by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 466. Quoted by B. 
 Herbert as Protectionist, 463.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 695 
 
 Grant, James, describes Lord Bea- 
 consfield's maiden speech 171-2. 
 
 Granville, Earl (Lord Leveson), 
 appearance in 1837, 156-7. Asked 
 to form Ministry, 493. Fails, ib. 
 On power of Ministers to make 
 war, 615-16. 
 
 Grattan, Henry, appearance in 
 1837, 158. 
 
 Grattan, James, appearance in 
 1837, 158. 
 
 Greco, relations with Mazzini. 54.0. 
 
 Greece, Palraerston's policy to- 
 wards, condemned by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 510. 
 
 Gregg, W. R., on "Sybil," 245. 
 Comptroller of Stationery De- 
 partment, 606. 
 
 Greville's Memoirs on LuttrelTs 
 description of Moore and Rogers, 
 7 ; on Lord Beaconsfield, 77-8 ; 
 on Mr. Duncombe, 158. 
 
 Grey, Colonel, opposes Lord Bea- 
 coiisfield, 47. A poor speaker, 60. 
 Makes his entrance into 
 Wycombe, 51. Elected, 55. At- 
 tacks Lord Beaconsfield, 56-7. 
 Again contests Wycombe, 61. 
 Elected, 64. Again elected, 82. 
 Circumstances of the election, 
 151-3. The version examined, ib. 
 Announces to Lord Beaconsfield 
 his appointment as Premier, 
 578. 
 
 Grey, Earl, on sliding scale, 210. 
 On Lord Derby's treatment of 
 Protection, 427. 
 
 Grev, Earl (the late), in power, 
 44*. Disliked by Radicals, 45. 
 Represented by Lord Beacons- 
 field as taking an interest in his 
 election, 67. Unfavourably con- 
 trasted by "Runnymede" with 
 Peel, 149. 
 
 Grey, Sir G., accuses Lord Bea- 
 consfieid of duplicity on Reform 
 question, 421. 
 
 Grosvenor, Earl of, proposes 
 amendment on Russell-Gladstone 
 Reform Bill, 548. Defeated, 
 549. 
 
 Grote, Mr., in 1837, 160. 
 
 Gurney, Rt. Hon. R., introduces 
 Public Worship Bill, 602. 
 
 Hackney represented by Mr. J. 
 Holms, 605. 
 
 Hafiz Pasha slaughters 300 people 
 at Otluk-Kui, 623. Leads the 
 massacre of Otluk-Kui, 630. 
 
 " Half a Million of Money," influ- 
 ence of on "Lothair," 599. 
 
 Halifax, condition of, between 1838 
 and 1842, 358. 
 
 Halifax, Yiscount, see Wood, Sir C. 
 
 Hall, Sir Benjamin, accuses Lord 
 Beaconsfield of tergiversation, 
 412-13; the reply, 412-14. On 
 tactics of Lord Beaconsfield in 
 1852, 435. 
 
 Hampden, John, association with 
 Bucks, 367. 
 
 Hampton, Lord (Sir John Paking- 
 ton), on Lord Beaconsfield's first 
 Budget, 439. Opposes increase 
 of Malt Tax, 485. 
 
 Hansard quoted, 180-3-4-6-7-203-4- 
 5-6-7-13, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 
 255, 256, 257, 262, 264, 265, 26(i, 
 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 
 274, 275, 276, 277, 288, 289, 290-92, 
 293, 295, 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 
 309, 310, 311, 312, 316, 317, 318, 
 319, 323, 324, 326, 327, 331, 333, 
 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 
 341, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 
 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 365, 366, 
 367, 372, 379, 380, 386, 387, 388, 
 389, 390, 392, 393, 396, 397, 398, 
 399, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 
 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 
 416, 417, 420, 421, 422, 427, 431, 
 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 
 440, 442, 447. 449, 450, 451, 452, 
 457, 458, 459', 460, 461, 462, 463, 
 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 
 472, 473, 475, 489-90, 503, 504-5, 
 506, 514, 515, 520, 525, 526, 528, 
 530, 532, 533, 536, 537, 538, 541, 
 542, 549, 551, 552, 554, 555, 557, 
 558, 559, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 
 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 574, 
 581, 582, 585, 586, 587, 588, 591, 
 592, 593, 594 595, 596, 603, 605, 
 606, 607, 617, 619, 620, 621, 626. 
 
 Hants contested by Sir T. Baring, 
 44. 
 
 Hartington, the Marquis of, com- 
 pared to Whig of 1832, 46. Pro- 
 poses adverse vote to Derby- 
 Disraeli Ministry, 525. 
 
 Harvey, D. W., member of West- 
 minster Reform Club, 100. 
 
 Hayward, Mr. A., Q.C., on Lord
 
 696 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Beaconsfield's place of education, 
 10. 
 
 Heathcote, Sir William, flattered by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 298. 
 
 Heine on choice of a grandfather, 
 7. Said by Lord Beaconsfield 
 . to have admired " Contarini 
 Fleming," 19. 
 
 Henley, the Rt. Hon. Mr., votes 
 against Peel. 857. Referred to 
 in Morning Chronicle, 391. Cen- 
 sures Lord Beaconsfield for at- 
 tacking Lord Canning, 616. Re- 
 signs, 624. 
 
 " Henrietta Temple " published, 
 197: analysed, 198-200. 
 
 /ffrald, The, does not notice Lord 
 Beaconsfield's maiden speech, 173. 
 
 Herat, 508-9. 
 
 Herbert Marmion, character in 
 " Venetia," 199. 
 
 Herbert, Right Hon. 8., condemns 
 whining by agriculturists, 271. 
 Attacked by Lord Beaconsfield. 
 i*. Delivers invective on Lord 
 Beaconsfield's desertion of Pro- 
 tection, 462-3 ; and treatment of 
 Peel, 468-4. Resigns, 494. 
 
 Herries, Mr., joint leader with Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 891-2. Opposes 
 abolition of Navigation Laws, 
 393-4. 
 
 Hertford, Lord, Lord Monmouth in 
 " Coningsby," 229, 230. Marqnis 
 of Steyne in " Vanity Fair," 280. 
 Treatment contrasted, li. 
 
 Herzegovina, insurrection in. begin- 
 ning of Eastern Question, 016. 
 The Andrassy Note, 617. 
 
 High Church party accused by 
 Lord Beaconsfield of conspiracy 
 with Catholics, 686-7, 689-90. 
 
 "Historic Fancies " published, 224. 
 Analyzed, 224-6. 
 
 History of England, tee Lord Stan- 
 hope; tee also W.N.Moleswnrth. 
 
 Hobhouse, Mr. T. B.,- opposed by 
 Mr. Roebuck, 47. 
 
 Hothouse, Sir J. 0., Minister for 
 War, 47 : attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 81 ; attacked by 
 " Kunnymede," 147. 
 
 inson, Mr., proposes abo- 
 :i of compound householder, 
 'I 1 . 
 
 Hogg, Mr., charged with corruption 
 by Mr. Ferrand, ?(?!. 
 
 Holms, Mr. John, M.P., on Pigott 
 case, 605-8. 
 
 Homer, Lord Beaconsfield com- 
 pares himself to, 85. 
 
 Hook, Theodore, guest of Lady 
 Blessington, 13. 
 
 Hope, Mr. Henry, friendship with 
 Lord Beaconsfield. 598. 
 
 Hope, Mr. T., influence on Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 598. 
 
 Homer, Mr., ideas traded on ac- 
 cording to Lord Beaconsfield, 
 316. 
 
 Household suffrage proposed by 
 Hume, 180. Opposed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 181. Proposed by 
 Derby-Disraeli Ministry, 557. 
 
 House of Commons, as described by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 116-17 ; first 
 addressed by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 154; appearance in 1837, 154-61. 
 Bearded by Chartists, 182. Rights 
 defended by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 525, 532-3. 
 
 House of Lords described by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 117. Censures Pal - 
 merston's foreign policy, 407. 
 
 Howick, Lord, see Grey, Earl. 
 
 Hudson, Mr., mentioned in Lord 
 Beaconsfield's maiden speech, 
 1W. 
 
 Hughenden, the living of, 606. 
 
 Hugo, Victor, discussed at Lady 
 Blessington's, 16. 
 
 Hume, J. , writes a letter in favour 
 of Lord Beaconsfield, 47. With- 
 draws letter, 49-50. A Liberal 
 though no Whig, 62. His treat- 
 ment by Whigs denounced by 
 Lord BeaconsfieW, 63 : and com- 
 pared to treatment of Burke, 64. 
 Attacked in " Vindication," 1 17. 
 Lord Beaconsfield's version of 
 his relations with, 130-32. Re- 
 presented as having supported 
 him as Tory, 133-5. Inaccuracy 
 of this assertion, 132-f>. Denial by 
 Lord Beaconsfield of having re- 
 ceived a letter diroet from him. 
 135. Appealed to by Globe, 136. 
 Replies asserting that Lord 
 Beaconsfield had asked him for 
 tance as a Liberal, 137-9, and 
 that he had written to that pon- 
 tleman direct, ib. Publishes the 
 letter of acknowledgment, 139- 
 40. Abusively answered by Lord
 
 INDEX. 
 
 69? 
 
 Beaconsfield. 141-2; who again 
 denies having received letter, 
 ib. ; but is afterwards compelled 
 to admit he had, 144. Lord 
 Boaconsfield's new version of the 
 Wycombe alliance. Appearance 
 in 1837, 152. Interrupts Lord 
 Beaconsfield's maiden speech,167. 
 Proposes household suffrage, 
 180. Defends Lord Beaconsfield, 
 252. Supports Maynooth Grant, 
 273-4. Defends PeeL 354. Cen- 
 sures annexation of Cracow, 365. 
 On Lord Beaconsfield's first Bud- 
 get, 439-40. 
 
 Hungary, not sympathised with, by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 392. 
 
 Huskisson, Mr., blamed by Mrs. 
 Canning for joining Wellington 
 Ministry, 328. 
 
 India : Mutiny, 511. Palmerston's 
 Bill, 515. 'Lord Beaconsfield's 
 first Bill. 517 ; the Resolutions, 
 518-19. Lord Beaconsfield's 
 second Bill. 519-20. Troops 
 ordered from, to Malta, 663. 
 
 " Infernal Marriage " published, 41. 
 
 Ireland, great difficulty to the 
 Ministry, 79 ; state in 1844, 252 ; 
 filled with troops, 253. Motion for 
 inquiry into state of, ib. Described 
 by Lord Beaconsfield as having a 
 starving population, an absentee 
 aristocracy, and an alien Church, 
 254. Church of, denounced by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, ib. Thie 
 Famine, 279-80. State of in 1845, 
 303. Distress in, 363. Threat- 
 ened with insurrection, 393. 
 
 Irish Church attacked by Mr. 
 
 . Gladstone, 580 ; defended by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, ib. Mr. Glad- 
 stone's resolutions, 583. Lord 
 Stanley's amendment, ib. Com- 
 mittee carried on resolutions, 589. 
 First resolution carried, 591. 
 Carriage of Suspensory Bill, 596. 
 
 Irving's "Annals of the Times" 
 quoted, 182, 400, 401, 408, 444, 
 445, 446, 500, 506, 527, 545, 578, 
 579, 583, 589. 
 
 Isabella. Queen, marriage of. 364. 
 
 Italy : Plot of Bandiera Brothers, 
 263. Non-intervention is re- 
 coinmeaded bv Lord Beacons- 
 
 field, 530-32 ; and striving after 
 unity condemned. 235. Mazzini's 
 action, 542. Joins in Berlin 
 Memorandum, 618. Foreign 
 Minister regrets rejection of 
 English Memorandum, 619. 
 " Ixion in Heaven" published, 41. 
 
 Jerusalem visited by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 18. Influence on him, 20. 
 
 Jeaffreson, J. C., describes Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 15. On Lord Bea- 
 consfield's plagiarisms, 599. 
 
 Jews described in " Coningsby " as 
 universal geniuses, 232. Removal 
 of disabilities proposed by Lord 
 J. Russell, 373. Attitude of Pro- 
 tectionists towards, ib. Bentinck's 
 and Lord Beaconsfield's attitude 
 towards contrasted 373-81. Eulo- 
 gised by Lord Beaconsfield for the 
 Crucifixion, 382-3. Unanimity 
 in favour of Turkey, 608-9. The 
 result of alliance in past, and 
 common hate of Christians, ib. 
 Contempt for Christian people, 
 613-14. Persecution in East 
 origin of policy on Eastern ques- 
 tion, 653. 
 
 Jolliffe, Sir W., votes against Peel, 
 356. 
 
 Judaism, relation to Christianity, 
 according to Lord Beaconsfield, 
 381-4. 
 
 Keble, Rev. Mr., influenced by 
 Tractarianism, 227. Unlike Lord 
 Beaconsfield's early teachers, 228. 
 
 Kelly, Sir F., on restoration of 
 Protection, 446. 
 
 Kennedy, Dr., head master of 
 Shrewsbury School, 190. Sup- 
 ports Lord Beaconsfield's candi- 
 dature, 190-91. Describes Lord 
 Beaconsfield as a " Winchelser " 
 scholar, 192. This statement 
 examined, 192. Extravagantly 
 complimented by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 192-3. 
 
 Kerrison, Sir E., votes against Peel, 
 357. 
 
 King, Mr. Locke, proposes exten- 
 sion of franchise in England in 
 1850, 412; and again in 1851, 
 415. Motion carried, ib. Effect
 
 69* 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 on the Ministry, ib. Bill dis- 
 cussed by Lord Beaconsfield, 421. 
 
 Klifc&ura, condition of, during Bul- 
 garian atrocities as described by 
 MacGahan, 629 ; and by Baring, 
 640. The rising, 645. 
 
 gnatchbull, Sir E., contrasted by 
 Lord Beaconstield with Lord 
 Chandoe, 76. On Peel, 339, 344, 
 352. 
 
 Knareeborough represented by Mr. 
 Ferrand, 259. 
 
 Knightley, Sir C., votes against 
 Peel, 856. 
 
 Knightley, Sir R., resolution on 
 ratiug franchise in counties, 5C6. 
 
 Kyriatz, M., on affairs of Bulgaria, 
 22. 
 
 Labonchere, Bight HonJL, opposed 
 by Lord Bcaconi-field, 87. 
 
 Lambeth, compound householders 
 in, 565. 
 
 Land, Tax on, supported by Lord 
 Beaconsfield in 1833, 65-6. This 
 assuredly a Radical proposal, 
 66 ; and question of the hour 
 at that period, ii>. Interests of, 
 extravagantly defended by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 75. Contrast be- 
 tween his tone on, at Mary lebone 
 and at Aylesbury, 76-7. 
 
 Laud eulogised by Lord J. Man- 
 ners, 217. 
 
 Lftvard, Sir A. H., attacks Aberdeen 
 Ministry, 481. Declares Turkey 
 progressive, ib. Highly eulo- 
 gised by Lord Beaconsfield, 491. 
 Proposes vote of censure on 
 Palmerston, 495. On hopelessness 
 of reform in Turkey, 
 
 Leader, Mr., appearance in 1837, 
 
 Leeds, condition in 1843, 358. 
 
 Leinster, Duke of, on threatened 
 famine in Ireland, 280. 
 
 Le Monnier, Sophie. 'Relation to 
 Mirabcau, 678. 
 
 Lennox, Lord Henry, share in the 
 Montefiore incident, 671. 
 
 Lennox, Lord W., Lord Beacons- 
 field as an opponent to, 77-8. 
 
 Lennoxes, The, vote against Peel, 
 ..>, 
 
 - Letters on the History of Eng- 
 land* contain Whig principles,. 
 
 Leveson, Lord (Lord Qranville). 
 Nee Earl Granville. 
 
 Lewis, Mr. Wyndham, contests 
 Maidstone, 150-54. Widow 
 marries Lord Beaconsfield, 1*7. 
 
 Lewis, Mrs. Wyndham. See Vis- 
 countess Beaconsfield. 
 
 Liberals, not Whigs, 61-4. Voted 
 against Protection, 62, 466. 
 
 Liddells, The, vote against Peel, 357. 
 
 Life of Bentinck quoted, 288, 295, 
 296, 298. 299, 309, 315, 321, 3-.>5, 
 
 343, 344, 345, 371, 375, 377, 3*1, 
 382, 383, 384, 388, 389, 437, 438. 
 
 Lincolnshire represented by Mr. 
 Christopher, 446. 
 
 Lindo, D. A., admitted Lord Bea- 
 consfield to the covenant of 
 Abraham, 6. 
 
 Liskeard represented by C. Buller, 
 170. 
 
 Liverpool, Lord, ridiculed in " Co- 
 ningsby," 232. A Free Trader 
 according to Lord Beaconsfield, 
 257. Succeeded by CanniL . 
 Peel's relations with, 328. 
 
 344, 34C-9. 
 Lombardynotsympnthi-r-d with by 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 392. 
 
 London, Chartists' Convention in, 
 182. Addressed by Lord John 
 Russell, 280. Represented by 
 Baron P.othschild, 373. 
 
 London Journal, The. compared 
 with Lord Beaconsfield's novel?, 
 235. 
 
 Long, Mr. W., votes against Peel, 
 357. 
 
 Longtown, Peel's effigy burned in, 
 210. 
 
 Lorraine, Mrs. Felix, character in 
 " Vivian Grey," 37. 
 
 "Lothair ''published, 599; analysed, 
 ib. General Preface to, tee Gene- 
 ral Preface. 
 
 Lowe, Rijrht Hon. R.. compared 
 withU. Buller, 160; in!8:i7 
 Objects to simultaneous . 
 sion of Lord Beaconsfield's reso- 
 lution and bill, 555. Ridicules 
 Lord Beaconsfield's pose as Fro- 
 nt champion, 585-6. An- 
 swered, 587. 
 
 Lowthers, The, vote against Peul, 
 856. 
 
 Lnt trell : Description of Rogers and 
 Moore, 7.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 699 
 
 Lyle, Mr., character in " Conings- 
 by," 237. 
 
 Lyndhurst, Lord, meets Lord Bea- 
 consfield at Lady Blessington's, 
 if}. Calls on Greville in Lord 
 Beaconsfield's interest, 77-8. 
 " Vindication '" dedicated to, 114. 
 One of Lord Beaconsfield's early 
 teachers, 228. 
 
 Lynn, Lord Beaconsfield as a can- 
 didate for, 77-8. Addressed by 
 Lord Derby, 446. 
 
 Lyttelton, Lord, fellow-student of 
 George Smythe, 219. 
 
 Lytton, Lord (the late), a Radical, 
 47. Writes a letter in favour 
 of Lord Beaconsfield, 48. De- 
 clares Lord Beaconsfield applied 
 for his assistance as a Radical, 
 134. Appearance in 1837, 156. 
 Opposes Malt Tax. 485. 
 
 Macaulay, Lord, in 137, 1861. Secre- 
 tary for War, 183. On Maynooth 
 Grant, 274. On Lord Derby's 
 supporters in 1852, 446. On Lord 
 Beaconsfield's Budget speech,4f!8. 
 
 Macaulay, Right Hon. T. B. See 
 Lord Macaulay. 
 
 M'Culloch, J. R., on fixed duty, 
 430. 
 
 MacGahan, the late J. A., sent by 
 Daily News to Bulgaria, 627 ; 
 character, ib. ; achievements, 628 ; 
 death, ib. ; account of Bulgarian 
 atrocities, 628-38. Contrasted 
 with Baring, 638-46. 
 
 Madden, R. R., describes Lord 
 Beaconsfield at Lady Blessing- 
 ton's, 17. 
 
 Madrid : Bulwer, Sir H., expelled 
 from, 387. 
 
 Maguire, J. F. (the late), proposes 
 Committee on Condition of Ire- 
 land, 579. 
 
 Mahon, Lord. See Stanhope, Earl. 
 
 Maidstone, contested by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 150-154. 
 
 Maidstone Constitutional Society, 
 addressed bv Lord Beaconsfield, 
 150-3. 
 
 Maidstone Journal contains Colonel 
 Thompson's address, 153-4. 
 
 Maidstone, Lord, satirised by 
 Macaulay, 446. 
 
 Malmesbury, Earl of, vote of cen- 
 
 sure on, 441. On Free Trade, 
 444. 
 
 Malta, Indian troops ordered to, 
 663. 
 
 Manchester, speech of Lord Bea- 
 consfield at, 597-8. 
 
 Manchester Athenaeum addressed 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 223. 
 
 Manchester, The, School, con- 
 demned by Lord Beaconsfield, 387. 
 
 Manhood Suffrage demanded in 
 National Petition, 180. 
 
 Manini, 382. 
 
 Manners, Lord John, returned to 
 Parliament. 214. An apostle of 
 Young Englandism, 16. Publishes 
 poems, ib. Those poems ana- 
 lyzed, 215-18. Fellow-student of 
 George Smythe, 219. Rebuked 
 by his father for his friendship 
 with Lord Beaconsfield, 222-3. 
 Faith in Young Englandism in- 
 telligible, 226-7. Relations with 
 Lord Beaconsfield discussed by 
 Fortnightly Review, 236. On res- 
 toration of Protection, 446. 
 
 Manners, The, vote against Peel, 
 356. 
 
 Manning. Cardinal, student of Ox- 
 ford, 227. Influenced by Trac- 
 tarianism, ib. Unlike Lord Bea- 
 consfield's early teachers, 228. 
 
 Manstein a disguise for " Vivian 
 Grey," 21. 
 
 Marney, character in " Sybil," 242. 
 
 Marylebone addressed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield as a Radical, 65. 
 Lord Beaconsfield at, contrasted 
 with Lord Beaconsfield at Ayles- 
 bury, 76-7. The Kennel orators 
 of, 117. 
 
 Mather, Mr., case discussed in Par- 
 liament, 441. 
 
 Maule, Mr. Fox (Lord Panmure), 
 attacks Lord Beaconsfield, 182. 
 Answered, 183. 
 
 Maynooth, Peel's grant to, 273-7. 
 
 Mayo, Earl of, defeats Russell 
 Ministry, 418. Announces Lord 
 Beaconsfield's Irish policy, 579. 
 Disavowed, 580. 
 
 Mazzini in England, 263. Letters 
 opened, ib. Relations with Stans- 
 feld, 540-42. 
 
 Melbourne, Viscount, meets Lord 
 Beaconsfield in youth, 23-4. Pre- 
 mier, 70. Again Premier, 87.
 
 TOO 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 Attacked by " Bunny mede," 145. 
 Position in 1837, 162; and in 
 1842, 185. Defeated at general 
 election, 202. Confidence of 
 Queen brought forward in favour 
 of, 205. Preference of Queen 
 for hia Cabinet, 206. Succeeded 
 by Peel, 520. 
 
 "Memoirs of Peel" quoted, 210-11. 
 
 Meredith, Mr., betrothed to Miss 
 Disraeli, 8. Death, 4. 
 
 Meredith. Mr. W.. uncle of Miss 
 Disraeli's betrothed, 8. 
 
 Midhnrst represented by Walpole, 
 446. 
 
 Miles. W., proposes motion on 
 agriculture, 270. Fluttered by 
 Lord Beacon?field, 298. Totes 
 against Peel, 867. Remains 
 faithful to Protection, 466, 
 though deserted by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 867. 
 
 Mill, James, vehemently opposes 
 the Whigs, though a Liberal, 62. 
 
 Mill. John S., vehemently opposes 
 Whigs, though a Liberal, 62. 
 Quoted by Lord Beaconsfield as 
 favourable to Protection, 810. 
 The misrepresentation exposed 
 by Roebuck, 811-12. 
 
 Millbank, character in " Conings- 
 by," 239. Described by Smythe, 
 
 Milton, Lord Beaconsfield compares 
 
 himself to, 84-5. 
 Mirabean, described by Mr. Smythe, 
 
 225. Contrasted with Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 673. 
 Mirror of Parliament quoted, 837, 
 
 888, 844, 849, 350, 851, 352. 
 Mohammedans, relation to Jews, 
 
 608-9. Affinity of both described 
 
 by Lord Be.-iconsfield, 610. 
 Mofesworth, Sir W., appearance in 
 
 1887, 167. 
 Moleworth, W. N., quoted, 410-11, 
 
 421, 621-2, 625. 
 If oltke. Count, a character in " Con- 
 
 tarini Fleming," 21. 
 Monmouth, Lord, stands for Lord 
 
 Hertford in "Coningsby," 229. 
 
 Contrasted with Lord Steyne, 
 
 280, 240. 
 
 fiore. Sir M., greets Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield on return from 
 
 Berlin, 671. 
 Montenegro reouested by Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield's Government to 
 assist in putting dowi' Bosnian 
 insurrection, 616-17. 
 
 Moore, T., described by Luttrell, 7. 
 Guest of Lady Blessmgton, 13. 
 
 Morning Chronicle attacks Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 88-9. Addressed by 
 Westminster elector, 88, 98-9. Its 
 comments, 100. Contains letter 
 from Mr. Ronayne, 102. Verses 
 in, on Lord Beaconsfield, 111. 
 Reports Lord Beaconsfield's 
 maiden speech, 167; and ridicules. 
 174-5. Purchased by friends of 
 Peel, 223. Joined by George 
 Smythe, ib. Quotes " Coningsby,' 
 241. Quoted, 351. On Protec- 
 tionist leadership, 391-2. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's appointment 
 for the first time as Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, 423. Quoted, 
 452-5. 
 
 Morning Journal, quoted, 851-2. 
 
 Morning Post, speech of Lord Bea- 
 consfield in, 173. On Lord Bea- 
 consfield's maiden speech, 170-74. 
 Compared with Lord Beacons- 
 field's novels, 235. Quotes "Co- 
 ningsby," 241. Quoted, 351. 
 On Lord Beaconsfield's first 
 appointment as Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 424. 
 
 Morning Star, quoted, 542. 
 
 Morny, M. de, guest of Lady Bles- 
 sington, 18. One of Lord Bea- 
 consfield's early teachers, 228. 
 
 Morpeth, Lord (Earl of Carlisle), 
 appearance in 1837, 155-6. De- 
 fends Peel, 854. 
 
 Mounteney, character in " Vivian 
 Grey," 36. 
 
 Mowbray, character in " Sybil," 242. 
 
 Naas, Lord. See Earl of Mayo. 
 
 Napier, Sir C.. appealed to by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 291 
 
 Naples, King of, defended by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 392, 410. 
 
 Napoleon Louis (Emperor of the 
 French), alliance with, recom- 
 mendea by Lord Beaconsfield,<179. 
 Attacked" by Graham and Wood, 
 491. 
 
 National Petition presented, 179. 
 Demands. 180-81. 
 
 Navigation Laws, Lord Beaconsfield 
 on, 385. Abolition opposed by 
 Tories, 893-4.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 701 
 
 Newark represented by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, 161. 
 
 Newcastle, Duke of, Minister for 
 War, 492. Blamed for Crimean 
 disasters, ib. Supercession pro- 
 posed by Russell, ib. Sacrificed 
 for mistakes in Crimea, 501 . 
 
 Newdegate, Mr., votes against Peel, 
 357. Referred to in Morning 
 Chronicle, 391. Remains faithful 
 to Protection, 466 ; although 
 deserted by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 467. Quotes Lord Beaconsfield 
 against Emancipation of Jews, 
 522-3. 
 
 Newman, Dr., influenced by Trac- 
 tarianism, 227. Unlike Lord 
 Beacoasfield's early teachers, 228. 
 
 Nineteenth Century, contains article 
 by Rae, 99-100; and by Glad- 
 stone, 660-61. 
 
 Northcote, Sir S., on Pigott case, 
 607-8. 
 
 Northern Star edited by F. 
 O'Connor, 242. 
 
 North, Lord, Ministry of, introduced 
 in " Venetia," 199. 
 
 North Wilts represented by Sir F. 
 Burdett, 164. 
 
 Norton, Hon. Mrs., brings Lord 
 Beaconsfield and Lord Melbourne 
 together, 23-4. 
 
 Norton, Lord (Sir 0. Adderley), on 
 relations with Canada, 538. On 
 Reform Bill of '67, 571. 
 
 Nottingham represented by Mr. 
 Osborne, 585. 
 
 " Novels and Novelists." See J. C. 
 Jeaffreson. 
 
 O'Brien, Mr. Smith, introduces 
 motion on Spottiswoode Sub- 
 scription, 164. Opposes Coercion 
 Bill, 305 ; seeks coalition with 
 Protectionists, 385-6. 
 
 O'Connell, D., writes a letter in 
 favour of Lord Beaconsfield, 48-9. 
 Vehement opponent of Whigs, 
 62. Member of Westminster 
 Reform Club, 100. Attacked by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 100-101. Re- 
 plies, 102-5. His duel with 
 D'Esterre, 106. Addressed in an 
 insulting letter by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 108-12. Attacked in " Vin- 
 dication," 117. His relations 
 with Lord Beaconsfield discussed 
 
 in Globe controversy, 127-35. Lord 
 Beaconsfield gives a new version 
 of those relations, 129-32. Inac- 
 curacy of this version, 132-5 ; 
 another version of their rela- 
 tions, 151-3 ; inaccuracy of this 
 version also, ib. Appearance 
 in 1837, 158. Attacked by Sir 
 F. Burdett, 165. Replies, ib. 
 Attacked by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 166. Agitation for Repeal 
 of Union, 252. Opposes Peel's 
 Coercion Bill, 304-5. Relations 
 with Lord Beaconsfield alluded 
 to by Roebuck, 311 ; and by Hall, 
 413. Called by Lord Beaconsfield 
 a great man, 312. This estimate 
 contrasted with others, 312-13. 
 
 O'Connell, M., fights Lord Alvan- 
 ley, 106-7. Challenged by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 107. Declines 
 challenge, 107-8. 
 
 O'Connor, F., member of West- 
 minster Reform Club. 100. Cor- 
 respondence submitted to Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 242. 
 
 Orators of the age. See Francis, 
 G.H. 
 
 Orsay, Count D', companion of Lady 
 Blessington, 11-12. Character, 
 12-13. In conversation with Lord 
 Beaconsfield. 16. " Henrietta 
 Temple" dedicated to, 198. One 
 of Lord Beaconsfield's early 
 teachers, 228. 
 
 Orsini, attempts life of Napoleon, 
 516. 
 
 Osborne, Mr. Bernal. son of Mr. 
 Bernal, 159. On tactics of Lord 
 Beaconsfield in 1852, 434-5. At- 
 tacks Lord Beaconsfield's deser- 
 tion of Protection, 461-2. On the 
 Irish policy of Lord Beacons- 
 field, 585. On the Stanley Amend- 
 ment, ib. 
 
 Oswald, Mr., attacks the denouncers 
 of Peel, 433. 
 
 Otluk-Kui, or Panugurishti, the 
 massacre at, as described by Du- 
 puis, 622-3 ; by MacGahan, 630- 
 31 ; and by Baring, 640-41 ; the 
 rising, 644-5. 
 
 Oude, annexation of, 515. 
 
 Outram, Sir J., objects to Lord 
 Canning's proclamation, 521. 
 
 Oxford University attended by 
 Pusey, 227 ; Keble. ib. Froude,
 
 702 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ib. ; Williams, ib. ; Newman, ib. ; 
 and Manning, ib. Influenced by 
 Tractarian movement, ib. 
 
 Pull Mall Gazette, The. on Alarcos, 
 201. 
 
 Palmerston, Lord, attacked by 
 " Runnymede," 14-7. Appear- 
 ance in 1837, 155. Opposes fusion 
 of consular and diplomatic ser- 
 vice, 207. Satirizes Lord Bea- 
 consfield, ib. Answered, ib. 
 Asks for Servian papers, 250. 
 Blamed by Mrs. Canning for join- 
 ing Wellington, 328. Defends 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 252. Protests 
 against Spanish marriages, 364 ; 
 and annexation of Cracow, 365. 
 Attacked by Protectionist lead- 
 ers, 364-5. Defended by Peel, 
 Bandon, Mahon, and Hume, 365. 
 Prussian policy approved by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 387. Foreign 
 policy censured, 407 ; defends 
 himself, 408. Dismissed from 
 the Russell Government, 419. 
 Explains, 420. Proposes amend- 
 ment to Russell's Militia Bill, 422. 
 Proposes amendment to Villiers' 
 resolution, 460. Effect of the 
 motion, 461. Home Secretary, 
 478. Proposed as successor to 
 Newcastle, 492. Offered leader- 
 ship of Commons by Derby, 
 492-3. Refuses, ib. Premier, 493. 
 Attacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 493-4. Accepts Roebuck com- 
 mittee, 494. Proposed vote of 
 censure, 495 ; on Vienna Con- 
 gress, ib. Another vote of cen- 
 sure, 496-7. Victorious, 497. 
 Again assailed by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 497-8. Denounced by Bright 
 and Cobden, 498. Defended by 
 Prince Albert, 499-500. Attacked 
 by Bx>ebuck. 500 ; and Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 501 ; but defended by 
 prominent Conservatives, ib. 1 1- 
 alian policy attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 502. Involved with 
 China and Persia, 508. Denounced 
 by Lord Beaconsfield for Rnsso- 
 phobia, 601-51 . Defeated on Cob- 
 den's motion. 506. Appeals to 
 the country, ib. Accused by Lord 
 Beaconsfield of aggressive foreign 
 policy, 606-10. Obtains large 
 
 majority, 511. Attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield during Indian Mu- 
 tiny, 512-13 ; but supported 
 strongly by House of Common*. 
 513. Again accused by Lord 
 Beaconsfield of aggressive foreign 
 policy, 514-15. Proposes Con- 
 spiracy Bill, 516 ; defeated and 
 resigns, ib. Indian Bill taken up 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 517, 519. 
 Appealed to, by Mr. Walpole, 
 524. Position from '60 to '65, 
 526-7. His foreign policy again 
 attacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 535. Accused by Lord Beacons- 
 field of degrading the House 
 of Commons, 539. Conduct of 
 Lord Beaconsfield to. estimated, 
 546-7. Death, 547. Influence on 
 Lord Beaconsfield's policy to- 
 wards Russia, 615. 
 
 Panagurishti, tee Otluk-Kui. 
 
 Parliament dissolved, 57, 187, 367. 
 Suddenly summoned, 163, 371, 
 445, 491. 
 
 Parliamentary government de- 
 nounced in " Coninpsby," 233-4. 
 
 Pears, Mr., correspondent of Daily 
 Newt at Constantinople, 627. 
 
 Peel, Sir L., on Sir Robert Peel, 211. 
 
 Peel, Sir R. (the late), called to 
 
 Eower, 70. Strongly supported 
 y Lord Beaconsfield, 80-81. 
 Dismissed, 87. Defended in 
 " Vindication " for deserting 
 Tory principles, 1 25-6. Eulogi-ed 
 by " Runnymede," 147-9. Ap- 
 pearance in 1837, 156. Cheers 
 Lord Beaconsfield's maiden 
 speech, 175-6. Eulogised by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 184. Position 
 in 1841, 185. Again eulogised by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 185-6. Pro- 
 poses vote of censure on Mel- 
 bourne Ministry, 186. Approach- 
 ing office, ib. ; and therefore 
 again eulogised by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 186-7. Described by Lord 
 Beaconsfield as the greatest 
 statesman of his age, 193. Again 
 eulogised by Lord Beacons field, 
 195-6 ; who describes himself as 
 a fervent but humble supporter, 
 1 95. Why this adulation ? 196-7. 
 Premier, 206. Confers no office 
 on Lord Beaconsfield, ib. Con- 
 demns Lord Beaconsfield's mo-
 
 INDEX. 
 
 703 
 
 lion on diplomatic service, 207. 
 Introduces a new Corn Law, 208. 
 This proved a step in direction of 
 Free Trade, by his own speeches, 
 208-9 ; by those of his opponents, 
 209-10 : and by his Memoirs. 
 210-11 ; yet strongly supported 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 212-13. 
 Acquitted by Lord Beaconsfield 
 of inconsistency, ib. Coldly re- 
 ceives Mr. Disraeli's advances, 
 214. Described in " Coningsby " 
 as a " distinguished personage," 
 232 : as a " great man in a great 
 position," ib. Acquitted of intri- 
 gue, ib. Still receives Lord 
 Beaconsfield coldly, 248-9. First 
 attacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 249-50. Again attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 250-51. Adopts an 
 unwise Irish policy, 252-3. Again 
 eulogised by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 256-8. * A painful scene 
 with Cobden, 261-2. Allusion 
 to the scene by Lord Bea- 
 consfield. ib. Accused by Lord 
 Beaconsfield of hypocrisy, 264 ; 
 and of selecting as a colleague 
 a confederate of Despavd. 265. 
 Completely disproves this charge, 
 265-fi. Accused by Lord Bea- 
 consfield of tyranny to his sup- 
 porters. 267 ; of stealing Whig 
 principles, ib. ; and of treachery 
 to Canning, 2G8. Replies, 268-9. 
 Charged by Lord Beaconsfield 
 with deserting the agriculturists, 
 270-71. Quotes LordBeaconsfield's 
 former eulogies, 272, and dis- 
 misses him with contempt, 272-3. 
 Proposes Maynooth Grant, 273. 
 Again attacked by Lord Beacons- 
 field. 274-7. Conduct in '45 esti- 
 mated, 277-8. Position in '46, 279- 
 85. Determines to abandon Pro- 
 tection, 285-6. Organization of 
 the Opposition, 287. Speech of 
 Explanation, ib. Charged by 
 Lord Beaconsfield with trea- 
 chery, 290-92 ; and with want 
 of true statesmanship, 292. An 
 innocent phrase misrepresented 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 294-5. 
 Introduces Free Trade Bill, 297. 
 Organised Protectionist opposi- 
 tion. 297-8. Again charged by 
 Lord Beaconsfield with treachery, 
 
 298 ; and again reminded of hia 
 collision with Cobden, 301. Apolo- 
 gises to Cobden, ib. Introduces 
 Coercion Bill,303. Again misrepre- 
 sented by Lord Beaconsfield,307-9, 
 and again attacked 316. Makes 
 a stinging reply, 316-17. Con- 
 spiracy against him, 320-23. Ac- 
 cused by Bentinck of treachery 
 to .Canning and of falsehood, 
 326-7. Repudiates charges, 332-3. 
 Charges renewed by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 333-45 ; although ac 
 quitted by Lord Beaconsfield of 
 same charges previously, 343-4. 
 Completely refutes charges, 
 345-54. Explanation declared 
 satisfactory by all parties, 354-5. 
 Resigns, 355. Duel with Lord 
 Beaconsfield estimated, 356-9. 
 Effect of fall on parties, 360. 
 Supports abolition of protection, 
 on sugar, 361. Approves of Pal- 
 merston's Russian policy, 365. 
 Opposes Lord Beaconsfield's mo- 
 tion on State of the Nation, 399. 
 Frequently attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield since '46. 399-400. 
 Denounced by Mr. Cheetham, 
 400-401. Opposes Lord Beacons- 
 field's motion for reducing county 
 taxation, 405. Last appearance 
 in the House of Commons. 408 ; 
 character of the appearance, ib, 
 On Palmerston's foreign policy, 
 408-9. Divides with Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 410. Death, 410-11. 
 Effect on Lord Beaconsfield's for- 
 tunes, 411-12. Memory defended 
 by Herbert, 40 3-4. 
 
 Peel, General, denounces Lord 
 Beaconsfield for embarrassing the 
 Government, 489-90. Proposes 
 motion in favour of Palinerston, 
 501. Resigns, 556. On Reform 
 Bill of '67, 557, 561. 
 
 Peelites oppose Bentinck's Irish 
 scheme, 364. In new Parliament, 
 371. Offered alliance by Lord 
 John Russell, 415: refuse, 416. 
 Offered alliance by Protec- 
 tionists, 416-17 ib. ; refuse, ib. 
 In New Parliament, 371. 'Op- 
 posed Lord Beaconsfield's Budget. 
 471. 
 
 Peerage Bill, account of, in " Vindi- 
 cation," 118-20. Described as
 
 7<>4 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 defeated by Tories, 118. Really 
 defeated by Whigs, 118-20. 
 
 " Pencillings by the Way," descrip- 
 tion of Lord Beaconafield in, 
 15-17. 
 
 Penzance, Lord, fellow-student of 
 George Smythe, 219. 
 
 Perry, Mr., opposes Lord Beacons- 
 field at Maidstone, 154. 
 
 Perry, Sir B., supports Lord Bea- 
 consfield's action on Indian 
 Mutiny, 513. 
 
 Persia, war with, 503, 508-10. 
 
 Perustitza, the massacre at, during 
 Bulgarian atrocities as described 
 by MacGahan. 631-3; and by 
 Baring, 641 ; the rising, 644-6. 
 
 Pestera, condition of, during Bul- 
 garian atrocities as described by 
 MacGahan, 633-4. 
 
 Philippopolis, Lord Beaconsfield's 
 gross mistake as to, 620-21. 
 State of, during Bulgarian 
 atrocities, 622. 
 
 Picciotto, Mr., on date of Lord Bea- 
 consfield's birth, 1. On relations 
 of the Disraeli family with 
 Judaism, 5-6. 
 
 Pigott, Mr. T. D., appointed by 
 Lord Beaconsfkld, 605-8. 
 
 Pigott, Re v.Mr., relations with Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 606-8. 
 
 Pitt, William, eulogised in " Vindi- 
 cation," 120. Described by Lord 
 Beaconsfield as father of Free 
 Trade, 213, 257. 
 
 Plumptre. Mr., in 1837, 160. 
 
 " Political adventures of Lord Bea- 
 consfield." See Foitniyhtly Re- 
 view. 
 
 "Popanffla" published, 17. Its 
 character, ib. 
 
 Prentice, Mr., quoted, 209. 
 
 Protection an issue in 1841 elec- 
 tion, 202. Not a Conservative 
 cry, according to Lord Beacons- 
 field, 204. This statement con- 
 trasted with later 'statement, ib. 
 Partially abandoned by Peel in 
 '41, 209 ; with approval of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 212-13: though 
 afterwards condemned by same 
 person, 212. Peel and Russell's 
 position towards, contrasted, 
 281-3. Abandoned by Peel, 286. 
 Lord Beaconsfield claims con- 
 stancy to 9*9 TUB claim ex- 
 
 amined, ib. Party organised, 
 297-8. Lord Beacoiisiield's adop- 
 tion inconsistent with teach- 
 ing in '42, 299. Lord Beacons- 
 field's attitude towards, 368. 
 Attempt to immediately restore 
 condemned by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 368-9. His next move on, 39o. 
 Reciprocity proposed by him ua 
 substitute, 398-9. Finally be- 
 trayed by Lord Beaconsneld, 4<ii. 
 
 Protectionists, burn Peel in effiiry 
 in 1841, 210. Abandoned by 
 Peel, 286. Raise stormy agita- 
 tion, ib. Formed into a party, 
 297-8. Support Whig Ministry, 
 360. Split with Peel maintained 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 361. Pass 
 over to Opposition benches, 362 ; 
 but continue friendly to Whisr?, 
 363. Split on Beutinck's Irish 
 scheme, 364. In new Parliament, 
 371. Attitude on Jewish Dis- 
 abilities, 373. Consequent diffi- 
 culties with leaders, 374-81. Their 
 final betrayal by Lord Beacocs- 
 field, 466. Raise violent agita- 
 tion for reversal free trade, 400- 
 401. Propose amendment to 
 address, 401. Nature of the 
 amendment, 401-2. Finally be- 
 trayed by Lord Beaconsfield, 4<1. 
 
 Prussia consents to annexation of 
 Cracow, 365. Policy to Schleswig- 
 Holstein,387. 
 
 Public Worship Bill introduced by 
 Mr. Gurney, 602. Strongly sup- 
 ported by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 603-4. Effects, 604-5. 
 
 Punjaub, rebellion in, 393. 
 
 Pusey a student at Oxford, 227, 
 Influenced by Tractarianism, ib, 
 Unlike Lord Beaconsfield's ear'* 
 teachers, 228. 
 
 Queen, name of, used in 1841 
 election, 205. Such use advo- 
 cated in " Vindication" by Lord 
 Beaconsneld, ib. ; yet condemned 
 in Whigs, 205-6. issues declara- 
 tion of war with Russia, 4M.'. 
 Selects Lord Beaconsfield as 
 Premier, 578. Represented by 
 Lord Beaconsfield as hostile to 
 attack on Irish Church, 58l> : 
 as responsible for his contiuu- 
 ance in power, 592-3. This repre-
 
 INDEX. 
 
 70S 
 
 sentation discussed in Commons, 
 592-6. 
 
 Raddovo, or Radilovo, condition of, 
 during Bulgarian atrocities as 
 described by Mr. MacGahan, 629 ; 
 and by Mr. Baring, 639. The 
 rising, 644. 
 
 Radicals correspond to Reformers 
 of '32, 46. Run candidates in 
 opposition to "Whigs, 46-7. Sup- 
 ported Lord Beaconsfield, 54-5. 
 Coalition of, with Tories advo- 
 cated by Lord Beaconsfield, 68. 
 Abandoned by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 86-7. Attitude in 1837, 162-3. 
 In new Parliament, 371. 
 
 Rae, Mr. W. F., describes formation 
 of Reform Club, 99-100. 
 
 Ragusa, English Consul in, 620. 
 
 Rasim Bey, one of the heroes of 
 Bulgarian atrocities, 623. 
 
 Hates, Church, modification of, 
 proposed byLord Beaconsfield, 80. 
 
 Rathcormack, tithe massacre at, 
 91-2. 
 
 Reade, Consul, on arming of 
 Circassians, 623-5. 
 
 Reciprocity proposed as substitute 
 for Protection, 398-9. 
 
 Redistribution Bill introduced by 
 Mr. Gladstone, 549 ; carried, 
 549-50. 
 
 Reform BUI. That of 1832 differ- 
 ently regarded by Reformers and 
 Whigs, 44-5. Effect on parties, 
 162-3. Introduced in 1852, 420; 
 in 1859, 523-5 ; and in 1860, 533. 
 Neglected in 1861, 534-5. Again 
 introduced in 1865, 547. Ex- 
 tensive agitation in favour of, 
 550. Never opposed by Conser- 
 vatives, according to Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 552. Resolutions on 
 proposed by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 553 ; but a 6 bill substituted, 
 554-5. This also dropped, 556 ; 
 and household suffrage substi- 
 tuted, 557. 
 
 iieformers of '32 correspond to our 
 Radicals, 46. Run candidates in 
 opposition to Whigs, 46-7. Sup- 
 ported by Lord Beaconsfield, 54-5. 
 
 Reid, Mr., in the Stationery Office, 
 606. 
 
 "Revolutionary Epick" published, 
 83. Its extraordinary Preface, 
 
 83-5. Its character, 85-6. Said by 
 Bright to advocate private assas- 
 sination, 542. New edition pub- 
 lished, 543. Passages garbled, ib. 
 Dedication to Lord Derby, 544. 
 
 Rice, Spring, appearance in 1837, 
 156. 
 
 Richmond, Duke of (the late), op- 
 poses the Corn Law of 1841, 
 210 ; which Lord Beaconsfield 
 approved, 212-13 ; afterwards 
 used by Lord Beaconsfield against 
 Peel, 212. Leads opposition to 
 Peel in '46, 286. Intentions on 
 Reform as described by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 552. 
 
 Richmond, Duke of (the present), 
 on Queen's part in Irish Church 
 agitation, 594. 
 
 Richmond and Twickenham Times, 
 letter in, from H. G. Bohn, 3-4. 
 
 Rigby, Mr., stands for J. W. 
 Crokerin " Coningsby," 229, 241. 
 
 Ripperda, object of Lord Beacons- 
 field's early admiration, 25. 
 
 " Rise of Iskander" published, 41. 
 
 Ritualism advocated by Lord J. 
 Manners, 214-16, 218; by G. 
 Smythe, 219-23; and by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 243-4. Afterwarda 
 denounced by Lord Beaconsfield. 
 603. 
 
 Ritualists accusedby Lord Beacons- 
 field of conspiracy with Catholics, 
 586-7. Denounced by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 603 ; though formerly 
 strongly supported, 603-4. 
 
 Roebuck, Mr. J. A., contests Bath 
 as a Radical, 46-7. A Liberal in 
 1832, though a vehement oppo- 
 nent of Whigs, 62. Appearance 
 in 1837, 161. Attacked by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 301. Attacks Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 310-12. Defends 
 Peel, 355. Congratulates Lord 
 Beaconsfield on attaining to 
 leadership, 397. Attacks Lord 
 Beaconsfield for his constant 
 denunciations of Peel, 399-400. 
 Moves vote of confidence in 
 the Russell Ministry, 407. Pro- 
 poses Sebastopol committee, 492. 
 Motion carried, ib. Committee 
 accepted, 494 ; proposes vote of 
 censure on conduct of war, 500-1. 
 
 Rogers, S., said to have had Lord 
 Beaconsfield baptized, 7. De- 
 
 45
 
 7oo 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 cribed by Luttrell, n>. Guest of 
 
 Lady Blessington, 13. A teacher 
 
 of Lord Beaconsfield's youth, 228. 
 
 Bolfe, Mr. J., proposes Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield's health, 74. 
 Bonayne. Mr., letter to the Morning 
 
 Chronicle, 102. 
 Bothschild, Baron, elected for 
 
 London, 873. 
 
 Bnnnymede Letters, 145-9. 
 Bussell, Lord John, attacked by 
 Bnnnymede, 146. Appearance 
 in 1887, 164-5 ; and position, 162. 
 Proposes Education Grant, 179. 
 Position in 1841, 185. Intro- 
 duces motion on state of Ire- 
 land, 253. Eulogised by Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 256. Why? 255-6. 
 Fortnightly Review on Lord Bea- 
 oonsfield'e contradictory esti- 
 mates of, 258-9. Supports May- 
 oooth Grant, 278-4. Denounces 
 Corn Law, 280. Position on 
 question contrasted with Peel's, 
 280-83. Less popular with some 
 Liberals than Peel, 285. Fails te 
 form Ministry, 286. Speech of 
 explanation, 287. Opposes Peel's 
 introduction of Coercion Bill, 305. 
 Bnt supports first reading, 809. 
 Defends Peel, 354. Proposes 
 abolition of protection on sugar, 
 860. Opposes Bentinck's Irish 
 scheme, 868. Introduces Irish 
 Coercion Bill, 872. Proposes re- 
 moral of Jewish disabilities, 373. 
 Blamed by Lord Beaconsfield for 
 so doing, 879. Recognizes leader- 
 ship of Lord Beaconsfield, 397. 
 Attacks Lord Beaconsfield for 
 dnplicity, 404. n censure of Pal- 
 merston's foreign policy, 407. 
 Death of Peel, 411. Effect on, ib. 
 On extension of the Irish fran- 
 chise, 412. Introduces Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Titles Bill, 418. Defeated, 41 5. 
 Tenders resignation,- ib. Effect 
 on the Ministry, 418-14. Opposed 
 by Aberdeen and Graham, 416. 
 Resumes office.4 18. Dismisses Pal- 
 me reton, 4 19. Explains, 4 20. Intro- 
 duces Reform Bill, iA. Introduces 
 Militia Bill, 422. Defeated, ib. 
 Besigns, 423. On policy of Lord 
 Derby's Government, 427. On 
 Lord Beaconsfield's speech, 431-8. 
 On dissolution of Parliament, 434. 
 
 Again attacks Derby-Disraeli 
 Ministry, 441-2. Foreign Secre- 
 tary, 478. Denounces embar- 
 rassment of Government by op- 
 position, 486. Introduces Bill 
 for abolition of Oaths, 490. At- 
 tacks Lord Beaconsfield, 491. Pro- 
 poses supersession of Newcastle, 
 492. Resigns, ib. Asked to form 
 new Government, 493. Failed, 
 ib. English representative at 
 Vienna, 494. Returns to London, 
 ib. On Vienna Congress, 496. 
 Resigns, 497. Supports Cobden's 
 vote of censure on China war, 
 505. Proposes vote of confidence 
 in Palinerston, 513. Rescues Lord 
 Beaconsfield's Indian Bill, 518-19 ; 
 and opposes his Reform Bill, 524. 
 Introduces Reform Bill of 1860, 
 534. Premier, 547. Introduces 
 Reform Bill, ib. Resigns, 550. 
 Russia, subject of questions by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 249, 251. 
 Consents to annexation of Cra 
 cow, 365. England's declaration 
 of war against, 482. Hatred 
 towards the winning game in 
 England, 615. Joins in Andrassy 
 Note, 617 ; and in Berlin Me- 
 morandum, 618. Declares war 
 against Turkey, 657 ; thwarted 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 658 ; vic- 
 torious, ib. 
 
 Rutland, Duke of, condemns friend- 
 ship of his son (Lord J. Manners) 
 and Smythe with Lord Beacons- 
 field, 222-3. Yet flattered under 
 name of Beaumanoir in "Co- 
 ningsby," 234. 
 
 Salisbury, Marquis of, in 1837, 162. 
 Supports motion in favour of 
 Palmerston, 501. Resigns. 556. 
 On Household Suffrage Bill, 557. 
 OnMr.Gladstone's demands, 567-8. 
 Protests against enfranchisement 
 of compound householder, 569. 
 Pronounces vehement invective 
 against Lord Beaconsfield, 571-1. 
 Denounces Lord Beaconsfield for 
 equivocation on Irish Churcli, 
 684-5. Attacked by Lord Beaci 'ii^- 
 field on Public Worship Act, f.u.i. 
 Bent to Constantinople Con- 
 ference, 656. On Memorandum 
 with Schouvaloff, 665. Entry
 
 INDEX. 
 
 707 
 
 into London after Berlin Treaty, 
 669. On hopelessness of reforms 
 in Turkey, 668. 
 
 Salopian Journal reports Dr. Ken- 
 nedy, 192 ; and challenge of Lord 
 Beaconsfield by Mr. Yardley, 193. 
 Admires Lord Beaconsfield'a 
 crest, 194. 
 
 San Stefano, Treaty of, 663-5. 
 
 Bandoo, Lord, attacks Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 252. Approves Pal- 
 merston's Russian policy, 365. 
 
 Saracens' relations with the Jewa, 
 610-11. 
 
 Sardinia, not sympathized with by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 392. 
 
 Sarsfield discussed at Lady Bles- 
 sington's, 17. 
 
 Schleswig-Holstein, 387. 
 
 Schouvaloff, Count, share in nego- 
 tiations after Berlin Memoran- 
 dum, 651. 
 
 Schuyler, Mr. E., on Bulgarian 
 atrocities, 638-9; one of the 
 Liberators of the East, ib. ; on 
 the Batak massacre, 641. 
 
 Scotsman, the, reports Edinburgh 
 speech of Lord Beaconsfield, 575 ; 
 this contrasted with official 
 report, 577-8. 
 
 Scott, Mr. Walter, on dispute be- 
 tween Lord Beaconsfield and 
 Globe, 136. 
 
 Sedley, Taylor, on Eastern Ques- 
 tion, 617 et seq. On negotations 
 after Berlin Memorandum 50. 
 
 Semitic, The, principle, 383. 
 
 Servia supplies casus belli between 
 Lord Beaconsfield and Peel, 250. 
 Requested by Beaconsfield Mi- 
 nistry to assist in putting down 
 Bosnian insurrection, 616-17. 
 Denounced by Lord Beaconsfield 
 649-51, 655-6. 
 
 Sidmouth, Lord, ridiculed in 
 " Coningsby," 232. 
 
 Sidonia, a character in " Conings- 
 by," 232-3. 
 
 Sheahau, Mr., quoted, 44. 
 
 Sheffield, condition of in 1843, 358. 
 
 Shelley, P. B., as portrayed in 
 'Venetia," 198-200. 
 
 Shiel, Col., 509. 
 
 Shiel, R. L., appearance in 1837, 
 158. 
 
 houvaloff, Count, 651. 
 hrewsbury contested by Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield, 257-8. Addressed 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 188-195. 
 Shrewsbury Chronicle reports Lord 
 Beaconsfield's speech, 188. De- 
 scribes Mrs. Disraeli's share in 
 Shrewsbury election, 194. 
 Shrewsbury news reports speeches 
 of Dr. Kennedy, 192. and of Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 193. Ridicules the 
 latter's crest, 194. 
 Shropshire Conservative reports 
 Lord Beaconsfield's address, 189- 
 90, 195-6. Charges Peel with de- 
 serting Protection, 258. Answered 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, ib. 
 Sicily not sympathized with by 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 392, 410. 
 " Sketches in London," see Grant, 
 
 James. 
 
 Slough, speech of Lord Beacons- 
 field at, 521-2. 
 
 Small Tenements Act effect, 564-5 ; 
 and application, 565. 
 Smith, Hon. R., member for High 
 Wycombe, 44. Receives letter 
 from J. Hume, 49-50. Again 
 elected, 61 ; and again, 82. 
 Smith, Horace, guest of Lady 
 
 Blessington, 13. 
 Smith, Sydney, compared with C. 
 
 Buller, 160. 
 Smith, Mr. Goldwin, on " Lothair," 
 
 600-601. 
 
 Smith, Vernon, Mr., replies to 
 Lord Beaconsfield's attack on 
 Canning, 512. Again replies, 
 512-13. 
 
 Smythe, G. S. (afterwards Lord 
 Strangford), elected to Parlia- 
 ment, 214. An apostle of Young 
 Englandism, ib. Birth and edu- 
 cation, 218-19. Reasons for join- 
 ing Young England party,219-20. 
 Separates from Lord Beacons 
 field and Lord John Manners, 
 220. Want of energy in Parlia 
 ment, 220-21. Refuses office, 221. 
 Nature of friendship with Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 221-24. Warned 
 against this friendship ? 222-23. 
 Joins Morning Chronicle, 223. 
 Succeeds to his title, 224. Dies, 
 ib. Estimate of his life, ib. 
 Analysis of his works, 224-5. 
 Hopes and aims in joining the 
 Tory party, 225. Faith in 
 Young Englandism intelligible,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 MS-7. Defends Lord Beacons- 
 field, 252. On Lord Beacons- 
 field's plagiarism from Thiers, 
 4:.-.'.. 
 
 gontenet, Captain, remains faithful 
 to Protection, 46; although 
 deserted by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 457. 
 
 Bonenets, The, vote against Peel, 
 866. 
 
 Bowerville, Sir W., opposes intro- 
 duction of Coercion Bill, 305; 
 and second reading, 324-5. 
 
 Southern Reporter contains account 
 of Rathcormack massacre, 91. 
 
 Spectator, The, on quarrel between 
 Lord Beaconsfield and O'Connell, 
 108-10. On Lord Beaconsneld's 
 first appointment as Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, 424. Quoted, 
 429. On Bulgarian atrocities, 
 627. On Russian declaration of 
 war, 657. 
 
 Spooner. Mr., alluded to by Morn- 
 ing Chronicle, 391. 
 
 Spottiswoode Subscription, cha- 
 racter of, 163-4. Subscribed to 
 by Sir F. Burdett, 164. Brought 
 before the House of Commons, 
 A. Defended by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 166-70. 
 
 St. Andrew's Holborn, Lord Bea- 
 oonsneld baptized at, 8-9. 
 
 St. Cyr, Marshal de, enloginm of 
 Thiers on, 462-6. 
 
 St. Lys, character in Sybil," 243-4. 
 
 Stafford, Mr., flattered by Lord 
 Beaconafield, 298-9. Alluded to 
 by Miming Chronicle, 391. 
 
 Stafford, Lord, e_ulogised by Lord 
 
 Stamford represented by Lord 
 oi:i.... j& 
 Hainuiii*, aw. 
 
 hM4onrf, The, does not notice Lord 
 Beaconsfield's maiden speech, 
 
 Stanhope, Earl, the late, on Peerage 
 Bill, 119-20. Memoirs of Peel " 
 qvoted, 211. Support* Palme r- 
 ton'i Bartin pol icy, 365. 
 
 , Lord, tee late Lord Derby. 
 
 d, RL Hon. J., involved in 
 a dicpote about Mazzini, 540-41. 
 Deaounced by Lord Beacoasfield, 
 Ml. Beaolt of the attack, M2-3. 
 tapylton Toad, character in 
 - Vivian " 
 
 "Steyne, Marquis of," contrasted 
 with Lord Monmouth, 230. 
 
 Stockholm, Lord Strangford (6th) 
 minister at, 218. Birthplace of 
 George Smythe, ib. 
 
 Stockport rejects Cobden, 162. 
 Represented by Cobden, 271. 
 
 Strangford, Lady, on George 
 Smythe, 219-224; and Young 
 England, 219-20. 
 
 Strangford, Lord (6th), father ol 
 George Smythe, 218. Minister 
 at Stockholm, A. Death, 224. 
 
 Strangford, Lord (7th). See 
 Smythe, G. 8. 
 
 Sugar Duties discussed in Parlia- 
 ment, 185-6, 360-61. 
 
 Sugden, Sir E. (Lord St. Leonards), 
 appearance in 1837, 159. 
 
 Sunderland, Lord, introduces Peer- 
 age Bill, 118-19. Defeated by 
 Whigs, 11 9-20. 
 
 Suspensory Bill, tee Irish Church. 
 
 "SybU" published, 241. Object, 
 241-2. Dramatis pergonte, 242-3. 
 Recalls with regret days of 
 the Abbots, 243. Highly praises 
 Ritualism, 243-4. Descriptions of 
 the working classes mere daubs, 
 244-5. Represents Young En- 
 glandism in "Egremont," 245. 
 Describes aristocrats as natural 
 leaders of the people, 245-6. Self- 
 laudation of author, 246-7. 
 
 Talfourd, Serjt., introduces Copy- 
 right Bill, 179. 
 
 Tarn worth represented by Peel, 185. 
 
 "Tancred" published, 381. On 
 relations of Jews and Moham- 
 medans, 611. On superiority of 
 Jews to Christians, 614. Dreams 
 realised in Lord Beaconsneld's 
 Premiership, 666-7. 
 
 Tatar-Bazardjik, <eeBazardjik. 
 
 Taunton, contested by Mr. Labon- 
 chere and Lord Beaconsneld, 87- 
 99,134, 
 
 TawUon Courier, describes Lord 
 Beaconsfield as a Conservative, 
 87. Its accuracy doubted, 88. 
 But afterwards proved, 8*- 
 
 " Taxes on knowledge " condemned 
 by Lord Beaconsneld, 59, 61, 65. 
 
 Taylor, Mr. P. A., defends Stans- 
 feld's relations with Mazzini, 
 ML
 
 IXDEX. 
 
 709 
 
 Taylor, T.. guest of Mr. W. Mere- 
 dith, 3. 
 
 Teheran, 509. 
 
 Thackeray, W. M., contrasted with 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 230. Criticises 
 "Coningsby," 2-10-41. 
 
 "The Crisis Examined " published, 
 79. Advocates immediate aboli- 
 tion of Irish Tithes, ib. ; reduc- 
 tion of the Irish Church, 79-80 ; 
 modification of Church Rates, 80 ; 
 strongly defends Peel from 
 charge of tergiversation, 80-81 ; 
 and compares Ministry to Du- 
 crow, 81 -I*. 
 
 "The British Senate," see Grant, 
 James. 
 
 Tliiers, M., essay stolen by Lord 
 Beaconsfield. 452-6. 
 
 Thimbleby, Rev. J., baptized Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 9. 
 
 Thompson. Alderman, votes against 
 Peel, 357. Remains faithful to 
 Protection. 466 ; although de- 
 serted by Lord Beaconsfield, 467. 
 
 Thompson, Colonel (afterwards 
 General), member of Westminster 
 Reform Club, 100. Opposes Lord 
 Beaconsfield at Maidstone, 151-4. 
 Their principles compared, 153-4. 
 Defeated, 154. 
 
 Times, The, contains letter of Lord 
 Beaconsfield. 57 : and election 
 address, 58-60. Report of the 
 Rathcormack massacre, 91-2. 
 Contains letter of Lord Beacons- 
 field, 129. 135, 141, 143. Publishes 
 "Ruunymede Letters," 145-149. 
 Quoted,"l 51. Praises LordBeacons- 
 field's maiden speech, 174. Quotes 
 "Coningsby," 241. Quoted, 340, 
 344, 350, 351, 352. On Protection- 
 ist leadership, 392. On Lord 
 Beaconsfield's first appointment 
 as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 423 4. On his plagiarism from 
 Thiers, 454-6. Denies report of 
 his resignation, 479. 
 
 Tirnova, condition during Bul- 
 garian atrocities, 625. 
 
 Tithes, Irish, strongly denounced 
 by Lord Beaconsfield, 79. 
 Strongly defended by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 90 ; though they had 
 just caused a bloody conflict, 
 91-2. The Rathcormack mas- 
 acre, ib. 
 
 Tomline, Mr., contests Shrewsbury 
 along with Lord Beaconsfield, 
 188-95. Elected, 195. 
 
 Tories support Lord Beaconsfield 
 54. Coalition of, with Radicals 
 advocated by Lord Beaconsfieid, 
 68. Credited in " Vindication " 
 with defeating the Peerage Bill, 
 118. The credit undeserved, 1 18- 
 20. Induced to desert principles 
 by Bolingbroke, 123. Attitude 
 in 1837, 163. The real Free 
 Traders according to Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 203. This statement 
 contrasted with Inter statements, 
 204. Those of Liverpool's time 
 satirized in "Coningsby," 2;U-2. 
 Described by Lord 'Beacons- 
 field as apostles of retrench- 
 ment, 393. Never opposed to 
 Reform, according to Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 551-2. This statement 
 examined, 552-3. 
 
 Tori-ens, Mr. W. M'C., describe* 
 Lord Beaconsfield at Mrs. Nor- 
 ton's, 23-4. 
 
 Tower Hamlets represented by Mr. 
 Ayrton, 59o-l. 
 
 Tractarianisui begat Young Eng- 
 landisiu, 226. Influences Oxford a 
 leading men, 227. 
 
 " Treatise on Taxation," see M'Cul- 
 loch. 
 
 Trevelyan. Mr., Life of Macaulay. 
 See Lord Macaulay. 
 
 Triennial Parliaments supported by 
 Lord Beacons-field, 57, 59, 61. 
 Again supported by him, 65. 
 And again, 68. Dropped, 79. Ad- 
 vocated by Col. Thompson, 153 ; 
 who was opposed by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, ib. Again opposed by 
 him, 181. 
 
 Trollope, Sir J., votes against Peel, 
 357. Referred to in Morning 
 Chronicle, 391. 
 
 True Sun attacks Lord Beaconsfield, 
 110-11. 
 
 Turkey, Lord Beaconsfield's con- 
 stancy to, 251. Strongly defended 
 by Sir A. Layard,481. Unanimity 
 of Jews in favour of, 608-9. The 
 result of alliance in past, and 
 common hate of Christians, ib. 
 Accepts intervention of Consuls 
 in Bosnian insurrection, 617. The 
 ttatim quo advocated by Lord
 
 7io 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Beaconsfield, ib. The Andnwsy 
 Note, ib. Berlin Memorandum, ! 
 618-19. Follows Lord Beacons- i 
 field's advice, 619. The Bulgarian j 
 massacres, ib. Independence 
 again defended by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 626, 656 ; rejects pro- i 
 posals of Constantinople Con- ; 
 ferenoe, 656. War with Russia, ' 
 667. 
 
 Tyne Mercury on Peel in '41, 210. 
 
 Tyrrell, Sir J, votes against Peel, 
 367. On Lord Beaconsfield's first 
 Budget, 439. 
 
 UtramontanUm advocated by Lord 
 J. Manners, 214-16; by G. 
 Smythe, 219. 
 
 Union, Repeal of, O'Connell's agi- 
 tation for, 252. 
 
 Urqnhart, Mr. D., plagiarised by 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 599-600. 
 
 Utrecht, Treaty of, 364. 
 
 " Vanity Fair " contrasted with 
 "Comngsby,"230. 
 
 Vansittart, Mr., ridiculed in " Go- 
 ningsby," 232. 
 
 14 Venetia" published, 197. Ana- 
 lysed, 198-200. 
 
 Victor Emmanuel, condemned by 
 Conservative party, 523. 
 
 Vienna Congress, 494. Treaty of, 
 365. 
 
 Villiers, Right Hon. C. P., in 
 1837, 158. Proposes motion on 
 Corn Laws, 184. Gives notice j 
 of motion in favour of Free 
 Trade, 449 ; and on Beacons- 
 field's pronouncements, 450. Pro- 
 poses resolutions, 456-7 ; on Lord 
 Beaconsfifld's amendment, (<>. 
 Proposes reply to Address, 404. 
 Asks declaration of policy from 
 Derby Ministry, 432. 
 
 * Vindication of the English Con- 
 stitution" published,' 11 4. Ego- 
 tistic anecdote, 11 5-1 6. The Com- 
 mons an Estate, 116. Attacks Lord 
 Beacoufield's former friends, 117. 
 Indicts Whig party, 118. Charges 
 it with limiting Peerage, ib. The 
 charge unfounded, 118-20. Eulo- 
 gues George III., 120 ; and Pitt, 
 *.; and Burke, 121. Describes 
 Tories aa the National Party, 1 20. 
 Lord Beacon.-tield oortrava him- 
 
 self under Bolingbroke, 120-24. 
 Eulogises Bolingbroke for desert- 
 ing Tory principles in office, 123. 
 This principle examined, 123-5. 
 Reviewed in Globe, 126-7. Its 
 doctrines compared with Lord 
 Beaconsfield's speeches, 205-6. 
 Similarity of ideas in " Conings- 
 by," 231. Doctrines contrasted 
 with Lord Beaconsfield's speeches 
 in 1846, 299. 
 
 Virgil, Lord Beaconsfield compares 
 himself to, 85. 
 
 "Vivian Grey," first part, pub- 
 lished, 15. Extremely success- 
 ful, 15-16. Second part published, 
 17. Analysed, 27-42. The hero 
 goes to school, 27-8. Studies 
 politics, 28. Reflections on the 
 means of success, 29-30. Meets 
 and flatters the Marquess of Cara- 
 bas, 31-4. His reflections on life, 
 34-5. His tactics at a dinner, 35. 
 Meeting of the Carabas party, 
 36-7. Speech, ib. Interview with 
 a retired statesman, 37. Vivian 
 Grey and Mrs. Felix Lorraine, 
 37-41. Supplies the key to Lord 
 Beaconsfield's character and 
 career, 39-40. Similarity of pas- 
 sage iu. with speech of Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 76. Dreams realised 
 in Lord Beaconsfield's second 
 Premiership, 664. 
 
 Wakley, Mr. T., on Lord Beacons- 
 field's first Budget, 440. 
 
 Wales disturbed by Chartists, 182. 
 
 Walpole, The Rt.'Hon. H. S., le- 
 signs office, 524. Advocates pro- 
 ceeding with Resolution and 
 Reform Bill simultaneously, 555. 
 
 Walpole. Sir R., chief means of 
 defeating Peerage Bill, 119-20. 
 Censures Lord Beaconsfield for 
 attacking Lord Canning, 515. 
 
 Ward, Mr., in 1837, 160. 
 
 Warwickshire represented by Mr. 
 Newdegate, 357. 
 
 Welbeck, scene of Bentinck's 
 death, 390. 
 
 Wellington. Duke of, called to 
 power, 70. Reason for accepting 
 Free Trade, 300. Joined by Can- 
 ning's friends in Ministry, 328. 
 Dies, 452. Lord Beaconsfield 
 pronounces panegyric on, 452;
 
 INDEX. 
 
 711 
 
 which was plagiarised from 
 French Review, 452-6. 
 
 ", Westminster Elector " accuses 
 Lord Beaconsfield of being a 
 member of a Liberal Club, 88. 
 His charge denied by Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 97. Proves his charge 
 by producing Lord Beaconsfield's 
 letters, 97-9. 
 
 Westminster Review severely criti- 
 cises " The Young Duke," 18. 
 Edited by Col. Thompson, 152. 
 On "Sybil," 245. 
 
 Westminster Reform Club, Lord 
 Beaconsfield charged with being 
 a member of, 88. He denies the 
 charge, 97. The charge proved 
 by a Westminster Elector, 97-9 ; 
 and by Mr. Fraser Rae, 99-100. 
 Foundation of, 100. 
 
 " What is He ? " published, 67. Ad- 
 vocates coalition of Tories and 
 Radicals, 68. 
 
 Whigs disliked by Reformers, 45-6. 
 Opposed by Reformer candi- 
 dates, 46-7. Abuse of, common 
 among genuine Liberals, 62. 
 Attacked by Lord Beaconsfield, 
 57, 59, 63. 64. Indicted in " Vin- 
 dication, 118. Accused of limit- 
 ing the creation of Peers, ib. 
 The charge unfounded, 118-20. 
 Described as an oligarchy, 122. 
 Attacked by Runnymede, 148. 
 Position in 1837, 162. Not true 
 free-traders according to Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 202-4. Confidence 
 of Queen brought forward in 
 favour of, 205. Appealed to 
 by Lord Beaconsfield against 
 Peel, 276-7. Determined to 
 carry Free Trade, 280-81. In new 
 Parliament, 371. 
 
 Whiteside, Mr., approves of Lord 
 Beaconsfield's Indian motion, 513. 
 
 William IV., death of, 150. 
 
 Williams, Rev. Mr., influenced by 
 Tractarianism, 227. 
 
 Willis, N. P., describes Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 15-17. 
 
 WDloughby, Sir H., opposes Glad- 
 stone's doubling of income tax, 
 483. 
 
 Wilson, Mr., proposes increase of 
 malt tax, 485. 
 
 Wiltshire represented by [Mr, 
 Long," 357. 
 
 Winchelser Scholar, Lord Beacons- 
 field described as a, 192, The 
 statement examined, ib. 
 
 Winchester, Lord Beaconsfield at a 
 private school in, 8. 
 
 Wood, Alderman, member of the 
 Westminster Reform Club, 100. 
 
 Wood, Sir Charles (now Lord 
 Halifax), on Lord Beaconsfield's 
 first Budget, 438. Criticises Lord 
 Beaconsfield's Budget, 471. As- 
 sailed by Lord Beaconsfield, 472. 
 Attacks on Napoleon, 491. 
 
 Wycombe, High, character of, 44. 
 Contested by Lord Beaconsfield 
 and Col. Grey, 44-5. Returns 
 Col. Grey, 55. Again contested, 
 58-64. Again returns Col. Grey, 
 64. Addressed by Lord Beacons- 
 field, 78-9. Again returns Col. 
 Grey, 82. Speech of Lord Bea- 
 consfield at, 82. Claimed by 
 Lord Beaconsfield as his birth- 
 place, 188 ; as his father's pro- 
 perty, ib.; and as willing to re- 
 turn him and his nominee, ib. 
 Those statements examined, 
 188-90. Again claimed by Lord 
 Beaconsfield as his place of birth. 
 414. 
 
 Wyndham quoted by Lord Beacons* 
 field, 61. 
 
 Tardley, Mr. W., challenges Lord 
 Beaconsfield, 193. 
 
 Torks, The, vote against Peel, 357. 
 
 " Young Duke " published, 17. Its 
 character, 18. Prophecy on Lord 
 Beaconsfield's future, 178. On 
 Canning, 342-3. 
 
 " Young England," first appearance 
 in Lord Beaconsfield's speeches, 
 179. Party formed,214. Doctrines, 
 214-15. Advocated by Lord J. 
 Manners, 215-18 ; and by George 
 Smythe, 219-20. Absurdity of 
 
 ' its doctrines, 226. Begat by 
 Tractarianism, ib. Adoption of 
 those doctrines intelligible in G. 
 Smythe and Lord J. Manners, 
 226-7; but not in Lord Beacons- 
 field, 227-9 ; yet preached most 
 vigorously by him, 228-9.
 
 Printed by 
 
 MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED 
 Edinburgh
 
 -ItHN HtblUNftL LIHMAHY