w f 1 !Tu 
 
 
 IVT *L?V \V« yf,C\ V\A 1 
 
 ir< 
 
 F"HISjjjfim 
 
 ^ jwv^Onwi f4 J'^|^f ; i W\ £< 
 
THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 B 
 
 » 
 
Latest D^t b ° 0k ° n 0r before 
 cha ®* Date famped below. A 
 
 charge „ made on all overdue 
 
 T.Ul— H41 
 

 
 
 
 
 
WE LIBRARY 
 OF TR£ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 " f 
 
 
 •- 
 
 
 
 
Engravedby W. Eoffe, froin a PhotograpE by Jabez Hughes, tahsnby command, of H.M.the Queen. 
 
 *VM MACKENZIE, LONDON, EDINBURGH Sc GLASGOW. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 •» 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 & 
 
 RIGHT HON. BENJAMIN DISRAELI, 
 
 EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G., 
 
 AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 BY 
 
 ALEXANDER CHARLES EWALD, F.S.A., 
 
 AUTHOR OF “SIR ROBERT WALPOLE, A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY;” “THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PRINCE 
 CHARLES STUART;” “REPRESENTATIVE STATESMEN," 1 ETC., ETC. 
 
 VOL. 1. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 WILLIAM MACKENZIE, 69 LUDGATE HILL, E.C.; 
 
 EDINBURGH AND DUBLIN. 
 

V. 
 
 4 A 
 
 v 
 
 illiilili i 
 
 ill!) 
 
 i 1 ;' 11 I,-.;; h ,; \-! 1 
 
 1 ill I ill I ill il 
 
 ilSill 1 
 
 P 1 )! p- 1 1 Pi -p] t III 
 
 M 
 
 §m$m 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 Engraved dry "W! ’SofSe. ■from. a, Plxotograjih. dry BDicrtt &Iiy 
 
 cP 
 
 WILLIAM MACKENZIE 
 
 LONDON, EDINBURGH & GLASGOW- 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

nMi— 
 
 Engraved, iy E. Stodart from. a. Photo; iy Alax^Bassano, 
 
 D_ QD DB QD L!I1 I N 
 
 WILLIAM MACKENZIE, LONDON, EDINBURGH & GLASGOW 
 

 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY Of ILLINOIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

WILLIAM MACKENZIE, LONDON, EDINBUR6H 8c GLASGOW. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UHIVERS1TY OF ilUKOIS 
 
WILLIAM MACKENZIE, LONDON, EDINBURGH & GLASGOW- 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lENoDAiDN 1DSHAEIL1. 
 
 FACSIMILE OF THE SKETCH BY DANIEL MAC LIS E, R. A. IN THE SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM. 
 
 
 WIlllAM MACKENZIE, LONDON, EDINBURGH ?. GLASGOW. 
 
* 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G., 
 
 AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 “DISRAELI THE YOUNGER.” 
 
 On the bead-roll of English statesmen the 
 name of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beacons- 
 field, will only cease to occupy the foremost 
 position when English politics have no 
 further existence. Born to none of those 
 advantages which his predecessors in office 
 enjoyed, he owed the brilliant name he 
 made for himself, and the lofty post he 
 gained with its splendid tenure of power, 
 alone to those rich intellectual gifts which 
 render their possessor independent of the 
 glamour of birth or the favours of fortune. 
 At the outset of his career every obstacle 
 that impediment could devise barred the 
 path of his advancement to the position he 
 subsequently attained, of leader of the Eng¬ 
 lish landed interest, and as a potent author¬ 
 ity in the councils of Europe. He bore a 
 foreign name; in his veins flowed the blood 
 of a then despised and outcast race; though 
 not poor, his means were too slender to 
 offer any compensation for the disadvan¬ 
 tages under which he laboured; he had 
 passed through none of that social prepara¬ 
 tory training—boyhood at a public school, 
 manhood at a university—which generally 
 qualifies the English gentleman ambitious of 
 VOL. i. 
 
 parliamentary honours; yet ignored, friend¬ 
 less, and the constant butt of all the ridicule 
 and sarcasm that the most venomous malice 
 could inspire, he rose to heights such as 
 Burke had never dreamed of, and swayed a 
 power such as neither Walpole nor the 
 second Pitt had ever exercised. Conscious 
 of the immense talents working within him, 
 quick-sighted as well as far-sighted, a keen 
 judge of character and of the weakness of 
 an enemy’s position, with the mordant wit 
 of a Parisian, with all the resources of a 
 complete master of language, and with that 
 exquisite tact which instinctively knows 
 how to make the most of a victory and the 
 least of a defeat, he waited with the patience 
 which is in itself one of the most charac¬ 
 teristic signs of great genius, for the moment 
 when his opportunity should come, and the 
 tide, taken at the flood, should bear him 
 on to fortune. In the feverish, harassing 
 struggle of party politics he was always 
 so cool and collected that those who knew 
 not the man said he was indifferent to 
 the conflict around him ; whilst the real 
 truth was that his well-balanced judg¬ 
 ment was superior to those passions of 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the hour which always affect and irritate 
 the shallow and superficial, but leave 
 calm and unruffled the depths of the 
 really great mind. He ran a waiting 
 race; never exhausting himself by futile 
 efforts which might distress and retard him, 
 but keeping his powers well within their 
 grasp, steadily, almost imperceptibly, he 
 drew away from his competitors, until at 
 the supreme moment when called upon by 
 genius, he put forth all his strength and 
 reached the goal a winner, so decided and 
 complete as to leave his victory an event 
 without parallel in the annals of parliamen¬ 
 tary triumphs. Criticising Lord Beacons- 
 field’s career from its beginning to its close, 
 we may say that never did ambition seem 
 more hopeless, never was its realization 
 more complete. 
 
 In any other profession save that of 
 politics, the success attained by the late 
 Lord Beaconsfield would not have been 
 so singularly remarkable. Men from the 
 most humble surroundings have risen to 
 the serene heights of the bench, have worn 
 the lawn sleeves of the episcopate, have 
 wielded the baton of the field-marshal, 
 have been created peers for famous achieve¬ 
 ments. The great prizes of the bar, the 
 church, the queen’s services are open to 
 all; and though certain social advantages 
 have, in the different professions, their 
 full value, yet such advantages at the 
 best but give the candidate a good start, 
 and by no means promise him a success 
 positive and assured. Talent, industry, 
 and sound knowledge seldom fail to meet 
 with their deserts in a professional career, 
 whilst factitious combinations only occa¬ 
 sionally prosper. With parliamentary life 
 it is very different. To become the head of 
 a great party, to command an obedient and 
 united following, to dominate over the jeal¬ 
 ousies and spontaneous antipathies of the 
 House of Commons, to be supreme in the 
 council chamber, and to enjoy the confidence 
 both of your sovereign and your country, 
 something more than great abilities have 
 generally been necessary. A lofty name, a 
 
 splendid rent-roll, the gifts which captivate 
 what is termed society, have usually been the 
 privileges which surrounded him who held 
 the seals as prime minister. If we look 
 down the list of our English premiers—from 
 Sir Robert Walpole, who was the first to 
 found the office, to its present holder—we 
 shall find that the position and power en¬ 
 joyed by Lord Beaconsfield are unique. 
 There have been men whom party jealousies 
 have placed at the head of cabinets, and 
 who—mere puppets—were content to act as 
 rival candidates chose to pull the strings; 
 there have been men who have undertaken 
 to form a ministry, simply and solely on ac¬ 
 count of their illustrious lineage and vast 
 possessions; there have been men raised 
 to supreme power, not because they pos¬ 
 sessed the confidence of either house of 
 parliament, or because they were beloved by 
 the country, but only because they were the 
 cherished favourites of the sovereign; and 
 again, there have been men who, from com¬ 
 paratively lowly origin, have attained to the 
 position of chief of the cabinet. Yet in none 
 of these instances is there a parallel to the 
 case of Lord Beaconsfield. Walpole main¬ 
 tained his power by judicious distribution 
 of the guineas of the treasury; Newcastle 
 was a simpleton whose dukedom, wealth, and 
 votes in the lower house compensated for 
 his incapacity, and kept him in office; Bute 
 was the pet of the court, and the hated of 
 the people; Addington, Portland, and Per¬ 
 ceval were political mediocrities who owed 
 their elevation to the jealousies of the hour. 
 Canning, sneered at as an adventurer, found 
 when he had been appointed to form an 
 administration, that a proud aristocracy de¬ 
 clined to obey him. In the political history 
 of Lord Beaconsfield we find, it is true, some 
 of the elements which assisted or hampered 
 his predecessors, but nothing in them suffi¬ 
 ciently marked and cohesive as to form a 
 parallel to his exceptional career. In the 
 tactics of parliamentary strategy he was as 
 consummate a master as either Sir Robert 
 Walpole or Sir Robert Peel. Though not 
 unpopular with the people, he cannot be 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 3 
 
 said to have been, in the fullest acceptation 
 of the word, popular; yet Bute never enjoyed 
 a more cordial and decided support from 
 the court. At no time, however necessary 
 his name might have become to his party, 
 would he have consented—as Portland and 
 Perceval had consented—to have been the 
 chief of a cabinet in which he was not per¬ 
 mitted to be dominant and absolute. “When 
 Lord Beaconsfield speaks,” said Prince Bis¬ 
 marck, referring to the distinguished envoy 
 to the Berlin congress, “he does not speak 
 as one of the members of an English cabinet, 
 but as the cabinet: he is England.” Like 
 Addington and Canning, the birth of Lord 
 Beaconsfield was not in the minds of the 
 vulgar beyond reproach; yet unlike in 
 their case, the haughtiest aristocracy 
 and the pink of the most prejudiced gentry 
 in Europe gladly enrolled themselves 
 under his banner, and carried out his be¬ 
 hests. What, then, we may ask, were the 
 gifts and fascinations with which this ex¬ 
 traordinary man was endowed, that he should 
 have succeeded where so brilliant a man as 
 Canning had failed; that he should have en¬ 
 joyed a reputation on the continent such as 
 Lord Palmerston in his most spirited mo¬ 
 ments never held; that, sprung from a stock 
 the be-fouled and persecuted of centuries, 
 he should have been the chief favourite in 
 the most exclusive coteries of society, and 
 that he exercised a command over his fol¬ 
 lowing which was never disputed except to 
 be instantly repented of ? In the following 
 biography we hope to answer these queries. 
 
 Benjamin Disraeli was born, it is said, 
 
 * The precise year of his birth is uncertain, some giving it 
 as 1805, and others as 1806; but the general impression 
 appears to be that he was born in 1804. In the inscription 
 upon his coffin the date of his birth was omitted, owing to 
 the inability of the executors to discover any authentic record 
 on the point. On the page of the register in the Registry 
 
 December 24, 1804,* and, as is well known 
 from the publicity he gave to the fact, and 
 the pride he took in his descent, was sprung 
 from Jewish parents. In the interesting 
 introduction to the works of his father he 
 gives us a sketch of his family history, 
 which will well repay perusal. “My grand¬ 
 father,” he writes, “ who became an English 
 denizen in 1748, 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 fif¬ 
 teenth century, and who found a refuge in 
 the more tolerant territories of the Venetian 
 republic. His ancestors had dropped their 
 Gothic surname on their settlement in the 
 Terra Eirma; 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 be for ever 
 recognized. Undisturbed and unmolested, 
 they flourished as merchants for more than 
 two centuries under the protection of the 
 lion of St. Mark, which was but just, as the 
 patron saint of the republic was himself a 
 child of Israel. But towards the middle of 
 the eighteenth century the altered circum¬ 
 stances of England, favourable, as it was 
 then supposed, to commerce and religious 
 liberty, attracted the attention of my great¬ 
 grandfather to this island, and he resolved 
 that the youngest of his two sons, Benjamin, 
 the ‘ son of his right hand,’ should settle 
 in a country where the dynasty seemed 
 at length established, through the recent 
 
 Office in East Chapel Street, Mayfair, the name of Lord 
 Beaconsfield is entered as ‘aged 76,’ which makes the year 
 of his birth 1805; but, on the other hand, the following 
 entry from the register of the synagogue in Bevis Marks is 
 too important to be ignored:— 
 
 Child's 
 
 Name. 
 
 Father’s 
 
 Name. 
 
 Mother’s 
 
 Name. 
 
 Surname. 
 
 Day in 
 Week of 
 Child's 
 Birth. 
 
 Jewish 
 
 Date. 
 
 Christian 
 
 Era. 
 
 Circum¬ 
 cised by 
 
 Attested 
 
 by 
 
 Benjamin. 
 
 Isaac. 
 
 Maria. 
 
 D’Israeli. 
 
 Friday. 
 
 19 Tehet, 
 5565. 
 
 21 
 
 December, 
 
 1804. 
 
 D. A. Lindo, 
 26 Tehet, 
 5565. 
 
 D. J. De 
 Castro. 
 
4 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 failure of Prince Charles Edward, and 
 where public opinion appeared definitively 
 adverse to persecution on matters of creed 
 and conscience. 
 
 “ The Jewish families who were then 
 settled in England were few, though, from 
 their wealth and other circumstances, they 
 were far from unimportant. They were all 
 of them Sephardim, that is to say, children 
 of Israel, who had never quitted the shores 
 of the Midland Ocean until Torquemada 
 had driven them from their pleasant resi¬ 
 dences and rich estates in Arragon, and 
 Andalusia, and Portugal, to seek greater 
 blessings, even than a clear atmosphere and 
 a glowing sun, amid the marshes of Holland 
 and the fogs of Britain. Most of these 
 families, who held themselves aloof from 
 the Hebrews of northern Europe, then only 
 occasionally stealing into England, as from 
 an inferior caste, and whose synagogue was 
 reserved only for Sephardim,* are now ex¬ 
 tinct; while the branch of the great family, 
 which, notwithstanding their own sufferings 
 from prejudice, they had the hardihood to 
 look down upon, have achieved an amount 
 of wealth and consideration which the Seph¬ 
 ardim, even with the patronage of Mr. 
 Pelham, never could have contemplated. 
 Nevertheless, at the time when my grand¬ 
 father settled in England, and when Mr. 
 Pelham, who was very favourable to the 
 Jews, was Prime Minister, there might be 
 found, among other Jewish families flour¬ 
 ishing in this country, the Villa Reals, who 
 brought wealth to these shores almost as 
 great as their name, though that is the 
 second in Portugal, and who have twice 
 allied themselves with the English aris¬ 
 tocracy, the Medinas—the Laras, who were 
 our kinsmen—and the Mendez da Costas, 
 who, I believe, still exist. 
 
 * The Jews are divided into two religious communities— 
 the Ashkenasim or orthodox Jews, and the Sephardim , or 
 Spanish or Portuguese Jews. Both these communities are 
 distinct over the whole world. In the essentials of Judaism 
 they both agree, but in their ritual they slightly differ. In 
 England, since 1841, a third community has been estab¬ 
 lished, called the Reformed Jews, who deny the authority of 
 the Talmud, and acknowledge only one law—the sacred 
 volume of the Scriptures. 
 
 “Whether it were that my grandfather, on 
 his arrival, was not encouraged by those to 
 whom he had a right to look up,—which is 
 often our hard case in the outset of life,— 
 or whether he was alarmed at the unex¬ 
 pected consequences of Mr. Pelham’s favour¬ 
 able disposition to his countrymen in the 
 disgraceful repeal of the Jew Bill, which 
 occurred a very few years after his arrival 
 in this country, I know not; but certainly 
 he appears never to have cordially or inti¬ 
 mately mixed with his community. This 
 tendency to alienation was, no doubt, sub¬ 
 sequently encouraged by his marriage, which 
 took place in 1765. My grandmother, the 
 beautiful daughter of a family who had 
 suffered much from persecution, had im¬ 
 bibed 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 recognized not in the ignorant 
 malevolence of the powerful, but in the 
 conscientious conviction of the innocent 
 sufferer. Seventeen years, however, elapsed 
 before my grandfather entered into this 
 union, and during that interval he had not 
 been idle. He was only eighteen when he 
 commenced his career, and when a great 
 responsibility devolved upon him. He was 
 not unequal to it. He was a man of ardent 
 character; sanguine, courageous, specula¬ 
 tive, and fortunate; with a temper which 
 no disappointment could disturb, and a 
 brain, amid reverses, full of resource. He 
 made his fortune in the midway of life, and 
 settled near Enfield, where he formed an 
 Italian garden, entertained his friends, 
 played whist with Sir Horace Mann, who 
 was his great acquaintance, and who had 
 known his brother at Venice as a banker, 
 eat macaroni which was dressed by the 
 Venetian consul, sang canzonettas, and not¬ 
 withstanding a wife who never pardoned 
 him for his name, and a son who disap¬ 
 pointed all his plans, and who to the last 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 5 
 
 hour of his life was an enigma to him, lived 
 till lie was nearly ninety, and then died in 
 1817, in the full enjoyment of prolonged 
 existence.” 
 
 This son “ who disappointed all his plans” 
 was Isaac Disraeli, the author of “ Curiosities 
 of Literature ” and other works enjoying a 
 considerable reputation in their day, but 
 which they have since been unable to 
 sustain. He appears, from the account 
 furnished us by his son, to have been a 
 somewhat moody recluse, with all the ab¬ 
 sent and unpractical habits of the typical 
 man of letters. “ He was,” writes Mr. 
 Disraeli,. “ a complete literary character, a 
 man who really passed his life in his library. 
 Even marriage produced no change in these 
 habits; he rose to enter the chamber where 
 he lived alone with his books, and at night 
 his lamp was ever lit within the same walls. 
 Nothing, indeed, was more remarkable than 
 the isolation of this prolonged existence; 
 and it could only be accounted for by the 
 united influence of three causes: his birth, 
 which brought him no relations or family 
 acquaintance, the bent of his disposition, 
 and the circumstance of his inheriting an 
 independent fortune, which rendered un¬ 
 necessary those exertions that would have 
 broken up his self-reliance. He disliked 
 business, and he never required relaxation; 
 he was absorbed in his pursuits. In Lon¬ 
 don his only amusement was to ramble 
 among bookseller's; if he entered a club, it 
 was only to go into the library. In the 
 country, he scarcely ever left his room but 
 to saunter in abstraction upon a terrace, 
 muse over a chapter, or coin a sentence. 
 He had not a single passion or prejudice: 
 all his convictions were the result of his 
 own studies, and were often opposed to the 
 impressions which he had early imbibed. 
 He not only never entered into the politics 
 of the day, but he could never understand 
 them. He never was connected with any 
 particular body or set of men, comrades of 
 school or college, or confederates in that 
 public life which, in England, is, perhaps, 
 the only foundation of real friendship. In 
 
 the consideration of a question, his mind 
 was quite undisturbed by traditionary pre¬ 
 conceptions ; and it was this exemption 
 from passion and prejudice which, although 
 his intelligence was naturally somewhat too 
 ingenious and fanciful for the conduct of 
 close argument, enabled him, in investiga¬ 
 tion, often to show many of the highest 
 attributes of the judicial mind, and par¬ 
 ticularly to sum up evidence with singular 
 happiness and ability.” 
 
 Early in the year 1802 Isaac Disraeli 
 married a Miss Basevi, the sister of George 
 Basevi, the celebrated Jewish architect who 
 designed, amongst other erections, the Eitz- 
 william Museum at Cambridge, and the 
 Conservative Club in St. James’ Street. 
 Many distinguished men have been in¬ 
 debted in no small measure for the fame 
 they obtained in after life to the judicious 
 and sympathetic supervision of a mother of 
 a superior mental calibre; but Mrs. Disraeli, 
 it would appear, was an ordinary, com¬ 
 mon-place woman, whose character does 
 not call for any particular comment. 
 Her son, who talks much of the “philosophic 
 sweetness ” of the disposition of his father, 
 of his “ singular volubility,” his amiability, 
 his personal appearance, and the charms of 
 his conversation, scarcely alludes to the name 
 of his mother, which, we think, would not 
 have been the case (since it was characteris¬ 
 tic of the man not to be reticent concerning 
 his affection to those to whom he was 
 attached) had she exercised any great in¬ 
 fluence upon his career. Of this marriage 
 four children were the result. Sarah, the 
 only daughter, was born December 6, 1802; 
 Benjamin, the late earl of Beaconsfield, as 
 we have said, December 21, 1804; Balph, 
 in 1809; and James, in 1813. Modern 
 Judaism, lacking its sacred Temple, and 
 consequently deprived of the very vitality of 
 its religion—the sacrificial system—is fast 
 losing its distinctive characteristics; it is 
 gradually developing into a deism, differing 
 only from pure deism inasmuch as it is 
 warped and coloured by the prejudices of 
 race. The modern Jew, cultivated and un- 
 
6 
 
 THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 restricted, chooses the profession he thinks 
 most suited to his abilities, rises rapidly in 
 it, and mixes freely, if it will permit 
 him, with the society of the country 
 of his adoption. The precepts of the 
 Talmud and the lore of the rabbis sit 
 lightly upon him, and save when, owing to 
 the result of hereditary influences, he ob¬ 
 serves in all its strictness the solemn day of 
 atonement, he seldom enters his synagogue. 
 He lives very much as those who are of a 
 different faith around him; the particular 
 precepts, which enjoin him to eschew certain 
 articles of food, and the dishes prepared 
 by those not of his own race, are far more 
 honoured in the breach than in the observ¬ 
 ance ; if his affections are engaged, and 
 such union is calculated to advance his 
 social interests, he marries a dame who 
 worships the hated Christ of his ancestors; 
 he changes his name if the patronymic be 
 gratingly Hebraic; and if nature had not 
 stamped them indelibly upon the physiog¬ 
 nomy of his race, he would have no objec¬ 
 tion to change his features. Were it not 
 for the peculiar cast of countenance which 
 proclaims his nationality, one would not, 
 from the circumstances of his life, the ten¬ 
 dencies of his opinions, or the maintenance 
 of his establishment, look upon him as being 
 in any way different from his neighbours. 
 Modern Judaism is now but a mechanical 
 creed, and, since its animating spirit is 
 extinct, it cannot be expected to possess 
 much influence upon its followers. It has 
 lost much, and is daily losing more, of its 
 hold upon its people. To its ethnological 
 character, and not to its religious, Judaism 
 owes its continued existence. 
 
 Isaac Disraeli, a man of culture and re¬ 
 search, was a Jew only in name. The 
 legends of the Talmud, the absurd cere¬ 
 monies commanded by the synagogue on 
 certain special occasions, and the restric¬ 
 tions as to diet, ablutions, and service 
 imposed upon a nation no longer secluded 
 and excluded, were eminently distasteful to 
 his intelligence and to the philosophical 
 liberality of his sentiments. He gradually 
 
 alienated himself from those of his own 
 faith. “ It is evident,” he wrote, as an ex¬ 
 cuse for severing himself from the religious 
 services of his people, “to all men but 
 Hebrews, who still cling to the ignorant 
 pride of a semi-civilized race, that a con¬ 
 siderable portion of the Mosaic code could 
 not be designed for perpetuity, but was ac¬ 
 commodated to immediate purposes. Many 
 laws, therefore, have fallen extinct with 
 their objects. The motives which induced 
 Moses to forbid the eating of pork, of shell¬ 
 fish, and other aliments, no longer prevail 
 in another climate, and among a race who 
 are not idolaters. Ordinances relating to 
 the seven Canaanitish nations could only 
 be absolute while those hordes existed. 
 Customs of the East, prescribed as religious 
 rites—frequent ablutions, and living in 
 bowery tabernacles in the chill of autumn 
 —would not have been commanded in the 
 cold or even in the temperate zones. The 
 laws are not perpetual which relate to 
 certain contagious maladies which have 
 disappeared, while other prevalent diseases 
 have arisen, for which Moses could provide 
 no laws. Would the Hebrew at this day 
 inflict punishments peculiar to the East be¬ 
 cause they are decreed by the Mosaic code ? 
 The whole constitution of Israel has passed 
 away; the sacrifice and the sacrificer have 
 vanished; the altar sunk with the throne. 
 A conquered people ridiculously exist, as if 
 they were in a state independent, amidst 
 the miseries and degradations of twenty cen¬ 
 turies.” Maintaining these views, it was in¬ 
 evitable that disputes should arise between 
 Isaac Disraeli and the leading members of his 
 faith. As a man of distinction among his 
 set, he was elected to fill the post of warden 
 of the Bevis Marks synagogue; he declined 
 the honour in, it must be admitted, a singu¬ 
 larly offensive and irritating letter; he was 
 fined, and he refused to pay the fine; then 
 to complete the separation he wrote that he 
 was “under the painful necessity” of taking 
 his name off the list of contributing members 
 to the synagogue. Meanwhile, he had so far 
 conformed to the discipline of his church as 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 7 
 
 to allow his children to undergo that pecu¬ 
 liar operation, which is, not to jar upon 
 ears polite, called the “ initiatory Abra- 
 hamic rite.”* From recent investigations 
 made by the curious, we learn that Benjamin 
 Disraeli was circumcised by one Daniel Abar- 
 banel Lindo, a connection of the family, and 
 a Portuguese merchant of high standing. 
 
 Shortly after resigning his member¬ 
 ship as one of the congregation of Bevis 
 Marks synagogue, Isaac Disraeli, at the in¬ 
 stigation, it is alleged, of Samuel Bogers, the 
 poet, gave his consent to his son Benjamin 
 being admitted into the Christian church. 
 The following entry can be seen on the bap¬ 
 tismal register of St. Andrew’s, Holborn:— 
 
 “ Entry of Baptism, S? Andrew’s, Holborn. 
 July 31, 1817 —Benjamin, s d to be about twelve 
 years old, son of Isaac and Maria D’lsraeli (former 
 described as gentleman), residing at King’s R d — 
 Officiating clergyman, Rev. J. Thimbleby.” 
 
 The author of the “Curiosities of Litera¬ 
 ture” was at that time living in King’s Road, 
 Bedford Row, in order to be near the library 
 of the British Museum, which he then con¬ 
 stantly frequented for the better prosecution 
 of the literary pursuits in which he was en¬ 
 gaged. On the death of his father, Isaac 
 Disraeli succeeded to a comfortable fortune, 
 and, being now in good circumstances, re¬ 
 moved to a house in the then not unfashion¬ 
 able quarter of Bloomsbury Square. Here 
 he remained during the years 1817-25, when 
 he became the proprietor of a small country 
 seat in Buckinghamshire, “the county of 
 statesmen ”*(• — the Bradenham House so 
 familiar to all who have read the early pam- 
 
 * The second of the 613 Precepts which all Jewish children, 
 between six and seven years of age, have to commit to 
 memory, as a thorough knowledge of these is considered to 
 be a key to the Oral Law, commands all Hebrews “ To cir¬ 
 cumcise male children on the eighth day after their birth; for 
 it is written, ‘ This is my covenant which ye shall keep be¬ 
 tween me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man child 
 among you shall be circumcised .”’—Genesis xvii. 10. 
 
 f “ The county of Buckinghamshire has supplied this house 
 with a series of statesmen than whom no body of men have 
 more contributed to create the empire, sustain the renown, 
 and cherish the high spirit of the English people. You may 
 smile, remembering only the uninfluential person who now 
 addresses you; but I was thinking of those days when the 
 county of Buckingham gave to the House of Commons Mr. 
 Hampden and the Grenvilles, the elder Pitt and Mr. Burke.” 
 —Speech of Mr. Disraeli on National Representation , 
 June 20, 1848. 
 
 phlets and election addressesot “Disraeli the 
 younger.” He died January 19,1848, after 
 attaining to the ripe old age of eighty-two. 
 On a little hill near Hughenden Manor a 
 column has been erected to his memory, 
 which bears this inscription:— 
 
 “ In memory of Isaac Disraeli, of Bradenham 
 House, in this county, Esquire, and Honorary 
 D.C.L. of the University of Oxford, who, by his 
 happy genius, diffused amongst the multitude that 
 elevating taste for literature which, before his 
 time, was the privilege only of the learned. This 
 monument was erected by Mary Anne, the wife 
 of his eldest son, the Right Honourable B. Dis¬ 
 raeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1852, 1858-9, 
 Lord of this Manor, and now for the sixth time 
 Knight of this Shire.” 
 
 We have entered into some detail with 
 regard to the parentage of the illustrious 
 statesman who is the subject of this political 
 biography, because we have always consid¬ 
 ered that to the peculiar circumstances of 
 his birth much of the strength and a little 
 of those weaknesses conspicuous in his 
 character and career can be traced. The 
 mental constitution of Benjamin Disraeli 
 was in all its characteristics essentially 
 Hebraic, and only on those few occasions 
 when his acts and aspirations had been 
 tempered and repressed by the influences 
 of a polished Western civilization, did it 
 partake of the English nature. He had 
 that intense individuality peculiar to the 
 Hebrews, which made every question he 
 took up especially his own, and of setting 
 it—witness his teaching as to the Venetian 
 constitution and parliamentary reform— 
 in an entirely new light. He held that 
 the progress of human affairs was almost 
 exclusively influenced by the characters of 
 individual men, and little by the operation 
 of those general laws in which the author 
 of the “History of Civilization” was so 
 firm a believer. “ Everywhere,” he writes 
 in “ Coningsby,” “ you see the influence of 
 the individual. God made man in His 
 own image; but the public is made by 
 newspapers, members of parliament, excise 
 officers, poor law guardians. Would Philip 
 have succeeded if Epaminondas had not 
 
8 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 been slain? And if Philip had not suc¬ 
 ceeded? Would Prussia have existed had 
 Frederick not been born? And if Frederick 
 had not been born? What would have 
 been the fate of the Stuarts if Prince 
 Henry had not died, and Charles I., as 
 was intended, had been Archbishop of 
 Canterbury? 5 ’ 
 
 In this teaching we plainly see the 
 influence of his Hebrew origin. At no 
 time had the various forms of unbelief, now 
 so fashionable in intellectual quarters, any 
 attractions for him: he was always, as he 
 frankly admitted, “ on the side of the 
 angels.” He never doubted the reality of 
 the Jewish theocracy; he was a firm be¬ 
 liever in the divinity of the dispensation 
 which succeeded it. The most bigoted Jew 
 could not have been more impressed with 
 the conviction that “ the world had from 
 time to time been under the immediate and 
 direct government of the Supreme Being, 
 holding personal communication with His 
 earthly representatives, and investing them 
 with power to control the march of events 
 and to mould the destinies of mankind.” 
 Like the prophets of old he believed he was 
 under the especial protection of the Most 
 High, and that it was his mission to regene¬ 
 rate the condition of his country. With 
 the intense egotism and self-reliance of the 
 Hebrew, he believed in himself and in the 
 superiority of the race from which he was 
 sprung. Unlike many men of his own 
 nationality, who, when they have attained 
 to fame, carefully shun all allusions to their 
 origin, Benjamin Disraeli gave every pro¬ 
 minence to the fact. It was his belief in 
 his race that made him believe in himself; it 
 was because he could lay claims to a descent 
 which made the pedigree of the proudest 
 Norman baron but a creation of yesterday, 
 that rendered him superior to all feelings of 
 social inferiority, and caused him to regard 
 his position as the political leader of the 
 English gentry as one which he was fully 
 entitled to hold. He who led an exclusive 
 order must himself belong to an exclusive 
 order. A man who was of the same family 
 
 to which it had pleased the Son of God, in 
 His infinite condescension, to attach Him¬ 
 self, had no reason to be ashamed of his 
 birth, or to yield precedence to the haugh¬ 
 tiest English peer.* The Jews only,- 
 according to Benjamin Disraeli, can mark 
 out a lineage which, in its original history, 
 is without a parallel. Speaking through 
 the fictitious Sidonia (supposed to be a 
 portrait of himself, and the expounder of 
 his own views) in his novel of “ Coningsby,” 
 he thus eloquently discourses upon his fa¬ 
 vourite topic:—“Sidonia was well aware that 
 in the five great varieties into which physi¬ 
 ology has divided the human species—to wit, 
 the Caucasian, the Mongolian, the Malayan, 
 the American, the Ethiopian—the Arabian 
 tribes rank in the first and superior class, 
 together, among others, with the Saxon and 
 the Greek. This fact alone is a source of 
 great pride and satisfaction to the animal 
 Man. But Sidonia and his brethren could 
 claim a distinction which the Saxon and 
 the Greek, and the rest of the Caucasian 
 nations, have forfeited. The Hebrew is an 
 unmixed race. Doubtless, among the tribes 
 who inhabit the bosom of the Desert, pro¬ 
 genitors alike of the Mosaic and the 
 Mohammedan Arabs, blood may be. found 
 as pure as that of the descendants of the 
 Scheik Abraham. But the Mosaic Arabs 
 are the most ancient, if not the only, un¬ 
 mixed blood that dwells in cities. “An 
 
 * It was surely from no feeling of false shame as to his 
 name and origin that prompted him to insert the following 
 clause in his will. He had no desire, like many a modern 
 Jew, who hopes by calling himself Howard, or Cholmondeley, 
 or Buckingham de Bohun, to hide his nationality, that the 
 name of Disraeli should be lost in that of Beaconsfield:— 
 “Provided always, and I hereby expressly declare it as my 
 wish, although I abstain from attaching any penalty to the 
 non-performance of this direction, that every person who 
 under this my will shall become entitled as tenant for life 
 or as tenant in tail male to the actual possession, or to the 
 receipt of the rents and profits of the said premises (the 
 manor of Hughenden) hereinbefore devised in strict settle¬ 
 ment, and who shall not then use and bear the surname ol 
 Disraeli, shall within one year after he or she shall become 
 so entitled; and also that every person whom any woman so 
 becoming entitled shall marry, shall within one year aftei 
 such woman shall so become entitled or shall marry, which¬ 
 ever of such events shall last happen (unless in the said 
 respective cases any such person shall be prevented by 
 death), take upon himself or herself, and use in all deeds 
 and writings which he or she shall sign, and upon occa¬ 
 sions the surname of Disraeli only , and not together with 
 his or her own family surname .” 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 9 
 
 unmixed race of a first-rate organization are 
 the aristocracy of Nature. Such excellence 
 is a positive fact; not an imagination, a cere¬ 
 mony, coined by poets, blazoned by cozen¬ 
 ing heralds, but perceptible in its physical 
 advantages, and in the vigour of its unsullied 
 idiosyncrasy. In his comprehensive travels, 
 Sidoniahad visited and examined the Hebrew 
 communities of the world. He had found, 
 in general, the lower orders debased, the 
 superior immersed in sordid pursuits; but 
 he perceived that the intellectual develop¬ 
 ment was not impaired. This gave him 
 hope. He was persuaded that organization 
 would outlive persecution. When he re¬ 
 flected on what they had endured, it was 
 only marvellous that the race had not 
 disappeared. They had defied exile, mas¬ 
 sacre, spoliation, the degrading influence of 
 the constant pursuit of gain; they had 
 defied Time. For nearly 3000 years, ac¬ 
 cording to Archbishop Usher, they have 
 been dispersed over the globe. To the 
 unpolluted current of their Caucasian 
 structure, and to the segregating genius of 
 their great Lawgiver, Sidonia ascribed the 
 fact that they had not been long ago ab¬ 
 sorbed among those mixed races, who pre¬ 
 sume to persecute them, but who periodically 
 wear away and disappear, while their victims 
 still flourish in all the primeval vigour of 
 the pure Asian breed.” 
 
 We can remember the wit and humour 
 with which this theory of the “ Asian mys¬ 
 tery” was received. Yet the laugh has not 
 been exactly on our side. The apostle has 
 proved the truth of his own teaching in his 
 own person by a success which has never 
 before fallen to the lot of a statesman in 
 this country, whilst his theory is on all sides 
 being most fully exemplified. Everywhere 
 the Jew faces his fellow man, and he 
 not only works his way to the front, but 
 often stands a full head and shoulders above 
 the rest of the crowd. Admitted, as it were, 
 but yesterday to the bar, he is in the first 
 rank as counsel: second to none in eloquence, 
 in the lore of jurisprudence, and in the skill 
 of the consummate advocate. The realms of 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 finance have always been his especial do¬ 
 minion ; but never has he occupied so power¬ 
 ful a position as at the present day. He holds 
 empires in pawn, and, by a wish to realize 
 his possessions, could reduce half a continent 
 to bankruptcy. His civil disabilities re¬ 
 moved, he becomes a legislator distinguished 
 by his ready gift of debate, or a magistrate 
 conspicuous for his tact and common sense. 
 Music and song and the drama have been so 
 eminently the monopoly of the Hebrew race, 
 that no one is surprised at a great composer 
 or a great actress or a prima donna of 
 European celebrity being of Jewish descent. 
 In art, in science, in literature, the despised 
 Hebrew is again among the most gifted in 
 his profession. Whatever department is 
 open to him, his success in it is so remark¬ 
 able as to make him one of the conspicuous. 
 When the field of his intellect was limited 
 to medicine and finance, he rose till he could 
 rise no higher; and now that the world closes 
 none of its avenues at his approach, the 
 talents which made him attain distinction, 
 when under persecution, render the career 
 he selects in this age of his toleration seldom 
 a failure. 
 
 Nor is the Hebrew race deficient in other 
 qualities which are prominently brought out 
 in the career of the late Earl of Beaconsfield. 
 From the earliest times the diplomacy of 
 statesmanship has been the favourite exer¬ 
 cise of the cultivated Jew. Facts fully sup¬ 
 port this assertion. The counsellor to the 
 Saracen king of Granada was Samuel Levi, 
 a Jewish rabbi. The prime minister of 
 Alphonso VIII. was one named Joseph, a 
 Jew. The ambassador from Charlemagne to 
 Haroun Alraschid was Isaac, a Jew. The 
 chief minister of Louis le D^bonnaire was 
 Zedekiah, a Jew. Don Isaac Abarbanel and 
 Manasseh Ben Israel, world-wide politicians 
 in their day, were also Jews. Again, glanc¬ 
 ing at the statesmen of modern times—at 
 Mendizabel and Castelar in Spain; at Cre- 
 mieux, Simon, Fould, and Gambetta in 
 France; at Assur in Holland; at Daniel 
 Manin and Artom in Italy; at Jacoby and 
 others in Germany—we find them all men 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of Hebrew lineage. It is not, therefore, sur¬ 
 prising that, with these examples confront¬ 
 ing him, the study of politics should have 
 exercised a powerful fascination over the 
 mind of Benjamin Disraeli. He had all the 
 gifts—many of them in a marked degree, 
 the characteristic of the Hebrew mind— 
 calculated to lead a man on to success in 
 parliamentary life. He was original, and 
 stamped his originality upon all that he did, 
 and in the end his views, no matter the 
 opposition they had at first encountered, 
 were generally accepted. When he entered 
 parliament, he attached himself to neither 
 party; he never had any sympathy with 
 Whiggism; he did not represent Tory 
 traditions as they were then understood; 
 he was never a Radical nor a Peelite. He 
 was throughout his career essentially him¬ 
 self ; he made his own party, he made his 
 own position, and he restored and reani¬ 
 mated an extinct creed. He saw instinc¬ 
 tively the course the Tory party should 
 adopt if it ever wished to regain its old 
 ascendancy in the country; and he watched 
 and waited; then taught and brought into 
 unity a scattered following, until the end he 
 set before him had been attained, and the 
 doctrines he advanced had been fully re¬ 
 ceived. Like his favourite hero, Boling- 
 broke, he settled the confused and discordant 
 materials of English faction, and reduced 
 them into a clear and systematic order. 
 
 “ There are few positions less inspiriting 
 than that of the leader of a discomfited 
 party/’ writes Mr. Disraeli, after praising 
 the dignified conduct of Lord John Russell 
 at a time when the Whigs were in a forlorn 
 minority. “ The labours and anxieties of a 
 minister or of his rival on the contested 
 threshold of office may be alleviated by the 
 exercise or sustained by the anticipation 
 of power; both are surrounded by eager, 
 anxious, excited, perhaps enthusiastic ad¬ 
 herents. There is sympathy, appreciation, 
 prompt counsel, profuse assistance. But he 
 who in the parliamentary field watches 
 over the fortunes of routed troops, must be 
 prepared to sit often alone. Few care to 
 
 share the labour which is doomed to be 
 fruitless, and none are eager to diminish 
 the responsibility of him whose course, 
 however adroit, must necessarily be in¬ 
 effectual. Nor can a man of sensibility in 
 such a post easily obviate these discourage¬ 
 ments. It is ungracious to appeal to the 
 grey-headed to toil for a harvest which they 
 may probably never reap, and scarcely less 
 painful to call upon glittering youth to sac¬ 
 rifice its rosy hours for a result as remote 
 as the experience in which it does not 
 believe. Adversity is necessarily not a 
 sanguine season, and in this respect a poli¬ 
 tical party is no exception to all other 
 human combinations. In doors and out of 
 doors a disheartened opposition will be 
 querulous and captious. A discouraged 
 multitude have no future; too depressed to 
 indulge in a large and often hopeful horizon 
 of contemplation, they busy themselves in 
 peevish detail, and by a natural train of 
 sentiment associate their own conviction 
 of ill-luck, incapacity, and failure, with 
 the most responsible member of their con¬ 
 federation : while all this time inexorable 
 duty demands, or rather that honour which 
 is the soul of public life, that he should be 
 as vigilant, as laborious, should exercise as 
 complete a control over his intelligence and 
 temper, should be as prompt to represent 
 their principles in debate, and as patient 
 and as easy of access in private conference, 
 should be as active and as thoughtful, as if 
 he were sustained by all that encourages 
 exertion—the approbation of the good and 
 the applause of the wise.” 
 
 When the writer penned these lines, can 
 we doubt but that he was drawing upon 
 his own reminiscences when he was himself 
 the head of a discomfited and disorganized 
 party, and essaying all his arts to cheer it on 
 to union and to victory ? And throughout 
 that terrible uphill struggle, how Hebraic 
 were his tenacity of perseverance, his single¬ 
 ness of purpose, his apparent insensibility 
 to the most malignant opposition, his 
 splendid patience, his Heine-like wit which 
 seldom shot its barbed arrows with- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 11 
 
 out effect, his discipline, his dexterity, his 
 strategy, and the power which dominates 
 over all prejudices, and not only makes 
 itself felt but makes itself indispensable! 
 Against the apparently insurmountable 
 obstacles which Mr. Disraeli during the 
 earlier years of his parliamentary career 
 had to encounter, the English genius—cold 
 yet impatient, brave yet sensitive, fearing 
 ridicule, with no eye for the unravelling 
 of complications, lacking the instincts of 
 generalship, easily wounded, easily de¬ 
 pressed—would have retired a hundred 
 times in despair, and have abandoned the 
 conflict. It wanted the man full of self- 
 reliance, blunted to external reproaches by 
 the consciousness of intellectual superiority, 
 accustomed to difficulties and opposition as 
 the scion of a persecuted house, with the here¬ 
 ditary tact and disciplined self-control born 
 of oppression long patiently endured; it 
 wanted the diplomatic instincts, the clear, 
 hard judgment never intoxicated by victory, 
 never confused by defeat; it wanted, in 
 fine, the man of infinite resources, and 
 these were found in ample measure in Ben¬ 
 jamin Disraeli, the Hebrew. It is but a poor 
 set off against these brilliant Oriental gifts, 
 to twit their possessor for those little weak¬ 
 nesses which were as much the consequence 
 of his Jewish descent as were the vitality 
 of his intellect and the tenacity of his 
 purpose—his avowed love for pomp and 
 splendour, his thirsting after the marvel¬ 
 lous, his Chatham-like taste for theatrical 
 effect, his somewhat ignoble appreciation of 
 the refinements of civilization, his “Hounds- 
 ditch dreams ” of lofty rank, costly finery, 
 blazing jewels, and the gorgeous generally. 
 Whatever were his faults, he stands out 
 against the canvas of history as one of the 
 most brilliant individualities that has ever 
 impassioned political warfare, and led and 
 controlled the government of a country. 
 
 Of the earlier years of Benjamin Disraeli 
 little is known, and since even the slight 
 information we possess does not bear upon 
 his political conduct, we shall content our¬ 
 selves with but briefly alluding to the events 
 
 that occurred during the interval between 
 his birth and his first appearance in the 
 House of Commons. It may gratify the 
 malevolence of the divine disappointed in 
 not obtaining the preferment he expected, 
 of the suppliant gentleman of the press 
 whose “claims on the party” have been 
 ignored, of the mercenaries of the “vaga¬ 
 bond population ” of the Lower House et hoc 
 genus omne , to vent their spite upon the 
 eminent statesman who has lately passed 
 from us, by distorting facts and manipulat¬ 
 ing statements so as to render the object of 
 their hate—a hate the keener since it failed 
 to wound—ridiculous and contemptible; but 
 good taste, if no warmer feeling, bids us 
 remember the kindly remark of Archbishop 
 Tillotson, “ If we can say no good of a man 
 let us be silent, unless it becomes absolutely 
 necessary for us to speak the evil.” In deal¬ 
 ing with the political conduct of a public 
 man we have no concern here with private 
 matters. We know that Mr. Disraeli was 
 not sent to a public school, and that he was 
 not entered at either of our universities ; 
 he is, however, not the only English states¬ 
 man who has been bereft of these early 
 advantages. In the hot days of youth he 
 no doubt led the ordinary life of the gallant, 
 whose passions are stronger than his prin¬ 
 ciples ; let malice make the most of it; also 
 let him who is without sin cast the first 
 stone. He contracted a few debts, and the 
 fact has been diligently raked up, and 
 spitefully commented upon. Is he the only 
 youthful politician w r ho has been dunned ? 
 Were Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, Mirabeau, always 
 solvent ? 
 
 Still, about this early period of his 
 history much exaggeration has been in¬ 
 dulged in. When Lord Eldon, who was 
 the son of a coal agent, was first promoted 
 to the serene heights of the woolsack, his 
 enemies loved to allude to him as the off¬ 
 spring of a coal heaver; he being no more 
 the son of a coal heaver than is the son of 
 a brewer the son of a publican. In the 
 same malignant fashion the enemies of 
 Benjamin Disraeli have loved to draw 
 
12 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 attention to the various disadvantages 
 under which he, at the commencement of 
 his political career, is alleged to have so 
 painfully laboured. As a plain matter of 
 fact he was far from having been severely 
 handicapped in an ordinary race for honour 
 and promotion. He was not the first man 
 of Jewish origin who had obtained a seat 
 in the House of Commons, and therefore 
 the fact of his being of alien birth, and of 
 having once been attached to an alien 
 creed, was not in itself an obstacle that 
 others before him had not surmounted. 
 Had he not, to his honour be it said, 
 brought his birth so prominently forward 
 on every occasion ; had he attached himself 
 to the Radical party; had he prided himself 
 upon being sprung from the people; had 
 he become the chief even of a Radical 
 cabinet—if he had done these things, it is 
 probable that his Hebrew descent would 
 scarcely have drawn forth a sneer, though 
 his career, eminently distinguished of course 
 as it would have been, would yet have 
 been deprived of those features which ren¬ 
 dered it so unique and so brilliant. Thiers 
 the son of the locksmith, Gambetta the 
 son of the clothier, Abraham Lincoln the 
 labouring man, have all sprung from a 
 lower social level than Mr. Disraeli, yet 
 malice has been fairly silent as to their 
 humble origin; for it is a graceful compli¬ 
 ment to the order of things that under a 
 republican form of government a son of 
 the people should aspire after, and should 
 attain to, its highest post. It' is not a 
 matter for supreme surprise that Mr. 
 Disraeli should have become a prominent 
 member of parliament, or should have 
 developed into a prime minister; but it is 
 a marvellous tribute to his genius that he, 
 of foreign blood and once an acreless man, 
 should have been the accepted and the 
 absolute leader of the English gentry and 
 the English aristocracy. The Napoleons, 
 charmed they never so wisely, were power¬ 
 less to gain over the Faubourg St. Germain. 
 
 Much, too, has been said bv the enemies 
 of Mr. Disraeli of the social slights and 
 
 pecuniary distresses which were his lot at 
 the outset of his career. Here, again, malice 
 has usurped the place of truth. Mr. Isaac 
 Disraeli was a well-known man of letters, 
 in the enjoyment of excellent private means, 
 moving in the best society, and acquainted 
 with most of the celebrities of his day. His 
 son, at a time when many young men were 
 busy working for their degrees at the uni¬ 
 versities, was one of the most conspicuous 
 dandies of the day, and the pet of several 
 dames of the highest fashion. His name 
 was constantly to be met with in the as¬ 
 semblies of the great; and the “ intelligent 
 foreigner ” who visited our shores regarded 
 him as so much of a personage as to describe 
 with no little elaboration both his appear¬ 
 ance and conversation. Had Mr. Disraeli 
 come upon the London world some thirty 
 years before he did, he was just the man 
 for the second Pitt to have taken by the hand 
 and to have ushered him, through the con¬ 
 venient system of a nomination borough, 
 into the House of Commons. So much for 
 his having been a “pariah,” a “pauper,” a 
 “ needy adventurer,” a miserable snob, who 
 “drew pictures, from his imagination and 
 not from his experience,” of a society into 
 which he had never entered! Nor was he 
 ever “ a copying clerk ” in a lawyer’s office. 
 At an early age he had been articled—as 
 many a young man of good birth is at the 
 present day articled—to a respectable firm 
 of solicitors; but finding the law not to his 
 taste, he soon quitted legal practices for the 
 calling for which he felt himself more 
 especially suited. * 
 
 We are told that men in whom the 
 
 * A correspondent writes to the Tunes, April 29, 1881 : 
 —“ I have just ferreted out the only official record of the 
 entry of Mr. Disraeli into public life, and it may be a fitting 
 pendant to the account of his quitting it. It is his ‘appren¬ 
 ticeship indenture’ (recorded No. 2,953 of the old King’s 
 Bench of 1821) in the usual manner, with an affidavit of the 
 execution. The date is the 10th of November, 1821, between 
 Isaac D’lsraeli, Esquire, of Bloomsbury Square, Benjamin 
 D’lsraeli, his son, and William Stevens, solicitor, of Frederick 
 Place (Swain, Stevens, & Co.) whereby the son was placed 
 for five years as clerk to learn, &c., in the usual form, to 
 become an attorney of the Court of King’s Bench and a soli¬ 
 citor of the Court of Chancery.’ The deed was executed by 
 all three parties, verified by the usual affidavit, filed on the 
 13th of November, and enrolled ” 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 13 
 
 workings of genius are strong, predict the 
 future they are one day to command. The 
 child we know is father of the man, and 
 the subjects which gravely interest his 
 youth often compel him on to that after study 
 which secures fame for his ripening years. 
 Tt is said that Petrarch, when a boy, was 
 ever beating a retreat to silent haunts in 
 order to scribble sonnets to certain of his 
 gentler playmates. The early days of Sir 
 Joshua Reynolds were spent, much to his 
 father’s disapproval, in sketching the faces 
 of the different visitors who called at the 
 house. Bacon, when scarcely out of the 
 nursery, was so noted for thoughtful obser¬ 
 vation, that Queen Elizabeth nicknamed 
 him “the young Lord Keeper.” Some of 
 the finest passages of Racine were composed 
 when the future poet was but a pupil at 
 Port Royal. Milton has sung to us in 
 memorable verse what were his aspirations 
 as a lad:— 
 
 When I was yet a child, no childish play 
 
 To me was pleasing: all my mind was set 
 
 Serious to learn and know, and thence to do 
 
 What might be public good; myself I thought 
 
 Born to that end, born to promote all truth, 
 
 All righteous things. 
 
 Similar indications of decided predilec¬ 
 tion young Disraeli was now to exhibit. 
 Literature, e-specially the literature which 
 dealt with political combinations and party 
 intrigues, was his favourite study. “Trained 
 from early childhood by learned men, who 
 did not share the passions and prejudices of 
 our political and social life,” he writes, “I 
 imbibed on some subjects conclusions dif¬ 
 ferent from those which generally prevail, 
 and especially with reference to our own 
 country. How an oligarchy had been sub¬ 
 stituted for a kingdom, and a narrow¬ 
 minded and bigoted fanaticism flourished 
 in the name of religious liberty, were 
 problems long to me insoluble, hut which 
 early interested me. But what most at¬ 
 tracted my musing, even as a hoy, were the 
 elements of our political parties, and the 
 strange mystification by which that which 
 was national in its constitution had become 
 
 odious, and that which was exclusive was 
 presented as popular.” With brilliant wit, 
 but with the flippancy of audacious youth, 
 he embodied certain of these views in his 
 well-known novel, “Vivian Grey,” which 
 appeared in 1826, and which took the 
 literary, political, and fashionable world by 
 storm. Its humorous gallery of portraits 
 of famous contemporaries, sketched with 
 all the epigram of Parisian wit, its daring 
 individuality, its cynical sentiments, its 
 thinly-veiled details of a scandal-loving age, 
 made it not only the rage of the season, but 
 of several seasons. It ran through numerous 
 editions, and is even now, though its pages 
 refer to a forgotten past, one of the best 
 read of the author’s productions. “ Vivian 
 Grey,” wrote Mr. Disraeli in 1870, “is 
 essentially a puerile work, but it has baffled 
 even the efforts of its creator to suppress 
 it. Its fate has been strange, and not the 
 least remarkable thing is, that forty-four 
 years after its first publication, I must ask 
 the indulgence of the reader for its con¬ 
 tinued and inevitable re-appearance.” It 
 has amused the peculiar malice of Mr. 
 Disraeli’s enemies to carefully collate the 
 most cynical and audacious passages in 
 “ Vivian Grey ” with certain passages in 
 the author’s private and political life, and 
 to prove that the witty, flippant romance is 
 not so much a novel as an autobiography. 
 Those who like to manufacture their premises, 
 and then to jump to their conclusions, may 
 perhaps consider such warped and strained 
 comparisons a profitable study; to us they 
 only appear as another instance of the 
 hatred, malice, and all-uncharitableness 
 which the career of Mr. Disraeli seems to 
 have excited in certain splenetic and dis¬ 
 appointed minds. One quotation we take 
 from the book, which may perhaps illus¬ 
 trate the ambition and promptings of its 
 author; at all events, if it has no bearing 
 upon his future career, the illustration is 
 not impertinent. “ It was one of the first 
 principles of Mr. Vivian Grey,” we read, 
 “ that everything was possible. Men did 
 fail in life, to be sure, and, after all, 
 
14 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 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 mind, and 
 so had long come to the comfortable con¬ 
 clusion that it was impossible that his 
 career could be anything but the most 
 brilliant.” 
 
 The popularity of the novel naturally led 
 its author to other literary enterprises. In 
 quick succession there proceeded from his 
 pen “The Voyage of Captain Popanilla,” a 
 satire on society and politics, written in 
 imitation of Swift, and full of humour and 
 biting sarcasm; “The Young Duke,” the 
 feeblest of his romances, and which provoked 
 his father to cry out when told of the book, 
 “Dukes, sir! what does my son know about 
 dukes ? he never saw one in his life! ” 
 “Alroy,” a tale of the twelfth century; 
 and “Contarini Fleming,” a physiological 
 romance purporting to be a study of the 
 development and formation of the poetic 
 character. Benjamin Disraeli was now, 
 though six-and-twenty, a well known man 
 of letters, and one of the “ curled darlings ” 
 in the circles presided over by Lady Bles- 
 sington and the handsome dandy, Count 
 D’Orsay. An American traveller, who 
 ill repaid the hospitalities he received, 
 by his offensive comments upon English 
 society, thus describes the young fashion¬ 
 able author:—“Disraeli,” he writes, “has 
 one of the most remarkable faces I ever 
 saw. His eye is black as Erebus, and has 
 the most mocking, lying-in-wait sort of 
 expression conceivable. His mouth is alive 
 with a kind of working and impatient nerv¬ 
 ousness, and when he has burst forth, as he 
 does constantly, with a perfectly successful 
 cataract of expression, it assumes a curl of 
 triumphant scorn that would be worthy a 
 Mephistopheles. A thick mass of jet-black 
 ringlets falls over his left cheek almost to 
 the collarless stock, while on the right 
 temple it is parted and put away with the 
 
 smooth carefulness of a girl’s. Patent 
 leather pumps, a white stick with black 
 cord and tassel, and a quantity of chains 
 about his neck and pockets, served to make 
 him a conspicuous object.” The biographer 
 of Lady Blessington writes of him in a more 
 complimentary strain. “Many years ago, 
 upwards of twenty,” he says, “ I frequently 
 met Mr. Disraeli in Seamore Place. It 
 needed no ghost from the grave to predi¬ 
 cate even then his success in public life. 
 Though in general society he was usually 
 silent and reserved, he was closely observ¬ 
 ant. It required generally a subject of 
 more than common interest to produce the 
 fitting degree of enthusiasm to stimulate 
 him into the exercise of his marvellous 
 powers of conversation. When duly ex¬ 
 cited, however, his command of language 
 was truly wonderful, his power of sarcasm 
 unsurpassed; the readiness of his wit, the 
 quickness of his perception, 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.” Indeed all who crossed 
 his path at this time predicted for “DTs- 
 raeli the younger,” as he preferred to call 
 himself and to spell his name, a brilliant 
 future. 
 
 In the earlier part of the year 1829, Ben¬ 
 jamin Disraeli started on an extensive tour 
 of eastern travel, halting for some time in 
 Constantinople, then wandering through 
 Egypt and Syria, and finally making a 
 pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The reminis¬ 
 cences of this tour are visible, as all readers 
 of his romances are aware, in his tale of 
 “Alroy,” which he published shortly after 
 his return home, and in his later and 
 far more finished novel, “Tancred.” In 
 common with most authors, Mr. Disraeli 
 broke out at one time of his life into verse, 
 and like most authors whose poetry has 
 failed to be appreciated, he considered his 
 poetical effusions as among his highest lite¬ 
 rary efforts. The first portion of the much- 
 derided “Revolutionary Epic” was given to 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 15 
 
 the world in 1834; though the sequel was 
 not published till 1864, it was, however, 
 begun in 1830. “It was on the plains of 
 Troy,” writes Mr. Disraeli in his preface to 
 his epic, which was henceforth, in his own 
 estimation, to take rank with the “Iliad,” the 
 “iEneid,” the “Divine Comedy,” and “Para¬ 
 dise Lost”—“It was on the plains of Troy that 
 I first conceived the idea of the work. Wan¬ 
 dering over that illustrious scene, surrounded 
 by the tombs of heroes and by the conflu¬ 
 ence of poetic streams, my musing thoughts 
 clustered round the memory of that immor¬ 
 tal song to which all creeds and countries 
 alike respond, which has vanquished chance 
 and defied time. Deeming myself, perhaps 
 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 that 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 embodied 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 ‘iEneid’ a poeti¬ 
 cal epick; the revival of learning and the 
 birth of vernacular 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 
 be uncelebrated? Standing upon Asia and 
 gazing upon Europe, with the broad Helles¬ 
 pont between us, and the shadow of night 
 descending on the mountains, these mighty 
 continents appeared to me, as it were, the 
 rival principles of government that at pre¬ 
 sent contested for the mastery of the world. 
 ‘What!’ I exclaimed, ‘is the revolution of 
 France a less important event than the siege 
 of Troy? Is Napoleon a less interesting 
 character than Achilles? For me remains 
 the Revolutionary Epick.’ ” 
 
 Our admiration of Mr. Disraeli’s literary 
 
 merits need not necessarily cloud our judg¬ 
 ment, or render us blind to common sense. 
 It must, therefore, candidly be admitted that 
 the “Revolutionary Epic” is a complete 
 failure: it is turgid, bombastic, and has 
 scarcely a line or thought deserving of the 
 name of poetry. 
 
 A grievous disappointment was now to 
 turn Benjamin Disraeli’s thoughts towards 
 the arena in which he was for nearly half a 
 century to exercise an influence which will 
 not cease with his death. He had published 
 “ Contarini Fleming ” anonymously, in 
 order to test the appreciative faculty of the 
 public, and it had fallen comparatively dead 
 from the press. “ Having written it with 
 deep thought and feeling,” he said, “ I was 
 naturally discouraged from further effort.” 
 Soured, and in something like a pet, he 
 resolved to abandon literature and betake 
 himself to the profession of politics. How 
 accidental are often the circumstances which 
 decide the whole future of a life, and lead 
 men on to a greatness they might not other¬ 
 wise have achieved! Had Handel followed 
 the study of civil law, as had been his first 
 intention, would music ever have possessed 
 his wondrous oratorios ? Had Smeaton 
 agreed to be articled to an attorney, would 
 he have been handed down to posterity as 
 one of the greatest of engineers? Had the 
 mill, in which Rembrandt was reared, been 
 lighted from the side instead of from the 
 top, would he have become known as the 
 master of that peculiar light and shade 
 which has made his name immortal? Had 
 Rousseau ever taken his seat at his father’s 
 cobbler’s stall, would literature have been 
 enriched by the “Confessions” and “ Emile?” 
 Had Hume been engaged in commerce, as 
 his father desired, would he have become 
 famous as a historian ? Had Turner ac¬ 
 cepted the terms of a barber’s apprentice, 
 would critics now worship him as the 
 Shakspeare of English landscape painters ? 
 And had Benjamin Disraeli not been dis¬ 
 appointed by the temporary failure of his 
 physiological romance, who knows whether 
 he might not have sworn absolute fealty to 
 
16 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 literature, instead of dividing his homage, 
 and thus have passed to his rest unknown 
 to political fame? 
 
 “ There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, 
 Rough-hew them how we will.” 
 
 The hour he had chosen to carry out his 
 new resolve was a momentous one in the 
 fortunes of English politics. The adminis¬ 
 tration of the Duke of Wellington had 
 proved itself incapable of rightly interpret¬ 
 ing the feeling of the country. At its head 
 was the most splendid general of his day, 
 yet who in his civil capacity was singularly 
 short-sighted and opinionative. The Duke 
 of Wellington was not a statesman. The very 
 qualities which had made him a brilliant 
 soldier, the rapidity with which he arrived 
 at his conclusions, the abject obedience he 
 had been in the habit of enforcing, his 
 belief alone in the aristocratic influence— 
 all interfered with the principles of true 
 statecraft, and caused him to maintain 
 views which were almost always adverse to 
 the spirit of progress. Then when pressure 
 was put upon him, he became “open to 
 conviction,” wished “ the thing to be settled 
 one way or another,” and ended by dis¬ 
 covering it to be his duty to abandon what 
 he had upheld, or to pass what he had 
 denounced. “The Duke of Wellington,” 
 writes the author of “ Coningsby ” in one 
 of his frequent acute political reflections 
 scattered throughout the pages of the novel, 
 “ has ever been the votary of circum¬ 
 stances. He cares little for causes. He 
 watches events rather than seeks to produce 
 them. It is a characteristic of the military 
 mind. Rapid combinations, the result of a 
 quick, vigilant, and comprehensive glance, 
 are generally triumphant in the field: but 
 in civil affairs, where results are not im¬ 
 mediate ; in diplomacy and in the manage¬ 
 ment of deliberative assemblies, where 
 there is much intervening time and many 
 counteracting causes, this velocity of de¬ 
 cision, this fitful and precipitate action, are 
 often productive of considerable embarrass¬ 
 ment, and sometimes of terrible discomfiture. 
 
 It is remarkable that men celebrated for 
 military prudence are often found to be 
 headstrong statesmen. In civil life a great 
 general is frequently and strangely the 
 creature of impulse; influenced in his 
 political movements by the last snatch of 
 information, and often the creature of the 
 last aide-de-camp who has his ear.” 
 
 The emancipation of the Catholics had 
 not tended, as his Grace had imagined, to 
 strengthen the position of his government. 
 The Papists had been relieved from their 
 disabilities by the cordial co-operation of 
 the Whigs with the duke; but as soon as 
 the measure which had instituted the union 
 passed into law, the alliance between the 
 two parties gradually dissevered itself. 
 The Wellington Cabinet thus stood alone. 
 The emancipation of the Catholics had 
 alienated the Tories; the quarrel between 
 the duke and Mr. Huskisson had alienated 
 the Canningites; whilst the policy of tin« 
 government, in opposing itself to such meas¬ 
 ures as would lead to the mitigation of the 
 commercial and agricultural distress then 
 prevalent, rendered it unpopular with the 
 middle classes. In short, the conduct of 
 the ministry met the usual fate of inconsis¬ 
 tency. “It is a Tory government with a 
 Whig policy,” said the clergy and gentry, 
 mindful of the Emancipation Act, “and 
 no dependence can be placed on it.” “ In 
 spite of its one liberal measure, it is still a 
 high Tory administration,” said the Whig 
 and the manufacturing interest, anxious 
 about parliamentary reform, the repeal of 
 the corn laws, and the extension of the 
 currency, “and it is idle to expect its 
 assistance in our efforts.” And now, whilst 
 affairs were in this condition—the Cabinet 
 weak, but obstinate; the people irritated, 
 yet not aggressive—our fourth George died, 
 and his brother, the sailor king, ascended 
 the throne. As a matter of course, par¬ 
 liament was dissolved, and the Houses 
 summoned to meet in the beginning of 
 November. 
 
 The elections took place under the 
 influence of an excitement hostile to 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 17 
 
 the Eldonite Toryism then in vogue. 
 Across the channel, Frenchmen, wearied by 
 the tyranny and incapacity of priestly 
 Bourbonism, had dethroned their tenth 
 Charles, and Louis Philippe reigned in his 
 stead. The sympathy of insurrection spread 
 to other lands. Belgium rose up against 
 the authority of Holland, and created her¬ 
 self into an independent kingdom. In War¬ 
 saw the Poles had broken out into open 
 revolt against the government of the Grand 
 Duke Constantine, and were fighting, with 
 all the patriotism of their race, for freedom 
 from Tartar rule. Brunswick had expelled 
 her duke, and Saxony was agitating for a 
 new constitution. The independence of 
 Greece had been acknowledged by Turkey. 
 Nothing is more infectious than a revolt 
 against despotism, and the efforts of Europe 
 to free herself from the fetters of arbitrary 
 government soon found a ready response in 
 the hearts of the English people. Parlia¬ 
 mentary reform was the cry throughout the 
 country, and its advocates discovered them¬ 
 selves almost everywhere at the head of 
 the poll. To such reform the duke was 
 obstinately opposed. He had publicly de¬ 
 clared that he was “ not only not prepared 
 to bring forward any measure of this 
 nature, but that he would at once assert 
 that so far as he was concerned, so long as 
 he held any station in the government of 
 the country, he should always feel it his 
 duty to resist such measures when proposed 
 by others.” This statement sounded the 
 knell of his overthrow. He, at one time the 
 most popular man in England, was now the 
 hated of the country, of the city, and of 
 the press. He had to face an angry major¬ 
 ity in parliament, and the result was easily 
 foreseen. When the question of the Civil 
 List for the new reign came before the 
 House of Commons, it was moved that the 
 subject be referred to a select committee. 
 The motion was opposed by the govern¬ 
 ment, but carried by a majority of twenty- 
 nine. On the same day a proposition for 
 parliamentary reform was to be brought to 
 a division, and as the ministers expected a 
 VOL. i. 
 
 defeat, they at once resigned, and Earl Grey, 
 a Whig peer of powerful connections, and 
 who had long been interested in the amend¬ 
 ment of our representative system, was 
 authorized to form a new administration. 
 We know what followed. A reform bill 
 was introduced, which passed the Com¬ 
 mons, but which was rejected by the Lords. 
 Earl Grey went to the palace, and placed 
 two alternatives before the king—the resig¬ 
 nation of the cabinet, or the creation of 
 peers sufficient to form a majority in the 
 upper house. His majesty preferred the 
 resignation of the ministers. The Duke of 
 Wellington was summoned to form a cabi¬ 
 net, and to propose a new reform bill. The 
 country, however, declined to place any 
 confidence in the duke; she was in one of 
 her most feminine moods: she not only 
 wanted her own will, but she would not 
 rest content until she had her own will in 
 her own way. With no uncertain voice 
 she declared that Earl Grey should be re¬ 
 stored to power, and that no reform bill 
 which was not the measure of his cabinet 
 should meet with her approval. The Duke 
 of Wellington, who had failed to obtain the 
 assistance of Sir Robert Peel, retired. Earl 
 Grey again succeeded him; the opposition 
 of the peers was conquered, and the reform 
 bill became law by an immense majority, 
 June 4, 1832. 
 
 A few weeks before the passing of this 
 measure, Benjamin Disraelt made his first 
 attempt to gain the suffrages of a constitu¬ 
 ency. A vacancy had occurred in the 
 borough of High Wycombe, owing to the 
 withdrawal of one of its Liberal members, 
 Sir Thomas Baring, and the young author 
 put himself forward to contest the seat. 
 Maintaining the views, which he after¬ 
 wards developed—that from the democratic 
 character of the English constitution a politi¬ 
 cal policy, based upon a union between the 
 Tory party, such as it had been established 
 by Wyndham and Bolingbroke, and not as 
 it had degenerated into by the teaching of 
 Eldon and Wellington, and the working 
 classes, was the one most beneficial for the 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 interests of the country—he issued his ad¬ 
 dress as an independent member. He was 
 supported both by Tories and Reformers, 
 though in the balance the favour of the 
 former preponderated. His political creed 
 on this occasion has been called unintelli¬ 
 gible, yet it was both lucid and simple. He 
 was strongly opposed to the Whigs, because 
 he held that their object was to curtail the 
 power of the crown, and extend the influence 
 of the “governing families;” whilst their 
 supporters, the middle classes, as he never 
 ceased to assert, were both mischievous and 
 incompetent whenever they attempted to 
 direct matters of government. 
 
 “ This is a middle-class movement,” said 
 Mr. Disraeli in 1848, when opposing Mr. 
 Hume’s motion to amend the national repre¬ 
 sentation, on account of its tinkering with 
 the constitution, in order to gratify the pre¬ 
 judices of a section of the country—“This is 
 a middle-class movement: it is nothing more 
 nor less than an attempt to aggrandize the 
 power of that body of persons who have 
 frankly told us that this is a middle-class 
 government, and, therefore, that they will 
 take care of their own interests and their 
 own objects. The House will not forget 
 what that class has done in its legislative 
 enterprises. I do not use the term ‘middle- 
 class’ with any disrespect; no one more than 
 myself estimates what the urban population 
 has done for the liberty and civilization 
 of mankind; but I speak of the middle- 
 class as of one which avowedly aims at 
 predominance; and therefore it is expedient 
 to ascertain how far the fact justifies a con¬ 
 fidence in their political capacity. It was 
 only at the end of the last century that the 
 middle-class rose into any considerable 
 influence, chiefly through Mr. Pitt—that 
 minister whom they are always abusing. 
 The first great movement in which they suc¬ 
 ceeded, showing their power over the people 
 out of doors, independent of parliament, was 
 the abolition of the slave trade—a noble and 
 sublime act—but carried with an entire 
 ignorance of the subject, as the event has 
 proved. How far it has aggravated the 
 
 horrors of slavery, I stop not now to inquire. 
 I make only one observation upon it with 
 reference to the present subject of debate. 
 The middle class emancipated the negroes; 
 but they never proposed a Ten Hours Bill. 
 So much for that move. The interests of 
 the working classes of England were not 
 much considered in that arrangement. Hav¬ 
 ing tried their hand at colonial reform, by 
 which, without diminishing the horrors of 
 slavery, they succeeded in ruining our colo¬ 
 nies—they next turned their hands to par¬ 
 liamentary reform, and carried the Reform 
 Bill. But observe, in that operation, they 
 destroyed, under the pretence of its corrupt 
 exercise, the old industrial franchise, and 
 they never constructed a new one. So much 
 for the interests of the people in their second 
 great legislative enterprise. So that, whether 
 we look to their colonial reform or their 
 parliamentary reform, they entirely neg¬ 
 lected the industrial classes. Having failed 
 in colonial as well as in parliamentary re¬ 
 form—and I need not show how completely 
 they have failed in parliamentary reform, 
 for the debate of this night is the perfect 
 proof of that fact—they next tried commer¬ 
 cial reform, and introduced free imports 
 under the specious name of free trade. How 
 were the interests of the working classes 
 considered in this third movement? More 
 than they were in their colonial or their 
 parliamentary reform? On the contrary, 
 while the interests of capital were unblush- 
 ingly advocated, the displaced labour of the 
 country was offered neither consolation nor 
 compensation; but was told that it must 
 submit to be absorbed in the mass. In 
 their colonial, parliamentary, and commer¬ 
 cial reforms, there is no evidence of any 
 sympathy with the working classes; and 
 every one of the measures so forced upon the 
 country has, at the same time, proved disas¬ 
 trous. Their colonial reform ruined the 
 colonies and increased slavery. Their par¬ 
 liamentary reform, according to their own 
 account, was a delusion which has filled the 
 people with disappointment and disgust. If 
 their commercial reform have not proved 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 19 
 
 ruinous, then the picture that has been pre¬ 
 sented to us of the condition of England 
 every day for the last four or five months 
 must be a gross misrepresentation. In this 
 state of affairs, as a remedy for half a cen¬ 
 tury of failure, we are, under their auspices, 
 to take refuge in financial reform, which I 
 predict will prove their fourth failure, and 
 one in which the interests of the working 
 classes will be as little considered and ac¬ 
 complished.” 
 
 Nor was Benjamin Disraeli, as it has 
 been stated, when he addressed the con¬ 
 stituency in front of the “ Bed Lion ” hostel 
 at High Wycombe, a reformer in the sense 
 that Joseph Hume and Buhver Lytton were 
 reformers, though he frankly avowed that 
 he was in favour not only of increasing 
 the number of members of parliament, but 
 also of increasing their privileges and en¬ 
 larging their political capacity. “ I am not 
 one of those,” he declares, in his “ Vindica¬ 
 tion of the English Constitution,” a treatise 
 which was partly written at this time, 
 though published at a later period, “ who 
 believe that the safety of the constitution 
 is consulted by encouraging an exclusive 
 principle in the formation of the consti¬ 
 tution of our Third Estate. It is not the 
 supposed democratic character which it has 
 assumed under the new arrangement—I 
 wish I could call it settlement—that fills me 
 with any apprehensions. On the contrary, 
 I wish it were even more Catholic, though 
 certainly not more Papist.” Nor was 
 Benjamin Disraeli a Tory in the sense that 
 Canning and Eldon and Wellington had 
 caused the name to be understood. His 
 Toryism was that of Sir William Wyndham, 
 of Lord Bolingbroke, of the second Pitt— 
 the Toryism that had banished placemen 
 from the House of Commons, and had 
 denounced Walpole, that had crushed the 
 Papacy, opposed a standing army, cherished 
 free elections, upheld short parliaments, 
 and which, before the Brights and Cobdens 
 had ever raised their voices, had applied 
 philosophy to commerce and science to 
 finance; it had nothing in common with 
 
 the Toryism then prevalent, which regarded 
 every admission to the demands of progress 
 as a sign that the “ star of England’s glory 
 had set for ever,” and that the future was 
 to be the chaos of revolution. Yet the 
 principles of the candidate for the suffrages 
 of High Wycombe were imbued with the 
 soundest Toryism. “ This respect for pre¬ 
 cedent,” he writes in his “Vindication,” “this 
 clinging to prescription, this reverence for 
 antiquity, which are so often ridiculed by 
 conceited and superficial minds, and move 
 the especial contempt of the gentlemen who 
 admire abstract principles, appear to me to 
 have their origin in a profound knowledge 
 of human nature and in a fine observation 
 of public affairs, and satisfactorily to ac¬ 
 count for the permanent character of our 
 liberties. Those great men who have 
 periodically risen to guide the helm of our 
 government in times of tumultuous and 
 stormy exigency knew that a State is a 
 complicated creation of refined art, and they 
 handled it with all the delicacy a piece of 
 exquisite machinery requires. They knew 
 that, if once they admitted the abstract 
 rights of subjects, they must inevitably 
 advance to the abstract rights of men, and 
 then that the very foundations of their civil 
 polity would sink beneath them. ... It 
 is to this deference to what Lord Coke 
 finely styles ‘ reverend antiquity ’ that I 
 ascribe the duration of our commonwealth; 
 and it is this spirit which has prevented 
 even our revolutions from being destruc¬ 
 tive.” But his affection for the past did 
 not blind him to the evils that would 
 arise if all its associations were maintained. 
 Where it was necessary to advocate reform 
 he ranked himself as a reformer, though his 
 reforms were to be framed upon the old 
 lines; the constitution was to be restored 
 and renovated, not razed to the ground and 
 then rebuilt. He was a Tory, because he 
 had the reverence of the cultivated mind 
 for antiquity; he was a Beformer, because 
 he believed in the democratic influence. 
 The union of Toryism with enlightened and 
 restrained reform expressed, both in his 
 
20 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 youth and in liis old age, his political faith. 
 “ The Tory party in this country,” he writes 
 to Lord Lyndhurst, “ is the national party; 
 it is the really democratic party of England. 
 It supports the institutions of the country, 
 because they have been established for the 
 common good, and because they secure the 
 equality of civil rights, without which, what¬ 
 ever may be its name, no government can 
 be free, and based upon which principle 
 every government, however it may be 
 styled, is in fact a democracy.” On this 
 occasion when he contested High Wycombe 
 he was opposed by Colonel Grey, the third 
 son of the prime minister, who headed the 
 poll by a majority of eleven votes. 
 
 Benjamin Disraeli was soon called upon 
 to make a second appeal to the electors of 
 the borough. Parliament was dissolved 
 August 16, 1832, and in the autumn a 
 general election—the first under the new 
 Reform Bill—ensued. The late candidate 
 for High Wycombe, though he had been 
 defeated, was not disheartened, and he lost 
 no time in issuing his address. In its 
 paragraphs he speaks with no uncertain 
 voice: his opinions are clear and decided. 
 In his advocacy of triennial parliaments, 
 and in his attack upon places and pensions, 
 we see him standing upon his favourite 
 platform—the Toryism of Wyndham and 
 Bolingbroke, and of the party which warred 
 against the power and corruption of Wal¬ 
 pole. The nomination system, which the 
 Whigs were utilising in the most barefaced 
 manner to push the fortunes of their 
 friends and followers, also encountered the 
 wrath of his indignation. Yet, as became 
 a Tory adhering to the old principles of 
 the creed, he was true to his teaching of 
 the fusion of aristocracy with democracy, 
 and his voice was raised in favour of such 
 reforms in the condition of the people as he 
 deemed necessary for their happiness and 
 stability. As he candidly admitted in a 
 speech at a public meeting held by his 
 supporters, he was “ a Conservative to pre¬ 
 serve all that is good in our constitution, a 
 Radical to remove all that is bad.” The 
 
 address was issued October 1, 1832, and 
 was dated from Bradenham House; it ran 
 thus:— 
 
 “to the independent electors of the 
 
 BOROUGH OF CHIPPING WYCOMBE. 
 
 “ 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 con¬ 
 test 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 struggle 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 foretold, as a con¬ 
 sequence of their compliance, a system of nomina¬ 
 tion as fatal as those close corporations of whicl 
 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 Chan¬ 
 cellor, t 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 inex¬ 
 perienced 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 dis¬ 
 gusting 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 and the livery of no faction. 
 I seek your suffrages as an independent neighbour, 
 who, sympathizing with your wants and interests, 
 will exercise his utmost influence in the great 
 national council to relieve the one and support the 
 other. 
 
 “ But, while I am desirous of entering Parlia¬ 
 ment as an independent man, I have never availed 
 myself of that much-abused epithet to escape an 
 explicit avowal of my opinions. I am desirous of 
 
 * Col Grey, the son of Earl Grey. 
 
 f Mr. Le Marchant, the private secretary of Lord Brougham. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 21 
 
 assisting in the completion of 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 
 and triennial Parliaments 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 stu¬ 
 dent, instead of the ignorant adventurer. 
 
 “ While 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 undeserved pension, and to effect the 
 greatest reduction of taxation, consistent with the 
 maintenance of the public faith and the real effi¬ 
 ciency 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 dor¬ 
 mant energies of the country, to liberate our 
 shackled industry, and re-animate our expiring 
 credit. 
 
 “I have already expressed my willingness to 
 assist in the modification 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 con¬ 
 sumer without injuring the farmer; and for the 
 church, I am desirous of seeing effected some ex¬ 
 tensive commutation which, while it prevents 
 tithe from acting as a tax upon industry and 
 enterprise, will, I trust, again render the clergy 
 what I am always desirous of seeing them, fairly 
 remunerated, because they are valuable and effi¬ 
 cient labourers, and influential because they are 
 beloved. 
 
 “And now I call upon every man who values 
 the independence of our borough, upon every man 
 who desires the good government 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 the idle 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 rapa¬ 
 cious, tyrannical, and incapable faction, who, 
 having knavishly obtained power by false pre¬ 
 tences, 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 relations in a state of such inextricable 
 confusion, that we are told that war can alone 
 sever the Gordian knot of complicated blunders ; 
 the farmer in doubt, the ship-owner in despair, 
 our merchants without trade, and our manufac¬ 
 turers without markets, the revenue declining, 
 and the army increased, the wealthy hoarding 
 their useless capital, and pauperism prostrate in 
 our once-contented cottages—Englishmen, behold 
 the unparalleled empire, raised by the heroic 
 energies of your fathers ! Bouse yourselves in this 
 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! 
 
 “ I have the honour to remain, 
 
 “ Your obliged and devoted servant, 
 
 “B. Disraeli. 
 
 “ Bradenham House, Oct., 1832 .” 
 
 High Wycombe sent two members to 
 parliament, and three candidates bad now 
 entered themselves for the two seats. The 
 return of Mr. Smith, afterwards the second 
 Lord Carington, the lord of the manor, 
 who had represented the borough for many 
 years, was considered assured; hence the 
 real struggle lay between Benjamin Disraeli 
 and his former opponent, Colonel Grey. 
 The nomination took place on the 10th of 
 December, and the following figures showed 
 the result of the poll—Mr. Smith, 179; 
 Colonel Grey, 140; B. Disraeli, 119. For 
 the second time the ambition of the young 
 author had to encounter defeat. 
 
 It was only natural that a man—and 
 especially a very confident and somewhat 
 audacious young man—who sought to re¬ 
 duce the debased Toryism then accepted as 
 the faith of the party to its first principles, 
 should lay himself open to misrepresenta¬ 
 tion. The Whigs were unable to under¬ 
 stand how a man could believe in the 
 virtue and efficacy of an aristocracy, and yet 
 attack an oligarchy. The Beformers could 
 not understand how a man believed in the 
 democratic principle, and yet had faith in 
 Toryism. The Tories again, at least several 
 of them, could not understand how a man, 
 
22 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 who eaid he professed their tenets, yet 
 put his trust in the power of the people. 
 To Benjamin Disraeli this apparent con¬ 
 fusion of ideas, and this alleged amalgama¬ 
 tion of totally opposite forces, were but the 
 logical deductions from premises which he 
 declared could not he disputed. Since, as 
 he clearly proved in his now forgotten 
 pamphlet “ What is He ? ” the Reform Act 
 had destroyed the aristocratic principle in 
 the country, it was necessary, unless the 
 mischievous policy of the Whigs was to be 
 supreme, for all who were anxious to obtain 
 a strong government to advance the demo¬ 
 cratic principle. “ A Tory and a Radical,” 
 he cries, “ I can understand. A Whig—a 
 democratic aristocrat—I cannot compre¬ 
 hend. If the Tories, indeed, despair of 
 restoring the aristocratic principle, and are 
 sincere in their avowal that the State can¬ 
 not 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.” 
 And what were the objects this national 
 party should set before them ? He answers 
 the question some years later when the 
 politician had developed into the practical 
 statesman. This is the reply:—“ To 
 change back the oligarchy into a generous 
 aristocracy round a real throne; to infuse 
 life and vigour into the church, as the 
 trainer of the nation, by the revival of 
 convocation, then dumb, on a wide basis, 
 and not as has been done in the shape of a 
 priestly section; to establish a commercial 
 code on the principles successfully nego¬ 
 tiated by Lord Bolingbroke at Utrecht, and 
 which, though baffled at the time by a 
 Whig parliament, were subsequently and 
 triumphantly vindicated by his political 
 pupil and heir, Mr. Pitt; to govern Ireland 
 according to the policy of Charles the First, 
 and not of Oliver Cromwell; to emancipate 
 the political constituency of 1832 from its 
 sectarian bondage and contracted sym¬ 
 pathies ; to elevate the physical as well as 
 the moral condition of the people, by 
 
 establishing that labour required regulation 
 as much as property—and all this rather 
 by the use of ancient forms and the restora¬ 
 tion of the past, than by political revolutions 
 founded on abstract ideas—appeared to be 
 the course which the circumstances of this 
 country required, and which, practically 
 speaking, could only, with all their faults 
 and backslidings, be undertaken and accom¬ 
 plished by a re-constructed Tory party.” 
 
 It was a saying of the Duke of Welling¬ 
 ton, who, certainly, in his career exemplified 
 the truth of his remark, that “in politics it 
 was impossible always to be consistent.” 
 Political history, it would be in vain to 
 deny, exhibits, more than any other form of 
 history, constant changes in the opinion of 
 the individual. We see men ending the 
 exact opposites of how they began; banning 
 what they once blessed, and advocating 
 what they once hotly thwarted: the Tory 
 crossing over to the ranks of advanced 
 Liberalism, the vehement Radical becoming 
 a staunch supporter of all privileges; the 
 advocate of protection contending for free 
 trade; the denouncer of emancipation bring¬ 
 ing in a bill for the relief of Catholic dis¬ 
 abilities; the opponent of reform trimming 
 his sails to catch the breeze of universal 
 suffrage; the stout upholder of the union 
 between Church and State, paving the way 
 for disestablishment; and the like. We see 
 men who once held opposite opinions, and 
 whose political hate towards each other en¬ 
 livened the dullness of many a debate, at 
 last sitting on the Treasury bench, and 
 taking sweet counsel together in the same 
 cabinet. Strange coalitions, conversions, 
 and friendships meet us at every turn, as 
 we scan the records of political life, until, 
 like the hero of Waterloo, w T e arrive at the 
 conclusion that to expect consistency in 
 political life is to look for the impossible. 
 
 The simple fact is that in the pursuit of 
 politics consistency is not only an impossi¬ 
 bility but an absurdity. If the spirit of 
 the age were fixed, there is no reason why 
 a man should not be as consistent in main¬ 
 taining the opinions he holds in political 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 23 
 
 life as lie is in private life. But in the 
 study of politics—a subject ever developing 
 with the progress of the nation in culture 
 and civilization—to be consistent is only 
 another word for either a culpable obstinacy 
 or a culpable narrow-mindedness. For the 
 man of to-day to pique himself upon pro¬ 
 fessing the same opinions he entertained a 
 generation since is simply to assert that, 
 whilst the world is marching on, he prefers 
 to stand still. All that we have a right to 
 expect from our legislators is, that they 
 will not express their views upon any 
 grave question without having first devoted 
 sound study to the subject, and that they 
 will arrive at their conclusions only after 
 weighty consideration. The vice of parlia¬ 
 mentary life is not that men frequently 
 change their opinions, but that they are in 
 the habit of adopting them without previous 
 thought or reflection; then, enlightened by 
 subsequent study, they feel compelled—like 
 another Fox, or Wellington, or Peel, or Pal¬ 
 merston—to abandon the teaching they once 
 inculcated. We must bear this fact in mind 
 when we have to deal with those occasions 
 when Mr. Disraeli did not so much change 
 his opinions as he felt bound to change his 
 policy in order to be in that harmony 
 with the spirit of the age, which the 
 private individual can ignore, but the 
 statesman must consult and respect. Yet 
 few ministers throughout a long career 
 have been so true to the political creed 
 they professed as Lord Beaconsfield; he 
 was true, not because he shut his eyes 
 to advancement, but because he anticipated 
 its strides, and only arrived at his conclu¬ 
 sions after mature study and reflection. In 
 his speeches and early pamphlets he fore¬ 
 shadowed the policy he adopted when he 
 became minister of England. Throughout 
 his life he was the steady and persistent foe 
 of the Whigs. In his reform bill of 1867 
 
 he put into practice the tenets he promul¬ 
 gated on the hustings at High Wycombe, and 
 advocated in his pamphlets, “ What is He ?” 
 and the “Vindication of the English Constitu¬ 
 tion.” The interest he took in the working 
 classes, visible in the pages of his “ Con- 
 ingsby” and “Sybil,” practically revealed 
 itself when he possessed the power and op¬ 
 portunity of office. And his much-derided 
 imperial policy, which raised his country to 
 a position she had not occupied since the 
 days of Palmerston, can be foretold from a 
 perusal of his novel “ Tancred,” of his 
 speeches during the Crimean war, and from 
 every word that fell from his lips during a 
 debate upon the foreign policy of England. 
 Never have his enemies more stultified 
 themselves, never have they laid themselves 
 more easily open to a crushing refutation, 
 never have they more clearly revealed the 
 unscrupulous character of their hate, than 
 when they made the charge against Ben¬ 
 jamin Disraeli that his life was a tissue of 
 inconsistencies. He was consistent, not 
 because he was beneath the influence of 
 the obstinacy and the prejudices of an 
 Eldon, but because he was far-seeing, and 
 had drawn up the articles of his political 
 creed only after deep reading and reflection. 
 The spiteful hacks on the press who had 
 failed to write themselves into consular 
 appointments, and the pamphleteering par¬ 
 sons who displayed the sweetness of the 
 Christian character by rabid attacks which 
 were always so irritatingly ignored, would 
 have done wiser according to their miserable 
 lights, instead of branding Lord Beacons¬ 
 field as “ a political apostate,” to have con¬ 
 fined themselves to their favourite taunt, 
 that “ he had not a drop of English blood 
 in his veins.” The sneer essentially ap¬ 
 pealed to the audience they addressed, since 
 it always impressed the vulgar and gratified 
 the malevolent. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 FORTI NIHIL DIFFICILE. 
 
 Benjamin Disraeli was now for the third 
 time to court political fortune at High 
 Wycombe. Early in the December of 1834 
 he issued his address, and prepared to do 
 battle against his old opponents. The turn 
 of events was beginning to favour his ambi¬ 
 tion. The Grey ministry was not a happy 
 family. When men of different political 
 opinions agree to unite for the purpose of 
 remedying abuses, there will always be those 
 amongst the number who, on every occasion, 
 advocate reform, as well as those who are 
 nervously sensitive about meddling with 
 established institutions, unless when abso¬ 
 lutely compelled. There will be the men 
 who wish to uproot the tree, the men who 
 are content with lopping off a branch here 
 and there and shoring up its trunk, and 
 the men who fear to disturb vitality by any 
 interference. These disintegrating elements 
 soon appeared in the Grey cabinet. At first, 
 animated by the impulse of a powerful 
 majority, it entered upon a course of active 
 legislation; it abolished slavery in the West 
 Indies, it destroyed commercial monopoly 
 in the East, it instituted reforms in the Irish 
 Church Establishment it re-arranged our 
 Poor Law system. Then divisions began to 
 ensue; for some of his followers Earl Grey 
 held opinions that were too advanced, for 
 others he was too timid and retrogressive. 
 Early in the March of 1833 the passionate 
 and indiscreet Lord Durham, who was 
 pledged to household suffrage and vote by 
 ballot, resigned. The following year, on the 
 disputed question of the reduction of the 
 Irish Church Establishment, Mr. Stanley 
 (afterwards Lord Derby), Sir James Graham, 
 the Earl of Ripon, and the Duke of Rich¬ 
 mond severed themselves from the ministry; 
 they maintained that to appropriate the 
 
 revenues of the Irish Church to the purposes 
 of the State was nothing less than sacri¬ 
 legious confiscation. The renewal of the 
 Coercion Act completed the dissolution of 
 the original elements of the Reform cabinet. 
 Ireland was in one of her customary fits of 
 turbulence and sedition, and, under the in¬ 
 fluence of the treasonable oratory of Daniel 
 O’Connell, was agitating for a repeal of the 
 Union. Throughout the country murder 
 and outrage were prevalent, and, unless the 
 reign of law was to give way to a blind and 
 vindictive anarchy, it was necessary to Resort 
 to extreme measures. Earl Grey proposed 
 the renewal of the Coercion Act; his cob 
 leagues approved of the step, but wished to 
 mitigate the severity of several of its clauses. 
 
 The dull, conscientious, fox-hunting Lord 
 Althorp, whose influence in the House of 
 Commons was enormous, desired that the 
 clauses against public meetings should be 
 dropped. The prime minister did not see 
 his way to accept the amendment, and Lord 
 Althorp resigned. In the face of the oppo¬ 
 sition of his quondam colleague, Earl Grey 
 felt himself powerless to carry the Coercion 
 Bill, and he also gave up the seals of office. 
 Through the suggestions of Lord Brougham 
 the Reform ministry was still kept in power; 
 vacancies were filled up, and those who 
 had not resigned were implored to retain 
 their posts. It was the same house with 
 new tenants. The “ exhausted sensualist,” 
 Lord Melbourne, succeeded Earl Grey. Lord 
 Althorp, who loved sport and hated office, 
 was, after much persuasion, induced to ac¬ 
 cept the chancellorship of the exchequer 
 and the lead of the House of Commons, on 
 the condition that the Coercion Bill would 
 be amended. Mr. Stanley was replaced at 
 the Colonial Office by Mr. Spring Rice; the 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 25 
 
 Duke of Richmond at the Post Office by 
 the Marquis of Conyngham; whilst Mr. 
 Lyttleton succeeded Sir John Hobhouse as 
 chief-secretary for Ireland. The other posts 
 were filled up by their original occupants. 
 Lord Brougham still held the Great Seal; 
 Lord Palmerston was at the Foreign Office; 
 Mr. Grant at the Indian Board; and Sir 
 James Graham at the Admiralty. 
 
 For a few months the doctored-up 
 ministry continued in power, busying 
 itself with the Irish Coercion Bill, the 
 Irish Tithe Bill, and offending many of 
 its supporters by its subserviency to 
 O’Connell. Then an accidental circum¬ 
 stance hastened its downfall. Lord Althorp, 
 owing to the death of his father, was re¬ 
 moved to the upper house, as Earl Spencer, 
 and consequently had to resign the seals 
 as chancellor of the exchequer. Lord 
 Melbourne now proposed the vacant post 
 to Lord John Russell;.but to his surprise, 
 and to the total dismay of his followers, 
 the king, who hated Lord Brougham, and 
 disapproved of the clauses of the Irish 
 Church Bill, availed himself of this oppor¬ 
 tunity to dismiss the Melbourne cabinet, 
 and to send for the Duke of Wellington. 
 His grace, with his usual ready obedience 
 to the commands of the sovereign, at once 
 complied with the royal wishes, but re¬ 
 commended that the task of forming an 
 administration should be intrusted to Sir 
 Robert Peel, as, since the passing of the 
 Reform Bill, the prime minister ought to 
 belong to the lower house.* His Majesty 
 assented. Sir Robert was then about to 
 winter in Rome, but a messenger was de¬ 
 spatched in hot haste to inform him of the 
 change of events, and to request his instant 
 
 * “ So his grace declared after the Reform Bill was passed 
 as its inevitable result, that henceforth the prime minister 
 must be a member of the House of Commons; and this 
 aphorism, cited as usual by the duke’s parasites as demon¬ 
 stration of his supreme sagacity, was a graceful mode of 
 resigning the pre-eminence which had been productive of 
 such great party disasters. It is remarkable that the party 
 who devised and passed the Reform Bill, and who, in conse¬ 
 quence, governed the nation for ten years, never once had 
 their prime minister in the House of Commons : but that 
 does not signify ; the duke’s maxim is still quoted as an 
 uracle almost equal in prescience to his famous query, ‘ How 
 is the king’s government to be carried on ?’ ”— Coning shy. 
 
 VOL. L 
 
 return. In the meantime the duke con¬ 
 sented to act as first lord of the treasury 
 and secretary of state. 
 
 Such was the position of affairs when 
 Mr. Disraeli, for the third time, addressed 
 the constituency of High Wycombe, and 
 offered himself as one of their candidates. 
 Disgusted with the shifting policy of the 
 Grey-Melbourne cabinets, and the frequent 
 alterations in its men and measures, he 
 turned their whole administration into ridi¬ 
 cule, and spoke warmly in support of Sir 
 Robert Peel. The speech he delivered on this 
 occasion—which he afterwards published 
 as a pamphlet, entitled “The Crisis Ex¬ 
 amined ”—is among his happiest specimens 
 of oratory. It is replete with eloquence, 
 and bristles throughout with those witty 
 personalities and satirical illustrations 
 which afterwards were among the most 
 formidable weapons his opponents had to 
 contend against. He was in favour of the 
 repeal of the malt tax, he began, since it was 
 an invidious exaction pressing heavily upon 
 an already sufficiently burdened interest. 
 He disapproved of the Irish tithes; “twelve 
 months,” he said, “ must not pass over 
 without the very name of tithes in Ireland 
 being abolished for ever; nor do I deem it 
 less urgent that the Protestant establish¬ 
 ment in that country should be at once 
 proportioned to the population which it 
 serves.” Still he supported the existence 
 of the Irish Church, because experience 
 had taught him that churches, when de¬ 
 spoiled, only benefited the aristocracy. “ I 
 remember Woburn,” he laughed, “ and 
 I tremble.” He was no bigot, and he 
 would grant the dissenters what they 
 claimed in the matter of marriage and 
 registration; also, he was no upholder of 
 church rates. “ 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.” Further 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 reformation he would not sanction ; he was 
 pledged to maintain the integrity of the 
 church, and nothing would induce him to 
 depart from his word. He would enter 
 parliament if not as an adherent of Sir 
 Robert Peel, who had displayed how worthy 
 he was of the confidence of the country 
 during the years he had led the Opposition, 
 at least he would attach himself to no other 
 statesman. It was true that the incoming 
 prime minister might be called upon to pass 
 measures that he had before deemed inex¬ 
 pedient, but he generously argued, holding 
 the theory of the Duke of Wellington, that 
 it was impossible always to be consistent 
 with oneself in the profession of politics. 
 “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 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 aspir¬ 
 ing country. The people have their passions, 
 and it is even the duty of public men occa¬ 
 sionally to adopt sentiments with which they 
 do not sympathize, because the people must 
 have leaders. ... I laugh, therefore, at the 
 objections against a man that at a former 
 period of his career he advocated a policy 
 different to his present one : all I ask 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 neces¬ 
 sities.” 
 
 The chief feature of the address, however, 
 was the speaker’s humorous criticism of the 
 proceedings of the Reform ministry, and of 
 the manner in which it had been patched 
 and re-patched until of its original materials 
 scarcely anything was left. Save the 
 
 mordant philippics against Peel, it is the 
 best piece of finished invective that Mr. 
 Disraeli ever indulged in. 
 
 “ The Reform ministry! ” he cried. “ Where 
 is it? Let us calmly trace the history of 
 this ‘united cabinet.’ Yery soon after its 
 formation, Lord Durham withdrew from 
 the royal councils; the only man, it would 
 appear, of any decision of character among 
 its members. Still it was a most ‘united’ 
 cabinet. Lord Durham only withdrew on 
 account of his ill-health. The friends of 
 this nobleman represent him as now ready 
 to seize the helm of the state: a few months 
 back, it would appear, his frame was too 
 feeble to bear even the weight of the Privy 
 Seal. Lord Durham retired on account of 
 ill-health; he generously conceded this plea 
 in charity to the colleagues he despised. 
 Lord Durham quitted the ‘ united cabinet,’ 
 and very shortly afterwards its two most 
 able members in the House of Commons, 
 and two of their most influential colleagues 
 in the House of Lords, suddenly secede. 
 What a rent! But then it was about a 
 trifle. In all other respects the cabinet was 
 most ‘ united.’ Five leading members of 
 the Reform ministry have departed; yet 
 the venerable reputation of Lord Grey, and 
 the fair fame of Lord Althorp, still keep 
 them together, and still command the re¬ 
 spect, if not the confidence, of the nation. 
 But marvel of marvels! Lord Grey and 
 Lord Althorp both retire in a morning, and 
 in—disgust. Lord Grey is suddenly dis¬ 
 covered to be behind his time, and his 
 secession is even intimated to be a subject 
 of national congratulation; Lord Althorp 
 joins the crew again, and the cabinet is 
 again ‘united.’ Delightful union! Then 
 commenced a series of scenes unparalleled 
 in the history of the administrations of 
 any country; scenes which would have dis¬ 
 graced individuals in private life, and vio¬ 
 lated the decorum of domestic order. The 
 lord chancellor dangling about the great 
 seal in post-chaises, and vowing that he 
 would write to the sovereign by the post; 
 while cabinet ministers exchanged menac- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 27 
 
 ing looks at public dinners, and querulously 
 contradicted each other before the eyes of 
 an admiring nation. Good God, gentlemen, 
 could this go on? Why, even Mr. Ellice, 
 the Eight Hon. W. Ellice—who was so good 
 as to send us down a member of parliament 
 —he could no longer submit to nestle in 
 this falling house, and he too quitted the 
 ‘united’ cabinet because he had—what, for a 
 ducat?—a sore throat! Why they ridicule 
 themselves, and yet the tale is not all told. 
 There is really too much humour in the 
 entertainment. They make us laugh too 
 much—the fun is overdone. It is like 
 going to those minor theatres where we 
 see Liston in four successive farces. Lord 
 Melbourne, whose claim to being prime 
 minister of England, according to the 
 Whigs, is that he is a gentleman, Lord 
 Melbourne flies to the king, and informs 
 him that a plan of ‘ church reform ’ 
 has been proposed in the ‘ united cabinet,’ 
 and that Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Spring 
 Eice, the only remaining ministers in the 
 slightest degree entitled, I will not say to 
 the confidence, but to the consideration of 
 the country, have, in consequence, menaced 
 him with their resignations. I doubt not, 
 gentlemen, that this plan of ‘church re¬ 
 form’ was only some violent measure to 
 revive the agitation of the country and 
 resuscitate the popularity of the Whigs, a 
 measure which they never meant and never 
 desired to pass. Perhaps feeling that it was 
 all over with them, it was a wretched ruse , 
 apparently, to go out upon a popular measure. 
 However, Lord Melbourne, with as serious 
 a face as he could command, informed His 
 Majesty that the remains of the ‘united 
 cabinet,’ Sir John Hobhouse and Lord John 
 Eussell, were still as united as ever, and he 
 ended by proposing that the House of Com¬ 
 mons should be led by his lordship, who, on 
 the same principle that bad wine produces 
 good vinegar, has somehow turned from 
 a tenth-rate author into a first-rate poli¬ 
 tician. And then Lord Melbourne says 
 that the king turned them out! Turned 
 them out, gentlemen! why His Majesty 
 
 laughed them out! The truth is that this 
 famous Eeform ministry had degenerated 
 into a grotesque and Hudibrastic faction, 
 the very lees of ministerial existence, the 
 offal of official life. They were a ragged 
 regiment, compared with which Ealstaff’s 
 crew was a band of regulars. The king 
 would not march through Coventry with 
 them—that was flat. The Eeform ministry, 
 indeed! Why, scarcely an original member 
 of that celebrated cabinet remained. You 
 remember, gentlemen, the story of Sir John 
 Cutler’s silk hose. Those famous stockings 
 remind me of this famous ministry; for 
 really, between Hobhouse darns and Ellice 
 botching, I hardly can decide whether the 
 hose are silk or worsted. The Eeform 
 ministry! I daresay now some of you have 
 heard of Mr. Ducrow, that celebrated gen¬ 
 tleman who rides upon six horses. What a 
 prodigious achievement! It seems impos¬ 
 sible, but you have confidence in Ducrow. 
 You fly to witness it. Unfortunately, one 
 of the horses is ill, and a donkey is sub¬ 
 stituted in his 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 upon six horses; but now two 
 more of the steeds are seized with the stag¬ 
 gers, and lo! three jackasses in their stead. 
 Still Ducrow persists and still announces to 
 the public that he will ride round his circus 
 every night on his six steeds. At last all 
 the horses are knocked up, and now there 
 are half a dozen donkeys. What a change! 
 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 third, and curses a 
 fourth, while one brays to the audience, and 
 another rolls in the sawdust. Behold the 
 late prime minister and the Eeform minis¬ 
 try! 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 (Brougham), was once 
 
28 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 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.” 
 
 In spite, however, of his wit and talk, it 
 was not to be; High Wycombe declined to 
 be won. The election took place, and 
 Benjamin Disraeli for the third time saw 
 himself at the bottom of the poll. The 
 numbers were—Smith, 288 ; Grey, 147; 
 Disraeli, 128. His irrepressible buoyancy, 
 however, did not forsake him. “ He was 
 not at all disheartened,” he said at a Con¬ 
 servative dinner held in his honour, “ he 
 did not feel in any way like a beaten man. 
 Perhaps it was because he was used to it. 
 He would say of himself, with the famous 
 Italian general, who being asked in his old 
 age why he was always victorious, replied 
 that it was because he had always been 
 beaten in youth.” 
 
 For the first time in his political career 
 Sir Robert Peel, on taking his seat as the 
 chief of a cabinet, relied entirely upon 
 himself, and cut the leading strings which 
 had bound him to those on whom he de¬ 
 pended. In his earlier years he had leant 
 upon the counsels of Lord Eldon, and when 
 he had emancipated himself from Eldon he 
 fell under the magic wand of the hero of 
 Waterloo. But during the period when he 
 had led the opposition against the Reform 
 ministry his character had developed itself. 
 He was not only the chief of the Opposi¬ 
 tion, but he was the Opposition itself. His 
 powers of debate, his business-like capacity 
 for dealing with details, the confidence with 
 which his character inspired his followers, 
 his patience, the dexterity with which he 
 seized upon the ideas of other people, pass¬ 
 ing them through the mill of his receptive 
 intellect and turning them out as his own, 
 his exquisite plausibility—all caused him 
 to tower above those who surrounded him. 
 What he advised, his followers carried out; 
 his approval or disapproval gave the cue 
 to those who sat behind him, and seldom 
 had he occasion to complain of disobedience 
 in the ranks. Upon being summoned to 
 
 succeed Lord Melbourne, the in-coming 
 premier saw that the narrow and prejudiced 
 Toryism of the Duke of Wellington was out 
 of harmony with the spirit of the times, 
 and he struck out a course for himself 
 Like all men lacking in originality and 
 self-reliance, he instituted a policy of com¬ 
 promise. He took up a middle position 
 between the short-sighted Toryism that 
 had succeeded the policy of Pitt, and the 
 advanced Radicalism then being taught by 
 Joseph Hume and the reformers. He was 
 not prepared to build up afresh or to lay 
 before his party the designs of the architect; 
 but he would add when necessary to the 
 fabric, and restore where it was crumbling. 
 If with loyalty to his sovereign, he could 
 have avoided the task of forming an ad¬ 
 ministration, he would no doubt have been 
 glad of an excuse. He saw that, though 
 the country was irritated with the Whigs, 
 it was not yet ripe for Tory government. 
 He knew that his power must depend upon 
 the result of a general election, and that he 
 would, almost inevitably, enter parliament 
 with a minority. Had he been in England 
 at the time of the dismissal of the Mel¬ 
 bourne cabinet he would have advised 
 delay; but he had now no choice ex¬ 
 cept to act as desired by the duke. 
 “ I feel it my duty,” he said in the House 
 of Commons, “in spite of the prospects 
 before me, to maintain the post which has 
 been offered me, and to stand by the 
 trust which I did not seek, but which I 
 could not decline.” 
 
 Meanwhile his return from Rome was 
 anxiously expected, and created an excite¬ 
 ment in the winter of 1834 seldom visible 
 at that dull season of the year. The clubs 
 were full, country-houses were deserted, 
 men were indifferent to hunting and 
 hurried up to town, whilst the Tadpoles 
 and Tapers, and the other “ twelve hundred 
 a yearers,” went nervously to and fro, 
 wondering whether, under the new regime , 
 their claims would be recognized, and they 
 would again find themselves drawing salary 
 from the treasury. But the great ques- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 29 
 
 tion of the hour, about which bets were 
 freely laid, and which excited replies of the 
 most varied character, was who were to form 
 the government, and what was the govern¬ 
 ment to be ? “Was it to be,” wrote Mr. 
 Disraeli in his clever political romance, 
 *a Tory government or an enlightened-spirit- 
 of-the-age liberal-moderate-reform govern¬ 
 ment ? was it to be a government of high 
 philosophy or of low practice; of principle 
 or of expediency; of great measures or of 
 little men ? A government of statesmen or 
 of clerks ? Of humbug or of humdrum ? 
 Great questions these, but unfortunately 
 there was nobody to answer them. They 
 tried the duke; but nothing could be 
 pumped out of him. All that he knew, 
 which he told in his curt, husky manner, 
 was, that he had to carry on the king’s 
 government. As for his solitary colleague, 
 he listened and smiled, and then in his 
 musical voice asked them questions in re¬ 
 turn, which is the best possible mode of 
 avoiding awkward inquiries. It was very 
 unfair this; for no one knew what tone to 
 take; whether they should go down to their 
 public dinners and denounce the Reform 
 Act or praise it; whether the church was 
 to be re-modelled or only admonished; 
 whether Ireland was to be conquered or 
 conciliated.” 
 
 All doubts were, however, soon set at rest 
 by the arrival of Sir Robert Peel. At once 
 he began to carry out his colourless creed 
 of compromise. He invited two of the most 
 prominent reformers, Mr. (afterwards Lord) 
 Stanley and Sir James Graham, to enter 
 his cabinet, an offer which, however, they 
 declined. In his manifesto to the electors 
 at Tamworth, he denied that he was an 
 opponent of rational reform or a defender 
 of abuses. He declared that he considered 
 the Reform Bill “ a final and irrevocable 
 settlement of a great constitutional ques¬ 
 tion—a settlement which no friend to the 
 peace and welfare of the country would 
 attempt to disturb, either by direct or 
 insidious means.” On taking his seat upon 
 the treasury bench, he bade for support by 
 
 a hollow but plausible programme. He 
 offered the prospect of continued peace— 
 the restored confidence of powerful states 
 who were willing to seize the opportunity 
 of reducing great armies, and thus to 
 diminish the chances of hostile collision. 
 He offered reduced estimates, improvements 
 in civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesi¬ 
 astical law, the settlement of the Irish 
 tithe question, the removal of any real 
 abuse in the church, the redress of such 
 grievances as the dissenters had just reasons 
 to murmur against, with various other taking 
 proposals to catch the public. Yet this pro¬ 
 gramme, excellent on paper and in specious 
 speeches, was found to mean nothing when 
 brought under the fierce light of com¬ 
 mittees. 
 
 “ The Tamworth manifesto of 1834,” com¬ 
 ments Mr. Disraeli, “was an attempt to 
 construct a party without principles; its 
 basis therefore was necessarily latitudin- 
 arianism, and its inevitable consequence 
 has been political infidelity. At an epoch 
 of political perplexity and social alarm, 
 the confederation was convenient, and was 
 calculated by aggregation to encourage the 
 timid and confused. But when the pertur¬ 
 bation was a little subsided, and men began 
 to inquire why they were banded together, 
 the difficulty of defining their purpose 
 proved that the league, however respect¬ 
 able, was not a party. The leaders indeed 
 might profit by their eminent position to 
 obtain power for their individual gratifica¬ 
 tion, but it was impossible to secure their 
 followers that which, after all, must be the 
 great recompense of a political party, the 
 putting in practice of their opinions; for 
 they had none. There was indeed a con¬ 
 siderable shouting about what they called 
 Conservative principles; but the awkward 
 question naturally arose, what will you 
 conserve ? The prerogatives of the Crown, 
 provided they are not exercised; the inde¬ 
 pendence of the House of Lords, provided 
 it is not asserted; the ecclesiastical estate, 
 provided it is regulated by a commission 
 of laymen. Everything, in short, that is 
 
30 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 established, as long as it is a phrase and 
 not a fact.” * 
 
 The history of this short-lived adminis¬ 
 tration is well known. Aware that he was 
 holding power in face of a majority, Sir 
 Robert Peel exerted all the parliamentary 
 wiles, in which he was so consummate a 
 master, to avoid an open battle. The ex¬ 
 treme Tories—looking upon the policy he 
 now for the first time called Conservatism , 
 as only Whiggery under a new name—had 
 deserted him. Many of the milder Liberals, 
 mindful of the Peel who had opposed the 
 Reform Bill, doubted his sincerity, and stood 
 aloof. The voice was that of Jacob, they 
 said, but the hands were those of Esau. 
 From February to April the prime minister 
 succeeded in avoiding a pitched battle; then 
 the Irish tithe question forced him to come 
 out of cover. Lord John Russell had moved 
 that the house resolve itself “ into a com¬ 
 mittee of the whole house in order to 
 consider the present state of the church 
 establishment in Ireland, with the view of 
 applying any surplus of the revenues not 
 required for the spiritual care of its members, 
 to the general education of all classes of the 
 people without distinction of religious per- 
 
 * We know how wittily the Conservative programme was 
 summed up in “ Coningsby”: — 
 
 “ By Jove!” said the panting Buckhurst, throwing himself 
 on the sofa, “ it was well done; never was any thing better 
 done. An immense triumph! The greatest triumph the 
 Conservative Cause has had. And yet,” he added, laughing, 
 “ if any fellow were to ask me what the Conservative Cause 
 is, I am sure I should not know what to say.” 
 
 “ Why, it is the cause of our glorious institutions,” said 
 Coningsby. “ A Crown robbed of its prerogatives; a Church 
 controlled by a commission; and an Aristocracy that does 
 not lead.” 
 
 “ Under whose genial influence the order of the Peasantry, 
 ‘ a country’s pride,’ has vanished from the face of the land,” 
 said Henry Sydney, “ and is succeeded by a race of serfs, 
 who are called labourers, and who burn ricks.” 
 
 “Under which,” continued Coningsby, “the Crown has 
 become a cipher; the Church a sect; the Nobility drones; 
 and the People drudges.” 
 
 “ It is the great constitutional cause,” said Lord Vere, 
 “ that refuses everything to opposition; yields everything to 
 agitation; conservative in Parliament, destructive out-of- 
 doors ; that has no objection to any change provided only it 
 be effected by unauthorized means.” 
 
 “ The first public association of men,” said Coningsby, 
 “ who have worked for an avowed end without enunciating a 
 single principle.” 
 
 “ And who have established political infidelity throughout 
 the land,” said Lord Henry. 
 
 “ By Jove! ” said Buckhurst, “ what infernal fools we have 
 made ourselves this last week ! ” 
 
 suasion.” Sir Robert felt bound to oppose 
 the motion. He denied the right of the 
 legislature to alienate ecclesiastical property 
 for secular purposes. He described the 
 move of Lord John Russell as a proposal to 
 affirm an abstract right to deal with an 
 imaginary surplus at some indefinite period, 
 which might never arrive. What was to be 
 gained, he asked, by the affirmation of so 
 vague a proposition ? It might serve as 
 another firebrand to kindle the inflamma¬ 
 tory wars of Irish religious sentiment, but 
 it could not lead to any practical good. 
 The house, however, supported the motion 
 of Lord John by a majority of thirty-three, 
 and the prime minister, accepting his defeat, 
 sent in his resignation. 
 
 “ Two political results,” writes Mr. Double¬ 
 day in his memoir of Sir Robert Peel, 
 “unquestionably sprung out of this short 
 and singular episode. One was that Sir 
 Robert Peel, by the nerve and readiness 
 which he displayed, added to his reputation 
 as a first-rate debater and man of business. 
 The second was the confidence in his 
 future strength, which he now acquired 
 from the contemplation of the altered posi¬ 
 tion of his political rivals. This renewal of 
 confidence was quite apparent in those 
 addresses which his presence at certain 
 civic festivals, got up probably for that 
 purpose, enabled him to utter; and the 
 emphatic advice of ‘Register! register! 
 register! ’ * with which he greeted his 
 friends on one of these occasions, demon¬ 
 strated that he trusted to open for himself 
 the avenue to future power, and distinctly 
 foresaw a time when he should again hold 
 in his hand the destinies of his country.” 
 Mr. Disraeli indulges in similar reflections. 
 “We believe we may venture to assume,” 
 he writes, “that at no period during the 
 movements of 1834-35 did Sir Robert Peel 
 ever believe in the success of his adminis¬ 
 tration. Its mere failure could occasion 
 him little dissatisfaction; he was compen- 
 
 * “ ‘ There is nothing like a good small majority,’ said Mr. 
 Taper, ‘ and a good registration.’ 
 
 “‘Ay! register, register, register!’ said the duke. ‘Those 
 were immortal words.’ ”— Coningsby. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 31 
 
 sated for it by the noble opportunity 
 afforded to him for the display of those 
 great qualities, both moral and intellectual, 
 which the swaddling-clothes of a routine 
 prosperity had long repressed, but of which 
 his opposition to the Reform Bill had given 
 to the nation a significant intimation. The 
 brief administration elevated him in public 
 opinion, and even in the eye of Europe; and 
 it is probable that a much longer term of 
 power would not have contributed more to 
 his fame.” 
 
 On the resignation of the Peel cabinet 
 che king had no alternative but to re-instate 
 Lord Melbourne—“ the minister, not of his 
 wish, but of his necessity”—in power. This 
 change of government brought again Ben¬ 
 jamin Disraeli to the front. Mr. Henry 
 Labouchere, the member for Taunton, 
 had been appointed master of the mint 
 and vice-president of the board of trade, 
 and, as a natural consequence, vacated 
 his seat. On appearing before his con¬ 
 stituency for re-election, he found himself 
 opposed by the thrice-rejected of High 
 Wycombe. The contest was unequal, yet 
 Mr. Disraeli had no reason to complain 
 of his reception; the Tories gave him 
 their support, and he found in the borough 
 a good following to encourage him to proceed 
 actively with his canvass. In his address 
 and in his speeches, he frankly avowed the 
 principles he professed. He had been ac¬ 
 cused, he said, of inconsistency, because, on 
 the one hand, though a Tory, he appreciated 
 the influence of the working classes, and, on 
 the other, though he admitted the claim s«of 
 a democracy, he supported an aristocracy; 
 but, as a matter of fact, if there were one 
 thing he piqued himself upon more than 
 another, it was his consistency. He had 
 always resisted, with his utmost energy, the 
 party of which his opponent was a member, 
 for he had never ceased to avow that the 
 Whigs were an anti-national party, careful 
 only to identify their own interests with 
 those of the country. He had considered it 
 his duty to thwart the Whigs, to insure their 
 discomfiture, and, if possible, to effect their 
 
 destruction as a party. For these ends he 
 had strenuously laboured; and since, on his 
 entering political life, he had found the 
 Tory party “a shattered, a feeble, a dis¬ 
 heartened fragment, self-confessing its own 
 inability to carry on the king’s government, 
 and announcing an impending revolution,” 
 he sought—openly sought—by new combi¬ 
 nations to oppose the policy of the Whigs. 
 But how was that policy to be opposed? 
 Where were the elements of a party to 
 keep the Whigs in check, and to bring 
 back the old constitutional balance? 
 “ Gentlemen,” he cried, addressing the 
 Taunton electors, “ I thought they existed 
 in the liberal Tories and in those inde¬ 
 pendent Beformers who had been returned 
 to parliament independently of the Whigs. 
 I laboured for their union, and I am 
 proud of it. Gentlemen, 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, and, therefore, I 
 advocated a 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, instead of the nominees 
 of a sectarian oligarchy. Therefore, I pro¬ 
 posed the adoption of the ballot in the only 
 constituencies willing to assume it. And 
 now, where is my inconsistency ?” The Whig 
 party had fallen to pieces; the object for 
 which he, Benjamin Disraeli, had laboured 
 was attained; the balance of parties was 
 restored; hence, measures which at one time 
 it had been necessary for him to advocate, 
 could now be abandoned. In other words, 
 he acted upon the opinions he had advanced 
 some months before at High Wycombe, 
 when defending Sir Robert Peel for the 
 course he might in the future pursue. 
 What had been “just, necessary, and 
 expedient” when the Tories were dis¬ 
 heartened and disunited, and the Wdiigs 
 powerful and unanimous, was now no 
 
32 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 longer just, necessary, and expedient 
 when the Whigs were divided and over¬ 
 thrown, and the Tories organized and 
 sanguine. 
 
 In the course of the various speeches 
 he delivered on that occasion, Benjamin 
 Disraeli made frequent reference to the 
 condition of Ireland, and his remarks led 
 to a quarrel which malice will not willingly 
 let die. As the witty nicknames attached 
 by Lord Beaconsfield to the more con¬ 
 spicuous of his opponents will endure as 
 long as our parliamentary debates continue 
 to excite interest, so will the fierce verbal 
 onslaught of Daniel O’Connell upon the 
 then Mr. Disraeli continue to be raked up 
 and remembered. Nor can it be said that 
 in the contest, if the object of abuse be to 
 sting and stick, the defeat was with the 
 so-called Liberator. Ireland was at this 
 time a thorn festering more sorely than 
 usual in the political flesh of England. 
 The evils under which she laboured had, 
 beneath the selfish and mischievous policy 
 of O’Connell, been the means of creating 
 such mutinous discontent that nothing 
 short of dismemberment of the empire 
 would satisfy the rebels. It was neither 
 absenteeism, nor Protestantism, nor land¬ 
 lordism, nor exclusion from the suffrage, 
 that was now complained of: the one and 
 only grievance was the existence of the 
 English in Ireland. At first O’Connell had 
 been just and moderate in his demands; 
 but as his power increased, with it the 
 nature of his requests developed. Erom 
 Catholic emancipation he passed to reform, 
 and when these had been granted he raised 
 the cry of “Ireland for the Irish!” which, 
 being interpreted, signified an Irish parlia¬ 
 ment with a Catholic majority, and repeal 
 of the Union. He held the balance be¬ 
 tween parties at Westminster, and forced 
 the Whigs to recognize the authority he 
 swayed. If England is to govern Ireland 
 she must rule her with the strong arm, 
 which refuses to relax its firm hold until 
 disaffection is stamped out. The arm of 
 Lord Melbourne was not strong; he truckled 
 
 to O’Connell; and between the Whigs and 
 the agitator a secret treaty had been entered 
 into, by which O’Connell pledged himself 
 to support the government in return for 
 the aid of the ministry in pushing forward 
 his own pet Irish schemes. These schemes 
 had, however, for their object more the 
 advancement of the agitator than the pros¬ 
 perity of Ireland. “ The Catholic church,” 
 writes Mr. Froude, “ owed much to O’Con¬ 
 nell; the people less than nothing. No 
 practical good thing, not even the smallest, 
 ever came to the Irish peasant from his 
 glorious liberator. Emancipation and agita¬ 
 tion might make the fortunes of patriotic 
 orators, and make the castle tremble before 
 the Catholic archbishops; but they drained 
 no bogs, filled no hungry stomachs, or 
 patched the rags in which the squalid 
 millions were shivering: and still as the 
 potato multiplied, the people multiplied, 
 and beggary multiplied along with them. 
 O’Connell cared no more for the poor than 
 the harshest of Protestant absentees. The 
 more millions that he could claim as 
 behind him, the mightier he seemed. Llis 
 own estates at Derrynane and Cahirciveen 
 were as naked, as neglected, as sub¬ 
 divided, as littered with ragged crowds 
 depending on a single, root for their sub¬ 
 sistence, as any other in the county to 
 which he belonged.” 
 
 It had so happened that when Benjamin 
 Disraeli was contesting Wycombe for the 
 first time, his friend Lytton Bulwer had 
 endeavoured to obtain a letter of recom¬ 
 mendation to the constituency for him from 
 O’Connell, who, though a representative 
 reformer,was not then the violent, unscrupu¬ 
 lous demagogue he afterwards so pitifully 
 developed into. O’Connell had courteously 
 replied that he regretted having no acquaint¬ 
 ance at Wycombe to whom he could 
 recommend Mr. Disraeli. “It grieves me, 
 therefore,” he wrote, “ to be unable to 
 serve him on his canvass. I am as con¬ 
 vinced as you are of the great advantage the 
 cause of genuine reform would obtain from 
 his return. His readiness to carry the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 33 
 
 Reform Bill into practical effect towards the 
 production of cheap government and free 
 institutions is enhanced by the talent and 
 information which he brings to the good 
 cause. I should certainly express full 
 reliance on his political and personal integ- 
 \ity, 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 Wycombe.” These words 
 were kind, encouraging, and in every way 
 honourable to the writer; but the O’Connell 
 of 1832 was a totally different man to the 
 arrogant, vituperative bully of 1835. He had 
 not yet been totally demoralized by the 
 homage of the rabble, who insulted humanity 
 by calling themselves men. When Benja¬ 
 min Disraeli perceived the traitorous course 
 the agitator, shortly after the Reform Bill, 
 had entered upon, and that the O’Connell 
 policy was hostile to the welfare of the 
 country, he felt it incumbent upon himself, 
 then expounding his views to a new con¬ 
 stituency, to speak in no measured terms 
 upon the subject. On the occasion, which 
 has now become historical, he alluded to 
 the strange alliance that had been effected 
 between Lord Melbourne and the Irish 
 tribune, and in the course of his remarks, 
 said:—“I look upon the Whigs as a 
 weak, but ambitious party, who can only 
 obtain power by linking themselves with 
 a traitor. I ought to apologise to the 
 admirers of Mr. O’Connell, perhaps, for 
 this hard language. I am myself his 
 admirer, so far as his talents and abilities 
 are concerned, but I maintain him to be 
 a traitor.” 
 
 When this speech was brought to the 
 ears of the agitator, his anger was extreme. 
 He was then at Dublin, carrying on his 
 dirty business as a professional sedition- 
 monger, and, happening at the time to 
 address a Grades’ union meeting, he thus 
 delivered himself of his wrath:—“Never,” 
 he exclaimed, “in the annals of political 
 turpitude, was there anything deserving the 
 name of blackguardism to equal the attack 
 of Benjamin Disraeli upon me. What is 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 my acquaintance with this man ? ” he yelled. 
 “ Just this. In 1831, or the beginning of 
 1832, the borough of Wycombe became 
 vacant. I then knew him, but not person¬ 
 ally—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, and was going to stand upon the 
 Radical interest for the borough of Wy¬ 
 combe, 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 sub¬ 
 ject, that I immediately complied with the 
 request, and composed as good an epistle as 
 I could in his behalf. I am in the habit of 
 letter-writing, 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. 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.” 
 
 Oblivious of the fact, that whereas in 
 1831 he was the foe of the Whigs, and 
 was now their ally—oblivious, also, of the 
 culpable development of his views, that 
 whereas in 1831 he preached moderate 
 reform, he now advocated decided revolution 
 —O’Connell proceeded in the following 
 strain:— 
 
 “ At Taunton this miscreant had the 
 audacity to style me an incendiary! Why, 
 I was a greater incendiary in 1831 than I 
 am at present, if I ever were one; and if I 
 am, he is doubly so for having employed 
 me. Then he calls me a traitor. My 
 answer to this is—he is a liar. 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 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 could tolerate such a creature—having the 
 audacity to come forward with one set of 
 principles at one time, and obtain political 
 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 tolerat¬ 
 ing or having upon the face of her society 
 a miscreant of his abominable, foul, and 
 atrocious nature. His name shows he is by 
 descent a Jew. . . . I have the happiness 
 of being acquainted with some Jewish fami¬ 
 lies in London; and more accomplished 
 ladies, or more humane, cordial, high-minded, 
 or better-educated gentlemen, I have never 
 met. It will not be supposed, therefore, 
 that when I speak of Disraeli as the descen¬ 
 dant 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 certainly been from one of those that 
 Disraeli descended. He possesses just the 
 qualities of the impenitent thief who died 
 upon the cross, whose name, I verily be¬ 
 lieve, must have been Disraeli. For aught 
 I know, the present Disraeli is descended 
 from him, and with the impression that 
 he is, I now forgive the heir-at-law of 
 the blasphemous thief who died upon the 
 cross.” 
 
 This speech found its way into several 
 newspapers, and was especially viciously 
 approved of, and commented upon, by the 
 Globe , then an organ attached to the interests 
 of the Whig party. 
 
 It was in the days when a man, smarting 
 under severe insult, appealed to his sword 
 instead of to his solicitor, and Mr. Disraeli 
 was not slow in sending a challenge to the 
 Irish tribune. It had so happened that 
 in a former duel O’Connell had the 
 misfortune to kill his man, and, like the 
 distinguished Frenchman, Emile deGirardin, 
 who has lately passed from us, he registered 
 a solemn vow that under no provocation 
 would he ever accept another challenge to 
 mortal combat. A high-minded man under 
 
 such conditions, and aware that he could 
 not be called to account for his words, 
 would have been more than usually careful 
 and measured in his language when dealing 
 with an opponent, or with matters that 
 he strongly disapproved of; but O’Connell 
 was, in his moral capacity, in no way supe¬ 
 rior to the usual run of his noisy, coarse, 
 blustering class; in his political acts there 
 was a good deal of the knave, and in his 
 private acts there was something of the 
 poltroon. He refused to go out with Mr. 
 Disraeli. His son, who had once before 
 fought for his father, and had fired before 
 his time, was then challenged to “resume 
 your vicarious duties of yielding satisfac¬ 
 tion for the insult which your father has so 
 long lavished with impunity upon his politi¬ 
 cal opponents.” Morgan O’Connell, however, 
 was no fire-eater, and in a somewhat craven 
 letter he begged to be excused. Thus de¬ 
 barred from obtaining the satisfaction then 
 customary in cases of this kind, Mr. Disraeli 
 had recourse to his pen, a weapon which he 
 no doubt wielded with greater dexterity 
 than he would have the sword. He wrote 
 to O’Connell, and sent a copy of the letter 
 to the Times, a journal which at this time 
 always inserted his correspondence. It is 
 dated May 5, 1835, and thus it runs:— 
 
 “Mr. O’Connell, 
 
 “ Although you have placed yourself 
 out of the pale of civilization, still I am one who 
 will not be insulted, even by a Yahoo, without 
 chastising it. When I read this morning in the 
 same journals your virulent attack upon myself, 
 and that your son was at the same moment paying 
 the penalty of similar virulence to another indi¬ 
 vidual on whom you had dropped your filth,* I 
 thought that the consciousness that your opponents 
 had at length discovered a source of satisfaction 
 might have animated your insolence to unwonted 
 energy, and I called upon your son to reassume 
 his vicarious office of yielding satisfaction for his 
 shrinking sire. But it seems that that gentleman 
 declines the further exercise of the pleasing duty 
 of enduring the consequences of your libertine 
 
 * Lord Alvanley, on being freely abused by O'Connell, 
 called the agitator a “ bloated buffoon.” Morgan O’Connell 
 felt bound to defend his father, when the duel ensued in which 
 the son fired too soon. 
 
4ND HIS TIMES. 
 
 35 
 
 harangues. I have no other means, therefore, of 
 noticing your effusion but this public mode. Listen 
 then to me. 
 
 “ If it had been possible for you to act like a 
 gentleman, you would have hesitated before you 
 made your foul and insolent comments upon a 
 hasty and garbled report of a speech which scarcely 
 contains a sentence or an expression as they eman¬ 
 ated from my mouth ; but the truth is, you were 
 glad to seize the first opportunity of pouring forth 
 your venom against a man whom it serves the 
 interest of your party to represent as a political 
 apostate.” 
 
 After severely alluding to the apostacy of 
 O’Connell in abusing the Whigs, and then 
 cementing an alliance with the party he 
 had so freely denounced, the letter thus 
 concludes :— 
 
 u I admire your scurrilous allusion to my origin. 
 It is quite clear that the ‘hereditary bondsman’ 
 has already forgotten the clank of his fetters. I 
 know the tactics of your church ; it clamours for 
 toleration, and it labours for supremacy. I see 
 that you are quite prepared to persecute. With 
 regard to your taunts as to my want of success in 
 my election contests, permit me to remind you 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 the chapels of your creed, nor am I in 
 possession of a princely revenue wrung from a 
 starving race of fanatical slaves. Nevertheless, I 
 have a deep conviction that the hour is at hand 
 when I shall be more successful, and take my place 
 in that proud assembly of which Mr. O’Connell 
 avows his wish no longer to be 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 
 cause, and in some energies which have been not 
 altogether unproved, 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 DTsraeli.” 
 
 The next step of the writer was to con¬ 
 tradict the mis-statements that had got 
 abroad, and, notably, to refute the garbled 
 and mischievous construction put upon the 
 affair by the Globe newspaper. Again, he 
 
 took into his confidence the columns of the 
 leading journal. It is necessary, he wrote, 
 owing to the false reports that had been 
 circulated, to enter into some detail with 
 regard to the controversy between himself 
 and Mr. O’Connell, and especially with re¬ 
 gard to the misconstructions adopted by 
 the Globe. He emphatically denied the 
 truth of any of the statements made by the 
 Irish tribune. He held the same political 
 opinions now as he had advanced when first 
 he contested High Wycombe. He did not 
 require Mr. O’Connell’s recommendation, 
 or that of any one else for the borough, 
 the suffrages of whose electors he had the 
 honour to solicit. His family resided in the 
 neighbourhood; he stood alike on local influ¬ 
 ence and distinctly avowed principles, and 
 he opposed the son of the prime minister. 
 He was absent from England during the 
 discussion on the Reform Bill, and, on his 
 return, the bill was virtually, though not 
 formally, passed. “I found the nation,” he 
 writes, “in terror of a rampant democracy; 
 I saw only an impending oligarchy. I found 
 the House of Commons packed, and the in¬ 
 dependence of the House of Lords announced 
 as terminated. I recognized a repetition of 
 the same oligarchical coups d’etat from which 
 we had escaped by a miracle little more than 
 a century before; therefore I determined, to 
 the utmost of my power, to oppose the 
 Whigs. Why, then, it may be asked, did I 
 not join the Tories? Because I found the 
 Tories in a state of ignorant stupefaction. 
 The Whigs had assured them that they were 
 annihilated, and they believed them. They 
 had not a single definite or intelligible idea 
 as to their position and their duties, or the 
 character of their party. They were haunted 
 with a nervous apprehension of that great 
 bugbear, ‘ the people ’—that bewildering 
 title under which a miserable minority 
 contrives to coerce and plunder the nation. 
 They were ignorant that the millions of the 
 nation required to be guided and encouraged, 
 and that they were that nation’s natural 
 leaders, bound to marshal and to enlighten 
 them. The Tories trembled at a coming 
 
36 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 anarchy: what they had to apprehend was 
 a rigid tyranny. They fancied themselves 
 on the eve of a reign of terror, when they 
 were about to sink under the sovereignty of 
 a Council of Ten. The Tories in 1832 were 
 avowedly no longer a practical party; they 
 had no system and no object; they were 
 passive and forlorn. They took their seats 
 in the House of Commons after the Reform 
 Act as the senate in the forum, when 
 the city was entered by the Gauls, only 
 to die.” He was desirous of obtaining a 
 seat in parliament to combat the machin¬ 
 ations of the Whigs; his principles were 
 those having for their end the fusion of 
 aristocracy with democracy; on his com¬ 
 mittee were Tories as well as Radicals, and 
 he candidly admitted that he asked the aid 
 of both to bear him on to victory. “And 
 now, sir,” he proceeds, “for Mr. O’Connell. 
 Mr. O’Connell in 1832 was in a very different 
 situation to Mr. O’Connell in 1833. The 
 Globe , which historically informs us that in 
 1832 I was to become a member of Mr. 
 O’Connell’s tail, forgets that at that period 
 Mr. O’Connell had no tail, for this was pre¬ 
 vious to the first general election after the 
 Reform Act. Mr. O’Connell was not then 
 an advocate for the dismemberment of the 
 empire, the destruction of the church, and 
 the abolition of the House of Lords. His 
 lips overflowed with patriotism, with almost 
 Protestant devotion to the establishment, 
 with almost English admiration for the con¬ 
 stitution. 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 constituency styled Radical, 
 applied to Mr. O’Connell and Mr. Hume, 
 with whom he was intimately acquainted, 
 to know whether they had any influence 
 in Wycombe, and requested them to exer¬ 
 cise it in my favour. They had none, 
 and they expressed their regret in letters 
 to this gentleman, who forwarded them to 
 me at Wycombe, and my committee, con¬ 
 sisting of as many Tories as Radicals, 
 printed them.” 
 
 Their support was accorded to him, not 
 because they as Tories or Radicals had en¬ 
 tirely agreed w 7 ith him in all his opinions, 
 but because they were united on the one 
 vital question—hostility to the Whig in¬ 
 terest. It had been asserted that he stood 
 on Radical principles at High Wycombe; 
 if so, why, he asks, did the Whigs oppose 
 him as a Tory ? He frankly avowed that 
 he had advocated triennial parliaments and 
 vote by ballot, because he then was of 
 opinion that the only way to shatter the 
 power of the Whigs was by frequent 
 appeals to the country, and by preventing 
 them from “ exercising a usurious influence, 
 over the petty tradesmen who are their 
 slaves and their victims” in the number 
 of little towns the late Reform Bill had 
 enfranchised. But the Whigs had now 
 fallen to pieces; the balance of parties had 
 been restored; and since it was no longer 
 necessary to advocate the measures he had 
 formerly advanced, he had allowed himself 
 to abandon them. Still, it was false to 
 assert that he had changed his principles. 
 He held the same views at Taunton as he 
 had at Wycombe. “I came forward on 
 that occasion,” he writes, “on precisely the 
 same principles on which I had offered 
 myself at Wycombe, but my situation was 
 different. I was no longer an independent 
 and isolated member of the political world. 
 I had felt it my duty to become an earnest 
 partizan. The Tory party had in this 
 interval roused itself from its lethargy; it 
 had profited by adversity; it had regained 
 not a little of its original character and 
 primary spirit; it had come to remember 
 or to discover that it was the national party 
 of the country; it recognized its duty to 
 place itself at the head of the nation; it 
 possessed the patriotic principles of Sir 
 William Wyndham and Lord Bolingbroke, 
 in whose writings I have ever recognized 
 the most pure and the profoundest sources 
 of political and constitutional wisdom; 
 under the guidance of an eloquent and 
 able leader the principles of primitive 
 Toryism had again developed themselves, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 37 
 
 and the obsolete associations which form 
 no portion of that great patriotic scheme 
 had been effectually discarded.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli failed, however, to be more 
 successful at Taunton than he had been on 
 the three previous occasions at Wycombe; 
 he was defeated by Mr. Labouchere by a 
 large majority. 
 
 Such is the history of the memorable 
 O’Connell episode, to which allusion has so 
 frequently been made in the course of Lord 
 Beaconsfield’s career. In the dispute, to 
 our mind, no blame can be attached to the 
 proceedings pursued by Mr. Disraeli. He 
 held the views both of a Tory and a 
 reformer, and he sought the support of Mr. 
 Hume, Mr. Bulwer, and the agitator, to 
 help him with the democratic party, as he 
 sought the aid of the Duke of Chandos 
 to assist him with the aristocratic party. 
 The one broad ground he stood upon was 
 hostility to the Whigs; if it can be shown 
 that, whilst essaying to effect a fusion with 
 the Tories and the Beformers, he was pan¬ 
 dering to the policy of the Whigs—as 
 O’Connell afterwards pandered—then most 
 certainly he can be charged with inconsis¬ 
 tency and apostacy. But throughout his 
 whole political career, both in the House of 
 Commons and in the House of Lords, the 
 late leader of the Conservative party was 
 the steadfast opponent of Whig principles 
 and practices. Throughout his whole poli¬ 
 tical career he was a Tory, and yet one who 
 believed in the power and development of 
 the working classes. His creed was ever 
 the union of Toryism and Democracy to 
 repel Whiggism, and the selfish and short¬ 
 sighted policy of the middle classes. But 
 even if it had been as his enemies allege, 
 which is not the case, that Mr. Disraeli had 
 advanced opinions in his youth which his 
 maturer experience had called upon him to 
 change or modify, is that so heinous and 
 unusual an offence in political life? When 
 we reflect upon Mr. Disraeli’s whole parlia¬ 
 mentary career—his undoubted patriotism, 
 his generosity, when leader of the Opposi¬ 
 tion, to the government of the day, his 
 
 far-seeing policy, the beneficial measures 
 he introduced; and then to have arrayed 
 against these deeds of a brilliant past, the 
 alleged inconsistencies of hot youth, which 
 malice has raked up from the dust of 
 forgetfulness—such charges really become 
 too ludicrous for grave consideration! It 
 is as if, when sailing on the bosom of 
 some majestic river, a man were to look 
 for flecks of mud, and disparage the stream 
 because it was said to have its rise in some 
 hidden, turbid rivulet. 
 
 Happily the fierce light of hate can 
 beat upon the public life of Lord Beacons- 
 field, and fail to find there the faults, 
 the compromises, the tergiversations of 
 many of his predecessors. He never sup¬ 
 ported a measure when in power, and 
 thwarted it when in opposition, as did 
 Sir Bobert Walpole when he entered 
 upon his course of factious antagonism to 
 Stanhope. He never appealed to a prime 
 minister for preferment, and then, when 
 refused, veered round and bitterly attacked 
 the man he had petitioned, as did the first 
 Pitt, when the great minister of peace 
 declined to give him office. No sarcastic 
 speaker could point to him as sitting on the 
 same bench with men whom he had previ¬ 
 ously denounced, and whose policy he had 
 disapproved of, as Pitt had pointed to 
 Henry Pox, when he united with Newcastle, 
 or as Cobden had pointed to Bernal 
 Osborne, when he took his seat by the side 
 of his “boa-constrictor” friend, Sir James 
 Graham. He never agreed to serve under 
 a man upon whose political actions he had 
 at one time poured out all the vials of 
 his wrathful indignation, as had Charles 
 James Pox when he served under North, 
 unlike— 
 
 “ The rugged Thurlow, who with sullen scowl, 
 
 In surly mood at friend and foe will growl; 
 
 Of proud prerogative the stern support,” 
 
 he never intrigued with the enemy to keep 
 him in office. He never behaved to any 
 man as the Duke of Wellington behaved to 
 Canning. He never acted towards any 
 measure he had once supported as Peel 
 
38 
 
 THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 acted towards the cause of protection. He 
 was never accused, as Lord Palmerston was 
 accused, of ignoring the control of the 
 crown as to the supervision of official cor¬ 
 respondence. Nor was he ever charged, as 
 had been Lord Melbourne and the late 
 Lord Derby, with a culpable indifference 
 to the business of public affairs. 
 
 Still if it were true—which it is not—that 
 Mr. Disraeli began life as a Radical, and 
 then went over to the enemy, is he the 
 only man who has changed his political 
 faith? Did not Charles James Fox begin 
 as a Tory and end as the leader of the great 
 Whig party ? How often did the Duke of 
 Wellington alter his opinions ? How often 
 did Sir Robert Peel alter his opinions ? 
 Was not Canning brought up under Whig 
 protection, and did he not commence his 
 parliamentary life as the adherent of Pitt ? 
 We know what the wits said of him at 
 Brookes’—- 
 
 “ The turning of coats so common is grown, 
 
 That no one would think to attack it; 
 
 But no case until now was so flagrantly known 
 Of a schoolboy turning his jacket” 
 
 Was not Mr. Stanley a reformer, yet was 
 not the late Earl of Derby the leader of 
 theTory party ? Did not Lord Palmerston 
 begin life as a Tory and then cross over 
 to the Liberal benches ? Did not the late 
 Lord Lytton begin life as a Radical, and 
 then end as a Conservative ? Was not Sir 
 Francis Burdett a Radical who afterwards 
 became a Tory? And pray, we ask the 
 question without implying anything offen¬ 
 sive, what has been the career of him whom 
 Macaulay described as “ the rising hope ” 
 of stern, unbending Toryism ? 
 
 The fact is, the study of political bio¬ 
 graphy makes large calls upon the charity 
 of our human nature, and, unless we feel 
 ourselves capable of generously meeting 
 these demands, we shall do wisely to aban¬ 
 don the subject altogether. We should not 
 pay heed to the hot indignation of opposi¬ 
 tion, for it has as often happened as not 
 that when the opposition has comfortably 
 settled itself upon the Treasury benches, 
 
 what once excited its ire excites it no 
 longer, and we see opponents content to 
 pursue a not very dissimilar policy to that 
 which, under less favourable circumstances, 
 has met with their sternest disapproval. 
 We should judge of a party, not by its views 
 when out of office, for the simple fact that 
 it is out of office, but by its conduct when 
 in power. We should look kindly upon 
 the inconsistencies of youthful political 
 ambition, and upon its struggles, which 
 may not, perhaps, always bear a close ex¬ 
 amination, to push itself through the crowd 
 —reserving our judgment and the severity 
 of our morality for a later date, when the 
 aspirant has developed into the statesman. 
 Remembering human nature, we should be 
 more prone to forget, than to eternally re¬ 
 call, the unsavoury dealings of men desirous 
 of entering parliament, or the intrigues 
 practised by eager partizans to obtain office, 
 and content ourselves with limiting our 
 criticism to the conduct of such men, when 
 they have once become enrolled as legis¬ 
 lators, or have taken the oaths as advisers 
 of the crown. We must be satisfied with 
 viewing the race, and not watch too narrowly 
 the details of the training. 
 
 Again, thwarted in his political ambition, 
 Benjamin Disraeli once more turned his 
 steps to the forsaken shrine of literature. 
 Late in the year 1835, he published the 
 pamphlet upon which he had been long 
 engaged, and from which we have already, 
 quoted, entitled, “ A Vindication of the 
 English Constitution, in a Letter to a Noble 
 and Learned Lord.” The peer thus ad¬ 
 dressed was Lord Lyndhurst, who was quick 
 to discern the great abilities of the young 
 man, and between whom and the future 
 statesman a warm friendship now subsisted. 
 The objects of the pamphlet w T ere to ex¬ 
 pound political philosophy, as opposed to 
 the utilitarian views of Jeremy Bentham 
 and his school, and to defend Tory opinions 
 from many of the misconceptions with 
 which they were surrounded. Readers of 
 “ Coningsby ” and “ Sybil ” will find in the 
 pages of this brilliant constitutional treatise 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 39 
 
 many of the theories and tenets with which 
 they are familiar; that the monarchy should 
 rest upon a democracy, the crown upon the 
 people, each strengthening the other with¬ 
 out the control of parliament ; and that the 
 personal power of the monarch should be 
 the centre of our political system, restoring 
 the authority and prerogative of the crown, 
 weakened and restrained by parliamentary 
 encroachments. We have the well-known 
 attacks upon the Whigs, who sought to 
 reduce the English monarch to the charac¬ 
 ter of a Venetian doge, and to exchange the 
 divine right of kings for the divine right 
 of nobles. We listen to the oft-recurring 
 arguments as to the exact position of the 
 House of Commons in the framework of 
 the constitution. It is not the house of 
 the people, nor are its members the repre¬ 
 sentatives of the people: it is “ an estate of 
 the realm, and the members of the House 
 of Commons represent that estate.” “ We 
 know,” writes the author, “what happened to 
 the country in the turbulent days before the 
 Kestoration, when the lower house, ceasing 
 to be an estate, degenerated into an assem¬ 
 bly of delegates of the people, and arrogantly 
 declared that ‘ the people are the origin 
 of all just power,’ and that * whatever is 
 declared to be law by the House of Com¬ 
 mons hath the force of law without the 
 consent of the king or the House of Peers.’ 
 Never was tyranny more severe and exact¬ 
 ing than when England was ruled by the 
 people. It was ‘ the people ’ who estab¬ 
 lished courts more infamous than the Star 
 Chamber, who, to gratify their own petty 
 revenge, seized upon such property as they 
 desired, who cruelly tortured all whom they 
 considered malignant, who opposed that 
 great bulwark of our liberties—trial by jury 
 —who introduced the excise, who raised 
 the taxation of the country from £800,000 
 a-year to £7,000,000 a-year; and who, 
 indeed, so harshly, so mischievously, and 
 so incompetently ruled the country, that 
 in order to free herself from f the people 
 she took refuge in the arms of a military 
 despot.” Such was the condition of the 
 
 nation when governed by a “ vulgar and 
 ignoble oligarchy.” Having shown that 
 to be ruled by the divine right of the 
 House of Commons is the most per¬ 
 nicious of all the various forms of control, 
 the writer proceeds to argue in favour of 
 the hereditary principle of the House of 
 Lords, and arrives at the conclusion that 
 such a chamber is “suited to the genius of 
 the country, in harmony with all its poli¬ 
 tical establishments, and founded not only 
 on an intimate acquaintance with the 
 national character, but a profound know¬ 
 ledge of human nature in general.” Then 
 dealing with the question of the two great 
 parties into which English political warfare 
 is divided, Mr. Disraeli contends for his 
 favourite theory that the Tory party is 
 essentially the national and democratic 
 party, whilst the Whigs must always be 
 the exclusive and aristocratic party; and 
 here he boldly avows that since 1831 the 
 political power of the Tories has only been 
 maintained “ by a series of democratic 
 measures of the greatest importance and 
 most comprehensive character.” This state¬ 
 ment affords him an opportunity to pass a 
 high eulogium upon the character of his 
 great political hero, Lord Bolingbroke. In 
 the early part of the eighteenth century, the 
 Tory party required re-organization; “and 
 as it is in the nature of human affairs,” 
 writes Mr. Disraeli, “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 organiz¬ 
 ing genius, settled the confused and dis- 
 cordant materials of English faction, and 
 reduced them into a clear and systematic 
 order. This was Lord Bolingbroke. Giited 
 with that fiery imagination, 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 
 
40 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELL 
 
 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 crea¬ 
 tive minds alone enjoy, all the wisdom 
 which can be derived from literature, and a 
 comprehensive experience of human affairs; 
 no one was better qualified to be the min¬ 
 ister 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. 
 
 “ Opposed to the Whigs from principle, 
 for an oligarchy is hostile to genius, and 
 recoiling from the Tory tenets, which his 
 unprejudiced and vigorous mind taught him 
 at the same time to dread and to contemn, 
 Lord Bolingbroke at the outset of his career 
 incurred the common-place imputation of 
 insincerity and inconsistency, because in 
 an age of unsettled parties, with princi¬ 
 ples contradictory of their conduct, he 
 maintained that vigilant and meditative 
 independence which is the privilege of 
 an original and determined spirit. 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, but destined in English 
 politics to be never more substantial than a 
 vision. More experienced in political life* 
 he became aware that he had only to choose 
 between the Whigs and the Tories; and his 
 sagacious intellect, not satisfied with the 
 superficial character of these celebrated 
 divisions, penetrated their interior and 
 essential qualities, and discovered, in spite 
 of all the affectation of popular sympathy 
 on one side, and of admiration of arbitrary 
 power on the other, that this choice was in 
 fact a choice between oligarchy and demo¬ 
 cracy. From the moment that Lord Boling¬ 
 broke, 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; and 
 although the ignoble prudence of the Whig 
 minister restrained him from advocating 
 the cause of the nation in the senate, it was 
 
 his inspiring pen that made Walpole tremble 
 in the recesses of the treasury, and in a 
 series of writings unequalled in our lit¬ 
 erature for their spirited patriotism, their 
 just and profound views, and the golden 
 eloquence in which they are expressed, 
 eradicated from Toryism all those absurd 
 and odious doctrines which Toryism had ad¬ 
 ventitiously adopted, clearly developed its 
 essential and permanent character, discarded 
 jure divino, demolished passive obedience, 
 threw 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.” 
 
 This eloquent passage naturally suggests 
 a comparison between the two men. Like 
 Bolingbroke, Mr. Disraeli was the consistent 
 foe of the Whigs. Like Bolingbroke, “he 
 meditated over the formation of a new 
 party,” he made his choice “between oli¬ 
 garchy and democracy,” and, devoting “ all 
 the energies of his Protean mind,” he laid 
 the foundation for the future accession of 
 the Tory party to power. Like Boling¬ 
 broke, he was gifted with “the splendour 
 of an organizing genius,” a “ fiery imagina¬ 
 tion,” and a brain teeming with “ inventive 
 resources.” What Bolingbroke did for the 
 Tory party in his own day, so did Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli after the repeal of the Corn Laws; he 
 “ settled the confused and discordant mater¬ 
 ials of English faction, and reduced them 
 into a clear and systematic order.” Boling¬ 
 broke was brought up as a Dissenter, Mr. 
 Disraeli as a Jew; yet both men were 
 staunch supporters of the Anglican Church, 
 and firmly upheld the necessity of the 
 union between Church and State. Both 
 men were animated by the keenest desire 
 for the welfare of England; and their sense 
 of patriotism ever caused them to keep a 
 vigilant eye upon the machinations of the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 41 
 
 enemv. As Bolingbroke watched the move- 
 ments of Spain, so did Lord Beaconsfield 
 watch the movements of Russia. The 
 parallel is, however, happily not complete 
 —there is nothing in the career of Mr. 
 Disraeli to suggest a comparison with the 
 intrigues set on foot by Bolingbroke when 
 out of office; and the ending of the two 
 men is very different, the one going down 
 to .his grave soured, disheartened, and 
 discredited: the other honoured, trusted, 
 and in the full glory of his power and 
 popularity. 
 
 In these days when men are seeking to 
 dismember the empire, and to praise repub¬ 
 lican institutions at the expense of our own 
 constitution, we shall do wisely to remember 
 the grand words with which Mr. Disraeli 
 concludes his letter to Lord Lyndhurst.* 
 "If neither ancient ages,” he writes, “ nor 
 the more recent experience of our newer 
 time, can supply us with a parallel instance 
 of a free government, founded on the broad¬ 
 est basis of popular rights, yet combining 
 with democratic liberty aristocratic secu¬ 
 rity and monarchical convenience; if the 
 refined spirit of Greece—if the great Roman 
 soul—if the brilliant genius of feudal Italy 
 —alike failed in realizing this great result, 
 let us cling with increased devotion to the 
 matchless creation of our ancestors, and 
 honour, with still deeper feelings of grati¬ 
 tude and veneration, the English constitu¬ 
 tion. That constitution, my lord, established 
 civil equality in a rude age, and anticipated 
 by centuries in its beneficent practice the 
 sublime theories of modem philosophy; 
 having made us equal, it has kept us free. 
 If it has united equality with freedom, so 
 also it has connected freedom with glory. 
 It has established an empire, which com¬ 
 bines the durability of Rome with the 
 
 * It is a matter of some surprise that this pamphlet 
 has not been republished. It is now very scarce, indeed, 
 so scarce, that the only copy I could find was in the 
 British Museum. Our National Library does not, however, 
 appear to think very highly of the work, since it does not 
 honour it with a separate existence, but binds it up with a 
 volume of inferior and uninteresting essays. There are 
 passages in the “ Vindication of the English Constitution ” 
 as novel and brilliant as anything that Mr. Disraeli ever 
 wrote. I 
 
 adventure of Carthage. It has, at the same 
 time, secured us the most skilful agriculture, 
 the most extended commerce, the most 
 ingenious manufactures, victorious armies, 
 and invincible fleets. Nor has the intel¬ 
 lectual might of England, under its fostering 
 auspices, been less distinguished than its 
 imperial spirit, its manly heart, or its national 
 energy. The authors of England have formed 
 the mind of Europe, and stamped the 
 breathing impression of their genius on the 
 vigorous character of a new world. Under 
 that constitution the administration of jus¬ 
 tice has become so pure, that its exercise 
 has realized the dreams of some Utopian 
 romance. That constitution has struggled 
 successfully with the Papacy, and finally, 
 and for the first time, proved the compati¬ 
 bility of sectarian toleration and national 
 orthodoxy. It has made private ambition 
 conducive to public welfare, it has baffled 
 the machinations of factions and of parties; 
 and when those more violent convulsions 
 have arisen, from whose periodic visitations 
 no human institutions can be exempt, the 
 English constitution has survived the moral 
 earthquake and outlived the mental hurri¬ 
 cane, and been sedulous that the natural 
 course of our prosperity should only be 
 disturbed and not destroyed. Finally, it 
 has secured for every man the career to 
 which he is adapted, and the reward to 
 which he is entitled ; it has summoned 
 your lordship to preside over courts and 
 parliaments, to maintain law by learning, 
 and to recommend wisdom by eloquence; 
 and it has secured to me, in common with 
 every subject of this realm, a right—the 
 enjoyment of which I would not exchange 
 for— 
 
 ‘ The ermined stole, 
 
 The starry breast and coroneted brow,’— 
 the right of expressing my free thoughts 
 to a free people.” 
 
 The Melbourne government, under its 
 sauntering, easy-going premier, was pur¬ 
 suing the tenour of its way, by blundering 
 in its various attempts at legislation, and 
 irritating all classes which wanted their 
 
 6 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
42 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 special interests to be effectively dealt with. 
 Another Junius was now to appear on the 
 scene and pass in review the characters in, 
 and the measures of, the cabinet. During 
 the first months of the year 1836 there ap¬ 
 peared in the Times newspaper a series of 
 letters signed “Runnymede.” These stinging 
 epistles have never been publicly acknow¬ 
 ledged by the late Lord Beaconsfield; but 
 there can be little doubt as to whom their 
 authorship is due. Their literary finish, 
 the keenness of their sarcasm, their cutting 
 invective, their wit, their smartness, all 
 reveal the author of “ Coningsby ” and 
 “ Sybil,” and the politician who illumined 
 many a dreary debate by those trenchant 
 personalities which hit off a character in a 
 phrase, or summed up a measure in an 
 epigram. From the full quiver of these 
 “ Runnymede Letters ” let us select a few 
 barbed shafts. As head of the cabinet, 
 Lord Melbourne is the chief target, and 
 certainly the broad surface he presents for 
 hostile criticism is not spared. He has 
 “ sauntered away the destinies of a nation, 
 and lounged away the glory of an empire;” 
 he is incapable of rousing himself from 
 “the embraces of that siren Desidia,” to 
 whose fatal influences he is no less a slave 
 than was our second Charles; as a minister 
 he is useless, let him therefore be dis¬ 
 missed, and find an asylum in the gardens 
 of Hampton Court, “where he might saunter 
 away the remaining years of his now ludi¬ 
 crous existence, sipping the last novel of 
 Paul de Kock whilst lounging over a sun¬ 
 dial.” As was the prime minister, so were 
 his colleagues. Lord John Russell, the 
 author of the “ feeblest tragedy in our lan¬ 
 guage,” the “ feeblest romance in our 
 literature,” and the “ feeblest political 
 essay on record,” has had the misfortune 
 to be born “ with a strong ambition and 
 a weak intellect.” If a foreigner were told 
 that such a man was the leader of the 
 House of Commons, he might then under¬ 
 stand “ how the Egyptians worshipped an 
 insect.” Lord Brougham had directed many 
 a bitter attack against Mr. Disraeli, his 
 
 speeches, and his works; he was now in 
 his turn to feel the lash. “ I am informed 
 that your lordship,” writes Runnymede, “ is 
 occupied in a translation of your treatise 
 of c Natural Theology ’ into German on the 
 Hamiltonian system. The translation of a 
 work on a subject 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/ ” Lord Palmerston, the dandy 
 of the cabinet, is called “the Sporus 
 of politics, cajoling France with an airy 
 compliment, and menacing Russia with a 
 perfumed cane; ” he is “ the Lord Fanny 
 of diplomacy ” and the “ great Apollo of 
 aspiring understrappers; ” he has “ the 
 smartness of an attorney’s clerk and the 
 intrigues of a Greek of the Lower Empire 
 he reminds one “ of a favourite footman on 
 easy terms with his mistress,” and his sense 
 of political honour is thus summed up, 
 “You owe the Whigs great gratitude, my 
 lord, and therefore I think you will betray 
 them.” The measures of the cabinet natu¬ 
 rally come in for their share of abuse. 
 Whiggery is the mighty dragon “depopulat¬ 
 ing our fields, wasting our pleasant places, 
 poisoning our fountains, and menacing our 
 civilization.” But its end is nigh at hand, 
 “ the reign of delusion is about to close.” 
 “The man who obtains property by false 
 pretences is transported. Is the party that 
 obtains power by the same means to be 
 saved harmless ? Lord Melbourne has 
 established a new colony in Australia; it 
 wants settlers. Let the cabinet emigrate; 
 in the antipodes they will find a home 
 suited to their tastes and characters. The 
 land where the rivers are salt; where the 
 quadrupeds have fins and the fish feet; 
 where everything is confused, discordant, 
 and irregular, is indicated by Providence as 
 the fitting scene of Whig government.” 
 
 In marked contrast to this bitter badin¬ 
 age is the tribute paid by the writer to the 
 position and character of Sir Robert Peel. 
 The Melbourne government, by its incom- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 43 
 
 potency, and the tenacity with which it 
 clung to office, had disgusted all classes. 
 “ Never,” cried Lord Lyndhurst, addressing 
 his brother peers, “was the state of busi¬ 
 ness in the other house of parliament in 
 the situation in which it was at present— 
 never did a government so neglect so im¬ 
 portant a part of its duty, that which it had 
 to discharge in parliament, as the govern¬ 
 ment had done during the last five months. 
 The noble viscount [Melbourne] and his 
 colleagues were utterly powerless. They 
 were powerless alike in that and the other 
 house; they were utterly inefficient and 
 incompetent as servants of the crown; and 
 he must add, also, they were equally power¬ 
 less, incapable, and inefficient as regarded 
 the people.” But in proportion as Lord 
 Melbourne had lost the favour of the court, 
 the support of the House of Commons, and 
 the confidence of the country, Sir Bobert 
 Peel had risen in the opinion of all classes. 
 He was regarded as “ the coming man.” 
 “ In your chivalry alone,” writes the author 
 of the “Runnymede” epistles, “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.” A 
 comparison is then instituted between Peel, 
 who at once resigned when he saw he was 
 
 O 
 
 putting in jeopardy the royal prerogative, 
 and Melbourne, who remained in power in 
 spite of all his past blunders and misman¬ 
 agement. “What a contrast,” exclaims “Run- 
 nymede,” “ does the administration of Sir 
 Robert Peel afford to that of Lord Mel¬ 
 bourne ! No selfish views, no family 
 aggrandizement, no family jobs, no nepo¬ 
 tism ! Contrast the serene retirement of 
 Drayton and the repentant solitude of 
 Howick! Contrast the statesman cheered 
 after his factious defeat by the sympathy 
 of a nation with the coroneted Necker, the 
 worn-out Machiavelli, wringing his helpless 
 hands over his heart in remorseful despair, 
 
 and looking up with a sigh at his scowling- 
 ancestors ! Never did Pitt, in the plenitude 
 of his power, enjoy more cordial confidence 
 than that now extended to Sir Robert Peel 
 by every section of the Conservative party. 
 Then, at the head of his united following, 
 let him go forward and rout the Whig 
 camp, already harassed by its divided 
 interests and intestine jealousies.” “ We 
 look to you,” appeals “ Runnymede,” “ with 
 hope and confidence; you have a noble 
 duty to fulfil: let it be nobly done. You 
 have a great task to execute: achieve it 
 with a great spirit. Rescue your sovereign 
 from an unconstitutional thraldom—rescue 
 an august senate, which has already fought 
 the battle of the people—rescue our national 
 church, which your opponents hate—our 
 venerable constitution, at which they scoff; 
 but above all, rescue that mighty body of 
 which all these great classes and institu¬ 
 tions are but some of the constituent and 
 essential parts—rescue the Nation.” 
 
 Shortly after the appearance of these 
 severe strictures in the leading journal of 
 the day, Mr. Disraeli published the novel 
 which is, perhaps, the favourite among the 
 fair sex of all his works. The border line 
 between the sublime and the ridiculous is, 
 v T e know, very fine; but in the love story 
 of “ Henrietta Temple,” the sentiment, 
 though sometimes carried to a dangerous 
 extreme, never sinks into the foolish or 
 the contemptible. It enjoys the reputation 
 of being the most perfect love tale in our 
 language; the passion is fervid without 
 coarseness, the hero is tender without 
 effeminacy, whilst the heroine responds to 
 the ardour of her suitor without ever de¬ 
 generating into mawkishness or sickly gush 
 It is almost the only love story of pure affec¬ 
 tion which men read or care to read. The 
 object of its author is “to trace the develop¬ 
 ment of that passion that is at once the 
 principle and the end of our existence r 
 that passion compared to whose delights all 
 the other gratifications of our nature— 
 wealth, and pow r er, and fame—sink into 
 insignificance; and which, nevertheless, by 
 
44 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the ineffable beneficence of our Creator, are 
 open to His creatures of all conditions, 
 qualities, and climes.” In this romance 
 we perceive the influences of his foreign 
 origin upon the author. An Englishman 
 would not have dared to write such a book; 
 the fear of ridicule would have ever been 
 before his eyes, paralyzing his passion, and 
 causing his rhapsodies to sink into bathos. 
 He would no more have written “ Henri¬ 
 etta Temple” than he would, Teuton-like, 
 indulge in the promptings of affection in 
 public. A Frenchman would have turned 
 the love passages into impropriety, or have 
 marred them by a repellent artificiality. A 
 German would have composed the tale 
 after the teaching of his sentimental school, 
 and when he did not excite laughter by his 
 imbecility, would have wearied by his dull¬ 
 ness. But the Semitic instincts—for the 
 Hebrew is sprung from a race as full of 
 passion and poetry as the Celt, yet with 
 all the respect of the Teuton for domestic 
 purity, whilst his egotism and self-reliance 
 render him often somewhat impervious to 
 the fear of ridicule—came to the aid of 
 Mr. Disraeli in the composition of this 
 work, and made him passionate without 
 sensuality, imaginative without improba¬ 
 bility, and affectionate without extrava¬ 
 gance. “Venetia” soon followed “Henrietta 
 Temple.” It has for its central thought 
 the intense love of a daughter for her 
 unknown father, and reproduces many of 
 the incidents that occurred in the lives 
 of Byron and Shelley. There is little plot 
 in the story; but as a study of character 
 it is one of the most thoughtful and best 
 worked-out of all the novels of the author. 
 
 And now, once more, was Mr. Disraeli 
 to essay to enter the parliamentary arena: 
 this time to have his efforts crowned with 
 success. William the Fourth, after a brief 
 illness, had passed into the “eternal silence,” 
 and according to the constitutional custom 
 when a new sovereign ascends the throne, a 
 general election ensued. An opportunity 
 offered itself to Mr. Disraeli to contest 
 Maidstone. The borough possessed two 
 
 seats ; Mr. Wyndham Lewis, the senior 
 member, and a stout Tory, was exceedingly 
 popular, and his. return was assured; his 
 colleague, however, was a Whig, and much 
 disliked in the town. Mr. Disraeli was 
 asked to stand as the second Tory candi¬ 
 date, and he at once hurried into Kent to 
 meet the constituency. His address was 
 issued on the same lines as his previous 
 ones delivered at High Wycombe and 
 Taunton. He announced himself as “ an 
 uncompromising adherent to the ancient 
 constitution, which was once the boast of 
 our fathers, and is still the blessing of their 
 children;” he was convinced that “the 
 reformed religion, as by law established in 
 this country, is at the same time the best 
 guarantee for religious toleration and ortho¬ 
 dox purity;” he would “watch with vigi¬ 
 lant solicitude over the fortunes of the 
 British farmer,” since he sincerely believed 
 that “ his welfare is the surest and most 
 permanent basis of general prosperity;” he 
 was in favour of the abolition of church 
 rates, provided he could see his way to some 
 substitute; he opposed the harsh adminis¬ 
 tration of the poor-law, since relief was not 
 a matter of charity, but of right, to the poor 
 deprived by the great families of the mon¬ 
 astic lands; and as at Wycombe, so at 
 Taunton, and so now at Maidstone, he 
 maintained the same views he had always 
 advocated. “ Here I am, gentlemen,” he 
 said, “ filling the same place, preaching the 
 same doctrine, and supporting the same 
 institutions as I did at High Wycombe.” 
 His opponent was Colonel Perronet Thomp¬ 
 son, the author of the “ Corn-law Cate¬ 
 chism,” and a former proprietor of the 
 Radical Westminster Beview. The con¬ 
 test was actively carried on by both sides; but 
 the influence of the popular Mr. Wyndham 
 Lewis made itself felt in favour of his new 
 colleague, and the ultimate victory of Mr. 
 Disraeli was never in doubt. Mr. Robarts, 
 the disliked member, who had represented 
 Maidstone in the Whig interest in seven 
 successive parliaments, anticipated the ver¬ 
 dict of the constituency, and retired before 
 
AND IIIS TIMES. 
 
 45 
 
 the nomination day. At a late hour on the 
 polling day a fourth candidate, a Mr. Perry, 
 was started, with no other result, however, 
 than to render himself supremely ridiculous. 
 When the votes were counted up, it was 
 seen that Maidstone had declared itself 
 with no uncertain voice against the Whig 
 government. At the close of the poll, the 
 numbers were :—Lewis, 782 ; Disraeli, 6G8 ; 
 Thompson, 529; and the redoubtable 
 Perry, 25. 
 
 The career of Mr. Disraeli is that of a man j 
 
 who was never suppressed by defeat, who 
 was never disheartened by failure. Many 
 a man anxious to embrace parliamentary 
 honours would, after the frequent rejections 
 Mr. Disraeli had received, have retired from 
 the struggle in disgust, and have abandoned 
 all ideas of a life in the House of Commons. 
 Hot so the future Earl of Beaconsfield. He 
 worked, he watched, he waited, and at last 
 his patience was rewarded by being returned 
 as one of the Conservative members for 
 Maidstone. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 IN THE HOUSE. 
 
 During the present generation the House 
 of Commons, owing to the development of 
 the reforms that have been effected in its 
 constitution, has lost many of the charac¬ 
 teristics which it formerly possessed. It is 
 now a practical, business-like, but, it must 
 be confessed, a somewhat dull assembly. 
 The elements of youth and wit are con¬ 
 spicuous by their absence, whilst municipal 
 eloquence and vestry-like personalities reign 
 in their stead. Before the abolition of 
 nomination boroughs, a young man of great 
 ability—like the second Pitt, Canning, 
 Macaulay, and others—was taken by the 
 hand by some powerful minister, and 
 launched upon a parliamentary career in the 
 easiest and most inexpensive fashion. The 
 leaders of the great parties, who swayed 
 the opinions of parliament, were always on 
 the watch for talent that might serve their 
 political ends. Many a young man by his 
 clever speeches at the debating-club of his 
 university, by a happy pamphlet, or by a 
 bitter and opportune squib, found himself 
 safelv seated on the green benches of the 
 House of Commons as the representative of 
 a borough in the hands of a powerful lord 
 or of a large-acred squire, without his elec¬ 
 tion having cost him more than the issue of 
 his address or the delivery of a few speeches 
 before a sympathetic audience. Commerce 
 had not then assumed the high position it now 
 occupies, nor had the banker’s book usurped 
 the influence of the pedigree chart. The 
 lower house was, in a large measure, filled 
 by the representatives of the landed gentry, 
 who knew little of science or the laws of 
 political economy, but who shuddered if 
 they heard a false quantity, and piqued 
 themselves that they were as familiar with 
 the classics as a priest is with his breviary. 
 
 A few merchants of the highest class, a few 
 successful lawyers, a few Irish, then as now 
 not held in much esteem, and several clever 
 young men who were the little deities of 
 their university, completed the list. The 
 constitution of such an assembly, though it 
 might not offer the same scope as now exists 
 for the exercise of those talents which espe¬ 
 cially appeal to what Mr. Disraeli called 
 the “ parochial mind,” yet afforded every 
 opportunity for the display of culture. A 
 classical and a literary flavour penetrated 
 the parliamentary eloquence of those days. 
 A speech delivered in the House was a 
 solemn undertaking, and not to be lightly 
 entered upon; its periods were carefully 
 rehearsed; its matter was introduced and 
 dismissed in stately terms worthy of the 
 occasion; the gestures and attitudes of the 
 speaker were studied with a Chatliam-like 
 view to effect; whilst his words were listened 
 to by an assembly which never forgot, even 
 in the most feverish times of party heat, 
 that it represented the gentry of England. 
 Then on the following day the details 
 brought forward were fully reported and 
 discussed in the leading journals. Elo¬ 
 quence was thus the most powerful weapon 
 that could be wielded in parliamentary war¬ 
 fare, and it consequently became the favourite 
 and most cultivated of all studies. To be 
 a showy speaker or a ready debater, no 
 matter how incorrect or superficial the 
 sentiments expressed, was to be on the 
 high road to the cabinet; whilst the erudite 
 and the thinker, who could never address a 
 few words to the Speaker without confusion, 
 were completely ignored. 
 
 The Reform Bills and the development of 
 the newspaper press have, however, ushered 
 in a new state of things. The abolition of 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 47 
 
 pocket-boroughs has rendered it impossible 
 for clever but impecunious youth to obtain 
 a seat in parliament. The competition that 
 arises upon every vacancy in the House of 
 Commons, and the rigid measure now most 
 properly dealt out to those guilty of bribery 
 and corruption, make it a matter of neces¬ 
 sity at the present day for the candidate 
 for parliamentary honours to be not only a 
 rich man, but one who has also long been 
 courting the favours of a constituency. 
 Those who derive their wealth from indus¬ 
 try seldom have attained to fortune till past 
 middle age, and consequently the House of 
 Commons will become more and more the 
 assembly of elderly men; in other words, 
 more grave, more practical, more dull. 
 From its wealth, from its social ambition, 
 and from its business habits, the mercantile 
 element must always be a prominent fea¬ 
 ture in the lower house; and when men, 
 often deprived in their youth of the advan¬ 
 tages of education, betake themselves late 
 in life to a new calling, tliev have little 
 sympathy with the charms and graces of a 
 cultivated eloquence: with them it is only 
 so much verbiage interfering with “ busi- 
 ness.” Again, owing to the extension of 
 the franchise, members have been returned 
 to parliament who, under less happy cir¬ 
 cumstances, could never have hoped to 
 have had a seat in that assembly—men who, 
 regarding themselves as the representatives 
 of the masses, do all in their power, by their 
 bigoted ignorance, their spiteful class-hate, 
 and their offensive maintenance of the pre¬ 
 judices they call ideas, to prove themselves 
 worthy of their constituencies. The squire, 
 the successful lawyer, and the naval or 
 military officer, will always have his 
 place in the House of Commons; but in¬ 
 stead of being, as he once was, the House 
 itself, he is now only an element in it, and 
 an element which every session will more 
 and more have to retire to the background. 
 By such a body of men—shrewd, hard, econo¬ 
 mical, practical, and with the education of 
 the academy rather than of the university— 
 oratory is an influence little felt. A speech 
 
 now in the House of Commons—save by one 
 of its leading members—is no great event- 
 Before it has been delivered, its matter has 
 been discounted by the newspapers; it is 
 listened to with impatience; and the next 
 morning is but curtly alluded to in the 
 principal journals. To be active on com¬ 
 mittees; to know your subject thoroughly, 
 however badly, even ungrammatically, 
 such knowledge may be expressed; to be 
 the possessor of a sound common sense—are 
 now of far more use in advancing a politi¬ 
 cian to office, than all the eloquence of a 
 Bolingbroke, or the brilliancy of a Canning. 
 Oratory, like poetry, requires an audience for 
 its creation and cultivation; where it has no 
 audience, it perishes. During the last forty 
 years parliament has seen only two great 
 orators arise who were not within its walls 
 at the date of the Maidstone election. 
 
 These remarks fail to apply to the House 
 of Commons in which Mr. Disraeli first 
 took his seat. Seldom has such an array 
 of talent been presented as was to be found 
 in the popular chamber at St. Stephen’s in 
 the session of 1837- On the treasury bench 
 sat the able and versatile Lord John Russell, 
 the leader of the Whig party in the House 
 of Commons, and who then held the seals 
 as secretary of state for the home depart¬ 
 ment. Hear him was the foreign secretary. 
 Lord Palmerston, the popular man of 
 fashion, ready in debate, witty in retort, 
 but who had not as yet given promise of 
 the statesmanship he was afterwards to 
 display. The polished Lord Morpeth, who 
 held office as chief secretary for Ireland, 
 and Spring Rice, the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, w T ere also occupants of the 
 ministerial bench. Among the supporters 
 of the government were Lytton Bulwer, 
 the poet and novelist, then a Radical of 
 the most pronounced type; the courteous 
 and fluent Lord Leveson; the dandy Sir 
 William Molesworth, the forerunner of the 
 philosophical Radical; “honest Tom Dun- 
 combe,” the member for Finsbury; Hume, 
 the economist; Grote, the historian; Lord 
 Ashley, the philanthropist; Charles Villiers, 
 
48 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of corn law fame; the witty Charles Buller; 
 and O’Connell, with his eloquent hut now 
 almost forgotten lieutenant, Richard Lalor 
 Shiel. On the Tory side of the House were 
 Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the Opposi¬ 
 tion ; the present Mr. Gladstone, then 
 member for Newark; Lord Stanley, “whose 
 knowledge of parliamentary debate re¬ 
 sembled an instinct;” Sir Francis Burdett, 
 who had deserted the Whigs; and other 
 members of lesser note. It was before 
 such an audience that the member for 
 Maidstone was to rise to make his maiden 
 speech. 
 
 As malice has exaggerated the disadvan¬ 
 tages under which Mr. Disraeli laboured 
 in early life, so it has been pleased to 
 exaggerate the collapse of Mr. Disraeli’s 
 first parliamentary effort. As a matter of 
 fact the much talked of maiden speech 
 was not a failure in the generally accepted 
 sense of the word. The member for Maid¬ 
 stone, when he rose first to address the 
 House, did not fail as Sir Robert Walpole 
 failed, as Canning failed, as Grattan, Sheri¬ 
 dan, and Erskine failed, and the rest, who 
 became nervous and confused when passing 
 through a similar ordeal. The speech that 
 Mr. Disraeli delivered on that memorable 
 occasion is both clever and eloquent; even 
 his most malignant biographer admits that 
 it was far above the parliamentary average. 
 The speech failed, not from the matter con¬ 
 tained in it, but partly from an organized 
 opposition and partly from the prejudices 
 excited in the honest English mind by the 
 attitudes and appearance of the speaker. 
 When a suitor addresses a packed jury, and 
 at the same time creates a feeling against 
 him in the mind of the court, he is not 
 likely to obtain a favourable verdict. This 
 was Mr. Disraeli’s position. The Irish 
 who supported O’Connell—and who loved, 
 and still love, whenever the occasion prompts, 
 to introduce into the House of Commons 
 the elements of a fair in their turbulent 
 country—jeered and howled the moment 
 Mr. Disraeli rose to his legs, and did their 
 utmost to shriek him down. Nor did the 
 
 appearance of the young member create a 
 favourable impression among the civilized 
 portion of the assembly. In addressing an 
 eminently English audience—an audience 
 hating instinctively anything theatrical and 
 foreign—Mr. Disraeli by his garments and 
 his gestures at once repelled the sympathies 
 of his hearers. He stood on the floor of 
 the House showily dressed in a bottle-green 
 frock coat, an extensive white waistcoat, 
 trousers of a vulgar fancy pattern, and round 
 his neck a black tie, which effectually 
 concealed any collar he might have worn. 
 A network of glittering chains covered the 
 front of his chest. His face was deadly 
 pale, and his hair, combed away from the 
 right temple, fell in bunches of well-oiled 
 ringlets over his left cheek. As he ad¬ 
 dressed his audience he spoke with great 
 rapidity, moving his body from one side to 
 another, and throwing his hands out, and 
 then quickly drawing them in again. He 
 looked like a sporting Israelite who had 
 studied elocution on the boards of a third- 
 rate French theatre. 
 
 The occasion of the speech was not 
 a very important one. It appears that 
 Mr. Spottiswoode, the queen’s printer, had, 
 during the recess, started a subscription to 
 provide Protestant candidates with money 
 to contest Irish constituencies, and also to 
 supply funds for the prosecution of petitions 
 against such Roman Catholic members as 
 should be returned. The subscription was 
 supported by several members of parliament, 
 and among them by Sir Francis Burdett, 
 who had taken every opportunity of inform¬ 
 ing the world that he had contributed 
 twenty pounds. Such proceedings were 
 warmly resented by the Irish, who looked 
 upon the subscription as a conspiracy to 
 suppress the political and religious liberties 
 of Ireland. When parliament met, the 
 matter came before the House. On De¬ 
 cember 7, 1837, Smith O’Brien, who had 
 been returned for the county of Limerick, 
 but whose seat had been petitioned against, 
 moved that “ a select committee be 
 appointed to inquire into the allegations 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 49 
 
 contained in the petition presented by 
 William Smith O’Brien, complaining of the 
 subscriptions which had been raised to en¬ 
 courage the presentation of petitions against 
 Irish members, and of the conduct of a 
 member of the House in having contributed 
 to such subscription.” Lytton Bulwer sup¬ 
 ported the petition. Sir William Follett, 
 the member for Exeter, defended the sub¬ 
 scription on the ground that Smith O’Brien 
 was as much a representative of the people 
 of England as of the electors of Limerick. 
 Sir Francis Burdett denounced O’Connell as 
 encouraging assassination, and declared that 
 there were many people living in Ireland 
 under a system of terrorism “ more powerful 
 and dreadful than that which existed under 
 Robespierre in France; ” then he concluded 
 with the charge that always struck home to 
 the guilty conscience of the agitator, that he 
 was making patriotism “ a source of gain.” 
 O’Connell replied in a long speech, which 
 fills several columns of “Hansard,” attacking 
 the Tories with his usual coarse vehemence, 
 and accusing them of insulting the people 
 of Ireland by this subscription. As soon 
 as the tribune had sat down, Mr. Disraeli 
 rose to his feet. He had vowed that they 
 should “ meet at Philippi,” and the meeting 
 had taken place. Extracts from the speech 
 he delivered on that occasion have fre¬ 
 quently been given, but it has seldom 
 appeared in its entirety. Let the reader 
 judge for himself whether it was the failure 
 malice has represented it. 
 
 “ I trust the House,” he began, “ will ex¬ 
 tend to me that gracious indulgence which 
 is usually allowed to one who solicits its 
 attention for the first time. I have, however, 
 had sufficient experience of the critical spirit 
 which pervades the House, to know and to 
 feel how much I stand in need of that in¬ 
 dulgence—an indulgence of which I will 
 prove myself to be not unworthy, by pro¬ 
 mising not to abuse it. 
 
 “ The hon. and learned member for Dublin 
 (Mr. O’Connell) has taunted the hon. baronet, 
 the member for North Wiltshire (Sir Francis 
 Burdett) with having uttered a long, ram- 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 bling, wandering, jumbling speech. Now, I 
 must say—and I can assure the hon. and 
 learned gentleman that I paid the utmost 
 attention to the remarks which flowed from 
 him—that it seems to me that the hon. 
 and learned gentleman took a hint from the 
 hon. baronet in the oration which the hon. 
 and learned gentleman has just addressed to 
 the House. There is scarcely a single sub¬ 
 ject connected with Ireland which the hon. 
 and learned member did not introduce into 
 his rhetorical medley. The hon. and learned 
 member for Dublin also taunted the hon. 
 and learned member for Exeter (Sir W. Fol¬ 
 lett) with travelling out of the record of the 
 present debate, while he himself travelled 
 back seven hundred years, though the House 
 is engaged in the discussion of events which 
 have taken place within the last few months. 
 
 “ The hon. and learned member has fa¬ 
 voured the House with an allusion to poor 
 laws for Ireland. [Wo, no.] Perhaps I 
 may be wrong; but, at all events, there was 
 an allusion to the Irish Corporation Bill. I 
 do not pretend accurately to remember all 
 the topics which the hon. and learned mem¬ 
 ber introduced into his speech; but, if no 
 reference was made by the hon. and learned 
 gentleman to the subject of Irish poor laws, 
 at least there was a dissertation upon the 
 measure relating to the municipal corpora¬ 
 tions of Ireland. Is that subject relative to 
 the debate before the House ? 
 
 “ I will not allude—I will spare the feel¬ 
 ings of the hon. and learned member in that 
 respect—to the subscriptions which the hon. 
 and learned member told the House have 
 not been successful on his side; but that 
 circumstance may account for the bitterness 
 with which he spoke of the successful efforts 
 of the much-vilified Mr. Spottiswoode. I 
 was, indeed, much inclined to ask the hon. 
 member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O’Brien), 
 if he attended the meeting at which it was 
 expected that every Liberal member would 
 subscribe £50 to the protection fund. I 
 thought that perhaps the hon. member could 
 have given some curious information upon 
 that subject; that though there may have 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 been nearly £3000 to begin with, there is now 
 nothing in the exchequer, and that this pro¬ 
 ject of majestic mendicancy has now wholly 
 vanished. The hon. and learned member 
 for Dublin has announced that the Spottis- 
 woode subscription is a Protestant sub¬ 
 scription. That it is supported by many 
 Protestants nobody can attempt to deny; 
 but if the hon. and learned member means 
 to say that it is a subscription established 
 for the particular object of supporting a 
 Protestant faction against the Catholic 
 people, I beg to remark that I see nothing 
 at all to justify that supposition. It may 
 be a Protestant, but it is essentially a defen¬ 
 sive fund. The hon. and learned member 
 for Dublin talked of the clergymen of 
 the Church of England subscribing to this 
 fund, and contrasted their conduct with 
 that of the priests of his church; but I defy 
 the hon. and learned member to produce a 
 single instance of tyrannical interference 
 on the part of the Protestant clergy at all 
 similar, or in the least degree analogous, to 
 those acts which are imputed to the clergy 
 of the Catholic church. If the hon. and 
 learned member doubts what I am saying, 
 let him refer to the volume of evidence 
 taken before the intimidation committee, 
 and the hon. member will see that from 
 Cornwall to Yorkshire no case has occurred 
 that bears a comparison to the occurrences 
 in Ireland, and that I am fully justified in 
 the statements I make. The object of the 
 subscription entered into was to procure 
 justice for the Protestant constituencies and 
 the Protestant proprietors of Ireland, those 
 constituencies and those proprietors being 
 unable to obtain justice single-handed. 
 
 “ Hon. members know very well that a 
 landlord in Ireland has been told by his 
 tenants that they could not vote for him 
 because their priest had denounced him 
 from their altar. They know very well 
 that when it was attempted to reinforce the 
 strength of the Protestant constituency in 
 the registration courts, some revising or 
 assistant barrister from the Castle of Dublin 
 was easily found to baffle it, and thus they 
 
 were forced on to their last resource and 
 refuge—to a committee of this House. 
 
 “ Now, is this a petition which has the 
 downfall of the Catholics for its object ? 
 For my part, I think that the facts which 
 have been brought before the notice of the 
 intimidation committee perfectly justify the 
 use of the epithets which have been em¬ 
 ployed in the original circular or manifesto 
 of Mr. Spottiswoode. [Murmurs.] 
 
 “ I shall not trouble the House at any 
 length. I do not affect to be insensible to 
 the difficulty of my position, and I shall be 
 very glad to receive indulgence even from 
 the hon. members opposite. If, however, 
 hon. gentlemen do not wish to hear me, I 
 will sit down without a murmur. 
 
 “ I shall confine myself to an attempt to 
 bring back the subject to the point which is 
 really at issue. I cannot comprehend why a 
 considerable body of Her Majesty’s subjects, 
 respectable not only for their numbers, but 
 for their independence and integrity, should 
 be held up to scorn and odium by the hon. 
 and learned member for Dublin, for the 
 commission of an. act, the legality of which 
 he did not presume to question, of the 
 propriety of which they are as competent 
 judges as that hon. and learned member, 
 and of which, after what he has himself 
 confessed, the hon. and learned member 
 ought to be the last to question the deli¬ 
 cacy. I have examined the list of contri¬ 
 butors as well as the hon. and learned 
 member for Dublin, and with a more than 
 ordinary degree of interest, arising from the 
 fact that the town which I represent has con¬ 
 tributed a larger proportion of the fund than 
 any other part of England, and I do not find 
 that the subscribers principally consist of 
 members of the aristocracy. With very few 
 exceptions, they are to be found among the 
 middle classes—men of moderate opinions 
 and of a temperate tone of mind—men, in 
 fact, who seldom step out of the sphere of 
 their private virtues—men, as hon. gentle¬ 
 men who have examined these lists must 
 know, who seldom partake of the excite¬ 
 ment created by the conflict of parties, and 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 51 
 
 are rarely inflamed by tlie passions which 
 agitate the political world. I must say that 
 I think it a very strange thing that so large 
 a body of individuals, many of whom are 
 constitutional reformers, many of whom, 
 until very lately, supported Her Majesty’s 
 government—I must repeat that I consider 
 it would be very hard, very unjust, very im¬ 
 politic, to appoint a committee of inquiry, 
 which would be equivalent to a verdict 
 against these individuals, without first 
 inquiring what were the feelings which 
 induced them to pursue the line of conduct 
 they have adopted. I would remind the 
 House that these individuals, many of whom 
 supported the Reform Bill, may have enter¬ 
 tained hopes in reference to the working of 
 that measure, which, like the hopes cherished 
 by some hon. gentlemen opposite, may have 
 been disappointed. They may have enter¬ 
 tained an expectation that nomination would 
 be at an end, that the stain of borough- 
 mongering would be wiped out, and that 
 not a remnant of the system would remain 
 in a reformed parliament. But when they 
 found that the stain of borough-mongering 
 assumed a deeper and darker hue, that seats 
 were openly bought and sold, and that a 
 system of intimidation was organized, to 
 which the riots that even under the old 
 system exhibited the more flagrant features 
 of electoral operations, were peaceable— 
 when they found that this was the case, 
 they perhaps thought that it was time to 
 bring matters to a head. 
 
 “ I have but one more observation to 
 make, and I confess I am rather anxious to 
 make that observation, as it will give me the 
 first opportunity which has been afforded 
 me of saying something with respect to Her 
 Majesty’s government. [Renewed murmurs.] 
 “ I wish I could induce the House to give 
 me five minutes. It is not much. I stand 
 here to-night, not formally, but in some 
 degree virtually, as the representative of a 
 considerable number of members of Parlia¬ 
 ment. [Loud laughter.] 
 
 “ How, why smile ? Why envy me ? 
 Why not let me enjoy that reflection, if 
 
 only for one night ? Do you forget that 
 band of 158 new members, that ingenuous 
 and inexperienced band, to whose unsophis¬ 
 ticated minds the right hon. the chancellor 
 of the exchequer (Mr. Spring Rice) ad¬ 
 dressed himself early in the session, in those 
 dulcet tones of winning pathos which have 
 proved so effective ? 
 
 “ I know that considerable misconcep¬ 
 tion exists in the minds of many of that 
 class of members on the opposition side 
 of the House in reference to the conduct of 
 Her Majesty’s government with respect to 
 elections. I will not taunt the noble lord 
 opposite with the opinions which are 
 avowed by his immediate followers; but 
 certain views were entertained and certain 
 calculations were made with respect to 
 those elections about the time when the 
 bell of our cathedral announced the death 
 of our monarch. We had ail then heard of 
 the projects said to be entertained by the 
 government, and a little accurate informa¬ 
 tion on the subject would be very acceptable, 
 particularly to the new members on the 
 opposition side of the House. We had been 
 told that reaction was a discovery that only 
 awoke derision, that the grave of Toryism 
 was dug, and that the funeral obsequies of 
 Toryism might be celebrated without any 
 fear of its resuscitation, that the much- 
 vilified Peel parliament was blown to the 
 winds, when Mr. Hudson rushed into the 
 chambers of the Vatican. 
 
 “ I do not impute these sanguine views to 
 the noble lord himself, for he has subse¬ 
 quently favoured the public with a mani¬ 
 festo, from which it would appear that 
 Toryism cannot be so easily defeated. It 
 was, however, vaunted that there would be 
 a majority of one hundred, which might, 
 upon great occasions, be expanded to 125 
 or 130. [Uproar and cries of ‘Question’] 
 That was the question. We wish to know 
 the simple fact whether, with that majority 
 in the distance, they then thought of an 
 alteration in the Grenville Act,* and whether 
 
 * The principle of the Grenville Act was to select commit¬ 
 tees for the trial of election petitions by lot. 
 
52 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 it was then supposed that impartial tribunals 
 might be obtained for the trial of election 
 petitions. [. Renewed murmurs.'] 
 
 “ If hon. gentlemen think this fair, I will 
 submit. I would not do so to others, that 
 is all. [Laughter.] Nothing is so easy as 
 to laugh. I wish before I sit down to show 
 the House clearly their position. 
 
 “When the House remembers that, in 
 spite of the support of the hon. and learned 
 member for Dublin and his well-disciplined 
 band of patriots, there was a little shyness 
 exhibited by former supporters of Her Ma¬ 
 jesty’s government—when they recollect the 
 ‘ new loves ’ and the ‘ old loves/ in which 
 so much of passion and recrimination was 
 mixed up, between the noble Tityrus of 
 the treasury bench and the learned Daphne 
 of Liskeard (Mr. Charles Buller), notwith¬ 
 standing the amantium ircc has resulted, as 
 I had always expected, in the amoris integ- 
 ratio , notwithstanding that political duel has 
 been fought, in which more than one shot 
 was interchanged, but in which recourse 
 was had to the secure arbitrament of blank 
 cartridges — notwithstanding emancipated 
 Ireland and enslaved England, the noble 
 lord might wave in one hand the keys 
 of St. Peter, and in the other— [i the shouts 
 that followed drowned the conclusion of the 
 sentence.] 
 
 “Now, Mr. Speaker, see the philosophical 
 prejudice of man. I would certainly gladly 
 hear a cheer, even though it came from the 
 lips of a political opponent. I am not at all 
 surprised at the reception which I have ex¬ 
 perienced. I have begun several times many 
 things , and I have often succeeded at last. I 
 will sit down now , but the time will come 
 when you will heom me.” 
 
 With regard to this memorable prophecy, 
 so brilliantly realized, it has been well re¬ 
 marked that—“To think this and say it 
 next day would have been nothing. To say 
 so, not so much in the petulance of temper 
 as with the calm earnestness of conviction, 
 at a moment when most men would have 
 been crushed helplessly under the load of 
 ridicule, and stung beyond power of reflec¬ 
 
 tion by the disappointment of cherished 
 hopes, gave evidence of unexampled strength 
 of will and presence of mind, and of the 
 overweening self-confidence it went so far 
 to justify.” 
 
 On Canning resuming his seat, after 
 having failed to impress the House in his 
 maiden speech, he was advised by his 
 friend, Mr. Pitt, to remain silent for some 
 sessions until he had made himself perfectly 
 familiar with the intellectual atmosphere 
 of the House of Commons, so as to know, 
 the next time he took part in debate, how 
 to speak and what to avoid. Mr. Disraeli 
 did not act upon this principle. During 
 the next few years his name is to be met 
 with in the pages of Hansard, not frequently 
 but sufficiently often to show that he main¬ 
 tained consistently the political views he 
 always held, and that he had now obtained 
 the ear of his audience. Whilst speaking 
 he was often encouraged by the approval 
 of Sir Robert Peel, and on one occasion he 
 succeeded in obtaining a loud “Hear, hear!” 
 not uttered in irony, from his virulent 
 enemy, O’Connell. Let us rake up from 
 the past the opinions he expressed before 
 the name of Disraeli was among the most 
 prominent of the orators of his day. 
 When Mr. Villiers made his annual motion 
 on the corn laws (March 15, 1838), we find 
 him contradicting the statement that the 
 existence of the corn laws exposed English 
 manufactures to unfair competition. As 
 became a man of letters, he supported 
 (April 25, 1838) Sergeant Talfourd’s bill to 
 amend the law of copyright, and urging 
 the claims of authors upon the state 
 to have their works protected. Upon 
 the House resolving itself into committee 
 on the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill 
 (June 1, 1838), he protested against the 
 tendency to centralization by which it was 
 characterized, and on the bill collapsing, 
 the government, later on in the session, 
 brought in a new measure, which Mr. 
 Disraeli denounced as “a most profligate 
 one.” He spoke, with much humour and 
 liberality of sentiment, in favour of the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 53 
 
 motion of Mr. Dnncombe (Feb. 28, 1839) 
 respecting theatrical entertainments in the 
 city of Westminster during the season of 
 Lent. It appears that it was the in¬ 
 consistent and intolerant custom, whilst 
 theatrical representations might take place 
 in the other parts of the metropolis, to 
 forbid them in Westminster during the 
 Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. Mr. 
 Duncombe very properly argued that if 
 it were wrong to go to theatres on the 
 Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, in the 
 city of Westminster, it was equally wrong 
 to watch theatrical performances on the 
 same days during the same season in the 
 other parts of London which were not 
 under the jurisdiction of the city of West¬ 
 minster. He complained of the pecuniary 
 loss sustained by actors and actresses, and 
 mildly inquired, if the Wednesdays and 
 Fridays in Lent were so very sacred, why 
 the bishops gave dinners, and went out to 
 dinner, on those holy days ? 
 
 Mr. Disraeli followed suit. He hoped, 
 he said, that he entertained as profound 
 a respect for the established religion of 
 the country as any one on the episcopal 
 bench; but when the House was met upon 
 a question of this nature, it was necessary 
 to indulge in a little research. He wished 
 to know at what time during the Protestant 
 sway in this country Lent had been rigidly 
 and properly respected. He was not pre¬ 
 pared to say that he approved of any relax¬ 
 ation of a rigid observance of Lent so far as 
 Wednesdays and Fridays were concerned. 
 He was not prepared to say that it might 
 not be just, and expedient, and prudent, and 
 religious, and proper to observe it even for 
 forty days. But then they must give him 
 forty days of Lent as they had ever been 
 observed when they were perfectly observed 
 —they must give him the forty days of 
 Lent, with the “mysteries” and with the 
 “ moralities: ” with those mysteries and with 
 those moralities which were acted by the 
 monks. This was the only mode in which 
 humanity had tolerated the religious observ¬ 
 ance of Lent, and these were the amusements 
 
 to which the people then had recourse. Nor 
 should we forget that the birth of Protes¬ 
 tantism and of the drama in England were 
 almost simultaneous. The moment Protes¬ 
 tantism had sway in England there was a 
 great relaxation in the observance of Lent 
 —in fact, it had never been observed rigidly 
 and completely in Protestant times. And 
 besides, he must say, that the question of 
 the observance of Lent on two days in the 
 week, without an equal observance of good 
 morals and manners in other respects, was 
 but the shadow of a custom, and the shade 
 of a faith. Holding these views, he would 
 certainly vote for the motion. 
 
 A few days afterwards (March 8, 1839), 
 the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill came 
 again before the House. Mr. Disraeli 
 opposed it, objecting, as he had before, to 
 its centralization, and declaring that if its 
 clauses became law the rights and liberties 
 of Ireland could never be assured. It was 
 on this occasion that O’Connell loudly cried 
 approvingly “ Hear, hear!” The young mem¬ 
 ber for Maidstone spoke at greater length 
 when he expressed his intention to vote 
 against Mr. Hume’s motion for household 
 suffrage (March 21, 1839). He now, for 
 the first time, treated the House to the views 
 he had laid down in his “Vindication of 
 the English Constitution.” Mr. Hume, in 
 the advocacy of his cause, had spoken much 
 of “the people” who, of course, were strongly 
 in favour of the measure, and he had also 
 declared that taxation and representation 
 ought to go hand in hand. Mr. Disraeli 
 differed from the great economist. The 
 constitution of England, he said, consisted of 
 three estates of the realm, and the commons 
 of England formed one of those estates. If 
 the elective body in the country were to be 
 an estate of the realm, it would be absurd to 
 have a House of Commons to represent the 
 volition of the nation. And pray, he asked, 
 what was to be understood by “the people?” 
 They knew what “ a nation” was, but what 
 was meant by “ a people ? ” The phrase 
 “people’’wasnot apolitical phrase,but a term 
 of natural history, a physiological term. The 
 
54 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 House of Commons was the representative 
 not of “ the people/’ hut of the commons of 
 England. It had been said in the course of 
 this debate that the theory of their consti¬ 
 tution was that taxation and representation 
 should go hand in hand. Where was that 
 principle to be found ? In what part of 
 the constitution ? In Magna Charta, in 
 the Bill of Rights, or in the famous Reform 
 Bill which was welcomed with so much en¬ 
 thusiasm, and was now attacked with so much 
 causticity ? The principle of representation 
 did not necessarily include election, as 
 there might be both representation without 
 election and election without representa¬ 
 tion. The Church of England was repre¬ 
 sented in the House of Lords—there was 
 representation without election, for the 
 bishops were not elected by the clergy. The 
 House of Lords was as much a representative 
 body as the House of Commons, but that 
 House was not elected. If taxation and 
 representation went hand in hand, then indi¬ 
 rect taxation gave as good a claim to 
 representation as direct taxation. If direct 
 taxation was a qualification for the exercise 
 of the elective franchise, then why should 
 not indirect taxation, and why should they 
 stop at household suffrage ? It had been 
 said that the progress of education and 
 general enlightenment would qualify the 
 whole male population for the exercise of 
 the elective franchise. But how did they not 
 know, he asked the House, that the progress 
 of this very enlightenment would inspire 
 the population with a desire to reject the 
 representative system altogether, and resort 
 to the Prussian policy of government, by 
 which there was no suffrage given at all, but 
 every man was preferred in the state accord¬ 
 ing to his merits ? He could not support 
 the motion. 
 
 He took the same course when the edu¬ 
 cation question (June 20,1839) came before 
 the House. He made a distinction between 
 “ national education” and “state education:” 
 the one he approved of, the other he was 
 opposed to. He was not in favour of pater¬ 
 nal government, which stamped out the 
 
 sense of independence in man, and caused 
 him to rely upon others. Individual effort 
 should be encouraged, but aid from the 
 state discouraged. It was the longest speech 
 he had as yet made in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, and will bear being taken out of the 
 oblivion of Hansard. 
 
 He objected, he said, that education 
 should be carried on under the superin¬ 
 tendence, the interference, and the control 
 of the state. When he came to examine 
 facts, he found that education did 
 not owe much to the interference of the 
 state. It appeared to him that the state 
 had done little or nothing, and that nearly 
 all that had been done had been effected by 
 public aid and individual enterprise. The 
 state in this country had not formed a single 
 road, built a single bridge, or dug a single 
 canal. Society should be strong, but the 
 state weak. To diminish the duties of the 
 citizen was to peril the rights of the sub¬ 
 ject. He ascribed to these principles the 
 realization in this country of the two great¬ 
 est blessings of social life—liberty and 
 order. A despotic government might insure 
 order; a republic might afford liberty; but 
 the combination of liberty and of order— 
 order not disturbed by national injustice, 
 and liberty not disturbed by popular out¬ 
 rage—had been realized in England alone. 
 The chief characteristics of the English 
 people had long been known as indepen¬ 
 dence, self-reliance, caution, and enterprise; 
 and these they owed to their system of self- 
 government. But it was now wished to return 
 to that system of society which was an indi¬ 
 cation of a barbarous age, but which had 
 gained for itself the epithet of “paternal.” 
 Wherever they found a paternal government 
 they found a state education. Take China, take 
 Persia, take Austria—the China of Europe 
 —take Prussia—the equivalent of Persia— 
 and there it would be seen that the most 
 perfect systems of national education were 
 to be found. Yet where everything was left 
 to the government, the subject became a 
 machine. He therefore opposed the sys¬ 
 tem on account of its tendency to injure 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 55 
 
 their national character. He was an advo¬ 
 cate for national education, but it did not 
 follow that he should also be an advocate for 
 state education—there was a great distinc¬ 
 tion between the two. Was it true that 
 education had been so neglected as had been 
 alleged? Had the cellar schools in their 
 great manufacturing towns done nothing? 
 Had the church done nothing? He re¬ 
 gretted that so important a measure had 
 been brought forward at the close of the 
 session, and that the experience and patriot¬ 
 ism of the House of Lords had not been 
 consulted in the matter. He would vote 
 against the bill. “ I believe,” he concluded, 
 “the great object which every English 
 statesman ought to have in view is—to 
 encourage the habits of self-government 
 amongst the people; and it is because I 
 consider the proposition which has been 
 submitted to our consideration as hostile to 
 the acquisition of those habits that I oppose 
 the scheme. I believe that it is an axiom 
 in civil policy, that in exact proportion as 
 we curtail the duties of citizens, we peril 
 the rights of subjects; and I believe we 
 have done that already to some extent. We 
 have already had recourse to a system of 
 central organization; and what has that 
 system not produced? and what may it not 
 yet produce? Let us remember that the 
 same system which tyrannized in the nur¬ 
 sery under the pretence of education, may 
 again make its appearance, and immure old 
 age within hated walls, under the specious 
 plea of affording relief. It is always 
 the state and never society—always ma¬ 
 chinery and never sympathy. By our 
 system of state education all would be 
 thrown into the same mint, and all would 
 come out with the same impress and super¬ 
 scription. We may have a bloated mechani¬ 
 cal prosperity; we may make money; we 
 may make railroads; but when the age of 
 passion comes, when those interests are in 
 motion, and those feelings stirring, which 
 will shake society to its centre—then we 
 shall see what will become of the votaries 
 of state education! We shall then see 
 
 whether the people have received the same 
 sort of education which was advocated and 
 supported so nobly by William of Wyke- 
 ham: by him who built schools, and 
 founded and endowed colleges. Who, I 
 would ask, built our universities? Did 
 they spring from a * system of central 
 organization ? ’ Who built our colleges, 
 churches, and cathedrals? Do we owe 
 them to a scheme of ‘centralization’ pro¬ 
 pounded and supported by the state ? Ho; 
 other principles actuated the men of former 
 days; and let us look abroad on Ireland, 
 and witness the result. Where shall we 
 find a country more elevated in the social 
 scale ? Where a people more distinguished 
 for all that is excellent in the human char¬ 
 acter? The time will come, if you persist 
 in your present course, when you will find 
 that you have revolutionized the English 
 character; and when that is effected, you 
 can no longer expect English achievements.” 
 
 These remarks are more original than sound, 
 and we are glad to think that within recent 
 years they have not been acted upon. We 
 have adopted the system of state education 
 without it having altered the English charac¬ 
 ter, except for the better, and without it being 
 calculated to endanger English achievements 
 in the future. In spite of Mr. Disraeli’s 
 objections to centralization, the system was 
 no novelty. Our universities established 
 a central system of education. It was found 
 expedient to centralize justice, why, then, 
 should it have been pernicious to centralize 
 education ? Hor was the example of China 
 a happy one in favour of Mr. Disraeli’s 
 arguments. Whatever evils the Chinese 
 empire labours under, it certainly owes a 
 deep debt of gratitude to its system of 
 education; through it the democracy in the 
 country has found a vent; and hence has 
 preserved the empire from many of those 
 convulsions which have distracted Europe. 
 The speech of the member of Maidstone 
 on this occasion is valuable, since it shows 
 how keenly he appreciated the English 
 character, and how stoutly he opposed 
 any measure which, in his eyes, was calcu- 
 
56 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 lated to destroy the manliness of the people 
 he so much admired, and to lower the pres¬ 
 tige of the country of his adoption. A 
 modern bishop has said that he would sooner 
 see his countrymen drunk than enslaved. 
 Air. Disraeli preferred to see Englishmen 
 ignorant rather than lose the majesty 
 of their self-reliance. Happily, we have 
 arranged matters so that knowledge can 
 be circulated without loss to the sense of 
 independence in the individual or danger 
 to the future of the community. 
 
 Events were now stirring which caused 
 Mr. Disraeli to divert his attention for the 
 moment from parliamentary to the wider 
 field of national criticism. The years that 
 succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill 
 were years of increasing agricultural dis¬ 
 tress and commercial depression. The Eng¬ 
 lishman who, at the present day, studies the 
 condition of the working classes—the hours 
 of labour controlled by the state, the re¬ 
 strictions placed upon the employment of 
 women and children, an ameliorated poor- 
 law system, the development of education, 
 the advantages derived from cheap travel¬ 
 ling and cheap correspondence, the abolition 
 of odious imposts and slave-driving bar¬ 
 barities, and the rest—cannot but at once 
 perceive how superior is the position of the 
 labouring man in every respect to that 
 which was the lot of his predecessors. Be¬ 
 neath the sway of the Melbourne govern¬ 
 ment nothing could be more piteous or 
 revolting than the situation in which 
 the lower orders found themselves. In the 
 mines, young women half clad in coarse 
 sacking, unsexed and diseased, worked like 
 beasts chained to the cars they had to drag 
 along from subterranean passage to passage 
 until death relieved them from the miser¬ 
 able burden of their existence. Boys as 
 soon as they could walk were employed in 
 all kinds of labour, which stunted their 
 growth and poisoned their manhood. The 
 peasant received wages which, even with the 
 aid of out-door relief, scarcely kept body 
 and soul together; whilst the home in which 
 he was lodged, damp and dilapidated, was 
 
 scarcely ever put in repair by his landlord. 
 The hard, selfish Lord Marney in Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli’s touching novel of “ Sybil ”—a work 
 which contains the best description we 
 have of the condition of the working 
 classes at this time—was no exaggerated 
 type of many a country landowner, and 
 of the light in which the tenantry were 
 regarded. 
 
 “‘We have nothing to complain of,’ said Lord 
 Marney. ‘ We continue reducing the rates, and as 
 long as we do that the country must improve. 
 The workhouse test tells. We had the other day 
 a case of incendiarism, which frightened some 
 people ; but I inquired into it, and am quite 
 satisfied it originated in purely accidental circum¬ 
 stances ; at least nothing to do with wages. 1 
 ought to be a judge, for it was on my own 
 property.’ 
 
 ‘ And what is the rate of wages in your part of 
 the world, Lord Marney ? ’ inquired Mr. St. Lys, 
 who was standing by. 
 
 ‘ Oh ! good enough: not like your manufacturing 
 districts; but people who work in the open air 
 instead of a furnace can’t expect, and don’t require 
 such. They get their eight shillings a week ; at 
 least generally.’ 
 
 ‘ Eight shillings a week! ’ said Mr. St. Lys. 
 ‘ Can a labouring man with a family, perhaps of 
 eight children, live on eight shillings a week ? ’ 
 
 ‘ Oh ! as for that,’ said Lord Marney, ‘ they get 
 more than that, because there is beer-money 
 allowed, at least to a great extent among us, 
 though I for one do not approve of the practice, 
 and that makes nearly a shilling per week addi¬ 
 tional ; and then some of them have potato grounds, 
 though I am entirely opposed to that system.’ 
 
 ‘ And yet,’ said Mr. St. Lys, ‘ how they contrive 
 to live is to me marvellous.’ 
 
 ‘ Oh! as for that,’ said Lord Marney, ‘ I have 
 generally found the higher the wages the worse the 
 workman. They only spend their money in the 
 beer-shops. They are the curse of this country.’ 
 
 ‘ But what is a poor man to do,’ said Mr. St. 
 Lys, ‘ after his day’s work, if he returns to his own 
 roof and finds no home ; his fire extinguished, his 
 food unprepared; the partner of his life, wearied 
 with labour in the field or the factory, still absent, 
 or perhaps in bed from exhaustion, or because she 
 has returned wet to the skin, and has no change of 
 raiment for her relief ? We have removed woman 
 from her sphere ; we may have reduced wages by 
 her introduction into the market of labour; but 
 under these circumstances what we call domestic 
 life is a condition impossible to be realized for the 
 people of this country ; and we must not therefore 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 57 
 
 be surprised that they seek solace or rather refuge 
 in the beer-shop.’ 
 
 Lord Marney looked up at Mr. St. Lys with a 
 stare of high-bred impertinence, and then care¬ 
 lessly observed, without directing his words to 
 him, ‘ They may say what they like, but it is all 
 an affair of population.’ 
 
 ‘ I would rather believe that it is an affair of 
 resources,’ said Mr. St. Lys; ‘ not what is the 
 amount of our population, but what is the amount 
 of our resources for their maintenance.’ 
 
 ‘ It comes to the same thing,’ said Lord Marney. 
 ‘Nothingcan put this country right but emigration 
 on a great scale ; and as the government do not 
 choose to undertake it, I have commenced it for 
 my own defence on a small scale. I will take care 
 that the population of my parishes is not increased. 
 I build no cottages, and I destroy all I can ; and I 
 am not ashamed or afraid to say so.’ ” 
 
 Landlords of the Marney class, acting 
 upon this principle, forced the people they 
 expelled from their cottages to flock to the 
 neighbouring towns for shelter. Here, in 
 the miserable tenements they were obliged 
 to occupy, their condition was even worse 
 than in the ricketty hovels in the fields 
 from which they had been driven. We 
 quote again from the author of “ Sybil— 
 
 “These wretched tenements seldom consisted 
 of more than two rooms, in one of which the whole 
 family, however numerous, were obliged to sleep, 
 without distinction of age, or sex, or suffering. 
 With the water streaming down the walls, the 
 light distinguished through the roof, with no hearth 
 even in winter, the virtuous mother in the sacred 
 pangs of childbirth gives forth another victim to 
 our thoughtless civilization; surrounded by three 
 generations whose inevitable presence is more pain¬ 
 ful than her sufferings in that hour of travail; 
 while the father of her coming child, in another 
 corner of the sordid chamber, lies stricken by that 
 typhus which his contaminating dwelling has 
 breathed into his veins, and for whose next prey 
 is perhaps destined his new-born child. These 
 swarming walls had neither windows nor doors 
 sufficient to keep out the weather, or admit the 
 sun, or supply the means of ventilation; the 
 humid and putrid roof of thatch exhaling malaria 
 like all other decaying vegetable matter. The 
 dwelling-rooms were neither boarded nor paved; 
 and whether it were that some were situate in 
 low and damp places, occasionally flooded by the 
 river, and usually much below the level of the road; 
 or that the springs, as was often the case, would 
 burst through the mud floor; the ground was at 
 no time better than so much clay, while sometimes 
 VOL. I. 
 
 you might see little channels cut from the centre 
 under the doorways to carry off the water, the door 
 itself removed from its hinges ; a resting-place for 
 infancy in its deluged home. These hovels were 
 in many instances not provided with the com¬ 
 monest conveniences of the rudest police ; contigu¬ 
 ous to every door might be observed the dung-heap 
 on which every kind of filth was accumulated, for 
 the purpose of being disposed of for manure, so 
 that, when the poor man opened his narrow habita¬ 
 tion in the hope of refreshing it with the breeze of 
 summer, he was met with a mixture of gases from 
 reeking dunghills.” 
 
 Nor was the operative a whit better off 
 or better cared for than the peasant. He 
 was seldom paid more than a penny an 
 hour, and of this wretched sum he had at 
 the end of the work to accept a portion of 
 it in kind. The truck system was in full 
 force, and the employer, who was often the 
 owner of the stores at which the working 
 man had to deal, not only paid his victim 
 in victuals and groceries, but made him 
 purchase those necessaries of life at an 
 exorbitant rate. “ This here age,” says 
 Master Nixon in “ Sybil,” “ wants a great 
 deal, but what it principally wants is to 
 have its wages paid in the current coin of 
 the realm; ” and he expressed the senti¬ 
 ments of his class. Slowly but gradually 
 this state of things rose from murmuring 
 and discontent into open sedition. The 
 poor man saw the capitalist rolling in 
 wealth, whilst he, the labourer, was 
 doomed to a life of the heaviest toil 
 and bitterest misery. He made war upon 
 his employer. If he was a peasant, he 
 burnt his landlord’s ricks; if he was a 
 mechanic, he smashed the machinery. He 
 paid heed to the evil counsels of the 
 agitator who went stumping the country, 
 setting class against class, and sowing 
 broadcast the seeds of sedition, privy con¬ 
 spiracy, and rebellion. The English people 
 were then, as Mr. Disraeli said, divided 
 into two nations. “ Two nations between 
 whom there is no intercourse and no 
 sympathy; who are as ignorant of each 
 other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if 
 they were dwellers in different zones, or 
 inhabitants of different planets; who are 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 formed by a different breeding, are fed by 
 a different food, are ordered by different 
 manners, and are not governed by the same 
 laws—the rich and the poor.” 
 
 But it was against the operation of the 
 new poor laws that the hostility of the 
 lower classes was especially directed. By 
 the suppression of the monasteries the 
 chief support of vagrant mendicity was 
 withdrawn; and ever since that date statute 
 after statute had been passed with the 
 object of dealing with the vexed question 
 of pauper relief, and settling it upon some 
 merciful yet repressive basis. The various 
 acts—the acts of Elizabeth, of Charles the 
 Second, of George the First, Davies Gil¬ 
 bert’s Act, the Select Vestry Act, and 
 others;—had, however, failed in effectually 
 checking imposture, or in relieving real dis¬ 
 tress. “ The industrial population of the 
 whole country,” writes Sir Erskine May,“was 
 being rapidly reduced to pauperism, while 
 property was threatened with no distant 
 ruin. The system which was working this 
 mischief assumed to be founded upon bene¬ 
 volence; but no evil genius could have 
 designed a scheme of greater malignity for 
 the corruption of the human race. The 
 
 fund intended for the relief of want and 
 
 * 
 
 sickness—of age and impotence—was reck¬ 
 lessly distributed to all who begged a share. 
 Everyone was taught to look to the parish, 
 and not to his own honest industry, for 
 support. The idle clown, without work, 
 fared as well as the industrious labourer 
 who toiled from morn till night. The 
 shameless slut, with half a dozen children, 
 the progeny of many fathers, was provided 
 for as liberally as the destitute widow and 
 her orphans. But worse than this, inde¬ 
 pendent labourers were tempted and seduced 
 into the degraded ranks of pauperism, by 
 payments freely made in aid of wages. Cot¬ 
 tage rents were paid, and allowances given 
 according to the number of a family. Hence 
 thrift, self-denial, and honest independence 
 were discouraged. The manly farm labourer, 
 who scorned to ask for alms, found his own 
 wages artificially lowered, while improvi¬ 
 
 dence was cherished and rewarded by the 
 parish. He could barely live, without 
 incumbrance; but boys and girls were 
 hastening to church, without a thought of 
 the morrow; and rearing new broods of 
 paupers, to be maintained by the overseer. 
 Who can wonder that labourers were rapidly 
 sinking into pauperism, without pride or 
 self-respect ? But the evil did not even rest 
 here. Paupers were actually driving other 
 labourers out of employment—the labour 
 being preferred which was partly paid out 
 of rates, to which employers were forced to 
 contribute. As the cost of pauperism, thus 
 encouraged, was increasing, the poorer rate¬ 
 payers were themselves reduced to poverty. 
 The soil was ill-cultivated by pauper labour, 
 and its rental consumed by parish rates. In 
 a period of fifty years the poor-rates were 
 quadrupled, and had reached, in 1833, the 
 enormous amount of £8,600,000. In many 
 parishes they were approaching the annual 
 value of the land itself.” 
 
 Government at last resolved to inquire 
 into the matter, and accordingly in the year 
 1834, on the recommendation of a royal 
 commission, appointed at the request of 
 parliament to examine into the administra¬ 
 tion of the laws relating to the poor, the 
 important Poor Law Amendment Act was 
 passed. The essence of this measure was 
 contained in two leading provisions. The 
 first of these placed the superintendence of 
 the whole machinery for dispensing relief 
 to the poor in the hands of a central body 
 of three commissioners, whilst the second 
 contemplated the combination of a number 
 of parishes into a so-called union, which 
 henceforward became the unit of area of 
 poor-law management. The great objects 
 of the measure were those upon which 
 the act of Elizabeth, to limit relief to 
 destitution, and to distinguish between 
 want and imposture, had been based. To 
 arrive at these conclusions, the test was 
 to be found in the workhouse. Under the 
 old system pauperism had been generally 
 relieved at home—the parish workhouse 
 being only looked upon as the asylum for 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 59 
 
 the aged, for orphans, and for those whom 
 it suited better than out-door relief. How¬ 
 ever, now out-door relief was withdrawn 
 altogether from the able-bodied paupers, 
 whose wants were to be tested by their 
 willingness to enter the parish workhouse. 
 As soon as the harshness of these proceed¬ 
 ings began to be practically felt, a fierce 
 outcry against the act was raised by the 
 lower orders. The poor man, reduced by 
 sickness or misfortune to demand help from 
 the parish to tide him over temporary dis¬ 
 tress, pleaded in vain for the out-door relief 
 which kept his home together and mitigated 
 his sufferings. If he were to become the 
 recipient of parochial assistance, a crushing 
 future stood before him. He had to break 
 up his humble establishment, to part with 
 his household goods, to enter a prison-like 
 asylum called the workhouse, to be cruelly 
 separated from his wife and children, to 
 wear a hideous dress, to be subject to severe 
 restrictions upon his personal liberty, to do 
 hard work, to be half fed, and, sad and 
 wearied, to lie down to rest and breathe a 
 tainted atmosphere in a crowded cell. We 
 cannot be surprised that the labouring man, 
 reduced to poverty from no fault of his 
 own, with the instincts of affection in his 
 nature, and not wholly lost to the sense of 
 self-respect, should have declined to seek 
 the shelter offered him on such terrible 
 terms. Rather than be separated from those 
 he loved, and be treated as a convict in 
 order to obtain bare sustenance, he pre¬ 
 ferred to perish from want. He refused 
 to “enter the House;” and death from 
 starvation was often the consequence of 
 his refusal. 
 
 When misery has marked the lower orders 
 for its own, the professional agitator gene¬ 
 rally appears upon the scene to attack 
 the existing government and show how 
 grievances can be redressed. A few weeks 
 after the coronation of the young queen a 
 great Radical meeting was held in Birming¬ 
 ham, and Chartism sprang into life and 
 made its mischievous influence felt. The 
 country was in a sore plight; trade was 
 
 bad, the farming interest was crushed by 
 a succession of bad harvests, the poor were 
 under-paid and over-worked. All these 
 evils, it was now suggested, were owing 
 to the working classes not being properly 
 represented in the legislature. The recent 
 Reform Bill had abolished various nomina¬ 
 tion-boroughs ; had conferred the right of 
 returning members on several large and 
 prosperous towns ; had introduced a ten- 
 pound household qualification for boroughs, 
 and had extended the county franchise to 
 leaseholders and copy - holders; but had 
 done nothing for the working classes. It 
 admitted the middle class to the repre¬ 
 sentation, but it declined to go any lower in 
 the social scale. Since the working men 
 had been mainly instrumental in creating the 
 agitation which caused the Reform Bill to be 
 carried, their exclusion from the benefit of 
 its clauses excited considerable indignation 
 and discontent. The people banded them¬ 
 selves together and gave public expression 
 to their feelings. They drew up a programme 
 of their wants, and showed it to O’Connell. 
 He approved of it. “ There’s your charter,” 
 he said; “ agitate for it, and never be con¬ 
 tent with anything less.” The title given 
 was a good one, and henceforth the pro¬ 
 gramme of the lower classes was called the 
 “ People’s Charter,” and those who advocated 
 its contents went by the name of Chartists. 
 It cannot be said that the demands were 
 very exorbitant. The masses asked for 
 universal suffrage, for annual parliaments, 
 for vote by ballot, for the abolition of the 
 property qualification then required for 
 election of a member to Parliament, for the 
 payment of members, and for the division 
 of the country into equal electoral districts. 
 These were the famous “ six points ” so 
 familiar to all who have studied the agita¬ 
 tion of this time. The Chartists used all 
 their efforts to carry out their programme. 
 They started newspapers of their own to 
 advance their cause; they petitioned par¬ 
 liament ; they broke out into open revolt; 
 they held seditious meetings; they en¬ 
 couraged strikes; and on one memorable 
 
60 
 
 THE EARL OF BEAOONSFIELD 
 
 * 
 
 occasion their leaders were tried for high 
 treason. For ten years the agitation con¬ 
 tinued, and then it died a natural death. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli had always, from the very 
 beginning of his parliamentary career to the 
 day when he breathed his last in Curzon 
 Street, taken a keen interest in the welfare 
 of the working classes. He held that be¬ 
 tween the aristocracy and the lower orders 
 there was far more of sympathy than 
 between either the aristocracy and the 
 middle classes, or the middle classes and 
 the working men; and it was one of the 
 great objects of the political creed he pro¬ 
 fessed, to heighten and strengthen this sym¬ 
 pathy. Whenever an opportunity occurred, 
 no matter how his conduct affected party 
 interests, his vote was ever registered in 
 favour of the comfort and prosperity of the 
 people. Like Lord Palmerston in his later 
 years, he wanted the working classes to 
 enjoy themselves; and every measure which 
 tended in a judicious and legitimate manner 
 to further such enjoyment he strenuously 
 advocated, both when he was an unknown 
 member of parliament as when he was a 
 responsible minister of state. He went into 
 the lobby against Sir Robert Peel on the 
 question of the Hotting Hill Footway Bill, 
 asserting that wherever private privilege, 
 however ancient, stood between the toiling 
 multitudes and the boon of fresh air and 
 harmless recreation, private privilege ought 
 to yield gracefully its exclusive rights. He 
 was not in favour of making the observance 
 of the Sabbath so strict and Puritan-like as 
 to militate against the innocent pleasures 
 and amusements of the people, who work 
 arduously six days out of every seven. He 
 was always an advocate of a sound sanitary 
 system to be adopted in the dwellings of 
 the poor. Whilst the professed champions 
 of the working classes—Mr. Cobden and 
 Mr. Bright—held aloof from the philan¬ 
 thropic efforts of Lord Ashley, now Lord 
 Shaftesbury, to limit the hours of labour in 
 factories, and to protect women and chil¬ 
 dren from over-work in mines, it was Mr. 
 Disraeli who was one of the steadiest of 
 
 that kind-hearted peer’s supporters. Influ¬ 
 enced by these generous sympathies, when 
 Mr. Attwood, the member for Birmingham, 
 came forward in the House of Commons to 
 present the national petition of the Char¬ 
 tists, Mr. Disraeli was not ashamed to 
 express himself in kindly terms of the 
 objects those misguided men had in 
 view. Lord John Russell, in his most 
 acidulated manner, had sneered at the 
 charter and its advocates, whereupon Mr. 
 Disraeli rose up to reply. He, too, disap¬ 
 proved, he said, of the charter as a remedy 
 for the grievances complained of, but he 
 candidly admitted that his sympathies were 
 not wholly withheld from the petitioners. 
 The complaints they brought forward were 
 not groundless; recent legislation had been 
 against them and their order; and sooner or 
 later the working classes would have to be 
 admitted to a larger share in the man¬ 
 agement of the affairs of the country than 
 they then possessed. Those who, criticis¬ 
 ing the Reform Bill of 1867, accuse Mr. 
 Disraeli of inconsistency, will do well to 
 ponder upon this extract from the speech 
 he delivered on the occasion of the Chartist 
 petition in the summer of 1839:— 
 
 “ If the noble lord,” (Lord John Russell), 
 he said, “supposed that, in this country, he 
 could establish a permanent government in 
 what was styled now-a-days a monarchy of 
 the middle classes, he would be indulging a 
 great delusion, which, if persisted in, must 
 shake our institutions and endanger the 
 throne. He believed such a system was 
 actually foreign to the character of the 
 people of England. He believed that in 
 this country the exercise of political power 
 must be associated with great public duties. 
 That was the true principle to adhere to. 
 In proportion as they departed from it they 
 were wrong; as they kept by it they would 
 approximate to that lofty state of things 
 which had been described as so desirable 
 by the honourable member for Birmingham. 
 The noble lord had answered the honour¬ 
 able member for Birmingham, but he had 
 not answered the Chartists. The honour- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 61 
 
 # 
 
 able member for Birmingham had made a 
 very dexterous speech, a skilful evolution, in 
 favour of the middle classes; but although 
 he had attempted to dovetail the charter 
 on the Birmingham union, all that had 
 recently taken place on the appearance 
 of the Chartists before the leaders of the 
 union—newly - created magistrates — and 
 the speeches by members of the convention 
 within the last few days—led to a different 
 conclusion—they manifested the greatest 
 hostility to the middle classes. They (the 
 working men) made no attack on the aris¬ 
 tocracy, none on the corn laws—but upon 
 the newly enfranchised constituency, not 
 on the old—upon that peculiar constituency 
 which was the basis of the noble lord’s 
 government.” 
 
 However, the reign of the Melbourne gov¬ 
 ernment was rapidly drawing to a close. The 
 blunders it hud committed and the grievances 
 that clamoured for redress were fast under¬ 
 mining whatever of stability it had possessed. 
 The Jamaica question gave it the finishing 
 blow. Owing to quarrels in the island, 
 Lord Melbourne had resolved on proposing 
 to parliament a suspension of the constitu¬ 
 tion of Jamaica for five years, during which 
 period the affairs of the colony were to be 
 administered by a provisional government. 
 The proposal was opposed not only by Sir 
 Robert Peel and his followers, but by 
 numerous Radicals, as a violation of Liberal 
 principles. The ministry carried the second 
 reading of their bill by five votes. Such a 
 victory was virtually a defeat, and Lord Mel¬ 
 bourne resigned. We know what followed. 
 Sir Robert was sent for, but declined to 
 form an administration on the refusal of the 
 queen to part with certain Whig ladies, ‘the 
 friends of her youth,” who held posts in 
 the household. The “ Bedchamber Plot,” as 
 it was called, restored Lord Melbourne to 
 power, and once more he was 
 
 “ To make believe to guide the realm 
 Without a hand upon the helm. 3 ’ 
 
 In the opinion of Mr. Disraeli, Sir Robert 
 Peel was wrong in not taking office in 1839. 
 
 “ His withdrawal,” he writes, “ seems to have 
 
 been a mistake. In the great heat of par¬ 
 liamentary faction which had prevailed since 
 1831, the royal prerogative which, unfortu¬ 
 nately for the rights and liberties and social 
 welfare of the people, had since 1688 been 
 more or less oppressed, had waned fainter 
 and fainter. A youthful princess on the 
 throne, whose appearance touched the imagi¬ 
 nation, and to whom her people were gene¬ 
 rally inclined to ascribe something of that 
 decision of character which becomes those 
 born to command, offered a favourable op¬ 
 portunity to restore the exercise of that 
 regal authority, the usurpation of whose 
 functions has entailed on the people of 
 England so much suffering and so much 
 degradation. It was unfortunate that one 
 who, if any, should have occupied the proud 
 and national position of the leader of the 
 Tory party, the chief of the people, and the 
 champion of the throne, should have com¬ 
 menced his career as minister under Victoria 
 by an unseemly contrariety to the personal 
 wishes of the queen. The reaction of public 
 opinion, disgusted with years of parlia¬ 
 mentary tumult and the incoherence of 
 party legislation; the balanced state in the 
 kingdom of political parties themselves; the 
 personal character of the sovereign—these 
 were all causes which intimated that a move¬ 
 ment in favour of prerogative was at hand. 
 The leader of the Tory party should have 
 vindicated his natural position, and availed 
 himself of the gracious occasion; he missed 
 it; and, as the occasion was inevitable, 
 the Whigs enjoyed its occurrence. And 
 thus England witnessed for the first time 
 the portentous anomaly of the oligarchical 
 or Venetian party, which had in the old 
 days destroyed the free monarchy of Eng¬ 
 land, retaining power merely by favour of 
 the court.” 
 
 During the ensuing few months that Lord 
 Melbourne’s government was in office, the 
 member for Maidstone was not silent. The 
 pages of Hansard show us that he was often 
 on his legs putting questions, supporting or 
 opposing measures, and criticising in no 
 toothless fashion the deeds of the Whigs 
 
62 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 and the tenacity with which they clung to 
 power. He sneered at the administration 
 for claiming to be considered the govern¬ 
 ment of the middle party, since it declared 
 that it avoided all extremes. He disliked 
 middle parties, for they reminded him, he said, 
 of the lawyers who eat the oysters and gave 
 the shells to their clients. He opposed Lord 
 John Russell’s motion for the establishment 
 of district and county constabulary, object¬ 
 ing to the inquisitorial powers with which 
 the new police would be furnished. He 
 took the part of two men who were impri¬ 
 soned for political offences, but whose 
 confinement was carried out under excep¬ 
 tional circumstances of indignity and bar¬ 
 barity. He spoke against the agitation for 
 the repeal of the corn laws, and he directed 
 attention to the miserable state of the 
 country generally. But his chief speech, 
 during this period of ministerial incapacity, 
 was in support of the motion of Sir Robert 
 Peel. The ex-premier gave notice that, 
 on May 31, he should move “That Her 
 Majesty’s ministers do not sufficiently pos¬ 
 sess the confidence of the House of Commons 
 to enable them to carry through the House 
 measures which they deem of essential 
 importance to the public welfare, and that 
 their continuance in office under such cir¬ 
 cumstances is at variance with the spirit of 
 the constitution.” 
 
 With this sentiment Mr. Disraeli 
 cordially agreed. He began by passing 
 a high eulogium upon the character of 
 Sir Robert Peel “Placed,” he said, “in 
 an age of rapid civilization and rapid 
 transition, he has adapted the practical 
 character of his measures to the condition 
 of the times. When in power, he has never 
 proposed a change which he did not carry; 
 and when in opposition, he never forgot 
 that he was at the head of the Conservative 
 party. He has never employed his influence 
 for factious purposes, and has never been 
 stimulated in his exertions by a disordered 
 desire of obtaining office; above all, he has 
 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 has 
 done his best to make the settlement of the 
 new constitution of England work for the 
 benefit of the present time and of posterity.” 
 He then showed how necessary it was that 
 there should be a clear understanding be¬ 
 tween the representative and executive 
 bodies. What, he asked, was the duty of a 
 government placed in the situation of the 
 present servants of the crown, unsupported 
 as they were by a House of Commons 
 elected under their own auspices ? They 
 had frequently been defeated in the House 
 of Lords, and of late they had been fre¬ 
 quently defeated in the House of Commons. 
 Clearly it was their duty to bow before the 
 feeling of the country, and resign. Their 
 conduct was as mean as it was unconstitu¬ 
 tional. “ The reformed House of Commons,” 
 he said, “proud of its new-fangled existence, 
 and believing that all power would centre 
 in itself, permitted a minister of state to 
 stigmatize a vote of the House of Lords as 
 ‘ the whisper of a faction.’ But now the 
 poisoned chalice is returned to their own 
 lips. Those who have treated the House of 
 Lords with insult are now treating the 
 House of Commons with contempt. The 
 fact is, that the government is too full of 
 that specious Liberalism which they find 
 it convenient periodically to assume; but 
 in attacking aristocratic institutions, it has 
 become the victim of a haughty and rapa¬ 
 cious oligarchy. The present is not the 
 first time the Whigs have been placed in 
 this situation, and in the present day they 
 have been obliged to reconstruct the House 
 of Commons, and to conciliate the House of 
 Lords. In one thing they have been con¬ 
 sistent—in a systematic slight of our parlia¬ 
 mentary institutions. They now govern the 
 country, not only in spite of the House of 
 Lords, but in spite of the House of Com¬ 
 mons. What will be the consequence ? Is 
 it possible that these ‘apostles of liberty,’ 
 as they have been termed, should be found 
 cringing in the antechambers of the palace, 
 and that they now intend to support them- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 63 
 
 selves in office by clandestine and back¬ 
 stairs* influence ? . . . . The career of 
 
 Her Majesty’s present servants has been a 
 singular one; they began by remodelling 
 the House of Commons and insulting the 
 House of Lords; then they assaulted the 
 church; next the colonial constitutions; 
 afterwards they assailed the municipalities 
 of the kingdom, attacked the rich and the 
 poor, and now, in their last moments, at 
 one fell swoop, make war upon the colonial, 
 commercial, and agricultural interests. 
 Under these circumstances, I see no reason 
 why the party to which I belong should 
 despair, and the right hon. baronet (Sir 
 Robert Peel), who, according to the pre¬ 
 sident of the Board of Control,* is not a 
 great man, and cannot be a great minister, 
 may have the opportunity of establishing a 
 government which will have the confidence 
 of the education, the property, and, I sin¬ 
 cerely believe, the enlightened feeling of 
 the great body of the nation. In that case 
 the prophecy of the right hon. gentleman 
 will be falsified.” The motion of Sir Robert 
 Peel was carried by a majority of one , the 
 ayes being 312 and the noes 311. Instead 
 of resigning, the government preferred to 
 appeal to the country. Parliament was 
 dissolved, and soon every shire was busy 
 with the confusion and party hate of a 
 general election. 
 
 We must now allude to an event which, 
 strictly speaking, has no place in a political 
 biography, yet, since it influenced in no 
 slight manner the career of Mr. Disraeli, 
 should not be omitted. Mr. Wyndham 
 Lewis, the senior member for Maidstone, 
 had died early in 1839, and in the autumn 
 of the following year Mr. Disraeli married 
 the widow of his late colleague. The lady 
 was possessed of an ample fortune, and the 
 union was so singularly happy as to make 
 it remarkable even in this country, which 
 has given a word to our language incapable 
 of translation into a foreign tongue—the 
 word Home. Nothing, we are told—and it 
 
 * Sir John Cam Hobhouse, then president of the Board 
 of Control. 
 
 is no intrusion into the privacy of domes¬ 
 ticity, for the fact was never a secret—was 
 more charming or more complete than the 
 devotion to each other, and the sympathy 
 with each other, which existed between Mr. 
 and Mrs. Disraeli. To his wife—to her 
 advice as well as to her wealth—the late 
 Lord Beaconsfield owed much, and he never 
 scrupled openly to admit his acknowledg¬ 
 ments. There are men, distinguished in 
 the various worlds of politics, literature, 
 art, science, and commerce, who, when they 
 have attained to fame, quietly keep their 
 wives in the background, and enjoy the 
 hospitalities of the great and listen to 
 the flatteries of society, unencumbered by 
 the presence of their partners, who have 
 patiently borne the toil and burden of 
 obscurity, yet are not permitted to bathe in 
 the sunshine of prosperity. Mr. Disraeli 
 did not belong to this class. Where he 
 went his wife went, and no purely social 
 invitation was ever accepted which did not 
 include her who was, in the most exhaustive 
 sense of the word, his helpmeet. That the 
 late leader of the Conservative party, both 
 as Mr. Disraeli and as the Earl of Beacons¬ 
 field, was eminently a popular personage in 
 society, is well known; his geniality, his 
 wit, his tact, his homage to the presence 
 and influence of woman, and above all the 
 charms of his conversation, could not fail 
 to render him an acquisition even to the 
 most exclusive coteries; yet he owed not 
 a little of his social popularity to the 
 sweetness and purity of his home-life. Nor 
 was he in this respect acting foreign to the 
 instincts of the race whose blood coursed 
 in his veins. Whatever faults the Jews 
 possess, conjugal infidelity and a distaste for 
 the repose and enjoyments of home are not 
 amongst them; their religious ceremonies 
 are so mixed up with the seclusion of 
 family life—the home being, as it were, 
 the completion of the synagogue—that 
 they are of all people the most noted for 
 the strength and purity of the domestic 
 virtues. That these were apparent in Mr. 
 Disraeli is plain to all who have studied 
 
64 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 his career, or know anything of his life. 
 On the publication of his pathetic novel, 
 “ Sybil,” he dedicated the book to his wife 
 in these terms:—“ I would inscribe this 
 work,” he wrote, “to one whose noble 
 spirit and gentle nature ever prompt her 
 to sympathize with the suffering; to one 
 whose sweet voice has often encouraged, 
 and whose taste and judgment have ever 
 guided, its pages; the most severe of critics, 
 but—a perfect wife ! ” 
 
 On the resignation of his cabinet, in 
 L868, he sought no honours for himself; 
 but he paid a graceful tribute to the 
 woman he loved, by having her raised to 
 the peerage as Viscountess Beaconsfield. 
 Tn the debate on the address to Her 
 Majesty, that a monument should be 
 erected in Westminster Abbey to the 
 memory of Lord Beaconsfield, allusion was 
 made, in both houses of parliament, to the 
 grace and devotion of the deceased states¬ 
 man’s married life. “ He had,” said Lord 
 Malmesbury, who knew the ex-premier 
 intimately—“ He had every domestic virtue 
 which a man need have. It was fortunate 
 for him, as he always said, that he was 
 supported by a most amiable and devoted 
 wife, to whom he was himself equally de¬ 
 voted. I remember when at last he was 
 deprived of the support of his wife, he said 
 to me, with tears in his eyes, ‘ I hope some 
 of my friends will take notice of me now 
 in my great misfortune, for I have no home; 
 and when I tell my coachman to drive 
 home, I feel it is a mockery.’ I recollect a 
 remarkable story, of which perhaps your 
 lordships have heard, and which was told 
 me by himself. One day he arrived at the 
 House of Commons, having an important 
 speech to make, when the servant, in 
 closing the carriage-door, shut in Lady 
 Beaconsfield’s fingers. She had the courage 
 not to cry out, not to say a word, and not 
 to move till he was out of sight, lest she 
 should disturb his mind and influence the 
 speech he was going to make.” 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in the generous yet 
 guarded speech he made on the occasion of 
 
 the proposed monument, thus expressed 
 himself upon the somewhat unusual subject 
 of the domestic virtues of a political oppo¬ 
 nent :—“ There was a feeling, sir,” he said, 
 addressing the chairman of the committee, 
 “ lying nearer yet to the very centre of his 
 existence, which, though a domestic feeling, 
 may yet without indelicacy be now referred 
 to—his profound, devoted, tender, grateful 
 affection for his wife—which if, as may be 
 the case, has deprived him—I know not 
 whether it be so or not—of the honours of 
 public obsequies, has nevertheless left for 
 him a more permanent title as one who 
 knew, even amidst the storms and tempta¬ 
 tions of political life, what was due to the 
 sanctity and the strength of domestic 
 affection, and who made himself an ex¬ 
 ample in that respect to the country in 
 which he lived.” 
 
 On the dissolution of parliament, Mr. 
 Disraeli did not again seek the suffrages of 
 the constituency of Maidstone. Whatever 
 were his reasons—whether he was offended 
 at the accusation, no sooner made than 
 withdrawn, that he owed certain debts in 
 the place; or that his wife, who warmly 
 supported his canvass, did not care to exert 
 herself in the town for which her first hus¬ 
 band had been the senior representative; or 
 that he did not wish to oppose the local 
 resident that was brought forward, or 
 whatever was the cause—Mr. Disraeli did 
 not pay his expected visit to Kent. He 
 was asked to stand for Wycombe, but de¬ 
 clined. An invitation from Shrewsbury, 
 numerously signed, was, however, accepted, 
 and the future protectionist leader hurried 
 into Shropshire. He was hotly opposed, 
 and his enemies strained every nerve to 
 defeat him; they declared that he was a 
 turncoat, and, when he had satisfactorily 
 vindicated himself from the charge, they 
 vowed that he was over head and ears 
 in debt; when that accusation was also 
 clearly disproved, they resorted to other 
 misstatements; and, when these had been 
 fairly met and contradicted, they could 
 always fall back upon the fact that he 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 65 
 
 was t- a Jew,” which, of course, could 
 not he refuted, and which was an arrow 
 always serviceable when the quiver of the 
 spiteful was empty. Falsehood and malice, 
 however, failed to win the day. Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli attacked the new poor law, sneered at 
 the ten-pound householder of the vaunted 
 Keform Bill, exposed the scandalous ex¬ 
 penditure of the Whig government, and 
 opposed the abolition of the corn law r s by 
 VOL. i. 
 
 the telling announcement that cheap bread 
 was the thin edge of the wedge for the 
 establishment of cheap labour. His views 
 were supported by the majority of his 
 hearers. In conjunction with Colonel Tom¬ 
 line, he was returned member for Shrews¬ 
 bury. The numbers were—for the Tories, 
 Tomline, 793; Disraeli, 787; for the Liberals. 
 Parry, 604; Temple, 579. The Tory party 
 had gained an easy victory. 
 
 9 
 
CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. 
 
 Sir Eobert Peel is tlie solitary instance 
 on our roll of premiers of a man entirely 
 destitute of the higher qualities of states¬ 
 manship—the creative faculty and the pre¬ 
 science which anticipates the course of events 
 —who yet takes rank as a wise and great 
 minister. Only those who confound memory 
 with imagination can accuse him of origin¬ 
 ality of design where his political creed 
 was concerned. Every one of the great 
 measures with which his name is connected 
 was the result of the labours of his pre¬ 
 decessors ; of every one of those measures 
 he was at one time the chief opponent; yet 
 every one of those measures was indebted 
 to him, and not to its original author, for 
 its enrolment upon the statute-book. Mr. 
 Horner advocated the resumption of cash 
 payments by the Bank; Mr. Peel opposed 
 the motion; then he became converted to 
 the idea; and it was through him, and not 
 through Mr. Horner, that the currency 
 hill became law. Mr. Canning passed his 
 life in struggling with the legislature for 
 the removal of Catholic disabilities. Mr. 
 Peel was one of the most prominent oppo¬ 
 nents of the measure; yet it was through 
 him, and not through Mr. Canning, that 
 the Emancipation Act was carried. Mr. 
 Cobden was the consistent advocate of the 
 repeal of the corn laws; Sir Eobert Peel 
 was the chief of the great party which was 
 most hostile to the efforts of the Manchester 
 school; yet it was not Mr. Cobden, but 
 Sir Eobert Peel, who removed restrictions 
 upon the importation of grain. He was 
 the tenacious recipient of other men’s ideas, 
 which he elaborated, which he polished, 
 which he methodized; but which, in spite 
 of the finish with which they were pre¬ 
 sented for the approval of the House of 
 
 Commons, were no less the adapted schemes 
 of others—and, curiously enough, of the 
 very men whom at one time he had 
 opposed. 
 
 The bitter taunts of Mr. Disraeli were, 
 therefore, not without justification, when 
 we consider the measures which Sir Eobert 
 Peel first denounced and afterwards advo¬ 
 cated. It might be one-sided, but it cer¬ 
 tainly was not wholly untrue, to accuse 
 him, as Mr. Disraeli acccused him, of 
 “ trading on the ideas and intelligence of 
 others; ” of being “ a burglar of other 
 men’s intellect; ” and of permitting his life 
 to develop into “ one great appropriation 
 clause.” Yet, in spite of his lack of origin¬ 
 ality, Sir Eobert Peel was a great minister. 
 Never since the days of Sir Eobert Walpole 
 had there appeared a man who knew better 
 how to excite parliamentary sympathies, how 
 to appeal to parliamentary support, how to 
 humour parliamentary antagonism, how to 
 marshal parliamentary combinations and 
 lead them on to victory. “ He played 
 upon the House of Commons,” said Mr. 
 Disraeli, “as if it were an old fiddle.” 
 Like the famous Lord Shaftesbury, one 
 of the secrets of his strength lay in his 
 thorough knowledge of the aims and wishes 
 of the English people. He saw what the 
 country wanted and obeyed its instructions. 
 He did not stem the tide, but was carried 
 along by the stream. He never led the 
 nation, for it was the nation which led him; 
 but he followed so cleverly, that to many 
 he appeared to guide its destinies. 
 
 Another element of his power was the 
 confidence which the middle classes re¬ 
 posed in him. We have had aristocratic 
 premiers, and we now have a Eadical 
 premier, but Sir Eobert Peel was essentially 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 G7 
 
 a middle-class minister. He liad none of 
 that brilliancy of talent—the characteristic 
 of a Canning or a Disraeli—which in the 
 eyes of the middle classes is deemed so 
 dangerous. Except in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, he was dull, tedious, and shy, which 
 to his admirers were only so many more 
 proofs of his soundness and solidity of 
 character. He had in an eminent degree 
 those practical habits in business and that 
 love for detail, without which no politician, 
 in the opinion of the middle classes, can 
 become a statesman. He had no vices; 
 his life was pure and unsullied; and though 
 a high tone of morality is appreciated by 
 all whose good word is worth obtaining, by 
 none is it more highly valued than by the 
 middle classes. The aristocracy might laugh 
 at him and say he had “ no manners; ” the 
 Protectionists might brand him as an 
 impostor and an apostate; but the middle 
 classes trusted him and felt that their 
 interests were in safe keeping. The Duke 
 of Wellington failed to inspire them with 
 confidence, but “ they believed in Peel.” 
 
 Their belief was soon to be put to the 
 test. On the assembling of parliament, 
 the elections had gone strongly in favour 
 of the Tory party, and it was evident to 
 all that the fate of the Melbourne govern¬ 
 ment was sealed. Defeated on an amend¬ 
 ment to the address, the Whig premier 
 placed his resignation in the hands of the 
 queen, and he was succeeded in office by 
 Sir Robert Peel. A Tory cabinet was 
 soon formed. Lord Lyndhurst was the 
 chancellor; Lord Wharncliffe, president of 
 the council; Lord Haddington, first lord 
 of the admiralty; the Duke of Buckingham, 
 lord privy seal; Sir James Graham, home 
 secretary; the Earl of Aberdeen, foreign 
 secretary; Lord Stanley, colonial secretary; 
 Lord Ellenborougli, president of the board 
 of control; Sir Henry Hardinge, secretary 
 at war; the Earl of Ripon, president of the 
 board of trade; Mr. Goulburn, chancellor 
 of the exchequer; Sir G. Knatchbull, pay¬ 
 master-general; and Lord Eliot, chief secre- 
 taryfor Ireland. The Dukeof Wellington was 
 
 a member of the cabinet, but without office. 
 Among those not in the cabinet were Lord 
 Lowther, postmaster-general; Lord Gran¬ 
 ville Somerset, chancellor of the duchy of 
 Lancaster; and Mr. W. E. Gladstone, vice- 
 president of the board of trade. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was not offered office. He 
 had served his party loyally for five years; 
 he was rising in the estimation of the 
 House of Commons; apart from his marriage 
 he was not a rich man, and there is little 
 doubt but that, had he been asked to fill 
 some subordinate post in the government 
 —that of an under-secretary or of a vice- 
 president — the compliment would have 
 been gladly accepted. Ho such proposal was, 
 however, made, and because he was ignored 
 it afterwards pleased the peculiar malice of 
 his enemies to assert that his opposition to 
 Sir Robert Peel w r as due to his having been 
 excluded from the ministry on this occasion. 
 It was said that he had intrigued for office, 
 and had received a rebuff; hence his hostility 
 to the measures of the government, hence 
 his personal animosity to the prime minister. 
 Mr. Disraeli met these charges with his 
 usual courage, and with a complete denial 
 as to their truth. In the debate on the 
 Corn Importation Bill (May 15, 1846), he 
 stated before his false accusers that had he 
 been an applicant for office, on the forma-- 
 tion of the government of Sir Robert Peel, 
 there would have been nothing dishonour¬ 
 able in the fact. He was a Conservative, 
 he had supported his party, he was then a 
 young man and he had never pretended 
 to be without ambition. “But I can assure 
 the House,” he solemnly said, “ nothing of 
 the kind ever occurred. I never shall—it 
 is totally foreign to my nature—make an 
 application for any place. Anything more 
 unfounded than the rumour circulated 
 to-night, that my opposition to the right 
 honourable gentleman has ever been in¬ 
 fluenced by my being disappointed of office, 
 there cannot be.” Lord Palmerston, shortly 
 after Sir Robert Peel had come into power, 
 once twitted Mr. Disraeli with this false 
 charge. It was on the debate to unite the 
 
G8 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 diplomatic and consular services, an amal¬ 
 gamation which the member for Shrewsbury 
 had advocated. “ 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 practi¬ 
 cally applied to his own case.” 
 
 It was never a very safe proceeding to 
 make an attack upon Mr. Disraeli, for he 
 had the faculty of turning upon his assailant 
 and giving as a rule far more bitter measure 
 than he received. Lord Palmerston, who 
 had served as secretary at war under Per¬ 
 ceval, under Liverpool, under Canning, 
 under Goderich, under Wellington, and as 
 foreign minister under Grey and Melbourne, 
 certainly laid himself open to retort so far 
 as adherence to office was concerned, and 
 Mr. Disraeli did not spare him. He must 
 offer, he said, his acknowledgments to the 
 noble viscount for his courteous aspirations 
 for his political promotion. Such aspira¬ 
 tions from such a quarter must be looked 
 upon as suspicious. The noble viscount 
 was a consummate master of the subject; 
 and if the noble viscount would only im¬ 
 part to him the secret by which he had 
 himself contrived to retain office during 
 seven successive administrations, the present 
 debate would certainly not be without a 
 result. 
 
 Nor is it true that Mr. Disraeli, after 
 having been returned for Shrewsbury, and 
 during the period preceding the repeal of 
 the corn laws, acted in a hostile manner 
 towards the measures advocated by the 
 government. We have only to refer to 
 the pages of what Mr. Disraeli called 
 
 the “ Dunciad of Politics,” Hansard, to 
 maintain this assertion. There we find 
 the future protectionist leader playing the 
 part of an independent, but by no means of 
 a malevolent critic, upon the policy of the 
 cabinet. He was a party man; but he was 
 no blind, submissive partisan who votes as 
 he is ordered, even wffien he disapproves of 
 the schemes introduced. Still less did he 
 permit any personal feelings he might 
 entertain against the chief of the govern¬ 
 ment to colour with their bias the views 
 he held respecting public affairs. Early 
 in the year 1842, when Sir Robert Peel 
 introduced his scheme for modifying the 
 corn laws, the member for Shrewsbury 
 voted with the majority. His name is also 
 to be found among the opponents of the 
 annual motion of Mr. Yilliers for the total 
 repeal of the corn laws. Often when he felt 
 himself unable to support the government, 
 rather than do damage by an opposition 
 which might be considered factious, Mr. 
 Disraeli stood aloof altogether from the 
 division. He neither voted for nor against 
 the imposition of the income tax, which, as 
 we shall subsequently see, he strongly dis¬ 
 approved of. He acted in the same manner 
 towards those measures which resulted in 
 the disruption of the Church of Scutland. 
 His sympathy with the working-classes 
 caused him not to look with disfavour upon 
 the promoters of the second National Peti¬ 
 tion, yet he declined to harass the govern¬ 
 ment, and purposely absented himself from 
 the House. This course he pursued through¬ 
 out the early years of the Peel administra¬ 
 tion so far as he consistently could; but 
 when it came to a question of what he 
 considered principle, he allowed no party 
 restrictions to stand in the v T ay of his vote. 
 He spoke in favour, as we have said, of a 
 combination of the consular and diplomatic 
 services, and was opposed by Peel. He 
 proposed, and was thwarted by the premier, 
 that a committee should inquire into the 
 late invasion of Afghanistan, since it ap¬ 
 peared to him, he said, “that no better 
 reason existed for that invasion than could 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 GO 
 
 be offered by France, if she should choose 
 to cross the Kliine, because she entertained 
 some vague idea that all Europe was 
 coalescing against her.” He resisted the 
 proposal to disfranchise Sudbury, and went 
 into the lobby with the minority. He was 
 an advocate for commercial treaties, as 
 opposed to the unconditional repeal of 
 import duties, and boldly delivered his 
 opinions without any fencing or scheming 
 reservations. On the Irish question he 
 spoke with equal force and lucidity, but at 
 greater length; the speech he made on 
 that occasion is too masterly to be briefly 
 dismissed. 
 
 The condition of Ireland was becoming 
 more and more alarming. The agitation ex¬ 
 cited by O’Connell for the repeal of the union 
 had now spread almost throughout the entire 
 country. Monster meetings were held, at 
 which an infuriated mob assembled, ready 
 to wreak their vengeance upon all who 
 should oppose their resolve to sever them¬ 
 selves from hated England. The usual 
 concomitants of Irish revolt attended upon 
 these proceedings. Landlords were unable 
 to obtain their rents; the cattle of sub¬ 
 missive tenants were houghed; ail who 
 refused to sympathize with the agitation 
 were marked out for punishment, were un¬ 
 able to obtain the necessaries of life, were 
 often “carded,” and occasionally shot. If 
 the miserable people of a miserable island 
 were to be kept in subjection, and if their 
 country was not to pass into the hands of 
 the enemy, it was evident that the English 
 government must now actively bestir itself. 
 It was no longer the revolt of a section, 
 but the rebellion of a nation. Such was 
 the situation of affairs when Lord John 
 Eussell moved to inquire into the state 
 of Ireland. An important debate ensued, 
 and on the fourth night (February 16, 
 1844) Mr. Disraeli rose up to address 
 the House of Commons. He was listened 
 to with great attention, for he spoke words 
 which put the case clearly before his 
 audience, and merited all the consideration 
 they deserved. It had been stated, he be¬ 
 
 gan, that the grievances of Ireland had 
 existed ever since the introduction of the 
 reformed religion into that country. He 
 denied that there was any necessary and 
 irresistible connection between the intro¬ 
 duction of Protestant principles into the 
 island and the misgovernment they now 
 deplored. Take, he said, the period pre¬ 
 ceding the breaking out of the civil war. 
 “ At that period there was a parliament in 
 Dublin called by a Protestant king, pre¬ 
 sided over by a Protestant viceroy, and at 
 that moment there was a Protestant estab¬ 
 lished church in Ireland; yet the majority 
 of the members of that parliament were 
 Eoman Catholics. The government was at 
 that time carried on by a council of state, 
 presided over by a Protestant deputy, yet 
 many of the members of that council were 
 Eoman Catholics. The municipalities were 
 then full of Eoman Catholics. Several of 
 the sheriffs also were Eoman Catholics, and 
 a very considerable number of magistrates 
 were Eoman Catholics. It is, therefore, 
 very evident that it is not the necessary 
 consequence of English connection—of a 
 Protestant monarchy, or even of a Protes¬ 
 tant church—that this embittered feeling 
 at present exists; nor that that system of 
 exclusion, which either in form or spirit 
 has so long existed, is the consequence of 
 Protestantism.” 
 
 Then what was this much talked-of 
 Irish question ? asked Mr. Disraeli. “ I 
 want to see,” he cried, “a public man 
 come forward and say what the Irish 
 question is. One says it is a physical ques¬ 
 tion, another a spiritual. How, it is the 
 absence of the aristocracy; now the absence 
 of railroads. It is the pope one day, pota¬ 
 toes the next. Let us consider Ireland, as 
 we should any other country similarly 
 situated, in our closets. Then we shall see a 
 teeming population which, with reference 
 to the cultivated soil, is denser to the square 
 mile than that of China, created solely by 
 agriculture, with none of those sources of 
 wealth which are developed with civiliza¬ 
 tion, and sustained consequently upon the 
 
70 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 lowest conceivable diet; so that in case of 
 failure they have no other means of sub¬ 
 sistence upon which they can fall back. 
 That dense population in extreme distress 
 inhabit an island where there is an estab¬ 
 lished church which is not their church; 
 and a territorial aristocracy, the richest 
 of whom live in distant capitals. Thus 
 you have a starving population, an absentee 
 aristocracy, and an alien church; and, in 
 addition, the weakest executive in the world. 
 That is the Irish question.” 
 
 How, then, were these evils to be 
 remedied ? By a strong executive, a just 
 administration, and ecclesiastical equality, 
 he answered. Grant these, and you would 
 have order in Ireland; the improvement of 
 the physical condition of the people would 
 follow—not very rapidly, perhaps; but what 
 were fifty years even in the history of a 
 nation ? If these recommendations were 
 adopted, in fifty years hence the men who 
 should succeed the present generation in par¬ 
 liament would find the people of Ireland a 
 contented and thriving peasantry. But we 
 should not be deterred by difficulties— 
 everything great was difficult. The Tory 
 party was now in power, and the Tories 
 had ever been the friends of Ireland. Was 
 it denied ? Was it the Tory party that 
 introduced the penal code ? It was not 
 the Tory party that made a factitious aris¬ 
 tocracy out of the plunder of the church. 
 The penal code had been introduced, and at 
 the same time a new spirit had been in¬ 
 fused into what was called the Protestant 
 church of Ireland—a Puritan spirit; and 
 from that moment the Church of Ireland 
 lost all its influence, and then those unfor¬ 
 tunate consequences which have ensued 
 had their origin. “Yet,” said the speaker, 
 “at every period when Tory politics and 
 Tory statesmen have succeeded in breaking 
 through the powerful trammels of Whig 
 policy, you will invariably observe that 
 there has been a hope for Ireland—a streak 
 of light observable in its gloomy horizon. 
 Did not Mr. Pitt, the last of Tory states¬ 
 men, propose measures for the settlement 
 
 of Ireland, which, had they been agreed to 
 by parliament, would have saved Ireland 
 from her present condition ? You would 
 have had the Roman Catholics of Ireland 
 emancipated at a very early period, and 
 you would have had the church question, 
 too, settled at a very early period. . . . 
 
 If we want permanently to settle Irish 
 affairs with credit to ourselves, and to the 
 satisfaction of the Irish people, we must 
 reconstruct the social system of that country, 
 and we must commence by organizing a very 
 comprehensive and pervading executive. 
 When we have done this, and got the ad¬ 
 ministration of justice into our hands, we 
 should, perhaps, find a less necessity for 
 legislation for Ireland than has been con¬ 
 sidered requisite. ... I look to no 
 foreign, no illegitimate influences for bring¬ 
 ing about that result—not to the passions 
 of the Irish people, not to the machinations 
 of their demagogues, not to the intrigues 
 of distant nations, but to a power far more 
 influential, far more benignant—a power 
 more recently risen in the world, not yet 
 sufficiently recognized .”—[A Voice: “What, 
 ‘ Young England ?’”]—“ No, not Young Eng¬ 
 land,” retorted Air. Disraeli, “but a power 
 which Young England respects—that irre¬ 
 sistible law of our modern civilization which 
 has decreed that the system which cannot 
 bear discussion is doomed.” 
 
 Let us here say a few w’ords respecting 
 the new association which, during the earlier 
 years of the Peel administration, was sneered 
 at as “Young England.” The late Lord 
 Beaconsfield was always a great believer in 
 the power and efficacy of youth. The sun¬ 
 shine of life in his eyes was youth, all the 
 rest was but the after glow. Aliddle age, 
 with its caution gained by experience; old 
 age, with its selfishness caused by neglect, 
 were no doubt useful elements in their way 
 in the government of mankind; but youth 
 when able, when energetic, when generous, 
 carried all before it—it was divine. Mr. 
 Disraeli thus eulogises its power and the 
 activity of its ambition in “ Coningsby,” a 
 novel representing the views of “ Young 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 71 
 
 England,” and which for its literary finish, 
 its brilliant dialogue, its exquisite analysis 
 of character, and the fidelity of its historical 
 narrative, is the finest political novel in our 
 language:— 
 
 “For life in general,” remarks Sidonia, 
 one of the chief characters of the hook, 
 after eulogising the power and oppor¬ 
 tunities of gifted vouth. “ Youth is a 
 blunder; Manhood a struggle; Old Age a 
 regret. Do not suppose,” he added, smiling, 
 “ that I hold that youth is genius; all that 
 I say is, that genius, when young, is divine. 
 Why, the greatest captains of ancient and 
 modern times both conquered Italy at five- 
 and-twenty! Youth, extreme youth, over¬ 
 threw the Persian empire. Don John of 
 Austria won Lepanto at twenty-five, the 
 greatest battle of modern times; had it not 
 been for the jealousy of Philip, the next 
 year he would have been Emperor of 
 Mauritania. Gaston de Foix was only 
 twenty-two when he stood a victor on the 
 plain of Eavenna. Every one remembers 
 Conde and Eocroy at the same age. Gus- 
 tavus Adolphus died at thirty-eight. Look 
 at his captains: that wonderful Duke of 
 Weimar, only thirty-six when he died. 
 Banier himself, after all his miracles, died 
 at forty-five. Cortes was little more than 
 thirty when he gazed upon the golden 
 cupolas of Mexico. When Maurice of 
 Saxony died at thirty-two, all Europe 
 acknowledged the loss of the greatest cap¬ 
 tain and the profoundest statesman of 
 the age. Then there is Nelson, Clive; but 
 these are warriors, and perhaps you may 
 think there are greater things than war. I 
 do not: I worship the Lord of Hosts. But 
 take the most illustrious achievements of 
 civil prudence. Innocent III., the greatest 
 of the popes, was the despot of Christendom 
 at thirty-seven. John de Medici was a 
 cardinal at fifteen, and according to Guicci¬ 
 ardini, baffled with his statecraft Ferdinand 
 of Arragon himself. He was pope as Leo 
 X. at thirty-seven. Luther robbed even 
 him of his richest province at thirty-five. 
 Take Ignatius Loyola and John Wesley, 
 
 they worked with young brains. Ignatius 
 was only thirty when he made his pil¬ 
 grimage and wrote the ‘Spiritual Exercises.’ 
 Pascal wrote a great work at sixteen, and 
 died at thirty-seven, the greatest of French¬ 
 men. “ Ah ! that fatal thirty-seven, which 
 reminds me of Byron, greater even as a 
 man than a writer. Was it experience 
 that guided the pencil of Eaphael when he 
 painted the palaces of Eome ? He, too 
 died at thirty-seven. Eichelieu was secre¬ 
 tary of state at thirty-one. Well then, 
 there were Bolingbroke and Pitt, both 
 ministers before other men left off cricket. 
 Grotius was in great practice at seventeen, 
 and attorney-general at twenty-four. And 
 Acquaviva was general of the Jesuits, ruled 
 every cabinet in Europe, and colonized 
 America before he was thirty-seven. What 
 a career! . . . . But it is needless to 
 
 multiply instances! The history of heroes 
 is the history of youth.” 
 
 Of the club of young men who banded 
 themselves together to carry out the 
 enthusiastic policy of “ Young England,” 
 Mr. Disraeli was the chief—its presiding 
 and inspiring genius. With him were 
 associated Lord John Manners, his staunch 
 friend and supporter throughout the whole 
 of his political career; the brilliant George 
 Sydney-Smythe; Henry Hope, the son of 
 the author of “ Anastasius; ” Monckton 
 Milnes, the poet; Faber, who afterwards 
 completed his Tractarianism by embracing 
 the faith of Eome, and others of lesser 
 note. The animating spirit of the new 
 creed was that the salvation of the country 
 was to proceed from its youth, the “new 
 generation:”— 
 
 “ I have immense faith in the new 
 generation,” says Millbank, one of the 
 heroes in the novel “ Coningsby.” 
 
 “ 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 
 
72 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 confidence from tlie people, what favour 
 from the Most High ! ” 
 
 The faith of the “new generation” might 
 be sentimental, but it was to be at the 
 same time eminently practical. The higher 
 classes were to visit the cottages of the 
 poor, and by sympathy, kindly charity, and 
 gentle counsel, bridge over the gulf which 
 separated “the two nations.” Henceforth 
 the peer and the pauper were not to be the 
 strangers they had been to each other; 
 the peer was to lose his pride, the pauper 
 his prejudices. The Church was to be no 
 longer the mechanism of a creed, but a real, 
 animating influence; once more her doors 
 were to be thrown open to all classes, her 
 walls thronged with worshippers, her priests 
 alive to the mission for which they had 
 been consecrated, and the piety which had 
 built our monasteries -and founded our 
 chapels once more to be restored in all its 
 purity and vigour. Thus sang the poet of 
 the Fraternity— 
 
 Yes ! 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.” 
 
 Alms-giving was to be practised as described 
 by Mr. Lyle in “ Coningsby,” and as sung 
 by Lord John Manners:— 
 
 “ The daily beadsman waiting for his bread, 
 
 Where good and bad were all, 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.” 
 
 In short, through the mission of “Young 
 England ” religion was to be restored, 
 poverty repressed, caste-exclusiveness to be 
 exchanged for liberality of feeling, and 
 mankind taught that there was something 
 higher than the cold philosophy of Bentham, 
 something nobler than the culpable self- 
 denial inculcated by Malthus. The apostles 
 of the new faith met with much ridicule in 
 their day, yet the creed they taught was a 
 holy and unselfish one. It did its work 
 
 well, and to its example we owe, in no 
 small measure, our churches free and filled, 
 our charity organization societies, our work¬ 
 men’s clubs, our homes, asylums, and refuges, 
 and the other numerous institutions at the 
 present day which have for their object 
 the spread of religion, the advancement of 
 education, and the mitigation of the miseries 
 of humanity. 
 
 Toward the close of the year 1844 Mr. 
 Disraeli, as the leader of the school of 
 “ Young England,” was asked to deliver a 
 lecture at the Manchester Athenaeum—an 
 institution which, after struggling against 
 various pecuniary difficulties, was at last 
 successfully established. The member for 
 Shrewsbury chose as his subject the “Ac¬ 
 quirement of Knowledge,” and the lecture 
 he delivered on that occasion, though not 
 to be met with in the published speeches 
 of Mr. Disraeli, nor alluded to in any of 
 his works, is fully worthy of preservation. 
 A young man—and in politics, as at the 
 bar, a man under forty is still young—busy 
 as a politician and as an author, does not 
 always care to come forward, and on a 
 local platform trouble himself to present 
 the truths and sound moral advice which 
 are conspicuous in this lecture. Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli was, however, to address the youth of 
 a great town, and such an audience always 
 commanded his best efforts. He began by 
 congratulating the Athenaeum upon having 
 successfully surmounted the obstacles it 
 had at first to encounter, and being now 
 definitely established as a useful and pros¬ 
 perous institution with a valuable library, 
 a news room, a lecture hall, and a gym¬ 
 nasium. The object of its founders was 
 excellent. “ It is difficult to conceive,” he 
 said, “how a nobler purpose, if for a moment 
 we dilate upon it, could have animated your 
 intentions. When we remember the class 
 of your community for which this institu¬ 
 tion w T as particularly adapted—when we 
 conceive, difficult as it is, surrounded as we 
 now are with luxury and pleasure—when 
 we attempt to picture to our imaginations 
 what is the position of a youth, perhaps of 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 73 
 
 very tender years, sent, as I am informed 
 is very frequently the case, from a remote 
 district, to form his fortunes in this great 
 metropolis of labour and of science—when 
 we think of that youth, tender in age, with 
 no domestic hearth to soothe and stimulate, 
 to counsel or control—when we picture him 
 to ourselves after a day of indefatigable toil, 
 left to his lonely evenings and his meagre 
 lodgings without a friend and without a 
 counsellor, flying to dissipation from sheer 
 want of distraction, and perhaps involved 
 in vice before he is conscious of the fatal 
 net that is surrounding him—what a con¬ 
 trast to his position does it offer when we 
 picture him to ourselves with a feeling of 
 self-confidence, which supports and sustains 
 him after his day of toil, entering a great 
 establishment where everything that can 
 satisfy curiosity, that can form taste, that 
 can elevate the soul of man, and lead to 
 noble thoughts and honourable intentions, 
 surrounds him! When we think of the 
 convenience and the comfort, the kind¬ 
 ness and the sympathy which, with a due 
 decorum of manners, he is sure to command 
 —this youth, who but a few hours before 
 was a stranger—viewing an institution like 
 the present only in this limited aspect, one 
 must regard it as a great harbour of in¬ 
 tellectual refuge and social propriety.” 
 
 He hoped that so useful an institution 
 would not be permitted to collapse. He 
 looked upon it as part of that great educa¬ 
 tional movement which was the noble and 
 ennobling characteristic of the age in which 
 they lived. To diffuse knowledge was the 
 great duty of mankind. It was knowledge 
 that equalized the social condition of man 
 —that gave to all, however different their 
 political position, passions which were in 
 common, and enjoyments which were 
 universal. Knowledge was like the mvstic 
 ladder in the patriarch’s dream. Its base 
 rested on the primeval earth—its crest was 
 lost in the shadowy splendour of the em¬ 
 pyrean ; while the great authors who for 
 traditionary ages had held the chain of 
 science and philosophy, of poesy and 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 erudition, were the angels ascending and 
 descending the sacred scale, and maintain¬ 
 ing, as it were, the communication between 
 man and heaven. “Heretofore,” he said, 
 “society was established necessarily on a 
 very different principle to that which is 
 now its basis. As civilization has gradually 
 progressed, it has equalized the physical 
 qualities of man. Instead of the strong 
 arm it is the strong head that is now the 
 moving principle of society. You have 
 disenthroned Force, and placed on her high 
 seat Intelligence; and the necessary con¬ 
 sequence of this great revolution is, that it 
 has become the duty and the delight equally 
 of every citizen to cultivate his faculties. 
 The prince of all philosophy has told you, 
 in an immortal apophthegm so familiar to 
 you all that it is written now in your halls 
 and chambers, ‘Knowledge is power.’ If 
 that memorable passage had been pursued 
 by the student who first announced this 
 discovery of that great man to society, he 
 would have found an oracle not less striking, 
 and in my mind certainly not less true ; for 
 Lord Bacon has not only said that ‘ know¬ 
 ledge is power,’ but living one century 
 after the discovery of the printing-press, 
 he has also announced to the world that 
 ‘ knowledge is pleasure.’ Why, when the 
 great body of mankind had become familiar 
 with this great discovery—when they 
 learned that a new source was opened to 
 them of influence and enjoyment, is it 
 wonderful that from that hour the heart of 
 nations has palpitated with the desire of 
 becoming acquainted with all that has 
 happened, and with speculating on what 
 may occur ? It has indeed produced upon 
 the popular intellect an influence almost as 
 great as—I might say analogous to—the 
 great change which was produced upon 
 the old commercial world by the discovery 
 of the Americas. A new standard of value 
 was introduced, and, after this, to be dis¬ 
 tinguished, man must be intellectual.” 
 
 Knowledge was no longer a lonely her¬ 
 mit, that offered an occasional and captivat¬ 
 ing hospitality to some wandering pilgrim ; 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 knowledge was now found in the market¬ 
 place a citizen, and a leader of citizens. 
 Then, mindful of the audience he was 
 especially addressing, and that he was the 
 apostle to the new generation which was 
 to save the state from atheism in religion, 
 from rejDublicanism in politics, and from 
 immorality in philosophy, he thus spoke to 
 the youth of Manchester. The conclusion 
 of his speech is as practical and high-souled 
 as anything he ever uttered, and the youth 
 of other towns besides Manchester might 
 do worse than take to heart the teaching 
 contained in this gospel of Young Eng- 
 landism:— 
 
 “ I would say one word now to tliose for 
 whom this institution is not entirely, but 
 principally, formed. I would address my¬ 
 self to the youth on whom the hopes of all 
 societies repose and depend. I doubt not 
 that they feel conscious of the position 
 which they occupy—a position which, 
 under all circumstances, at all periods, and in 
 every clime and country, is one replete with 
 duty. The youth of a nation are the trustees 
 of posterity; but the youth I address have 
 duties peculiar to the position which they 
 occupy. They are the rising generation of 
 a society unprecedented in the history of 
 the world, that is at once powerful and 
 new. In other parts of the kingdom the 
 remains of an ancient civilization are pre¬ 
 pared to guide, to cultivate, to influence 
 the rising mind; but they are born in a 
 miraculous creation of novel powers, and it 
 is rather a providential instinct that has 
 developed the necessary means of main¬ 
 taining the order of your new civilization, 
 than the matured foresight of man. This 
 is their inheritance. They will be called 
 on to perform duties—great duties. I, for 
 one, wish for their sakes, and for the sake 
 of our country, that they may be performed 
 greatly. I give to them that counsel which 
 I have ever given to youth, and which I 
 believe to be the wisest and the best— I tell 
 them to aspire. I believe that the man who 
 does not loolc up will hole down; and that 
 the spirit that does not dare to soar is destined 
 
 perhaps to grovel. Every individual is en¬ 
 titled to aspire to that position which he 
 believes his faculties qualify him to occupy. 
 I know there are some who look with what 
 I believe to be a short-sighted timidity 
 and false prudence upon such views. They 
 are apt to tell us—‘ Beware of filling the 
 youthful mind with an impetuous tumult 
 of turbulent fancies; teach him rather to 
 be content with his position; do not 
 induce him to fancy that he is that 
 which he is not, or to aspire to that 
 which he cannot achieve.’ In my mind, 
 these are superficial delusions. ITe who 
 enters the ivorld finds his level. It is the 
 solitary being, the isolated individual alone 
 in his solitude, who may be apt to miscal¬ 
 culate his powers, and misunderstand his 
 character. But action teaches him the 
 truth, even if it be a stern one. Associa¬ 
 tion offers him the best criticism in the 
 world, and I will venture to say that if 
 he belong to this Athenseum, though when 
 he enters it he may think himself a genius, 
 if nature has not given him a creative and 
 passionate soul, before a week has elapsed 
 he will become a very sober-minded indivi¬ 
 dual. I wish to damp no youthful ardour. 
 I can conceive what opportunities such an 
 institution as this would have afforded to 
 the suggestive mind of a youthful Arkwright. 
 I can conceive what a nursing-mother such 
 an institution must have been to the brood¬ 
 ing genius of your illustrious and venerated 
 Dalton. It is the asylum of the self-formed; 
 it is the counsellor of those who want 
 counsel; but it is not a guide that will 
 mislead, and it is the last place that will fill 
 the mind of man with false ideas and false 
 conceptions. He reads a newspaper, and his 
 conceit oozes out after reading a leading 
 article. He refers to the library, and the 
 calm wisdom of centuries and sages moder¬ 
 ates the rash impulse of juvenescence. He 
 finds new truths in the lecture-room, and 
 he goes home with a conviction that he is 
 not so learned as he imagined. In the dis¬ 
 cussion of a great question with his equals 
 in station, perhaps he finds he has his 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 75 
 
 superiors in intellect. These are the means 
 by which the mind of man is brought to a 
 healthy state, by which that self-knowledge 
 that always has been lauded by sages may be 
 most securely attained. It is a rule of uni¬ 
 versal virtue, and from the senate to the 
 counting-house will be found of universal 
 application. Then, to the youth of Man¬ 
 chester, representing the civic youth of this 
 great county and this great district, I now 
 appeal. Let it never he said again that 
 the fortunes of this institution were in 
 danger. Let them take advantage of this 
 hour of prosperity calmly to examine and 
 deeply to comprehend the character of that 
 institution in which their best interests are 
 involved, and which for them may afford a 
 relaxation which brings no pang, and yields 
 information which may bear them to for¬ 
 tune. It is to them I appeal with con¬ 
 fidence, because I feel I am pleading their 
 cause—with confidence, because in them 
 I repose my hopes. When nations fall, it 
 is because a degenerate race intervenes 
 between the class that created and the class 
 that is doomed. Let them, then, remember 
 what has been done for them. The leaders 
 of their community have not been remiss 
 in regard to their interests. Let them re¬ 
 member that, when the inheritance devolves 
 upon them, they are not only to enjoy, but 
 to improve. They will some day succeed to 
 the high places of this great community; 
 let them recollect those who lighted the 
 way for them; and when they have wealth, 
 when they have authority, when they have 
 power, let it not be said that they were 
 deficient in public virtue and public spirit. 
 When the torch is delivered to them, let 
 them also light the path of human progress 
 to educated man.” 
 
 We are now approaching the period when 
 the genius of the subject of this biography 
 was first to exhibit itself in so marked 
 a manner as to be recognized both by 
 friend and foe, and to raise him at one 
 bound to a position of supreme authority. 
 He had closely watched the tactics of 
 the prime minister, and the conclusion 
 
 was gradually forcing itself upon his 
 mind that Sir Bobert Peel was not the 
 organizing and controlling spirit he had 
 imagined him to be. He saw him almost 
 entirely dependent upon others, paying 
 servile heed to the wishes of the Opposition, 
 listening helplessly to the suggestions of 
 leagues for this measure and of associations 
 for that measure, to the great danger of the 
 cause he professed, and to the following he 
 was supposed to lead. As the agitation 
 with regard to free trade developed, Mr. 
 Disraeli was the first to observe that the 
 prime minister did not seem sure of him¬ 
 self. There was an indecision in his move¬ 
 ments and a silent yielding to external 
 influences which, to the member for Shrews¬ 
 bury, augured ill for the cause which had 
 borne Sir Bobert Peel upon its tide to office. 
 Mr. Disraeli and those who thought with 
 him had no objection to the principles of 
 free trade in the abstract—it was an old 
 Tory measure, since Pitt was its first advo¬ 
 cate—provided they rested upon a sound 
 basis. He would give and take, but he 
 would not consent to give without also 
 being permitted to take. He knew, as we 
 all know, that in the abstract the teaching 
 of the free traders could not be disputed. 
 It was as plain as that two and two made 
 four. Let each nation freely interchange 
 its respective produce—let the country 
 enriched by coal and iron change its manu¬ 
 factures for the grain and wine and silk 
 of countries whose soil and climate are 
 specially adapted for the production of 
 such articles—and in the long run both the 
 consuming and producing classes will reap 
 the benefit. But the free trade must not 
 be all on one side. If protection was to 
 be abolished, reciprocity should be substi¬ 
 tuted; if French wines and French silks 
 were to enter British ports free of duty, 
 British cotton and British cutlery should 
 be allowed, on the same terms, to be stored 
 up in the warehouses on French quays. 
 Gladly would we receive the grain, and 
 hemp, and hides, and tallow from the 
 northern powers exempt from taxation. 
 
76 
 
 THE EARL OF EEACONSFIELD 
 
 provided we saw tlie ports of Russia and 
 Sweden, Denmark and Germany, acting 
 with the same liberality towards our hard¬ 
 ware, our cutlery, and the produce of our 
 factories. But to glut our markets with 
 foreign goods imported duty free, whilst 
 British goods exported to foreign ports 
 would only be admitted on the payment 
 of heavy imposts, was a most suicidal pol¬ 
 icy—a policy which could only be carried 
 out at the expense of several of our most 
 important interests. Such were the views 
 then held by Mr. Disraeli and the Pro¬ 
 tectionists ; and it was because the member 
 for Shrewsbury observed the prime minister 
 gradually forsaking the cause he had vowed 
 to support, and insidiously abandoning the 
 party that had led him to power, that those 
 bitter strictures were passed upon his conduct 
 in the debates of 1845-46—that “ he was a 
 parliamentary middle-man who bamboozled 
 one party and plundered anotherthat 
 he “ caught the Whigs bathing, and walked 
 away with their clothes. He has left them 
 in the full enjoyment of their liberal posi¬ 
 tion, and he is himself a strict conservative 
 of their garmentsthat he was “ a watcher 
 of the atmosphere—a man who takes his 
 observations, and when he finds the wind 
 in a particular quarter, trims his sails to 
 suit it.” “ Such a man,” cried the chagrined 
 Protectionist, “ may be a powerful minister, 
 but he is no more a great statesman than 
 the man who gets up behind a carriage is a 
 great whip.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was not taken by surprise 
 at the silent conversion of the prime minis¬ 
 ter. Months before the repeal of the corn 
 laws he had bade all Tories be on their 
 guard, and had boldly stated that Protection 
 in 1845 was in the same plight as Pro¬ 
 testantism had been in 1828—about to be 
 betrayed by the very man who had pro¬ 
 mised to defend it. Then, as Sir Robert 
 Peel played more and more into the hands 
 of the leaguers, Mr. Disraeli openly severed 
 himself from his former leader, and by all 
 the arts of the most brilliant generalship, 
 gradually became the mouthpiece of the 
 
 dissatisfied section of the Tory party. 
 “ The right honourable gentleman, ” he 
 cried, “ came into power on the strength 
 of our votes, but he would rely for the 
 permanency of his ministry on his political 
 opponents. He may be right — he may 
 even, to a certain extent, be successful—in 
 pursuing this line of conduct which he has 
 adopted—in menacing his friends and 
 cringing to his opponents; but I for one 
 am disposed to look upon it as a success 
 tending neither to the honour of the House 
 nor to his own credit.” He spoke still more 
 bitterly of the conduct of Peel on another 
 occasion, when the agricultural interest 
 was before the House, and summed up the 
 character of the government in a phrase 
 which will long be remembered. 
 
 “Why, what has the right honourable 
 gentleman not done for agriculture?” he 
 sneered, when the country party expressed 
 themselves dissatisfied. “ Before the meet¬ 
 ing of parliament, the right honourable 
 gentleman reconstructed his cabinet, and 
 left out the minister of trade. There was 
 a great compliment to agriculture ! It was 
 the most marked thing I know. The agri¬ 
 culturists, then, ought to be satisfied. And 
 yet they complain! . . . What do they 
 
 want ? Hot this tax to be taken off, or this 
 act to be done. Ho. They complain of the 
 ‘conduct’ of the right honourable gentleman. 
 There is no doubt a difference in the right 
 honourable gentleman’s demeanour as leader 
 of the Opposition and minister of the Crown. 
 But that is the old story; you must not 
 contrast too strongly the hours of courtship 
 with the years of possession. It is very 
 true that the right honourable 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 honourable 
 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 do not hear much 
 of the ‘ gentlemen of England ’ now. But 
 what of that ? They have the pleasure 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 77 
 
 of memory—the charm of reminiscences. 
 They were his first love; and 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 re¬ 
 proach, 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. 
 You know that this is true. Every man 
 almost has gone through it. My honour¬ 
 able friends reproach the right honourable 
 gentleman. The right honourable gentle¬ 
 man does what he can to keep them 
 quiet; he sometimes takes refuge in arro¬ 
 gant silence, and sometimes he treats them 
 with haughty frigidity; and if they know 
 anything of human nature they would take 
 the hint and shut their mouths. But they 
 won’t. And what then happens ? What 
 happens under all such circumstances ? 
 The right honourable gentleman 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 in 1828. The country will draw its 
 moral. For my part, if we are to have 
 free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer 
 that such measures should be proposed by 
 the honourable member for Stockport (Mr. 
 Cobden), than by one who, through skilful 
 parliamentary manoeuvres, has tampered 
 with the generous confidence of a great 
 people and a great party. For myself, 
 
 * Mr. Cobden had moved for a select committee to inquire 
 into the causes and extent of the alleged existing agricultural 
 distress, and into the effect of legislative protection upon 
 the interests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and farm 
 labourers. The motion was opposed on behalf of the 
 government by Mr. Sidney Herbert, the secretary at war, in 
 a rather indiscreet speech, in the course of ffhich he said 
 that “ it was distasteful to him, as a member of the agricul¬ 
 tural body, to be always coming to parliament whining for 
 protection.” Mr. Disraeli’s allusion to this expression 
 whining was received with tremendous cheering and rears 
 of laughter from the Opposition. 
 
 I care not what may be the result. Dis¬ 
 solve, if you please, the parliament you 
 have betrayed, and appeal to the people 
 who, I believe, mistrust you. For me 
 there remains this at least—the oppor¬ 
 tunity of expressing thus publicly my 
 belief that a Conservative, government is 
 an organized hypocrisy .” 
 
 Let us briefly sketch the history of the 
 proceedings of this “ organized hypocrisy.’ 1 
 From the general principles of free trade 
 Sir Bobert Peel never at any time withheld 
 his approval. “I believe,” he said, when 
 laying his new tariff before the House of 
 Commons, “that on the general principles 
 of free trade there is now no great differ¬ 
 ence of opinion; and that all agree in the 
 general rule that we ‘should purchase in 
 the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.’” 
 From the application of these principles he, 
 however, excepted the sugar duties and the 
 corn laws. He held that the abolition of 
 the duties on corn would deal a most severe 
 blow to the agricultural interest at home, 
 whilst to remit the taxation on sugar would 
 visit hardly upon our West India colonies, 
 already terribly crippled by the emancipa¬ 
 tion of their slaves. At this time there 
 were four great parties in the state, each 
 maintaining different views upon this im¬ 
 portant question. There were the Whigs, 
 who were now in favour of a fixed duty 
 upon corn; there were the Tories, who 
 favoured a varying duty; there were the 
 ultra-Protectionists, who objected to any 
 modification of the corn laws; and there 
 were the Free Traders, who contested for 
 the abolition of all duties upon corn. Sir 
 Robert Peel, on taking office, was in favour 
 of a varying duty; in the present agitation 
 of the country he felt himself bound to 
 re-consider the state of the laws affecting 
 the importation of corn, and he believed 
 that by the adoption of a sliding scale the 
 compromise he so dearly loved would be 
 effected between severe protection on the 
 one hand and total abolition on the other. 
 Accordingly he proposed that when home¬ 
 grown wheat was at 50s. and under 51s, 
 
 O 
 
78 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 per quarter, the duty on foreign corn should 
 stand at 20s.; when home-grown wheat 
 rose to 54s., the duty should decline to 
 18s., and so on, until when home-grown 
 wheat rose to 75s. and upwards, the duty 
 should sink to Is. By the adoption of this 
 plan he considered that the price of wheat 
 •would be kept at a moderate level. 
 
 But as the efforts of the corn law league 
 increased in their intensity, as their teach¬ 
 ing daily made fresh converts, and as the 
 lower orders w T ere now as determined to 
 have the corn laws repealed as they had 
 been a few years ago to pass the Reform 
 Bill, it began gradually to dawn both upon 
 Sir Robert Reel as leader of the Conserva¬ 
 tives, and upon Lord John Russell as leader 
 of the Whigs, that the existing state of 
 things could not be maintained. This 
 opinion was all the more confirmed by an 
 alarming evil that now appeared upon the 
 scene. The poorer Irish, owing to their 
 improvident habits, their lack of energy, 
 and their natural love for the uncertainties 
 of a half savage mode of existence, were 
 entirely dependent for their means of sub¬ 
 sistence upon the potato, and there was 
 every prospect of this form of nourishment 
 failing them owing to a terrible blight 
 which had now attacked the roots of this 
 vegetable. The Peel cabinet, in the midst 
 of the agitation upon corn-law repeal, were 
 called upon to face an Irish potato famine, 
 fraught with all the miseries and seditions 
 attendant upon such a visitation. The 
 prime minister saw that in the event of so 
 awful a catastrophe, the maintenance of an 
 artificial restriction for the benefit of a 
 particular class would excite the most 
 dangerous criticism. He felt that the only 
 solution of the difficulty, in spite of his 
 past objections, was that advocated by the 
 Manchester school—the absolute repeal of 
 the corn laws. As in the days of the 
 Catholic agitation, so now in the days of 
 agrarian agitation, it was Ireland that forced 
 the hand of the government. 
 
 The position of Sir Robert Peel was em¬ 
 barrassing. He had taken office pledged to 
 
 resist repeal; his followers were composed 
 of men greatly dependent upon the land 
 for their rents and resources; to the squire 
 and the farmer the abolition of the duties 
 on corn would result in a grave loss of 
 income. The agricultural interest had 
 already murmured against the removal of 
 various protective duties in the new tariff 
 of the premier, and it was indisposed 
 to yield further concessions. Already, 
 as we have seen, “one solitary voice” on 
 the Tory side of the House, with all the 
 wit of mordant epigram, had declared that 
 protection was on the eve of betrayal, 
 and that it behoved its followers to keep 
 strict vigil over their interests. Lord John 
 Russell, however, was fettered by no such 
 obstacles. To the mass who made up 
 the larger portion of his supporters—the 
 bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and 
 smaller tradespeople, who derived their 
 income from capital and not from land— 
 the repeal of the corn laws would be a 
 measure warmly welcomed, whilst its only 
 opponents would be a few Whigs of the 
 severer type. Thus, as matters then stood, 
 both the head of the government and the 
 leader of the Opposition had arrived at the 
 same conclusion that the laws protective 
 of agriculture must be expunged from the 
 statute-book. The question now arose by 
 whom were they to be repealed—by the 
 Whigs under Lord John, or by the Conser¬ 
 vatives “ educated ” up to the new opinions 
 by their chief ? 
 
 For some weeks Sir Robert hesitated as 
 to the course to be adopted; then he was 
 startled into sudden action by the famous 
 Edinburgh letter. Whilst on a visit, in the 
 November of 1845, to the “Modern Athens,” 
 Lord John Russell had addressed a letter to 
 his London constituents, commenting upon 
 the state of affairs. In this now historical 
 epistle he declared that the present condi¬ 
 tion of the country, in regard to its supply 
 of food, could not be viewed without appre¬ 
 hension. “Forethought and bold precaution,” 
 he said, “may avert any serious evils— 
 indecision and procrastination may produce 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 79 
 
 a state of suffering which it is frightful to 
 contemplate.” Parliament, he hinted in 
 this cunning bid for office, had met and 
 separated without affording any promise of 
 seasonable relief; it became, therefore, the 
 duty of the queen’s subjects to consider 
 how the impending calamities could he 
 averted, or at least mitigated. To effect 
 this there was but one plan, the repeal of 
 the corn laws. He candidly confessed 
 that his views on this subject had under¬ 
 gone a great alteration. “ I used to be of 
 opinion,” wrote Lord John, “that corn was 
 an exception to the general rules of politi¬ 
 cal economy; hut observation and experi¬ 
 ence have convinced me that we ought to 
 abstain from all interference with the 
 supply of food. Neither a government 
 nor a legislature can ever regulate the corn 
 market with the beneficial effects which the 
 entire freedom of sale and purchase are 
 sure of themselves to produce.” Let us 
 then, he concluded, unite to put an end to 
 a system which has been proved to he the 
 blight of commerce, the bane of agriculture, 
 the source of hitter divisions among classes, 
 the cause of penury, fever, mortality, and 
 crime among the people. 
 
 After so frank an expression of opinion 
 on the part of his rival, Sir Eohert Peel 
 saw that further hesitation or delay would 
 be most dangerous to his position. He 
 summoned a cabinet council, and endea¬ 
 voured to convince his colleagues that the 
 entire repeal of the corn laws had now 
 become not a matter of choice, but of political 
 necessity. Like most short-sighted men, 
 his inspection of all that came within his 
 immediate ken was most minute, and he 
 saw what few of the opponents of free 
 trade at that time were able to perceive. 
 As a rule, the protection of most industries 
 only directly affects the minority; conse¬ 
 quently the opposition such protection 
 encounters is limited to the clique whose 
 welfare is being especially affected. The 
 protection of pig iron might agitate a class, 
 but it Avould not excite a nation, for the 
 simple reason that a large portion of the 
 
 country can live independent of the rise 
 and fall in the value of pig iron. The 
 protection of corn, the most important 
 article of food in the country, was, how¬ 
 ever, a very different matter. With the 
 exception of the agricultural interest, all 
 the consuming classes were on this occasion 
 united in their efforts to remove the restric¬ 
 tion upon the manufacture of cheap bread. 
 Consequently the Protectionists were a 
 coterie against the nation, and in a free 
 country like ours, when a minority en¬ 
 deavours to suppress the views of an active 
 and powerful majority, the issue of the 
 struggle can have but one end. Sir Eobert 
 Peel saw that the repeal of the corn laws 
 had developed from a party question into 
 a national question, and that resistance 
 to the cry was daily becoming more and 
 more impracticable. Lord Stanley and the 
 advocates of protection, however, thought 
 differently, and declined to adopt the 
 opinions which the premier now held. 
 They refused to be “ educated.” Unable 
 to convert his cabinet to his views, there 
 was only one honourable course for Sir 
 Eobert Peel to pursue. Convinced that, if 
 the corn laws were retained, Ireland would 
 be laid low by famine, and throughout 
 Great Britain there would be scarcity of 
 food, he tendered his resignation, and it 
 was accepted. Lord John Eussell was. 
 intrusted with the task of forming an 
 administration, but, owing to the refusal 
 of Earl Grey to unite with him, he was 
 unable to comply with his sovereign’s 
 commands. Lord Stanley felt that he was 
 not strong enough to succeed where Lord 
 John had failed, and the consequence was 
 that Sir Eobert Peel, pledged to carry 
 repeal, resumed his post as prime min¬ 
 ister. With the exception of Lord Stanley, 
 who was succeeded by Mr. Gladstone, the 
 ministry was the same as before the resig¬ 
 nation of Sir Eobert. 
 
 Never in the whole annals of parliamentary 
 history was change of opinion more bitterly 
 and more fiercely criticised than the conver¬ 
 sion of Sir Eobert Peel from the principles 
 
80 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of protection to those of free trade. It was 
 Mr. Disraeli’s opportunity, and he availed 
 himself to the full of all the advantages 
 the situation offered. A large section of the 
 Tory party considered themselves betrayed 
 by the leader they had trusted, and they 
 were burning to express their indignation 
 at the premier’s conduct, and to exhibit 
 their opposition to a measure which they 
 deemed would usher in the ruin of the 
 agricultural cause. They were, however, 
 simple country gentlemen not given to 
 eloquence, and somewhat in awe, like boys 
 of their schoolmaster, of the power and 
 position of the cold, repellent Sir Robert 
 Peel. They longed to denounce the arch¬ 
 hypocrite and crush him with their invec¬ 
 tive; but when they rose to address the 
 House, their ideas passed away, and their 
 abuse flowed tame and powerless from their 
 passionate lips. And now Mr. Disraeli 
 stepped in. Even in the opinion of his 
 enemies his conduct on this occasion showed 
 consummate tact and generalship. All the 
 wealth of his eloquence, all his wit, his 
 polished satire, his instinctive knowledge 
 of the arts by which men are united and 
 controlled, he now devoted to the cause of 
 the forsaken Protectionists. The oratory 
 they did not possess, the invectives they 
 could not launch, the indignation they were 
 powerless to express, were all centred in 
 him, and through him the hate of the 
 country party was focussed against the 
 object of their wrath. Pierce as have been 
 the denunciations which the House of Com¬ 
 mons, in the course of its history, has had 
 to listen to, it has never witnessed anything 
 finer in the form of polished invective, 
 and of humorous yet biting similes, than the 
 philippics which the member for Shrewsbury 
 now directed against the prime minister, 
 until the cold, self-contained man writhed 
 in torture, and at one time vowed to chal¬ 
 lenge in mortal combat his pitiless critic. 
 
 The time had indeed come when the 
 House was pleased to hear Mr. Disraeli. 
 Night after night, as he rose to the 
 attack, he was listened to in the stillest 
 
 silence, save when cheer after cheer broke 
 from the lips of his followers, showing 
 that the barbed arrow had winged 
 its flight and had struck home. He was 
 now no mere member of the House of 
 Commons, but the representative of the 
 cause of protection, and the nominal lieu¬ 
 tenant but actual leader of that section 
 of the Conservative party which had sepa¬ 
 rated itself from the control of the prime 
 minister. Nor in this opposition was there 
 anything scheming or insincere. Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli looked upon the policy of protection 
 as sound and logical. He held that if the 
 corn laws were repealed, the farmers would 
 be ruined, and the ruin of the farmers would 
 destrov the landlord interest, and the over- 
 throw of the landlord interest would be the 
 triumph of democracy over constitutional¬ 
 ism. Free trade in corn would lead to free 
 trade in other commodities; and unless the 
 principle was adopted by other nations, of 
 which there was then no sign, it would act 
 to the detriment of the commercial interests 
 of the country. Has he been so completely 
 wrong in his surmises ? Are the advocates 
 of free trade as sanguine now of their policy 
 as they were in the past ? With the ex¬ 
 ception of England, the commercial tendency 
 of every country is setting more and more 
 towards protection. And can we look with 
 unmixed satisfaction upon the present con¬ 
 dition of England ? Our farmers, unable to 
 compete with the importation of foreign 
 grain and American meat, are throwing up 
 their farms and seeking pastures new in 
 the colonies and the United States, much 
 to the crippling of the resources of the 
 landlord.* Our cotton and woollen manu- 
 
 * “ Meanwhile it may safely be urged that no more im¬ 
 portant question ever demanded the serious attention of our 
 government than how it may be possible to restore vitality 
 and hope to the discouraged and declining agricultural interest 
 in these islands. In England alone there are at this moment 
 many thousands of acres—especially where the land is 
 strong and fitted for the growth of wheat—lying idle 
 from lach of tenants. Tenants with capital—and their 
 name is legion—are to be found by the score who despair of 
 being able to make two ends meet, and have withdrawn from 
 the pursuit of agriculture, in which they were reared, and for 
 which alone they are fitted. What is to be done? The 
 question concerns Mr. Bright and the representatives of manu¬ 
 facturing industries not less than noblemen and gentlemen who 
 are ‘ acred up to the chin.’”— Morning Paper , June 9, 1881. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 81 
 
 facturers openly assert that they are un¬ 
 able to compete with the goods of foreign 
 countries admitted untaxed into our ports. 
 In spite of our coal and iron, our machinists 
 complain that, owing to the cheapness of 
 foreign labour, French and Belgian machin¬ 
 ery can be imported at a less cost than it 
 takes to produce in this country. What 
 have become of the looms of the silk-weavers 
 of Coventry and Spitalfields, of our ship¬ 
 building trade on the Thames, of our sugar 
 refineries ? On all sides we hear of the 
 dullness of trade, of the decline in the 
 carrying trade of our great railway com¬ 
 panies, of the ruinous conflicts between 
 labour and capital, and that trade is fast 
 leaving the country. In spite of the pro¬ 
 phets who assured us that a reaction in 
 England was impossible against free trade, 
 have we not heard, not silent and hole- 
 in-the-corner murmurs, but opinions openly 
 expressed as to the advisability of returning 
 to limited protection, or for reciprocity in 
 free trade ? * 
 
 Though the ruling spirit of the Pro¬ 
 tectionists at this time was undoubtedly 
 Mr. Disraeli, the nominal leader of the 
 disaffected party was Lord George Bentinck, 
 a son of the Duke of Portland. Lord 
 George had “ sat in eight parliaments 
 without having taken part in any great 
 
 * A leading journal thus comments upon the Preston elec¬ 
 tion, which was gained by the Tory candidate openly advocat¬ 
 ing a return to limited protection:—“ Mr. Ecroyd avowed 
 himself a qualified Protectionist, and the operatives said ditto 
 with enthusiasm, in spite of skilful appeals borrowed from 
 the old anti-corn law days—though they have long since lost 
 their charm—to pronounce for the big loaf against the little 
 one. Is it, then, to be inferred that the Preston working 
 men are Protectionists ? Opinion lately has ripened so fast 
 in a particular direction that, improbable as it may seem, 
 there may be ground before long to discuss a much wider 
 question—that is, whether the English operatives as a whole 
 are, if not Protectionists, at least in favour of reciprocity 
 to the extent of imposing duties on manufactured goods. 
 . . . . It is not a little remarkable that the demand for 
 
 reciprocity, or for something in the nature of revived pro¬ 
 tection for native industry of all kinds, emanates at this 
 
 moment chiefly from the manufacturing classes. 
 
 The truth is that dull trade and hostile tariffs are working 
 a silent revolution in the sentiments of large classes who 
 have never thought out economical questions at all, but who 
 are simply influenced by considerations of self-interest; and, 
 unless trade speedily revive, the politicians who appeal to 
 these considerations are sure to gain suffrages. Even Mr. 
 Gladstone’s reply to the deputation that waited on him about 
 the sugar bounties betrays a certain deference to this feeling. 
 Its further developments will be waited with curiosity.” 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 debate.” In his youth he had seen service 
 as a soldier, and at one time had been 
 private secretary to George Canning, who 
 had married a sister of the Duchess of 
 Portland; he had long been on the turf, 
 and had occupied himself with pursuits 
 not generally associated with the drudgery 
 and application of statesmanship; disgusted, 
 in the first instance, with the conduct of 
 the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert 
 Peel towards Canning, he withdrew his 
 support from the Tories and upheld the 
 policy of the Whigs; on the secession of 
 Lord Stanley he became a member of the 
 great Conservative Opposition until, again 
 disgusted with the “ treachery ” of Sir 
 Robert Peel, he enrolled himself amongst 
 the Protectionists, and, from his name and 
 talents, was raised to the position of leader 
 of the deserted cause. “ During three 
 years,” writes Mr. Disraeli, “ under cir¬ 
 cumstances of great difficulty, he displayed 
 some of the highest qualities of political 
 life; courage and a lofty spirit; a mastery 
 of details which experience usually alone 
 confers; a quick apprehension and a clear 
 intelligence; indomitable firmness; prompt¬ 
 ness, punctuality, and perseverance which 
 never failed; an energy seldom surpassed; 
 and a capacity for labour which was perhaps 
 never equalled.” Still, in spite of these 
 gifts, it is very doubtful whether, if it had 
 not been for the advocacy of Mr. Disraeli, 
 the Protectionists would have been able 
 to make common cause against the prime 
 minister, and finally drive him from power. 
 It was the eloquence, the wit, the sarcasms 
 of the member for Shrewsbury, and of him 
 alone, that made the Protectionists formi¬ 
 dable, and under his splendid generalship 
 transformed them from a section into a 
 party, and led them on to a victory they 
 had never dreamed of. Like a second 
 Coriolanus, he could say, “ Alone I did it.” 
 
 After Peel’s restoration to power, Mr. 
 Disraeli at once showed the course he 
 intended to pursue. At the meeting of 
 the Houses, there was an angry debate on 
 the address, and the speech of the member 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 for Shrewsbury was certainly not inclined 
 to throw oil upon the troubled waters. He 
 opened fire by congratulating the eminent 
 statesman at the head of the government, 
 who having served under four sovereigns, 
 yet only during the last three years had 
 found it necessary to change his convictions 
 on that important topic—the corn laws— 
 which must have presented itself for more 
 than a quarter of a century to his con¬ 
 sideration. Then in one of his happiest 
 similes, he compared the policy of Peel 
 to that of a renegade servant of the 
 sultan. “ Sir,” he cried, addressing the 
 Speaker amid the cheers and laughter of 
 the House, “ 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 exist¬ 
 ence of the Turkish empire was at stake, 
 the late sultan, a man of great energy and 
 fertile in resources, was determined to fit 
 out an immense fleet to maintain his empire. 
 Accordingly 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 appointed 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 con¬ 
 sternation when the lord high admiral 
 steered at once into the enemy’s port! 
 Now, sir, the lord high admiral on that occa¬ 
 sion 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 surprised at it, but I assure 
 you it is a fact—which, by the way, the 
 gallant officer opposite (Commander Napier) 
 can testify—that he is at this moment the 
 first lord of the admiralty at Constantinople, 
 under the new reign.” 
 
 Then proceeding with his caustic criti¬ 
 cisms, he sneered at Peel’s famous advice 
 about registration, which simply meant, he 
 said, “ that we were to register to make him 
 a minister; ” he described the premier as a 
 man who never originated an idea, a watcher 
 of the atmosphere, and no more entitled to 
 be called a great statesman than the man 
 who got up behind a carriage was entitled 
 to be called a great whip. “ Do not then,” 
 he cried, “ 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, maintain the line 
 of demarcation between parties; for it is 
 only by maintaining the independence of 
 party that you can maintain the integrity 
 of public men and the power and influence 
 of parliament itself.” 
 
 But the attack in which all these minor 
 onslaughts culminated was reserved for the 
 third night of the debate on the repeal of the 
 corn laws. An English audience, though 
 from certain intellectual imperfections it 
 fails to appreciate the incisive invective 
 of French satire, likes hard hitting; and it 
 must be confessed that on that memorable 
 night, the night of May 15, 1846, Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli hit very hard—still it was legitimate 
 fighting, there were no blows below the 
 belt, all were delivered straight from the 
 shoulder, and every stroke told. Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli was not a combative man, but when 
 he fought he fought in earnest; he did not 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 play with his weapons, nor did he fence 
 with the buttons on his foils. His speech, 
 even at this distance of time, and upon a 
 subject which is never likely to be revived, 
 is full of interest on account of its severity 
 and its smartness. He was not, he said, 
 one of those who had ever spoken with 
 disrespect of that commercial confedera¬ 
 tion which now exercised so great an 
 influence in this country. Though he dis¬ 
 approved of their doctrines, though he 
 believed from the bottom of his heart that 
 their practice would eventually be as per¬ 
 nicious to the manufacturing interest as to 
 the agricultural interest of this country, 
 still he admired men of abilities who, con¬ 
 vinced of a great truth and proud of their 
 energies, banded themselves together for 
 the purpose of supporting it, and came for¬ 
 ward devoting their lives to what they 
 considered to be a great cause. This 
 country could only exist by free discus¬ 
 sion. If it were once supposed that 
 opinions were to be put down by any other 
 means, then, whatever might be our politi¬ 
 cal opinions, liberty vanished. If they 
 thought the opinions of the Anti-Corn Law 
 League dangerous, if they thought their sys¬ 
 tem was founded on error and must lead to 
 confusion, it was open in a free country 
 like England, for men who held opposite 
 ideas, to resist the League with the same 
 earnestness by all legitimate means—by the 
 same active organization, and by all the 
 intellectual power they could command. 
 But what had happened on this occasion ? 
 A body of gentlemen, able and adroit men, 
 came forward and professed contrary doc¬ 
 trines to those of these new economists. 
 They placed themselves at the head of that 
 great popular party who were adverse to 
 their ideas, and professing their opinions, 
 they climbed and clambered into power 
 by having accepted, or rather by having 
 eagerly sought the trust. Hence it 
 followed that the body whom they repre¬ 
 sented, trusting in their leaders, not un¬ 
 naturally slumbered at their posts. They 
 concluded that their opinions were repre¬ 
 
 83 
 
 sented in the state. It was not for them 
 or the millions outside the House to come 
 forward and organize a power, in order to 
 meet the hostile movements of Mr. Cobden. 
 Ho, they trusted to others—to one who, by 
 accepting or rather by seizing that post, 
 obtained the greatest place in the country, 
 and at that moment governed England. 
 And now what had happened ? The right 
 honourable gentleman, the first minister, 
 had betrayed his friends, and had sold his 
 party. Let him congratulate himself upon 
 his complete success in having deceived 
 those who so implicitly trusted in him. 
 
 This was severe, but the sting was to 
 follow. The conclusion of the speech is too 
 exquisite to admit of extract or compression. 
 
 “And now, sir,” he said, with folded 
 arms and with that modest downcast look 
 which generally preceded something very 
 pungent and humorous, “And now, sir, I 
 must say, in vindication of the right hon. 
 gentleman, that I think great injustice has 
 been done to him throughout these debates. 
 A perhaps justifiable misconception has 
 universally prevailed. Sir, the right hon. 
 gentleman has been accused of foregone 
 treachery—of long-meditated deception— 
 of a desire unworthy of a great statesman, 
 even if an unprincipled one, of always 
 having intended to abandon the opinions 
 by professing which he rose to power. Sir, 
 I entirely acquit the right hon. gentleman 
 of any such intention. I do it for this 
 reason, that when I examine the career of 
 this minister, which has now filled a great 
 space in the parliamentary history of this 
 country, I find that for between thirty and 
 forty years, from the days of Mr. Horner 
 to the days of the hon. member for Stock- 
 port, that right hon. gentleman has traded 
 on the ideas and intelligence of others. 
 His life 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. I believe, therefore, when 
 
84 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the right hon. gentleman undertook our 
 cause on either side of the House, that he 
 was perfectly sincere in his advocacy; but 
 as, in the course of discussion, the con¬ 
 ventionalisms which he received from us 
 crumbled away in his grasp, feeling no 
 creative power to sustain him with new 
 arguments, feeling no spontaneous senti¬ 
 ments to force upon him conviction, reduced 
 at last to defending the noblest cause, one 
 based on the most high and solemn prin¬ 
 ciples, upon the ‘ burdens peculiar to agri¬ 
 culture ’—the right hon. gentleman, faithful 
 to the law of his nature, imbibed the new 
 doctrines, the more vigorous, bustling, 
 popular, and progressive doctrines, as he 
 had imbibed the doctrines of Mr. Horner 
 —as he had imbibed the doctrines of every 
 leading man in this country for thirty 
 or forty years, with the exception of the 
 doctrine of parliamentary reform, which 
 the Whigs very wisely led the country 
 upon, and did not allow to grow sufficiently 
 mature to fall into the mouth of the right 
 hon. gentleman. Sir, the right hon. gentle¬ 
 man tells us that he does not feel humiliated. 
 Sir, it is impossible for any one to know 
 what are the feelings of another. Feeling 
 depends upon temperament; it depends 
 upon the organization of the animal that 
 feels. But this I will tell the right hon. 
 gentleman, that though he may not feel 
 humiliated, his country ought to feel humili¬ 
 ated. Is it so pleasing to the self-com¬ 
 placency of a great nation, is it so grateful 
 to the pride of England, that one who, from 
 the position he has contrived to occupy, 
 must rank as her foremost citizen, is one 
 of whom it may be said, as Dean Swift 
 said of another minister, that ‘ he is a gen¬ 
 tleman who has the perpetual misfortune 
 to be mistaken! ’ And, sir, even now, in 
 this last scene of the drama, when the party 
 whom he unintentionally betrayed is to be 
 unintentionallv annihilated—even now, in 
 this the last scene, the right hon. gentleman, 
 faithful to the law of his being, is going to 
 pass a project which, I believe it is matter 
 of notoriety, is not of his own invention. 
 
 It is one which may have been modified, 
 but which I believe has been offered to 
 another government, and by that govern¬ 
 ment has been wisely rejected. Why, sir, 
 these are matters of general notoriety. 
 After the day that the right hon. gentleman 
 made his first exposition of his scheme, a 
 gentleman well known in this House, and 
 learned in all the political secrets behind 
 the scenes, met me, and said, ‘Well, what 
 do you think of your chief’s plan ? ’ Not 
 knowing exactly what to say, but taking 
 up a phrase which has been much used in 
 the House, I observed, ‘Well, I suppose it’s 
 a “ great and comprehensive ” plan.’ ‘ Oh! ’ 
 he replied, ‘ we know all about it! It was 
 offered to us! It is not his plan; it’s 
 Popkins’ plan! ’ And is England to be 
 governed by ‘ Popkins’ plan V Will he 
 go to the country with it ? Will he go 
 with it to that ancient and famous England 
 that once was governed by statesmen—by 
 Burleighs and by Walsinghams, by Boling- 
 brokes and by Walpoles, by a Chatham 
 and a Canning—will he go to it with this 
 fantastic scheming of some presumptuous 
 pedant ? I will not believe it. I have 
 that confidence in the common sense, I will 
 say the common spirit of our countrymen, 
 that I believe they will not long endure 
 this huckstering tyranny of the treasury 
 bench—these political pedlars that bought 
 their party in the cheapest market, and 
 sold us in the dearest. 
 
 “I know, sir, that there are many who 
 believe that the time is gone by when one 
 can appeal to those high and honest im¬ 
 pulses that were once the mainstay and 
 the main element of the English character. 
 I know, sir, that we appeal to a people 
 debauched by public gambling—stimulated 
 and encouraged by an inefficient and short¬ 
 sighted minister. I know that the public 
 mind is polluted with economic fancies; a 
 depraved desire that the rich may become 
 richer without the interference of industry 
 and toil. I know, sir, that all confidence 
 in public men is lost. But, sir, I have 
 faith in the primitive and enduring elements 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 85 
 
 of the English character. It may he 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, wlfen 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 unkindness, those 
 who, betrayed and deserted, were neither 
 ashamed nor afraid to struggle for the 
 ‘good old cause’—the cause with which 
 are associated principles the most popular, 
 sentiments the most entirely national—the 
 cause of labour—the cause of the people— 
 the cause of England.” 
 
 We know the result. The debate, after 
 having occupied the 11th and 12th of May, 
 was adjourned to the 15th of that month, 
 “ when, after a discussion of perhaps unex¬ 
 ampled excitement in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, the division was called at four 
 o’clock in the morning of Saturday, and, in 
 a House of 560 members, the third reading 
 of the Bill for the Repeal of the Corn Laws 
 was carried by a majority of 98.” 
 
 The conduct of Sir Robert Peel on this 
 memorable occasion has, as we all know, 
 given rise to much comment and adverse 
 criticism; yet, after a careful review of the 
 state of affairs at that date, and making 
 every allowance for the soured hopes of the 
 Protectionists, it seems to us that harsher 
 measure has been dealt out to him than he 
 deserved. The career of Peel is certainly 
 one open to criticism. As we read his life 
 we are dazzled by no great brilliancy of 
 intellectual power; our pulse does not beat 
 with a quicker throb as we listen to gener¬ 
 ous thoughts and watch the deeds which 
 elevate men above the dead level of human 
 nature. There is little that is great or noble 
 or chivalrous in his career. Yet, on the other 
 hand, though narrow, commonplace, and 
 perhaps selfish, we can find nothing which 
 
 reflects upon his political character. He 
 changed his opinions, but he frankly owned 
 the reasons why he changed them ; and 
 though those reasons prove him to be short¬ 
 sighted and hasty in arriving at his con¬ 
 clusions, yet his honour passes through the 
 trial unscathed. It is unfortunate for a 
 statesman to be perpetually mistaken; but 
 it is certainly better for him to candidly 
 avow that his judgment has been in error 
 than to pursue a policy which he knows to 
 be mischievous, in order to save appear¬ 
 ances, and to preserve a culpable consistency. 
 Sir Robert Peel has been accused of treachery 
 for the part he played in repealing the corn 
 laws; but was it possible for him to play any 
 other part, considering the position in which 
 he was placed, and bearing in mind that 
 human nature is not devoid of ambition ? 
 He had changed his views with regard to 
 agrarian protection, for on examination he 
 had found that the corn laws were imprac¬ 
 ticable. He had compared the results of 
 periods of abundance and low prices with 
 periods of scarcity and high prices, and he 
 had come to the conclusion that protection 
 was not tenable. He did not believe that 
 the rate of wages varied with the price of 
 food, or that with high prices wages would 
 necessarily vary in the same ratio. He 
 saw that protection, according to his view 
 of the question, was pernicious. It had 
 been said that because England laboured 
 under a heavy debt and high rate of taxa¬ 
 tion, she must be protected from competi¬ 
 tion with foreign industry. He argued 
 differently, for the experience of the last 
 three years had taught him that “a large 
 debt and heavy taxation were best encoun¬ 
 tered by abundance and cheapness of pro¬ 
 visions, which rather alleviated than added 
 to the burden.” 
 
 Converted to this view—for conversion 
 was not with him a rare occurrence— 
 he endeavoured to impress his own opin¬ 
 ions upon his colleagues, but without 
 success. Then feeling that it was im¬ 
 possible for him to oppose any longer the 
 repeal of the corn laws, he tendered his 
 
86 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 resignation. Lord John Russell, as we have 
 seen, was unable to constitute a cabinet. The 
 Protectionists under Lord Stanley were not 
 strong enough to take office. Consequently 
 Sir Robert Peel was again sent for, and it 
 fell to him to repeal the bated impost. 
 Where was the treachery? He had avowed 
 his change of opinion; and for the matter 
 of that, if he had changed his opinions upon 
 free trade, so had Lord John Russell; he 
 had endeavoured to bring his cabinet to 
 his way of thinking ; he had failed in the 
 attempt, and had given his opponents the 
 opportunity both of abolishing the restric¬ 
 tions upon corn and of confirming the 
 principles of protection ; his rivals were 
 unable to avail themselves of his offer, and 
 thus it became his duty to be the instru¬ 
 ment in passing this great measure. Where 
 was the treachery ? “ It appears to me,” 
 
 writes Lord Dalling and Bulwer, “ that the 
 fact that he had resigned office on changing 
 his policy, and that he did not return to it 
 until every other ministerial combination 
 had failed, rendered his course on this 
 occasion more clear than on the Catholic 
 question. To accuse him under such cir¬ 
 cumstances of changing his views, in order 
 to retain his office, is as absurd as unjust. 
 He is not even subject to the charge of 
 retaining power after changing the opinions 
 that he entertained on receiving it. His 
 conduct appears to me to have been dic¬ 
 tated by the purest patriotism, and the 
 most complete sacrifice of personal ambition 
 to public motive.” Nor did he take credit 
 where it was not due. The repeal of the 
 corn laws was not owing to the efforts of 
 Lord John Russell, nor to the support of 
 the Whigs, nor to the advocacy of Peel and 
 the party he led. “ The name,” cried Sir 
 Robert, “ which ought to be, and will 
 be, associated with the success of these 
 measures, is the name of one who, acting 
 I believe from pure and from disinterested 
 motives, has with untiring energy made 
 appeals to our reason, and has enforced those 
 appeals with an eloquence the more to be 
 admired because it was unaffected and 
 
 unadorned. The name which ought to be 
 chiefly associated with the success of these 
 measures is the name of Richard Cobden.” 
 
 The Protectionists, however, declined to 
 take this view of the prime minister. He 
 had divided the party in twain, and 
 had deserted the cause which had placed 
 him in power. He was a traitor, an apos¬ 
 tate, a scheming adventurer. One hope 
 now animated their breasts—the hope of 
 revenge. “Proud in their numbers,” writes 
 Mr. Disraeli, in his biography of Lord 
 George Bentinck, “ confident in their dis¬ 
 cipline, and elate with their memorable 
 resistance, the protectionist party as a body 
 had always assumed that when the occasion 
 was ripe the career of the minister might 
 be terminated.” But how was it to be 
 terminated ? How was Sir Robert Peel to 
 be turned out ? This was the great question 
 which occupied the musing hours of a 
 Whitsun recess. After much deliberation, 
 it was resolved to oppose the Irish Coer¬ 
 cion Bill, which Peel had introduced as a 
 measure of urgent necessity, and had then 
 shelved until the passing of the Corn Bill, 
 in order not to irritate the Irish faction. 
 The Protectionists had never approved of 
 the Coercion Bill; but beneath the magic 
 wand of Peel they had agreed to its first 
 reading. They now resolved to unite with 
 the Whigs and defeat the measure on the 
 second reading. “It is time,” cried Lord 
 George Bentinck, “ that atonement should 
 be made to the betrayed honour of parlia¬ 
 ment and the betrayed constituencies of 
 the empire. . . . The time has now 
 
 come when they who love the treason that 
 has recently been committed, though they 
 hate the traitor, should join with those who 
 sit on the protectionist benches, in showing 
 that they do not approve the recent conduct 
 of ministers.” This vindictive cry was no 
 idle threat. The bill came before the Housl 
 for the second reading. Member after 
 member rose up to advocate it or to oppose 
 it. Then at a late hour of the night the 
 galleries were cleared, the division called, 
 and the question put. We have an account 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 87 
 
 of tlie memorable scene that ensued from 
 the pen of Mr. Disraeli, who was a witness 
 of the event he so graphically describes :— 
 
 “In almost all previous divisions,” he writes, 
 “ where the fate of a government had been 
 depending, the vote of every member with 
 scarcely an exception had been anticipated: 
 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, 
 however, had paired; nearly the same 
 number followed Lord George Bentinck. 
 But it was not merely their numbers that 
 attracted 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 
 so proud to follow one who had been so 
 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 had stood by him in 
 the darkest hour, and had borne him from 
 the depths of political despair to the 
 proudest of living positions. Bight or 
 wrong, they were men of honour, breeding, 
 and refinement, high and generous charac¬ 
 ter, 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 plea¬ 
 santness 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 Ben- 
 tincks, 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 Knightly, Sir John Trollope, 
 Sir Edward Kerrison, Sir John Tyrell, he 
 surely must have had a pang, when his eye 
 rested on Sir John Yarde Buller, his choice 
 and pattern country gentleman, whom he 
 had himself selected and invited but six 
 years back to move a vote of want of con¬ 
 fidence in the Whig government, in order, 
 against the feeling of the court, to install 
 Sir Bobert Peel in their stead. 
 
 “ They trooped on, all the men of metal 
 and large-acred squires, whose spirit he had 
 so often quickened, and whose counsel he 
 had so often solicited in his fine Conserva¬ 
 tive speeches in Whitehall Gardens—Mr. 
 Bankes, with a parliamentary name of two 
 centuries, and Mr. Christopher, from that 
 broad Lincolnshire which protection had 
 created; and the Mileses and the Henleys 
 were there; and the Duncombes, the Lid¬ 
 dells, 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 Bobert had himself recommended to 
 the confidence of the electors of Warwick¬ 
 shire, as one of whom he had the highest 
 hopes; and Mr. Alderman Thompson was 
 there, who, also through Sir Bobert’s selec¬ 
 tion, had seconded the assault upon the 
 Whigs, led on by Sir John Buller. But 
 the list is too long; or good names remain 
 behind. 
 
 “ When Prince Metternich was informed 
 at Dresden, with great ostentation, that the 
 emperor had arrived—‘Yes, but without 
 his army/ was the reply. Sir Bobert Peel 
 was still first minister of England, as Napo¬ 
 leon remained emperor for a while after 
 Moscow. Each perhaps for a moment had 
 indulged in hope. I is so difficult for those 
 who are on the pinnacle of life to realize 
 disaster. They sometimes contemplate it 
 in their deep and far-seeing calculations, 
 but it is only to imagine a contingency 
 which their resources must surely baffle; 
 they sometimes talk of it to their friends, 
 and oftener of it to their enemies, but it is 
 
88 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 only as an insurance of their prosperity and 
 as an offering to propitiate their Nemesis. 
 They never believe in it. 
 
 “ The news that the government were not 
 only beaten, but by a majority so large as 
 73, began to circulate. An incredulous 
 murmur passed it along the treasury bench. 
 
 “‘They say we are beaten by 73]’ whis¬ 
 pered the most important member of the 
 cabiliet in a tone of surprise to Sir Robert 
 Peel. 
 
 “Sir Robert did not reply or even turn 
 his head. He looked very grave, and ex¬ 
 tended his chin, as was his habit when he 
 was annoyed and cared not to speak. He 
 began to comprehend his position, and that 
 the emperor was without his army.” 
 
 He had lost his army, and he went to 
 Windsor to deliver up the seals of office. 
 On June 29 he informed the House that the 
 queen had accepted the resignation of the 
 cabinet. In withdrawing from his position 
 he briefly reviewed the proceedings of the 
 last five years. He regretted the loss of 
 those who had seceded from him; yet, in 
 carrying the measure which had led to his 
 fall from power, he had been actuated alone 
 by a desire to promote the best interests of 
 the country. He spoke of his defeat as an 
 event not to be regretted, but to be accepted 
 as a just chastisement of his error in having 
 supported principles which he had been 
 
 compelled, to abandon. His closing words 
 were among the most impressive that had 
 ever fallen from his lips:— 
 
 “In relinquishing power,” he said in his 
 most solemn tones, and amid the stillest 
 silence, v “ I shall leave a name severely 
 censured, I fear, by many who, on public 
 grounds, deeply regret the severance of 
 party ties—deeply regret that severance, 
 not from interested or party motives, but 
 from the firm conviction that fidelity 
 to party engagements—the existence and 
 maintenance of a great party — consti¬ 
 tutes a powerful instrument of government 
 I shall surrender power severely censured 
 also by others who, from no interested 
 motives, adhere to the principle of protec¬ 
 tion, considering the maintenance of it to 
 be essential to the welfare and interests of 
 the country; I shall leave a name exe¬ 
 crated by every monopolist who, from less 
 honourable motives, clamours for protection 
 because it conduces to his own individual 
 benefit; but it may be that I shall leave a 
 name sometimes remembered with expres¬ 
 sions of good-will in the abodes of those 
 whose lot it is to labour, and to earn their 
 daily bread by the sweat of their brow, 
 when they shall recruit their exhausted 
 strength with abundant and untaxed food, 
 the sweeter because it is no longer leavened 
 with a sense of injustice.” 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 WHIG ASCENDANCY. 
 
 On the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, an 
 administration was formed under Lord John 
 Russell, who, of course, took office as first 
 lord of the treasury. Lord Palmerston, who 
 had already made a reputation for himself 
 as a minister, who would not truckle to 
 a foreign power, though the tendency of his 
 policy was then too much towards unneces¬ 
 sary interference, held the seals again as 
 foreign secretary; that dreariest of debaters, 
 but most painstaking of administrators, Sir 
 Charles Wood, controlled our finances as 
 chancellor of the exchequer; Sir George 
 Grey presided over the home office; and 
 Lord Grey was colonial secretary. With 
 the exception of the prime minister and 
 Lord Palmerston, the cabinet was certainly 
 not a brilliant one, and it required all its 
 eloquence and administrative capacity to deal 
 with the grave questions which were spring¬ 
 ing up on every side, and overclouding with 
 their ominous shade the political horizon. 
 The stability of the government was depen¬ 
 dent entirely upon the continuance of the 
 feud between the ex-premier and the pro¬ 
 tectionists. Three great parties represented 
 the feeling of the House: the Whigs, who 
 were in power; the Conservatives, who still 
 adhered to the fallen fortunes of Sir Robert 
 Peel; and the Protectionists, under the 
 nominal leadership of Lord George Ben- 
 tinck. Thus on any measure brought up 
 for discussion, a fusion between the Peelites 
 and the Protectionists would place the 
 government in a minority. Sir Robert Peel, 
 however, had no intention of bridging over 
 the existing breach ; for he knew that if the 
 Conservatives came into power, he could 
 not hope to be reinstated as head of the 
 cabinet. He resolved, therefore, to support 
 the policy of Lord John Russell. “Peel,” 
 VOL. I. 
 
 writes Lord Palmerston, “ seems to have 
 made up his mind that, for a year or two, 
 he cannot hope to form a party, and that he 
 must give people a certain time to forget 
 the events of last year ; in the meanwhile, 
 it is evident that he does not wish that any 
 other government should be formed out of 
 the people on his side of the House, because 
 of that government he would not be a mem¬ 
 ber. For these reasons, and also because 
 he sincerely thinks it best that we should 
 for the present remain in, he gives us very 
 cordial support, as far as he can without 
 losing his independent position.” 
 
 On taking his seat in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, at the meeting of parliament, Nov. 
 18, 1847, Mr. Disraeli had ceased to repre¬ 
 sent Shrewsbury. His brilliant defence of 
 the agricultural interest, the co-leadership 
 he enjoyed with Lord George Bentinck, and 
 the influence he possessed over the Protec¬ 
 tionists, all marked him out for the position 
 of a knight of the shire. It was felt 
 that the spokesman of the party which 
 watched over the welfare of the agri¬ 
 cultural interest should represent no con¬ 
 stituency less than that of a county. By 
 the purchase of his small but charming 
 estate of Hughenden Manor, Mr. Disraeli 
 was now enrolled among the landed gentry 
 of his beloved Buckinghamshire. He was 
 asked to stand for the county, and he gladly 
 accepted the invitation. In his address he 
 alluded to the repeal of the corn laws; he 
 disapproved of that measure. “ Notwith¬ 
 standing this, however, I am not one of 
 those who would abet or attempt factiously 
 or forcibly to repeal the measure of 1846.” 
 He appeared before them not as the organ 
 of any section or the nominee of any indi¬ 
 vidual. “All that I can offer yon,” lie 
 
 12 
 
00 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 said, “ is the devotion of such energies as I 
 possess; all that I aspire to is to serve you 
 as becomes the representative of a great, 
 undivided, and historic county, that has 
 achieved vast results for our popular liberty, 
 our parliamentary reputation, and our na¬ 
 tional greatness.” Then he flattered local 
 vanity, and made the hearts of his Buck¬ 
 inghamshire hearers swell with honest pride. 
 “ The parliamentary constitution of Eng¬ 
 land,” he cried, “was born in the bosom 
 of the Chiltern Hills, as to this day our 
 parliamentary career is terminated amongst 
 its Hundreds. The parliamentary consti¬ 
 tution of England was established when Mr. 
 Hampden rode up to Westminster, sur¬ 
 rounded by his neighbours. Buckingham¬ 
 shire did that for England. It has done 
 more. It gave us the British constitution 
 in the seventeenth century, and it created 
 the British empire in the eighteenth. All 
 the great statesmen of that century were 
 born, or bred, or lived in the county. 
 Throw your eye over the list—it is a glori¬ 
 ous one—from Shelburne to Granville. 
 Travel from Wycombe to Buckingham, 
 from the first Lord Lansdowne, the most 
 accomplished minister this country ever 
 produced, to the last of our classic states¬ 
 men. Even the sovereign genius of Chat¬ 
 ham was nursed in the groves of Stowe 
 and the temjpla quam dilecta, of Cobham, 
 and it was beneath his oaks at Beaconsfield 
 that Mr. Burke poured forth those divine 
 effusions that vindicated the social system 
 and reconciled the authority of law with 
 the liberty of men. And in our time, faith¬ 
 ful to its character and its mission, amid 
 a great parliamentary revolution, Bucking¬ 
 ham called a new political class into exist¬ 
 ence, and enfranchised you and the farmers 
 of England by the Chanclos clause.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was returned without op¬ 
 position, and as long as he sat in the House 
 of Commons the county of Bucks was ever 
 loyal to him. He never had occasion to 
 represent any other constituency. 
 
 He was no silent member. Upon all the 
 leading measures advocated by the govern¬ 
 
 ment, the voice of Mr. Disraeli was heard. 
 He sympathized with the half-ruined 
 owners of sugar plantations in our West 
 India islands, and opposed the proposal 
 that sugars, which were the produce of 
 slave labour, and sugars the produce of free 
 labour, should be admitted into the home 
 market on a footing of perfect equality. 
 “ Having deprived our colonies,” he said, 
 “ of those successful means of general com¬ 
 petition, it would seem that the metropolis 
 was at least bound to secure them a home 
 market. If the consequence of such a 
 monopoly were a dear article, the increased 
 price must be considered as an amercement 
 for the luxury of a philanthropy not suffi¬ 
 ciently informed of the complicated circum¬ 
 stances with which it had to deal. . . . 
 
 The movement of the middle classes for the 
 abolition of slavery was virtuous, but it was 
 not wise. It was an ignorant movement. It 
 showed a want of knowledge both of the 
 laws of commerce and the stipulations of 
 treaties ; and it has alike ruined the colonies 
 and aggravated the slave trade. . . . The 
 plea of the free-traders for the admission of 
 slave-grown sugar, on the ground of incon¬ 
 sistency in excluding it since we admitted 
 other products of slave-grown labour, can 
 be characterized only by an epithet too 
 harsh for polite composition when we recol¬ 
 lect that, when the whole community shrunk 
 from the abomination of consuming the 
 slave-grown sugar of our own colonies, they 
 had then for years, nay, in some instances 
 almost for centuries, been in the habit of 
 drinking slave-grown coffee, smoking slave- 
 grown tobacco, and spinning slave-grown 
 cotton. They therefore took their resolution 
 with a full knowledge of these inconsistent 
 accessories. The history of the abolition of 
 slavery by the English and its consequences 
 would be a narrative of ignorance, injustice, 
 blundering, waste, and havoc, not easily 
 paralleled in the history of mankind.” 
 
 He also warmly supported the measure 
 of Lord George Bentinck for intersecting 
 Ireland with railways, the expense of con¬ 
 structing which was to be shared between 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 91 
 
 private companies and the government. 
 By this means a handsome dividend would 
 be returned to shareholders, whilst ample 
 work would he found for the idle and 
 destitute Irish. The proposal was, however, 
 opposed by the government, though they so 
 far expressed their approval of its principle 
 by borrowing some of the details of the 
 scheme a few months afterwards. When a 
 period of severe commercial distress had 
 set in, and the government were at their 
 wit’s end, hesitating whether to suspend 
 the Bank Charter Act or not, Mr. Disraeli 
 explained that the state of the country was 
 nothing less than the logical result of free 
 trade, which, as then conducted, had caused 
 a perpetual outflow of gold in order to 
 purchase corn and other goods which foreign 
 nations declined to sell or barter. In a 
 careful speech he reviewed the foreign 
 policy of Lord Palmerston, and argued that 
 the power of England, if exercised in a 
 proper and judicious manner, was an in¬ 
 fluence that no foreign nation could ignore. 
 “ England,” he said, alluding to the alleged 
 influence of France in Spain, and Russia in 
 Germany, “England held the balance, and 
 if she was conscious of her position, and 
 exerted her influence with firmness and dis¬ 
 cretion, she might obtain and enjoy the 
 blessings of peace, and hand them down 
 to posterity.” These remarks he made 
 especially to apply to the Spanish marriages 
 and the extinction of the free state of 
 Cracow by Russia, in direct violation of the 
 treaty of Vienna. 
 
 A question now came before the House 
 which, since it appealed very closely to the 
 toleration which was one of the chief 
 features of Mr. Disraeli’s political creed 
 and to those sympathies with his race 
 which he had never hesitated to express, 
 is deserving of fuller treatment. At the 
 recent general election the citizens of 
 London had thought fit to return as one 
 of their representatives Baron Rothschild, 
 a Hebrew merchant of great wealth and 
 high standing in the city; and Lord John 
 Russell, also one of the members of the 
 
 metropolis, had pledged himself to procure 
 admission for his new colleague into the 
 House of Commons. As the law then 
 stood, the doors of parliament were closed 
 to all who refused to declare their accept¬ 
 ance of the clauses contained in the oath 
 necessary for admission “ on the true faith 
 of a Christian.” This reservation naturally 
 excluded all Jews from entertaining the 
 hope of parliamentary honours, and though 
 the matter had often been discussed by the 
 House, the feeling of the majority was 
 against the expelling clause being rescinded. 
 The question now arose whether Baron 
 Rothschild should be admitted without 
 being compelled to subscribe to this form 
 of oath. An important debate was ex¬ 
 pected which would call forth all the 
 passions and prejudices of men, and the 
 result of the controversy was looked for 
 with no little interest, and on the part of 
 the more conservative of the population, 
 with some trepidation. Of late years re¬ 
 ligious toleration had made advances; the 
 Roman Catholic had been emancipated, and 
 the Test and Corporation Acts had been 
 repealed. But the Papist, however super¬ 
 stitious, and the Dissenter, however narrow¬ 
 minded, were both Christians; thus there 
 was nothing inconsistent in permitting 
 them to have a part in the legislation of 
 a Christian country. 
 
 To admit the Jew was, however, to assert 
 the principle that there was no necessary 
 connection between politics and Christianity, 
 and that the English constitution was based 
 on religious equality. Yet the existence of 
 a church by law established plainly contra¬ 
 dicts this principle of equality. By the 
 Act of Settlement it has been laid down that 
 the sovereign of these realms must be one 
 in communion with the Church of England. 
 Archbishops and bishops of the Church 
 of England, and the ministers of no 
 other religious organization, constitute an 
 essential element in the composition of the 
 House of Lords. Clergymen of the Church 
 of England, and they alone, are ineligible 
 for the House of Commons, whilst ministers 
 
92 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of other bodies can be freely elected. 
 Again, every citizen who does not profess 
 a creed is legally supposed to be a member 
 of the Established Church, while no such 
 presumption is ever raised in favour of 
 any other religious community. We 
 must also remember that we are dealing 
 with a time when the Divorce Court was 
 not established, when church rates were 
 levied, when the Irish Church was still in 
 existence, when the Universities Tests Acts 
 had not been repealed, when in fact the 
 Established Church of England was the 
 sacred ark on which no man should lay 
 hands profanely. The admission of the Jew 
 into the legislature touched therefore the 
 very quick of our religious belief. At one 
 time it had been necessary for a member 
 of parliament to be a follower of the 
 teaching of the Church of England; then 
 the principle of toleration had been ex¬ 
 tended to admit the Roman Catholic and 
 the Dissenter; and now it was argued that 
 toleration should dissolve itself into a re¬ 
 ligious equality contrary to the principles 
 of the English constitution, and that men 
 who denied the very foundation stone upon 
 which the Christian church was erected 
 were to be suffered to make the laws of a 
 Christian people. It is therefore not 
 surprising that the measure of Lord 
 John Russell gave rise to considerable op¬ 
 position. It was asked where would the 
 legislature draw the line as to toleration ? 
 The Church of England had been dethroned 
 from her proud pre-eminence; Roman 
 Catholics had entered the House of Com¬ 
 mons ; Dissenters had followed them; Jews 
 were now to be admitted ; what was to 
 prevent the doors being opened—a question 
 by the way now being freely discussed—to 
 atheists and free thinkers ? Mr. Gladstone 
 had written a book to prove the necessity 
 of the union between church and state; the 
 church was to be the Church of England, 
 and the state was to be guided and pro¬ 
 tected by her teaching. His book had a 
 wide circulation amongst Conservatives, and 
 its principles were cordially approved of. 
 
 Upon the question of the admission of 
 the Jews, Mr. Disraeli differed from the 
 majority of the party that his genius and 
 statesmanship had organized. He held that 
 it was unjust to exclude from the honours 
 of British legislation men who were bom 
 British subjects, who were few in number, 
 whose loyalty had never been impeached, 
 and who believed in the faith upon which 
 Christianity had been founded. He main¬ 
 tained that mankind was under deep obli¬ 
 gations to the Jews, and therefore ought, in 
 common gratitude, to render them every 
 privilege. “The Saxon, the Slav, and the 
 Celt,” he writes, in the memorable chapter 
 upon his race in his biography of Lord 
 George Bentinck, “have adopted most of 
 the laws and many of the customs of these 
 Arabian tribes, all their literature and all 
 their religion. They are therefore indebted 
 to them for much that regulates, much that 
 charms, and much that solaces existence. 
 The toiling multitude rest every seventh 
 day by virtue of a Jewish law; they are 
 perpetually reading, ‘ for their example/ 
 the records of Jewish history, and singing 
 the odes and elegies of Jewish poets; and 
 they daily acknowledge on their knees, 
 with reverent gratitude, that the only me¬ 
 dium of communication between the Creator 
 and themselves is the Jewish race. Yet 
 they treat that race as the vilest of genera¬ 
 tions; and instead of logically looking upon 
 them as the human family that has contri¬ 
 buted most to human happiness, they extend 
 to them every term of obloquy and every 
 form of persecution.” He denied, too, the 
 truth of the common accusation that the 
 dispersion of the Hebrew race was a penalty 
 incurred for the crucifixion of our Redeemer 
 by the Romans at Jerusalem, and at the 
 instigation of some Jews in the reign of 
 Tiberius Caesar. Such a charge, he argued, 
 was neither historically true nor dogmati¬ 
 cally sound. It was not historically true, 
 because the Jewish race at the time of the 
 advent of our Lord was as much dispersed 
 throughout the world as at the present 
 time, and had been so for many centuries. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 93 
 
 Consequently, the bulk of the Hebrew 
 nation had no share in the act of the cruci¬ 
 fixion. Nor was it historically true that 
 the small section of the Jewish race which 
 dwelt in Palestine rejected the Christ. The 
 reverse was the truth. “ Had it,” writes Mr. 
 Disraeli, “ not been for the Jews of Pales¬ 
 tine the good tidings of our Lord would 
 have been unknown for ever to the northern 
 and western races. The first preachers of 
 the gospel were Jews, and none else. No 
 one has ever been permitted to write under 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit except a 
 Jew. For nearly a century no one believed 
 in the good tidings except Jews. They 
 nursed the sacred flame of which they were 
 the consecrated and hereditary depositories. 
 And when the time was ripe to diffuse the 
 truth among the ethnicks, it was not a 
 senator of Pome or a philosopher of Athens 
 who was personally appointed by our Lord 
 for that office, but a Jew of Tarsus, who 
 founded the seven churches of Asia. And 
 Inat greater church, great even amid its 
 terrible corruptions, that has avenged the 
 victory of Titus by subjugating the capital 
 of the Caesars, and has changed every one 
 of the Olympian temples into altars of the 
 God of Sinai and of Calvary, was founded 
 by another Jew, a Jew of Galilee.” 
 
 Thus the dispersion of the Jews, pre¬ 
 ceding as it did for ages the coming 
 of our Saviour, could not, argues our 
 author, be on account of behaviour which 
 occurred after the advent. Nor were 
 the Jews, he says, guilty of that subsequent 
 conduct which has been imputed to them 
 as a crime, since for Him and His blessed 
 name they preached and wrote and shed 
 their blood as “ witnesses.” And precisely 
 as the charges against Israel were not his¬ 
 torically correct, so were they neither dog¬ 
 matically sound. There is no passage in 
 Holy Writ, contends Mr. Disraeli, which 
 in the slightest degree warrants the penal 
 assumption. The imprecation of the mob 
 at the crucifixion has been sometimes 
 strangely quoted as a divine decree. But 
 is it a principle of jurisprudence, human 
 
 01 inspired, to permit criminals to ordain 
 their own punishment ? Why, too, should 
 they transfer any portion of the infliction 
 to their posterity ? What evidence have 
 we that the wild suggestion was sanctioned 
 by Omnipotence ? On the contrary, amid 
 the expiating agony, a divine voice at the 
 same time solicited a secured forgiveness. 
 And if unforgiven, could the cry of a 
 rabble, inquires Mr. Disraeli, at such a 
 scene bind a nation ? Then he proceeds 
 to put the question which Christian phi¬ 
 losophy can only answer by referring it 
 to the faith which will one day solve 
 the inexplicable, and render sound the 
 apparently illogical. “ If the Jew r s,” writes 
 Mr. Disraeli, “had not prevailed upon the 
 Bomans to crucify our Lord, what would 
 have become of the Atonement ? But the 
 human mind cannot contemplate the idea 
 that the most important deed of time could 
 depend upon human will. The immolators 
 were pre-ordained like the victim, and the 
 holy race supplied both. Could that be a 
 crime which secured for all mankind eter¬ 
 nal joy—which vanquished Satan, and 
 opened the gates of Paradise ? Such a tenet 
 would sully and impugn the doctrine that 
 is the corner-stone of our faith and hope. 
 Men must not presume to sit in judgment 
 on such an act. They must bow their 
 heads in awe and astonishment and trem¬ 
 bling gratitude.” 
 
 Having argued that our Christianity is 
 only the completion of Judaism, that it is 
 to Jews that we owe the preservation of the 
 sacred writings, and, above all, that it is 
 to a Jew we are indebted for the hope of 
 eternal salvation, Mr. Disraeli further dis¬ 
 cusses our indebtedness to the Hebrew race. 
 Were it not, he says, for music, it might 
 be thou "lit that the Beautiful was dead. 
 
 O 
 
 And who, pray, he asks, are the great 
 composers whose works rank with the trans¬ 
 cendent creations of human genius ? “ They 
 are the descendants of those Arabian tribes 
 who conquered Canaan, and who by favour 
 of the Most High have done more with less 
 means even than the Athenians,” In art, 
 
94 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 in science, in philosophy, the Jews have 
 equally excelled. They are the trustees 
 of tradition and the conservators of the re¬ 
 ligious element. They are a living and the 
 most striking evidence of the falsity of that 
 pernicious doctrine of modern times, the 
 natural equality of man. All the tendencies 
 of the Hebrew race, says Mr. Disraeli, are 
 conservative. Their bias is to religion, pro¬ 
 perty, and natural aristocracy. It should, 
 therefore, be the interest of statesmen that 
 this bias of a great race should be en¬ 
 couraged, and their energies and creative 
 powers enlisted in the cause of existing 
 society. In conclusion, the writer warns 
 us, that nations have prospered or fallen 
 according to their treatment of the Hebrew 
 race. “ It may be observed/’ he writes, 
 “ that the decline and disasters of modern 
 communities have generally been relative 
 to their degree of sedition against the 
 Semitic principle. Since the great revolt 
 of the Celts against the first and second 
 testament, at the close of the last century, 
 France has been alternately in a state of 
 collapse or convulsion. Throughout the 
 awful trials of the last sixty years, England, 
 notwithstanding her deficient and meagre 
 theology, has always remembered Sion. The 
 great transatlantic republic is intensely 
 Semitic, and has prospered accordingly. 
 This sacred principle alone has consolidated 
 the mighty empire of all the Russias. How 
 omnipotent it is cannot be more clearly 
 shown than by the instance of Rome, where 
 it appears in its most corrupt form. An 
 old man on a Semitic throne baffles the 
 modern Attilas and the recent invasion of 
 the barbarians, under the form of red 
 republicans, socialists, communists—all dif¬ 
 ferent phases which describe the relapse of 
 the once converted races into their primi¬ 
 tive condition of savagery. Austria would 
 long ago have dissolved but for the Semitic 
 principle, and if the north of Germany has 
 never succeeded in attaining that imperial 
 position which seemed its natural destiny, 
 it is that the north of Germany has never 
 at any time been thoroughly converted. 
 
 Some perhaps may point to Spain as a 
 remarkable instance of decline in a country 
 where the Semitic principle has exercised 
 great influence. But the fall of Spain was 
 occasioned by the expulsion of her Semitic 
 population: a million families of Jews and 
 Saracens, the most distinguished of her 
 citizens for their industry and their intelli¬ 
 gence, their learning and their wealth.” 
 
 In whatever light we regard these 
 opinions—whether we look upon them as 
 proceeding from the distorted enthusiasm 
 of one who was deeply attached to a race 
 which has a splendid past, which has a 
 persecuted present, and which is to have 
 a glorious future ; whether we consider the 
 comparison between Judaism and Chris¬ 
 tianity as strained and false, and deny 
 that Christianity is the completion of 
 Judaism; whether we respect or sneer 
 at “ the Semitic principle,” or whatever 
 be the judgment we form upon the sub¬ 
 ject—certain it is that to Mr. Disraeli 
 these views constituted the creed of his 
 life. Sprung from a people whom he con¬ 
 sidered the “ aristocracy of nature,” he 
 was essentially an aristocrat in the social 
 and political opinions he held. He denied 
 the theory as to the equality of man; he 
 was a firm believer in “ race; ” he upheld 
 the existence of a privileged class ; in all 
 his instincts he was, what he claims as the 
 characteristic of his nation, conservative— 
 the conservatism of one proud of his lineage, 
 the conservatism of a cultured, tolerant 
 man of the world. The jealous and the 
 spiteful who saw Mr. Disraeli living in the 
 society of the great, and for years repre¬ 
 senting the landed gentry of England, 
 sneered at the son of the Hebrew man of 
 letters for occupying a position he had no 
 right to hold, and branded him with oppro 
 brious epithets for his arrogance. 
 
 Yet, in the light Mr. Disraeli regarded 
 himself, there was no presumption. In this 
 country, which holds in such high estimation 
 ancient race, the lineage of the member for 
 Buckinghamshire could trace back further in 
 the past than could the birth of any by whom 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 95 
 
 he was surrounded; therefore, in his eyes the 
 social atmosphere of the high-born was the 
 element it was quite his due to breathe. He 
 came of a superior race. The very manner, 
 he declared, in which the Hebrew had 
 baffled the persecutions of the past proved 
 his superiority, since he is the only one of 
 pure race in existence who has outlived 
 persecution; and it was but right, according 
 to the laws of ethnology, for him to take his 
 place amongst those who lead. Throughout 
 his whole political career, we never find 
 Mr. Disraeli apologizing for the lofty 
 position he held, or saying, as meaner 
 natures would, servile things to tickle the 
 vanity of those who, though they followed 
 him, yet in all probability considered them¬ 
 selves his social superiors. Addington, 
 “ the doctor,” was very urbane and defer¬ 
 ential to the great, as if aware of his social 
 shortcomings; Canning had a strong leaven 
 of toadyism in his nature; but the worst 
 enemy of Mr. Disraeli never accused him 
 of base flatteries, or the want of a noble 
 self-respect. All the honours conferred 
 on him appeared only as the ordinary 
 result of cause and effect, as the tribute 
 due to the really superior man. He led 
 the Protectionists, he led the Tories, he 
 led the nation, at one time he almost 
 led Europe; he was a commoner, he 
 became a peer; his coat of arms was a 
 blank, yet on his breast glittered the star 
 of a knight of the garter. Still through¬ 
 out he was never fussily elated as to his 
 position : his was an instance of the man 
 who feels himself great because he knows 
 he is worthy to be great. And apart 
 from his genius, apart from his industry, 
 he was conscious that he deserved this 
 greatness, because he came from a line that 
 had given to both sacred and secular his¬ 
 tory its most distinguished men—because 
 in his veins there was the same blood as 
 flowed in Him “ who is the eternal glory of 
 the Jewish race.” There was no future too 
 splendid he considered for one of the chosen 
 people. When Canning made a brilliant 
 marriage, Pitt, highly pleased, said it would 
 
 give his friend position. What the con¬ 
 nection with the house of Portland was 
 to George Canning, the connection with 
 the house of David was to Benjamin Dis¬ 
 raeli—it gave him, in his own estimation, 
 
 I “ position.” 
 
 When, therefore, in the December of 
 1847, Lord John Eussell brought before the 
 House of Commons his resolution to remove 
 the disabilities of the Jews, Mr. Disraeli 
 came boldly forward to support the measure. 
 He expressed on this occasion very much 
 the same opinions as he had maintained in 
 his memoir of Lord George Bentinck, and 
 in his novel of “ Tancred.” He declared 
 that it was the duty of Christians to accord 
 full civil rights to the Jews, since there 
 was such an affinity between Judaism and 
 Christianity. “For where,” he asked, “is 
 your Christianity if you do not believe in 
 their Judaism?” There was no hostility, 
 he said, on the part of the Jew to the 
 Christian church, for he alone of all religi- 
 ous people did not proselytize. Why, then, 
 should the Christian church be hostile to 
 the Jew ? By her teaching she had made 
 the history of the Jews the most celebrated 
 history in the world. On every sacred day 
 she read to the people the exploits of Jewish 
 heroes, the proofs of Jewish devotion, and 
 she obeved as the rule of her life the com- 
 mandments given to the Jews. When she 
 wished to express feelings of praise and 
 thanksgiving, or to find expressions of solace 
 in grief, she met with both in the works of the 
 Jewish poets. “If you had not forgotten,” 
 he said, “ what you owe to this people—if 
 you were grateful for that literature which 
 for thousands of years has brought so much 
 instruction and so much consolation to the 
 sons of men—you as Christians would be 
 only too ready to seize the first opportunity 
 of meeting the claims of those who profess 
 this religion.” It w T as entirely, he avowed, 
 on religious grounds and on religious prin¬ 
 ciples that he ventured to recommend this 
 subject to the notice of the House. It was 
 a question on which men, whatever might 
 be the consequences, must speak what they 
 
96 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 felt. It was not, he concluded, because he 
 was of Hebrew origin, but because he was a 
 Christian, that he would not take upon 
 himself the responsibility “ of excluding 
 from the legislature those who were of 
 the religion in the bosom of which his 
 Lord and Saviour was born. ,, Lord George 
 Bentinck also spoke in favour of the 
 resolution; but in spite of the advocacy 
 of the two leaders of the Protectionists, 
 the measure was not, as we know, then 
 satisfactorily settled. Lord John Russell 
 carried the second reading by a large 
 majority; but when the Lords came to 
 consider the clauses, the bill was thrown 
 out. Subsequently Lord John made an 
 attempt to bring Baron Rothschild into 
 parliament by a mere vote of the House 
 of Commons; but Mr. Disraeli, though his 
 sympathies were strongly in favour of the 
 movement, and though he was a friend 
 of the baron, declined to support so uncon¬ 
 stitutional a proceeding. 
 
 One important result, favourable to the 
 rising fortunes of Mr. Disraeli, however, 
 followed the debate on this subject. The 
 country was not then ripe for the question 
 of Jewish emancipation; and the Pro¬ 
 tectionists being principally composed of 
 English country gentlemen, with the usual 
 prejudices of their order against foreign 
 intrusion, did not see why the constitution 
 should be upset in order that a wealthy 
 Plebrew merchant might have the honour 
 of representing London. It was bad 
 enough to admit a Roman Catholic, who 
 divided his allegiance between the queen 
 and the pope, and a Dissenter who made 
 war upon the church to vent his radi¬ 
 cal jealousy; but to have the House 
 swarming with Jew usurers and money¬ 
 lenders, though within their veins they 
 might have the blood of all the prophets and 
 apostles to boot, was an extension of the 
 principles of toleration not to be sanctioned 
 for one moment. It was known that Lord 
 George Bentinck, who was ever in favour of 
 religious freedom, was about to vote for the 
 resolution of Lord John Russell; and en¬ 
 
 deavours were made to turn him from his 
 purpose, but in vain. Consequently mur¬ 
 murs and divisions arose amongst the 
 Protectionists at the course their leader had 
 pursued; and Lord George being a man 
 of imperious nature, and then somewhat 
 irritable from ill health, resigned the chief¬ 
 tainship of the Protectionists, leaving the 
 
 conduct of affairs entirelv in the hands of 
 
 */ 
 
 his able lieutenant. He was implored to 
 reconsider his determination, “as one very 
 detrimental to the cause to which he was 
 devoted, and which would probably tend to 
 the triumph of those whose policy he had 
 attempted to defeat, and whose personal 
 conduct he had at least succeeded in pun¬ 
 ishing.” He replied that he would feel 
 greatly relieved by a restoration to privacy 
 and freedom, as he seriously doubted whether 
 he was able to work on much longer. This 
 answer was sufficient to prevent his fol¬ 
 lowers from repeating their request. On 
 being presented with an address signed 
 by the Protectionists, he thus expressed 
 himself:— 
 
 “ The considerations which obliged me 
 to surrender a post of honour which every 
 independent and high-minded English gen¬ 
 tleman has at all times prized above the 
 highest rewards in the gift of the crown, 
 
 ‘ the leadership of the country gentlemen of 
 England,’ will never influence me to swerve 
 from any endeavours of which my poor 
 abilities and bodily energies are capable in 
 the promotion of the prosperity of all classes 
 in the British empire at home and in the 
 colonies, any more than they can ever make 
 me forget the attachment, the friendship, 
 and the enthusiastic support, of those who 
 stood by me to the end of the death strug¬ 
 gle for British interests and for English 
 good faith and political honour, and to whose 
 continued friendship and constancy I know 
 I am indebted for this graceful and grateful 
 compliment.” 
 
 He was not, however, permitted long 
 to devote his services to the state. A 
 few months after his resignation he was 
 found dead on the road, near Thoresby, the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 97 
 
 seat of Lord Manvers, to which place he 
 had walked over from Welbeck. He died 
 of sheer exhaustion, a martyr to his love of 
 doing thoroughly whatever he put his hand 
 to. It is said that he often worked eighteen 
 out of the four-and-twenty hours, mastering 
 the details of blue-books, and taking no 
 sustenance beyond a little tea and dry toast. 
 “ The labours of Lord George Bentinck,” 
 writes Mr. Disraeli, “had been supernatural, 
 and one ought, perhaps, to have felt that it 
 was impossible they could be continued on 
 such a scale of exhaustion; but no friend 
 could' control his eager life in this respect; 
 he obeyed the law of his vehement and 
 fiery nature, being one of those men who, 
 in whatever they undertake, know no me¬ 
 dium, but will ‘ succeed or die.’ ” 
 
 It had been the wish of Mr. Disraeli, since 
 he, too, had been guilty of the crime of vot¬ 
 ing for the removal of Jewish disabilities, to 
 have followed the example of Lord George 
 Bentinck, and to have abdicated the post 
 he held with relation to the Protectionists. 
 However, at the earnest request of Lord 
 George, who said that such a proceeding 
 would be indicative of schism, which it was 
 most necessary to discourage, he abandoned 
 the idea, and faced the treasury bench as 
 the actual, though at that time not the 
 recognized leader of the secessionists. As 
 a critical member of the Opposition, and 
 now the chief, however unwilling might be 
 his followers, of a great party, he was soon 
 to prove to the mixed band of Whigs and 
 Peelites that he fully understood the re¬ 
 sponsibilities of his office, and that he was 
 no blind or tame opponent of injudicious 
 measures.* Parliament had reassembled, 
 
 * I am quite aware that in the interval between the 
 resignation of Lord George Bentinck and the year 1849, 
 Mr. Disraeli was not the recognized leader in the House of 
 Commons. There were several Richards in the field. Mr. 
 Disraeli’s own words, in the memoir of Lord George Bentinck, 
 are, “ The session, however, was to commence without a leader, 
 without any recognized organ of communication between 
 parties, or any responsible representative of opinion in de¬ 
 bate. All again was chaos. There is, however, something 
 so vital in the conservative party that it seems always to 
 rally under every disadvantage.” Still the various rivals 
 for the post of leader of the Protectionists were, in 
 comparison with Mr. Disraeli, only dummies. The govern¬ 
 ment treated Mr. Disraeli as if he were the virtual 
 leader, and between Lord Derby and the member for 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 February 23, 1848, and shortly after the 
 meeting of the Houses, Lord John Russell 
 rose up to propose an increase in that 
 convenient but hated impost the income- 
 tax, offering as his excuse for the aug¬ 
 mentation, that owing to the ambitious 
 designs of the princes of the house of 
 Orleans, it had become necessary to enlarge 
 our armaments. The leader of the Protec¬ 
 tionists keenly criticised the proposal. He 
 reminded the House that when, in 1842, 
 the country had submitted to the imposi¬ 
 tion of the income tax, the Whigs had 
 warmly denounced it as unprecedented, 
 nay, even as unconstitutional; that when 
 Sir Robert Peel had introduced the measure, 
 he represented himself as being in com¬ 
 munication with foreign powers for the 
 establishment between them and Great 
 Britain of treaties of reciprocity; and that 
 the income tax was levied with the express 
 purpose of carrying on the affairs of the 
 country until those treaties should have 
 been ratified. “ Sir,” he cried, “ in all this 
 the right honourable gentleman acted as 
 great ministers had acted before him. He 
 acted exactly as Mr. Pitt did in 1787; he 
 followed entirely the example of Mr. Pitt, 
 who pursued the principle of other great 
 men who had preceded him—Lord Shel- 
 
 Buckinghamshire there existed the most complete con¬ 
 fidence. For a time there was a kind of triumvirate 
 leadership—Lord Granby, Mr. Herries, and Mr. Disraeli— 
 of the Protectionists in the lower house, but it was through¬ 
 out apparent that Mr. Disraeli was the actual leader. A 
 writer in Blackwood's Magazine thus describes the situation 
 of affairs:—“ Mr. Disraeli’s position towards the party itself, 
 unanimous as it professed to be in its fealty to Lord Derby, 
 was such as only a man of imperturbable temper and great 
 forethought could have endured. He was their spokesman 
 and chief adviser on almost all occasions; he made no open 
 pretence to guide their policy. He never sought, far less 
 intrigued for, the leadership of the party. The party learned 
 ere long that it could not do without him, and events took 
 their natural course. The leadership, after a few abortive 
 gyrations, fell, so to speak, of its own accord, into his hands, 
 and in spite of more than one ill-arranged and worse- 
 executed attempt to transfer it to another, it has continued 
 with him up to the present hour.” From Hansard it does 
 not appear that Mr. Disraeli was regarded by the Whigs 
 as the real leader of the Protectionists until the July of 
 1849. In the debates that then ensued he is called 
 for the first time the leader. Mr. Roebuck congratulates 
 him “ upon this his first appearance as the acknowledged 
 chief of the party.” The chancellor of the exchequer 
 speaks of the hon. gentleman as “ the avowed leader of 
 a powerful party;” whilst Lord John Russell refers to the 
 Protectionists as “ the supporters ” of Mr. Disraeli 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 burne and Lord Bolingbroke. And thus 
 the right honourable gentleman, when he 
 proposed his commercial change in 1842, 
 announced at the same time that he was 
 bringing all the influence of his justly 
 powerful name, and of his singularly 
 powerful government, to bear on foreign 
 courts, in order to obtain a reciprocal com¬ 
 mercial intercourse between this and other 
 countries. Sir, I gave to the right honour¬ 
 able gentleman, at that time, a humble but 
 a sincere and hearty support. I never 
 shall regret it. But it is very necessary 
 that we should recollect, that a great deal 
 had happened in the interval between 1842 
 and 1845. During that period a great 
 commercial confederation had arisen, very 
 completely organized, and conducted by 
 very able men. They made great way in 
 the country, and they promulgated opinions 
 on commerce very different from those pro¬ 
 pounded by the late minister in 1842. 
 They were not the opinions of Mr. Pitt, of 
 Lord Shelburne, or of Lord Bolingbroke; 
 they were not the opinions of free-trade, 
 which I am prepared to support. Yes; 
 I am a free-trader, but not a freebooter: 
 honourable gentlemen opposite are free¬ 
 booters.” His opposition was so far effectual 
 that Lord John wisely contented himself 
 with renewing the tax on the same scale 
 at which he had received it from Sir 
 Robert Peel. 
 
 The next occasion during this session 
 when the member for Bucks took part in 
 an important debate, was on the motion of 
 Mr. Hume, June 20, 1848. The motion 
 ran thus :—“ That this House, as at present 
 constituted, does not fairly represent the 
 population, the property, or the industry of 
 the country, whence has arisen a great and 
 increasing discontent in the minds of a 
 large portion of the people ; and it is there¬ 
 fore expedient, with a view to amend the 
 national representation, that the elective 
 franchise shall be so extended as to include 
 all householders ; that votes shall be taken 
 by ballot; that the duration of parliament 
 shall not exceed three years; and that the 
 
 apportionment of members to population 
 shall be made equal.” Mr. Henry Drum¬ 
 mond and Lord John Russell had spoken 
 against the motion—Mr. Pox, the mem¬ 
 ber for Oldham, in its favour—when Mr. 
 Disraeli rose. His speech is the first of a 
 series on the question of national repre¬ 
 sentation, and foreshadows the principles 
 he advocated when he introduced his 
 celebrated measure in 1867. Throughout 
 on the question of parliamentary reform, 
 Mr. Disraeli was consistent — the con¬ 
 sistency of a far-seeing man who has 
 deeply studied the subject, and knows 
 the line that should be taken. He 
 never regarded the Reform Bill of 1832 
 as a final measure ; and in the various 
 speeches we shall hear him make on the 
 subject between the years 1848 and 1867, 
 we find him ever asserting that the clauses 
 in the bill of 1832 are incomplete, and 
 that it is inevitable that they must be 
 brought again before the House for further 
 and more extended revision. Not once 
 does he ever let fall an expression which 
 can be construed into hostility to electoral 
 change. Give heed to him, for instance, on 
 this occasion, and mark how unreservedly 
 he expresses himself in the matter. 
 
 “ It is not for us, sir,” he said, rising to 
 oppose the motion of Mr. Hume, and to re¬ 
 fute its false arguments, “either to defend or 
 attack the Reform Act. We obey it. When 
 it was first brought forward, it encountered 
 the criticism of those who were opposed to 
 His Majesty’s ministers in 1832. Perhaps it 
 benefited in some degree by that opposition. 
 But when it had passed—when it became 
 the law of the country—it received from 
 us that allegiance which the law in this 
 country always commands; and no doubt 
 the remedial and practical sense of this 
 country has prevented some of those evils 
 which were then anticipated. . . . I do 
 
 not say that it is not necessary to have reform. 
 I will enter fairly into that question, but do 
 not let us enter upon this great question 
 under false pretences. . . . I am not 
 
 now denying that a change may he necessary: 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 99 
 
 that point I am perfectly prepared to enter 
 into. ... I ventured to say before, 
 that gentlemen around me are not respon¬ 
 sible for the Deform Bill. But the Beform 
 Bill was a reconstruction of the order of 
 the Commons—of our estate of the realm. 
 It was a settlement most unsatisfactory to 
 us—we offered our objections to it, and 
 got pelted for our pains. But no one can 
 pretend that settlement was not carried 
 with the full support and sanction of the 
 people of England ; and if the question of 
 its passing had been submitted to universal 
 suffrage, there is not the slightest doubt 
 that at the moment all would have regis¬ 
 tered their votes for the bill. No other 
 plan was desired or tolerated. It was to 
 be something neither more nor less. What 
 you wanted was not only the bill, but the 
 whole bill, and nothing but the bill—and 
 you got it. You were told at the time that 
 the first critics of the Beform Bill would be 
 the reformers themselves ; and no prophecy 
 ever was more strikingly fulfilled. But 
 when there has been a settlement of the 
 great question—concluded, too, under such 
 circumstances—the country agitated for 
 tw T o years—yourselves choosing the hour 
 of action—when you had every possible 
 advantage — when opposition, legitimate, 
 constitutional, and I believe national oppo¬ 
 sition, was entirely overcome by the energy 
 and artifices of your triumphant faction— 
 when you yourselves laid it down as a great 
 apophthegm that became a household word, 
 that you would have it and nothing else— 
 it is not unreasonable that we, who agreed 
 to it with reluctance, or that the Whig 
 party, the government of the day, who 
 brought it forward after mature consid¬ 
 eration, should say before we disturb the 
 settlement then made—‘ Let us be sure that 
 we are arriving at a new reconstruction 
 that offers a fair prospect of giving satisfac¬ 
 tion to the people and security to the state.’ 
 
 “ I speak, not from egotism, for myself on 
 this subject; for one naturally wishes, on 
 such subjects, not to draw any one into 
 responsibility for one’s expression. /, for 
 
 one , am no advocate for finality. I conceive 
 there may be circumstances—there may be a 
 period when we shall do that which we have 
 done for five hundred years in this country — 
 reconstruct the estate of the Commons. But I 
 contend that the last reconstruction—and 
 it is rather a recent one, however unsatis¬ 
 factory to the hon. gentleman and his friends 
 —is likely to be more satisfactory to the 
 nation than the plan brought forward by 
 the hon. gentleman: and I am not prepared 
 to support any new plan, any new change, 
 on a subject so important, unless I believe 
 it to be one that will conduce very greatly 
 to the public interest. Certainly I cannot, 
 in the character of the present plan, dis¬ 
 cover anything that has a tendency to 
 satisfy the public heart; because you must 
 divest this question of all that rhetorical 
 varnish and that powerful sentiment with 
 which it has been suffused by the hon. 
 member for Oldham. This is not at all a 
 project to enfranchise the serfs of England 
 —this is not at all a project that tells the 
 labouring classes they shall take their place 
 in the political constitution of the country. 
 It is characterized by features totally op¬ 
 posed to the principles laid down by the 
 hon. member for Oldham. If there be any 
 mistake more striking than another in the 
 settlement of 1832— and , in this respect , I 
 differ from the hon. member for Surrey 
 (Mr. Locke King)— it is , in my opinion , 
 that the bill of 1832 took the qualification 
 of property in too hard and rigid a sense , 
 as the only qualification which should exist 
 in "this country for the exercise of political 
 rights. How does the hon. member for 
 Montrose (Mr. Hume), the great champion 
 of the new movement, meet this difficulty ? 
 He has brought forward a project of which 
 property, and property alone, is the basis: 
 he has not come forward with any scheme 
 for an educational suffrage or an industrial 
 suffrage—he has not attempted in any way 
 to increase or vary the elements of suffrage. 
 It is impossible that any plan can be more 
 hard, more commonplace, more literal, more 
 unsatisfactory, or more offensive, as the 
 
100 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 speech of the hon. member for Oldham 
 shows it must be, to the great body of the 
 working classes, than one which recognizes 
 property, and property alone, as its basis. 
 
 “Now, sir, for one, I think property is 
 sufficiently represented in this House. I 
 am prepared to support the system of 1832 
 until I see that the circumstances and neces¬ 
 sities of the country require a change; but 
 I am convinced that when that change comes, 
 it will be one thai will have mone regard for 
 other sentiments, qualities, and conditions, 
 than the mere possession of property as a 
 qualification for the exercise of the political 
 franchise. And, therefore, in opposing the 
 measure of the hon. member for Montrose, 
 I protest against being placed in the category 
 of finality, or as one who believes that no 
 change is ever to take place in that wherein 
 there has been, throughout the history of 
 this ancient country, frequent and continu¬ 
 ous change—the construction of this estate 
 of the realm. I oppose this new scheme, 
 because it does not appear to be adapted in 
 any way to satisfy the wants of the age, or 
 to be conceived in the spirit of the times.” 
 
 The speaker then laid bare the sophistries 
 which ran through the arguments of Mr. 
 Fox, and proved how inadequate were the 
 means proposed by Mr. Hume to amend 
 the national representation. He stated that 
 the principal plea for parliamentary recon¬ 
 struction and political revolution had always 
 been the increase in the expenditure and in 
 the taxation of the country; but now he 
 showed that a little prior to the passing 
 of the Reform Bill, in the year 1828, the 
 revenue raised in the country from ordinary 
 sources was £49,500,000, whilst the revenue 
 raised in 1848 was £47,500,000. Again it 
 was calculated that in 1828 the people of 
 England were taxed something like two 
 guineas a head, whilst in 1848 they were 
 taxed a little over 30s. How, then, could 
 the Radical party maintain their argument 
 that taxation in this country had oppres¬ 
 sively increased, and therefore that such a 
 state of things necessitated a change in our 
 parliamentary constitution ? He denied the 
 
 premise of Mr. Hume that every Eng¬ 
 lishman had a right to vote. If every 
 Englishman had a right to vote, why was 
 it necessary that he should have a qualifica¬ 
 tion for that vote—why that qualification 
 should be the circumstance of living in a 
 house ? The suffrage was neither a trust 
 nor a right, but, as he had always con¬ 
 tended, a privilege. And that brought him 
 to his favourite subject, the real character 
 of the House of Commons, and the political 
 order of which its members were the 
 representatives. “We represent the Com¬ 
 mons,” he said; “the Commons are an 
 estate of the realm. The materials of 
 that estate constitute, of course, a ques¬ 
 tion of policy—of expediency—and it is 
 perfectly open to anybody, at any time, 
 to discuss the question of what that order 
 should consist. It is an order, whether you 
 make it consist of thousands, of hundreds of 
 thousands, or even of two or three millions 
 —it becomes an order and a privileged 
 order; and for the hon. gentleman to pre¬ 
 tend that he is settling a great question for 
 ever, by proposing that every man who 
 lives in a house should have a vote is an 
 absurdity, because the very supporter of the 
 motion, on his own side, who has made an 
 eloquent speech in favour of it, has argued 
 throughout that there should be no limita¬ 
 tion whatever assigned to the exercise of 
 the suffrage.” 
 
 With regard to the ballot, he was neither 
 opposed to it nor in favour of it. He 
 simply now saw no necessity for it. It 
 was all folly and nonsense to say that the 
 present age and the present parliament 
 were distinguished by their corrupt prac¬ 
 tices. The very reverse was the case. All 
 parliaments for the last fifty years had been 
 less and less corrupt. The fact was that 
 parliament was becoming purer and more 
 pure every day—a state of things inevitable 
 in a land of progress like England, where, 
 with a free press and healthy action of 
 public opinion, the undue influence of gold 
 and property must every year, and in each 
 successive parliament, be diminished. The 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 101 
 
 question of triennial parliaments, lie con¬ 
 tinued, was one upon which he was the 
 less inclined to say anything, since it formed 
 part of those old Tory principles which he 
 had always taken every opportunity of pro¬ 
 mulgating. Triennial parliaments were a 
 portion of that old Tory creed around which, 
 he was happy to observe more than one 
 indication, the people of this country were 
 well inclined to rally. The only objection 
 to the change was that it was a change, 
 and in the present position of affairs all 
 unnecessary changes of this kind were 
 to he deprecated. In conclusion, he op¬ 
 posed all the articles in the motion. They 
 were the result of a mischievous as;ita- 
 tion, and of mischievous agitators. They 
 were advocated for the unblushing pur¬ 
 pose of securing a middle-class govern¬ 
 ment, instead of an English and a national 
 government. If political changes were 
 necessary, let them be introduced by the 
 proper leaders of the people—the gentle¬ 
 men of England. The Manchester school 
 were always attacking traditionary influ¬ 
 ences, and intimating that it was their wish 
 to subdivide large properties. Foreseeing, 
 as he did, what the results would be, and 
 convinced that, without traditional influ¬ 
 ences and large properties, they would find 
 it impossible to govern England, he pre¬ 
 ferred the liberty they now enjoyed to the 
 liberalism promised by Mr. Hume, and 
 found in the rights of Englishmen some¬ 
 thing better than the rights of men. 
 
 Foreign affairs were now to attract his 
 attention. The year 1848 was a terrible 
 one to all foreign secretaries. Scarcely a 
 state in Europe escaped the dire contagion 
 of revolution. In France Louis Philippe 
 had been forced to fly the country, and a 
 republic had taken the place of a monarchy; 
 Austria was in revolt, and Prince Metter- 
 nich had been compelled to take shelter in 
 voluntary exile; Berlin was in the hands 
 of the revolutionists; the Italians were up 
 in arms against the hated Austrians; Schles¬ 
 wig and Holstein were at daggers drawn; 
 riots had broken out in Naples owing to the 
 
 despotic rule of the weak yet cruel Bomba; 
 Pome was in similar difficulties, and his 
 Holiness had to quit the city in disguise; 
 the Magyars were doing their best to rend 
 the Austrian empire in twain; in the Iber¬ 
 ian peninsula Portugal was a prey to internal 
 dissension, whilst Narvaez had dethroned 
 constitutional government in Spain, and 
 in its stead had established a “ monstrous 
 despotism;” even quiet humdrum Bavaria 
 did not escape, and the Lola Montes affair 
 caused its amorous king to bow to the 
 verdict of an indignant people, and abdicate 
 his throne. 
 
 Lord Palmerston was a vigilant and 
 patriotic foreign minister; but his indis¬ 
 creet admiration of English institutions 
 caused us then no little trouble and 
 humiliation. “ He looks upon the English 
 constitution,” said Mr. Disraeli, “as a model 
 farm, and forces it upon every country.” 
 When the movement of Narvaez became 
 known to the government, Lord Palmer¬ 
 ston thought it his duty, since England 
 had endeavoured to maintain a consti¬ 
 tutional monarchy within the Spanish do¬ 
 minions, to act the part of counsellor and 
 friend to the administration at Madrid. He 
 accordingly instructed Sir Henry Bulwer, 
 our minister, to recommend to the Spanish 
 government a line of conduct more in ac¬ 
 cordance with constitutional usages. “ The 
 recent fall of the king of the French,” wrote 
 Lord Palmerston, “ and of his whole family, 
 and the expulsion of his ministers, ought to 
 teach the Spanish court and government 
 how great is the danger of an attempt to 
 govern a country in a manner at variance 
 with the feelings and opinions of the 
 nation; and the catastrophe which has 
 happened in France must serve to show 
 that even a large and well-disciplined army 
 becomes an ineffectual defence of the crown, 
 when the course pursued by the crown is 
 at variance with the general sentiments of 
 the country.” Sir Henry was therefore 
 instructed to suggest to the Spanish govern¬ 
 ment that its basis should be enlarged, by 
 calling to its councils “some of those men 
 
102 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 who possess the confidence of the liberal 
 party; ” and then came the threat that 
 unless Spain followed our counsels, our 
 countenance would be withdrawn from her. 
 Narvaez was not the meekest and most 
 amiable of men, and against this inter¬ 
 ference with the internal affairs of his 
 country he vigorously protested. He had 
 abolished constitutionalism, and it was a 
 matter of utter indifference to him whether 
 he possessed “ the confidence of the Liberal 
 party” or the contrary. Accordingly the 
 English ambassador was insulted. He was 
 accused of having furthered the insurrection, 
 of having employed English ships to run 
 round the Spanish coast in order to excite 
 revolt, and of having corrupted the Spanish 
 troops by presents of English gold. He was 
 dismissed the capital under the frivolous 
 pretext that his life was in danger. Such 
 behaviour was of course a direct insult to 
 England; and in justice to Lord Palmer¬ 
 ston, let us remember that he at once pro¬ 
 posed prompt and decided measures to the 
 cabinet: the fleet, he said, should be sent 
 immediately to Cadiz to demand satisfaction. 
 
 “We had but to send a fleet to 
 Cadiz,” writes Sir Henry Bulwer, “and 
 hold up our little finger, and Narvaez and 
 his second would have fallen down like a 
 pack of cards. The queen-mother, who 
 trembled for a large portion of her property 
 engaged in speculations in Cuba, would 
 have been the first to desert him; the 
 army, not a regiment of which he could 
 rely upon, would have shouted vivas to his 
 successor. There is no satisfaction we could 
 have demanded that would not have been 
 gratefully given and prodigally offered.” 
 Unfortunately the counsels of our foreign 
 secretary did not prevail. His colleagues 
 declined to support him, and refused to 
 have recourse to extreme measures. Some 
 were delighted at the policy of Lord Pal¬ 
 merston receiving a snub; others belonged 
 to that school which looks upon national 
 honour as a shadow always to be sacrificed 
 to the substance of immediate interest; 
 whilst a few, frightened at the wild doctrines 
 
 then beginning to threaten society in France, 
 thought that a military despotism was a 
 form of government to be encouraged, and 
 that Narvaez was the right man in the 
 right place. The insult was therefore 
 thought to be sufficiently avenged by the 
 dismissal of the Spanish minister at the 
 court of St. James’s, and the rupture of 
 diplomatic relations between the two 
 countries. “Never,” writes Sir Henry Bul¬ 
 wer, “was extreme caution the parent of 
 more desperate consequences. But for these 
 consequences Lord Palmerston was not 
 responsible. Had his advice been followed, 
 it is more than probable that Queen Isa¬ 
 bella would still have been on the throne in 
 Madrid; that a constitutional government 
 would have been long since established 
 firmly in France; and that the campaign of 
 the Crimea would have been avoided.” 
 
 It was not to be expected that such a 
 humiliation would be ignored by the House 
 of Commons. A resolution was accordingly 
 moved by Mr. Bankes (June 5,1848), “ That 
 this House learns with deep regret, from a 
 correspondence between the British govern¬ 
 ment and the government of Spain, that a 
 proposed interference with the internal 
 concerns of the Spanish government, as 
 conducted under the authority and with the 
 entire approval of Her Majesty’s ministers, 
 has placed the British government and our 
 representative at the court of Madrid in a 
 position humiliating in its character, and 
 calculated to affect the friendly relations 
 heretofore existing between the courts of 
 Great Britain and Spain.” A warm debate 
 ensued, in which Mr. Disraeli took a pro¬ 
 minent part. It has been the wise rule 
 of our foreign office never to meddle in 
 continental complications by any active 
 measures, unless English interests are likely 
 to be endangered by the absence of such 
 interference. The vigilance and patriotism 
 of Lord Palmerston were above suspicion; 
 but during the earlier part of his career, 
 when he held the seals as foreign secretary, 
 he was too apt to use the influence of his 
 office in settling questions which might be 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 103 
 
 of vital importance to other countries, but 
 which had no direct bearing upon the 
 power or position of England. Mr. Disraeli 
 took a different view of our foreign policy. 
 He held, and as Lord Beaconsfield he 
 practised what he taught, that England 
 was a country not only to be respected, but 
 to be feared; that when she had pledged 
 her word, either by treaty or convention, to 
 carry out what she had promised, no selfish 
 interests should stay her proceedings, and 
 that with the advantages of her position, 
 the strength of her fleet, and the bravery 
 of her men, she was a power, if rightly 
 directed, that none dare despise. He also 
 maintained that though by our geographical 
 position we were happily severed from 
 many of the dangers that menace conti¬ 
 nental nations, yet our welfare as a great 
 colonial power was so intimately connected 
 with European politics, that in seasons of 
 crisis we could only retire from interference 
 at the expense not only of our prestige but 
 of our safety. Still such views were utterly 
 opposed to bluster, and a feverish national 
 egotism which obtruded itself at every 
 occasion upon our neighbour’s affairs, giving 
 him gratuitous advice, seeking to guide and 
 control his actions, and, in short, behaving 
 more like the meddlesome spy than the 
 trusty ally. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, con¬ 
 demned the policy of Lord Palmerston, since 
 it not only needlessly interfered with the 
 internal affairs of other countries, but en¬ 
 deavoured to graft English Liberalism upon 
 foreign constitutions. He objected to the 
 course our foreign secretary had pursued 
 in taking the part of the Magyars against 
 Austria, of the Italians against Austria, 
 and of the Sicilians against the king of 
 Naples. These were matters very impor¬ 
 tant to Austria, to Hungary, to Lombardy, 
 to Naples, but they did not concern us; 
 the intrigues of these struggling national¬ 
 ities failed in any way to touch our interests, 
 and it was an excellent rule both in public 
 and private life to mind one’s own business. 
 
 Nay, he contended if any result arose 
 from this interference it would be rather 
 
 to our detriment, for it was to our advan¬ 
 tage that the north of Italy should belong 
 to Austria, and that Sicily should belong 
 to Naples. Then he alluded to the Madrid 
 affair. He spoke highly of the character 
 of Sir Henry Bulwer; he believed that no 
 man had of late years been employed to 
 serve Her Majesty abroad who had done 
 better service to the crown; and he regretted 
 that after such an insult passed upon so 
 eminent a public servant, the government at 
 home should have offered him no substantial 
 reward for his services. With regard to the 
 unhappy state paper, the cause of all this 
 imbroglio, that Lord Palmerston had ad¬ 
 dressed to the Spanish government, Mr. 
 Disraeli, in his most sarcastic manner, con¬ 
 gratulated his lordship upon the tact with 
 which he reminded Spain of her obligations 
 to England, upon the pure Castilian style 
 of his literary composition, upon his sesqui¬ 
 pedalian sentences and his grandiose phrase¬ 
 ology. He also complimented the Whigs 
 upon their proselytizing spirit in attempting 
 to convert all nations to English Liberalism. 
 They could not find a country governed by 
 an absolute power without telling her that 
 the only way to be happy and prosperous 
 was to have “a House of Lords and a House 
 of Commons, and an English treaty of com¬ 
 merce.” By lending the aid of a great 
 country like England to some miserable 
 faction, they had created parties in domestic 
 policy in every country—from Athens to 
 Madrid—they had deteriorated the pros¬ 
 perity and condition of the people, and had 
 laid the seeds of infinite confusion. He then 
 concluded by impressing upon the House 
 that it was their duty to accept the expulsion 
 of Sir Henry Bulwer as a condemnation 
 of the principles of Liberalism in foreign 
 politics, and that they should not allow so 
 distinguished a man to become the scape¬ 
 goat of a mischievous policy. 
 
 This speech was, however, a mere affair 
 of outposts. Mr. Disraeli reserved himself 
 to the end of the session to give battle in 
 downright earnest. On the motion for going 
 into Committee of Supply (August 30, 
 
104 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 1848), lie reviewed the policy of the 
 government in a speech which w r as the 
 wittiest and most brilliant that he had 
 delivered since his famous attacks upon 
 Sir Robert Peel. Not a single blunder 
 escaped his critical inspection. He began 
 by denying that there were any grounds for 
 the complaint raised by the cabinet, that 
 the work of the government had been 
 hindered by the flow of unnecessary talk 
 in the House of Commons. It had been 
 alleged that the reason for postponing the 
 annual fish dinner at Greenwich for a week 
 had been occasioned by the “vexatious 
 discussions in the House of Commons”— 
 by that “ mania for talk,” which had now 
 reached such a pitch “ that something must 
 really be done to arrest the evil.” He 
 denied these assertions; the only reason 
 why, after sitting ten months, the House 
 had so little to show for its labours, was 
 due, not to the chatter of members—not to 
 the abuse of parliamentary forms—but to 
 the neglect and incapacity of those who sat 
 on the treasury bench. Let them, he said, 
 recall the circumstances under which the 
 present parliament met. At that time 
 thrones had fallen, dynasties had been 
 uprooted, great ministers, whose reputa¬ 
 tion had become almost part of history, 
 had toppled down, and they at home were 
 suffering from a commercial crisis of almost 
 unprecedented severity. There were up- 
 rootings of commercial dynasties in Eng¬ 
 land not less striking than the fall of those 
 political houses of which they had heard 
 so much. When parliament met there 
 was commercial distress of unprecedented 
 severity; private credit was paralyzed; 
 trade was more than dull, it was almost 
 dead; and there scarcely was a private 
 individual in the kingdom who was not 
 smarting under the circumstances of that 
 commercial distress. The Houses had been 
 assembled specially to take into consider¬ 
 ation the commercial difficulties of the 
 nation. Yet what had been done in the 
 matter ? Absolutely nothing. Certainly 
 they could not be accused of being influ¬ 
 
 enced by “this mania of talk,” for there 
 had been no discussion whatever upon the 
 subject of trade depression. 
 
 It was true that there had been a desultory 
 debate on the motion of the Address with 
 respect to commercial distress. It was also 
 true that the cabinet had counselled the Bank 
 of England to infringe the law, and that 
 the directors of that body had not availed 
 themselves of this illegal permission. The 
 conduct of the cabinet in this matter 
 was so weak and whimsical that it was 
 difficult to account for it, except by sup¬ 
 posing that they were in a state of very 
 great perplexity. Why they should have 
 been so long before they advised the 
 bank to infringe the law—why, when 
 they had done so, they should have 
 been delighted that the bank did not 
 avail itself of the privilege — and why, 
 having done all this, which amounted to 
 nothing, they should have written the 
 following paragraph in the queen’s speech, 
 most certainly puzzled him:—“ The embar¬ 
 rassments of trade were at one period aggra¬ 
 vated by so general a feeling of distrust and 
 alarm, that Her Majesty, for the purpose of 
 restoring confidence, authorized her minis¬ 
 ters to recommend to the directors of the 
 Bank of England a course of proceeding 
 suited to such an emergency. This course 
 might have led to an infringement of the 
 law.” Why was that paragraph given to 
 the world ? If the recommendation of 
 the ministers had been acted upon, he 
 could have understood its insertion in the 
 speech; but the recommendation had not 
 been acted upon, and therefore matters 
 were precisely as they were before: there 
 had been much fuss, and nothing had 
 come of it. 
 
 “ I scarcely know,” said Mr. Disraeli, 
 amid the laughter of the House, “ to what 
 to compare the conduct of Her Majesty’s 
 ministers, except something that occurs 
 in a delightful city in the south, with 
 which some of the gentlemen of this 
 House are familiar—and which is now, 
 I believe, blockaded or bullied by the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 105 
 
 English fleet. There an annual cere¬ 
 mony takes place, when the whole popu¬ 
 lation 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 T 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 a cause of congealed circulation. 
 Just at the moment when unutterable 
 gloom overspreads the population—when 
 nothing but despair and consternation pre¬ 
 vail—the chancellor of the exchequer—I 
 beg pardon—the archbishop of Tarento an¬ 
 nounces 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 macaroni, as in London every¬ 
 body returned to business; and in both 
 cases the remedy is equally efficient and 
 equally a hoax.” 
 
 Nor had the conduct of the govern¬ 
 ment, continued Mr. Disraeli, been a whit 
 more satisfactory in their treatment of 
 financial questions. Yet it had certainly not 
 been for the lack of introducing financial 
 measures. They had some time ago the 
 government of “all the talents,” but this 
 was the government of “ all the budgets.” 
 Between February and August, no less than 
 four budgets had been submitted to the 
 consideration of the House ! The first bud¬ 
 get was brought forward in the grandest 
 manner; it was intrusted, not to the chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer, but to the prime 
 minister himself (for such a measure de¬ 
 manded the expansive views and the high 
 spirit of a statesman), and it proposed to 
 double the income tax. Now, that was a 
 scheme that was not taken up in an hour, 
 or drawn with a pen upon the back of a 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 letter; that was clearly a financial measure 
 which must have been most completely 
 matured. We know how it was received. 
 A menagerie before feeding time could 
 alone give an idea of the unearthly yell 
 with which the middle classes met this 
 demand. Protests were sent up, indigna¬ 
 tion meetings were held, and there was a 
 general impression that the income tax was 
 about to be doubled because we were going 
 to war ! However, it was thought prudent 
 not to double the income tax; and a second 
 budget was introduced, and again a third, 
 and, indeed, a fourth, all equally inefficient, 
 and all needlessly taking up the time of the 
 House, to the exclusion of useful legislation 
 —of the useful legislation, which, it was 
 stated, had not been practicable owing to 
 the “ mania for talk ” of certain members. 
 Yet fond hopes had been entertained of 
 that last budget. 
 
 “ Alas for this fourth budget!” sighed Mr. 
 Disraeli. “ It came late, and at a moment 
 when we wanted glad tidings; but, un¬ 
 fortunately, it was not characterized by the 
 sunny aspect which was desirable. I shall 
 never forget the scene. It was a dreary 
 moment. There was a thin House—the 
 thinnest, I suppose, that ever attended a 
 ceremony so interesting to every country, 
 and especially to a commercial and financial 
 country like England. I never saw a budget 
 brought forward before an audience so gloomy 
 and so small. No ; I shall never forget the 
 scene. It irresistibly reminded me of a 
 celebrated character who, like the chancellor 
 of the exchequer, had four trials in his time, 
 and whose last was the most unsuccessful— 
 I mean the great hero of Cervantes when he 
 returned from his fourth and final expe¬ 
 dition. The great spirit of Quixote had 
 subsided; all that sally of financial chivalry 
 which cut us down at the beginning of the 
 session, and which trampled and cantered 
 over us in the middle, was gone. Hon. 
 gentlemen will remember the chapter to 
 which I refer, which describes the period 
 when the knight’s illusions on the subject 
 of chivalry were fast dispelling, and, losing 
 
 14 
 
106 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 his faith in chivalry or finance, he returned 
 home crestfallen and weary. The villagers, 
 like the Opposition, were drawn out to 
 receive him; and Cervantes tells us that, 
 though they were aware of his weakness, 
 they treated him with respect. His imme¬ 
 diate friends—the barber, the curate, the 
 bachelor Sampson Carasco, whose places 
 might be filled in this house by the first 
 lord of the treasury, the secretary of state 
 for foreign affairs, and perhaps the president 
 of the board of trade—were assembled, and 
 with demure reverence and feigned sym¬ 
 pathy they greeted him, broken in spirit 
 and about for ever to renounce those de¬ 
 lightful illusions under which he had sallied 
 forth so triumphantly; but just at that 
 moment when everything, though melan¬ 
 choly, was becoming—though sad, was in 
 the best taste—Sancho’s wife rushes for¬ 
 ward and exclaims, ‘ Never mind your kicks 
 and cuffs so you’ve brought home some 
 money.’ But this is just the thing that the 
 chancellor of the exchequer has not brought. 
 Such was the end of the fourth and final 
 expedition, and such is the result of the 
 fourth and final budget. The chancellor of 
 the exchequer, during the whole session, 
 has been bringing home barbers’ basins 
 instead of knightly helms; and at the last 
 moment, true to his nature, to his vocation, 
 and to his career, he finds instead of a sur¬ 
 plus a deficiency, and instead of reducing 
 taxation he commemorates his second year 
 of finance by a second loan.” 
 
 But if the government had been active 
 with their budgets, they had been very 
 remiss with other measures. He had in 
 his hand, continued Mr. Disraeli, a list 
 of forty-seven bills, two-thirds of them 
 government measures, all of them im¬ 
 portant, and many of them referring to 
 subjects of great interest, yet owing to 
 the incapacity of the cabinet to deal 
 with public business, and to turn to prac¬ 
 tical account the hours at their disposal, 
 they had been entirely withdrawn, or else 
 postponed to a time which might never 
 arrive. He attributed the unsatisfactory 
 
 condition of public business to two causes. 
 The first was that the cabinet when pre¬ 
 paring their plans had no conviction, owing 
 to their weak parliamentary position, that 
 their measures would be carried. The 
 second was that ministers did not mature 
 or finish their measures, but threw them 
 upon the House, for it to complete and 
 prepare the means of governing the country. 
 Hence the House of Commons, instead of 
 being a purely legislative body, was every 
 day becoming a more administrative as¬ 
 sembly. It was in fact a great committee 
 sitting on public affairs, in which every 
 man spoke with the same right, and almost 
 with the same weight. No more the 
 disciplined array of traditionary influences 
 and hereditary opinions—the realized ex¬ 
 perience of an ancient society and of a race 
 that for generations had lived and flourished 
 in the high practice of a noble system of 
 self-government. Those were all past. 
 Instead, the future was to provide them 
 with a compensatory alternative in the 
 conceits of the illiterate, the crotchets of 
 the whimsical, the violent courses of a 
 vulgar ambition that acknowledged no 
 gratitude to antiquity, to posterity no duty 
 until at last that free and famous parlia¬ 
 ment of England was to subside to the low 
 water-mark of those national assemblies 
 and provisional conventions which were at 
 the same time the terror and the derision 
 of the world. 
 
 “ Sir,” he concluded, “ I trace all this 
 evil to the disorganization of party. I 
 know that there are gentlemen in this 
 House who affect to depreciate party gov¬ 
 ernment. I am not now going to enter 
 into a discussion respecting party govern¬ 
 ment ; but this I will tell you—as I have 
 told you before, in a manner which has not 
 yet been met by any of the gentlemen who 
 oppose my views on this subject—that you 
 cannot choose between party government 
 and parliamentary government. I say, you 
 can have no parliamentary government 
 if you have no party government; and 
 therefore when gentlemen denounce party 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 107 
 
 government they strike at that scheme of 
 government which, in my opinion, has made 
 this country great, and which I hope will 
 keep it great. I can foresee, though I dare 
 not contemplate, the consequences of the 
 system that now prevails. ... I really 
 believe that if you persist in this system 
 it will effect results which no revolution 
 has yet succeeded in accomplishing—which 
 none of those conspirators that you have 
 lately disturbed in their midnight conclaves 
 have had the audacity to devise. I know 
 no institution in the country that can long 
 withstand its sapping and deleterious in¬ 
 fluence. As for the class of public men 
 that have hitherto so gloriously adminis¬ 
 tered the affairs of this country, I believe 
 they will be swept off the face of our 
 political world. For my part I protest 
 against the system; I denounce it. Even 
 at the eleventh hour I call upon the country 
 to brand it with its indignant reprobation. 
 But whatever may be the consequences— 
 whatever may be the fortunes of individuals 
 or the fate of institutions—I at least have 
 had the satisfaction of calling public atten¬ 
 tion to this political plague spot—I at least 
 have had the satisfaction of attempting to 
 place in a clear light the cause of this great 
 national evil. I have had more—I have 
 had the consolation of justifying this great 
 assembly, in which it is my highest honour 
 to hold a seat, and of vindicating, in the 
 face of England, the character and conduct 
 of the House of Commons.” By both sides 
 of the House this speech was much admired. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli during this period fre¬ 
 quently returned to the subject of our 
 foreign policy, and seldom discussed the 
 question save in a condemnatory spirit. He 
 did not consider that, by attempting to dic¬ 
 tate to other nations, we advanced the cause 
 of constitution li government. The cabinet, 
 in his opinion, were departing from the 
 established policy of England, and in 
 several of the complications favoured by 
 the foreign secretary he considered their 
 successful issue impossible, and even if 
 possible, of a positive disadvantage to the 
 
 interests of the country. It must, however, 
 be candidly admitted that though in several 
 of his criticisms Mr. Disraeli had right 
 on his side, he failed to see with the 
 clearness of Lord Palmerston the result 
 of many of the diplomatic intrigues then 
 agitating every embassy in Europe. He 
 called the idea of German nationality 
 dreamy and dangerous nonsense, yet at the 
 present day such “nonsense” is a most 
 decided fact. Lord Palmerston, on the 
 other hand, predicted the future with won¬ 
 derful foresight. “Nature,” he writes to 
 his brother about this date, “has not been 
 bountiful to Prussia, at least to the district 
 round Berlin, as regards soil and perhaps 
 climate; but she has been more liberal as 
 to mental endowments, and one cannot visit 
 the country without being struck with the 
 great intellectual activity which shows itself 
 in all classes. There is scarcely a man in 
 the country who cannot read and write. 
 In short , Prussia is taking the lead in Ger¬ 
 man civilization; and as Austria has gone 
 to sleep and will be long before she wakes, 
 Prussia has a fine career open to her for 
 many years to cornel Therefore holding these 
 opinions he favoured the development of 
 German unity, whilst Mr. Disraeli opposed 
 it, considering such an idea impracticable. 
 Again as regards Italy the foreign secretary 
 was right and Mr. Disraeli wrong. Lord 
 Palmerston wished to see the whole of 
 northern Italy united into one kingdom, 
 and declared that the Austrians ought to 
 have no place in Lombardy. “ Austria,” 
 he wrote to Lord Ponsonby, “has never 
 possessed Italy as part of her empire, but 
 has always held it as a conquered territory. 
 There has been no mixture of races. The 
 only Austrians have been the troops and 
 the civil officers. She has governed it as 
 you govern a garrison town, and her rule 
 has always been hateful.” Any Englishman 
 who remembers the condition of North 
 Italy before the Villafranca treaty—the 
 intensity of the social and political hate of 
 the Italians, and especially of the Italian 
 ladies against the despotism of the alien 
 
103 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 race—will confirm in even stronger terms 
 the opinion of Lord Palmerston. Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli was hostile to the idea of Italian 
 unity, and supported the occupation of 
 Lombardy by the Austrians. Indeed, with 
 regard to most of the questions relating to 
 our foreign policy during this time upon 
 which he was at variance with Lord Pal¬ 
 merston, the usual prescience of the member 
 for Bucks seems to have deserted him. 
 
 One debate upon this subject has a melan¬ 
 choly interest for us. A vote of censure on 
 the foreign policy of the government had 
 been carried in the House of Lords. The 
 prime minister, however, expressed his in¬ 
 tention not to resign, and argued that as the 
 leader of the Conservatives had brought 
 forward a vote of censure in the upper house 
 it behoved the Conservative leader in the 
 lower house to follow suit. Mr. Disraeli, 
 aware that he was in a minority, was 
 much too prudent a general to court a 
 pitched battle. Thereupon Mr. Roebuck, 
 who was always glad to cross swords 
 with the Protectionist leader, brought for¬ 
 ward a motion approving of the foreign 
 policy of the government, and more par¬ 
 ticularly as to its latest development in the 
 form of a quarrel with Greece respecting the 
 miserable Don Pacifico affair. The motion 
 conveyed an “ oblique censure ” on the 
 course which Lord Aberdeen, the foreign 
 minister of Sir Robert Peel, had pursued, 
 and therefore called forth a defence from the 
 late premier. It was not known whether 
 Sir Robert would vote for or against the 
 government, and his words were listened to 
 anxiously by both sides of the House. 
 It was universally admitted that he had 
 never spoken with more effect. He referred 
 in tones of unmistakable regret to old 
 friendships interrupted, but not, as he hoped, 
 beyond the possibility of renewal. It is 
 gratifying to learn that this sentiment was 
 cheered by the Protectionists with such 
 cordiality as to cause Sir Robert consider¬ 
 able emotion. He hid his face in his hat, 
 and remained silent for some moments. 
 Then, proceeding with his speech, he vindi¬ 
 
 cated the action of his own government in 
 the past, and laid down the general lines 
 on which our foreign policy should always 
 be constructed. It was the last time he 
 was to address the House. The next day, 
 whilst riding up Constitution Hill, he was 
 thrown from his horse, and died a few days 
 afterwards from the internal injuries he had 
 sustained. “Peace to his ashes!” writes 
 Mr. Disraeli. “ His name will be often 
 appealed to in that scene which he loved 
 so well, and never without homage even by 
 his opponents.” 
 
 There were, however, few subjects, during 
 this period of Whig ascendancy, which more 
 frequently attracted the attention of Mr. 
 Disraeli than the condition of the agricul¬ 
 tural interest. All the evils he had foretold 
 had come to pass; bread was not cheaper, 
 wages had fallen; farmers, unable to compete 
 with foreign imports, declined tcrenew their 
 leases; and the country gentlemen, with 
 the prospect of their farms being thrown 
 upon their hands, and nothing but a gloomy 
 future before them, began to retrench their 
 expenditure, much to the loss of local trade. 
 “We are to suffer,” they said, ‘‘the same 
 fate as the West India planters; the eman¬ 
 cipation of the slaves has destroyed the 
 sugar interest; the repeal of the corn laws 
 is to usher in the ruin of the landed in¬ 
 terest.” Mr. Disraeli, as the leader of the 
 country party, warmly supported its cause, 
 and never lost an opportunity of bringing 
 its condition before the House of Com¬ 
 mons. What had been done should not be 
 undone, he said; the corn laws had been 
 repealed, and to struggle for their re¬ 
 imposition would be unsound statesman¬ 
 ship. Still it was possible to mitigate the 
 evils that had ensued from the measure by 
 a just method of relief. “ My conscience,” 
 said he, addressing the agricultural associa¬ 
 tion of Buckinghamshire, “ does not accuse 
 me that when the protective system was 
 attacked, I did not do my best to uphold it. 
 But to uphold a system that exists, and to 
 bring back a system that has been abro¬ 
 gated, are two different things; and I am 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 109 
 
 convinced myself that the system generally 
 known as the ‘protective system/ can 
 never be brought back unless it is the 
 interest of all classes—at least of all classes 
 of importance—that that should be the 
 principle which should regulate the national 
 industry, and unless the nation speaks out 
 upon the question in an unmistakable 
 manner. (Let us remember this statement 
 when we have to consider his conduct 
 towards free-trade as chancellor of the 
 exchequer.) But knowing as I do the diffi¬ 
 culties in which the question is involved, 
 am I, as the representative of an agricul¬ 
 tural constituency, to sit still, and to say 
 that those whose interests I represent are 
 to be allowed to fall into a state of dilapi¬ 
 dation because nothing but that one remedy 
 can be acknowledged as the one that is 
 satisfactory, when we all know that that is 
 one that can be obtained only under most 
 difficult circumstances ? No ; I look to the 
 general question. What is the reason that 
 the British agriculturist cannot compete 
 with the foreign producer ? The reason is, 
 that he is subjected to a load of taxation 
 which overwhelms his energies, and which 
 curtails his enterprise.” 
 
 This load of taxation Mr. Disraeli used 
 all his eloquence in his place in parliament 
 to have, if not entirely, at least partly 
 removed. The new commercial system, he 
 was never wearied of informing his hearers, 
 had had a trial, a fair trial, and had failed; 
 the only result he saw of free trade was to 
 bring about commercial collapse. It had 
 been of service to other countries, who had 
 benefited by our folly, to the ruin of some 
 of the best of our markets, whilst England, 
 in her turn, had gained no corresponding 
 advantage. “ Reciprocity,” he said, “ is, 
 indeed, a great principle—it is at once 
 cosmopolitan and national. But the sys¬ 
 tem you are pursuing is one quite con¬ 
 trary; you go on fighting hostile tariffs 
 with free imports, and the consequence is, 
 that you are following a course most injuri¬ 
 ous to the commerce of the country.” He 
 then exposed the injustice of the heavy 
 
 taxation that the land had to suffer. The 
 whole of the local taxation of the country 
 for national purposes fell mainly, if not 
 exclusively, on real property, and visited 
 with undue severity the occupiers of land. 
 In fact, more than one-third of the revenue 
 then derived from the excise was levied 
 upon those agricultural products which, by 
 the recent change in the law, had been 
 exposed to direct competition with the 
 untaxed commodities of foreign countries 
 —the home producer thus being subjected 
 to a burden of taxation which, by greatly 
 enhancing the price, limited the demand 
 for British produce, and to restrictions 
 which injuriously interfered with the con¬ 
 duct of his trade and industry. These 
 grievances, Mr. Disraeli earnestly contended, 
 should be redressed, and a more equitable 
 apportionment of the public burdens estab¬ 
 lished. The agricultural classes had been 
 promised relief, first by Sir Robert Peel, 
 and then by Lord John Russell, from the 
 heavy imposts to which they were sub¬ 
 jected ; but as yet nothing had been done. 
 Was it wise to create this feeling of discon¬ 
 tent and then to ignore it ? 
 
 “ You think,” he warned, “ you may trust 
 the proverbial loyalty of the agricultural 
 classes. Trust their loyalty, but do not abuse 
 it. I daresay it may be said of them as it 
 was said 3000 years ago in the most precious 
 legacy of political science that has descended 
 to us—I daresay it may be said of them that 
 the agricultural class is the least given to 
 sedition. I doubt not that is as true of the 
 Englishman of the plain and of the dale as 
 it was of the Greek of the isle and of the 
 continent; but it would be just as well if 
 you also recollected that the fathers of 
 these men were the founders of your liber¬ 
 ties, and that before this time their ances¬ 
 tors have bled for justice. Rely upon it 
 that the blood of those men who refused to 
 pay ship-money is not to be trifled with. 
 Their conduct to you has exhibited no 
 hostile feeling, notwithstanding the polit¬ 
 ical changes that have abounded of late 
 years, and all apparently to a diminution 
 
110 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of tlieir power. They have inscribed a 
 homely sentence on their rural banners, 
 but it is one which, if I mistake not, is 
 already again touching the heart and con¬ 
 vincing the reason of England—‘ Live and 
 let live.’ You 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 England it 
 would not be the worse for the country. 
 You have all of you in open chorus an¬ 
 nounced your object to be the monopoly 
 of the commerce of the universe, and to 
 make this country the workshop of the 
 world. Your system and theirs are exactly 
 contrary. They invite union. They believe 
 that national prosperity can only be pro¬ 
 duced by the prosperity of all classes. You 
 prefer to remain in isolated splendour and 
 solitary magnificence. But, believe me, 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 stability 
 which the territorial principle alone can 
 afford. Although you may for a moment 
 fiourish 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 
 mournfully 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.” 
 
 His counsel was, however, not heeded; 
 yet Mr. Disraeli, though ridiculed by the 
 free-traders and defeated on the several 
 motions he proposed to the House of 
 Commons for the relief of the agricultural 
 
 interest, was not to be deterred from his 
 object. To the dismay of the Whigs, and 
 to the special annoyance of Mr. Cobden, 
 he kept up a running fire of pertinent 
 questions which were more easy to ask 
 than to answer. He wanted to know, if 
 the repeal of the corn laws had been so 
 universally beneficial, why the poor rates 
 had been raised seventeen per cent., why 
 the manufacturing population who were 
 said to be in the receipt of such high 
 w T ages were flocking to the workhouses, 
 why wages for piece work in the cotton 
 trade had fallen, why the revenue which 
 had formerly yielded a surplus was now 
 marked by heavy deficiency, why there 
 was such an increase—an increase in three 
 years of seventy-four per cent.—in the 
 number of able-bodied paupers in England, 
 why in the three years 1845-48 statistics 
 showed a diminution in our exports of 
 £7,000,000, and other similar awkward 
 inquiries. Then he again advocated the 
 principle of reciprocity, and proposed to 
 meet hostile tariffs of foreign countries 
 with countervailing duties. He was op¬ 
 posed by Sir Robert Peel in his most 
 unpleasant manner, for it is an error to 
 suppose that after the repeal of the corn 
 laws all sparring between the ex-premier 
 and the member for Bucks was at an 
 end. Erequent venomous passages of arms 
 ensued between the two, as the reader of 
 Hansard can see for himself. 
 
 On this occasion Mr. Disraeli thus re¬ 
 torted :—“ I must say,” he replied, referring 
 to Sir Robert Peel’s condemnation of the 
 theory of reciprocity, “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, but 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 
 about it—that he had been born an infant 
 Hercules, cradled in political economy, and 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 Ill 
 
 only created to strangle the twin serpents 
 of protection and monopoly. . . . The 
 
 right hon. gentleman should view one’s 
 errors at least with charity. He is not 
 exactly the individual who, ex cathedra , 
 should lecture us on the principles of 
 political economy. He might, at least, 
 when he denounces our opinions, suppose 
 that in their profession we may perhaps be 
 supported by that strength of conviction 
 which, for nearly forty years, sustained him 
 in those economical errors of which he was 
 the learned and powerful professor. . . . 
 
 He preaches 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 that limbo of stale 
 opinions in which the right hon. gentleman 
 has found it convenient to deposit so many 
 of his former convictions.” 
 
 In spite of the Free-traders having a 
 majority in the House, the Protectionists 
 possessed a large following in the country. 
 Meetings were held in almost every shire, 
 advocating reciprocity and protesting against 
 the English producer being handicapped for 
 the benefit of his foreign competitor. All 
 that was wanted, cried impoverished trades¬ 
 men, was justice ; but this the government 
 refused to grant them. Ho notice was taken 
 of their complaints ; local taxation was not 
 re-adjusted, and the imposts which specially 
 pressed upon the agricultural interest still 
 continued to paralyze industry. In a 
 powerful speech, Mr. Disraeli warned the 
 government of the dangers it incurred by 
 exchanging the aristocratic principle, which 
 was the sound foundation of England’s 
 fortunes, for that of middle-class tinkering 
 and a false system of economy. “ You set 
 to work,” he said, “to change the basis 
 upon which English society was established 
 —you disdain to attempt the accomplish¬ 
 
 ment of the best, and what you want to 
 achieve is the cheapest. But I have shown 
 you that, considered only as an economical 
 principle, the principle is fallacious—that 
 its infallible consequence is to cause the 
 impoverishment and embarrassment of the 
 people, as proved by the dark records to 
 which I have had occasion so much to refer. 
 But the impoverishment of the people is 
 not the only ill consequence which the 
 new system may produce. The wealth of 
 England is not merely material wealth— 
 it does not merely consist in the number of 
 acres we have tilled and cultivated, nor in 
 our havens filled with shipping, nor in our 
 unrivalled factories, nor in the intrepid 
 industry of our miners. Hot these merely 
 form the principal wealth of our country— 
 we have a more precious treasure, and that 
 is the character of the people. That is 
 what you have injured. In destroying 
 what you call class legislation, you have 
 destroyed that noble and indefatigable am¬ 
 bition which has been the best source of 
 all our greatness, of all our prosperity, and 
 of all our power. I know of nothing more 
 remarkable in the present day than the 
 general discontent which prevails, accom¬ 
 panied as it is on all sides by an avowed 
 inability to suggest any remedy. The 
 feature of the present day is depression 
 and perplexity. As far as I can judge, 
 men in every place—in the golden saloon 
 and in the busy mart of industry, in the 
 port and in the exchange, by the loom or 
 by the plough, every man says, * 1 suffer, 
 and I see no hope.’ ” He ended with a 
 declaration of war against the ministry. 
 It was on this occasion that Mr. Bernal 
 Osborne described the motion of Mr. 
 Disraeli as “a flash in the pan motion.” 
 Mr. Disraeli stood up at once and cried, 
 “ I say it is an earnest and serious motion; 
 its object is to turn out the government. 
 We may not succeed, but we shall succeed 
 some day.” They had not long to wait. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 WHIG D 
 
 While the country was a prey to this 
 state of gloom and discontent, an affair 
 occurred which created no little excitement 
 at the time. Our national pulse has occa¬ 
 sionally been made to beat quicker at the 
 rumours, circulated by the credulous and 
 the suspicious, as to the prospect of foreign 
 conquest. Now it has been Spain that 
 threatened us, then Holland, then France, 
 and there are some among us at the 
 present day who deplore the unprotected 
 condition of our east coast, and talk mys¬ 
 teriously of a German invasion. But it was 
 reserved for the government of Lord John 
 Russell to terrify us with the prospect and 
 possibility of a spiritual conquest. Ever 
 since the revival of ceremonialism or 
 ritualism, which was one of the conse¬ 
 quences of the Tractarian agitation, Rome 
 has been busy in our midst with all her 
 proselytizing machinery, and has had no 
 reason to regret the success that has at¬ 
 tended upon her efforts. Ritualism has 
 been to her an active and ever useful 
 decoy. The idle, the fashionable, and the 
 frivolous, who wish a new excitement, find 
 in the routine of ceremonialism a constant 
 occupation. The lounger, who is fond of 
 music, flowers, processions, and a theatrical 
 ritual, forsakes his, perhaps, dull parish 
 church for the bright little temple of the 
 ceremonialist, and thinks, as he sings, and 
 kneels, and gesticulates, that he is engaged 
 in public worship. The fashionable woman 
 of the world, w T ho, wearied or disappointed 
 with society, moaned over the time that 
 hung so heavily upon her hands, now 
 finds in the resources of ceremonialism a 
 constant occupation — early celebrations, 
 frequent church services, the embroidery 
 of altar cloths, the arrangement of church 
 
 E c L I N E. 
 
 decorations, the quiet festivities, the sub¬ 
 dued flirtations, all make the once leaden 
 day pass swiftly and pleasantly. That large 
 floating population, who dislike religious 
 worship, but who do not feel comfortable 
 unless its forms are occasionally gone 
 through, gladly avail themselves of the 
 fascinations placed within their reach by 
 the ceremonialist, and render thanks that 
 at last the pill of public devotion has 
 so charmingly gilded. 
 
 It is impossible to deny that ceremonial¬ 
 ism is daily gaining converts among the 
 higher, or to speak more correctly, among 
 the wealthier classes. We are living under a 
 plutocracy, and ritualism is essentially the 
 religion for the rich. In ritualism plutocracy 
 sees itself reflected: it is the caricature of 
 an ancient faith, as the plutocrat is himself 
 the caricature of the aristocrat of former 
 days; it is gay, and gaudy, and fond of 
 pomp and show, like the plutocrat; it is 
 arrogant and self-asserting, its priests con¬ 
 cealing their w T ant of birth and scholarship 
 by the robes of sacerdotal pretensions, as 
 the plutocrat himself attempts to hide his 
 deficiencies by the display of his wealth 
 and money power : it is shallow, unscrupu¬ 
 lous, and miserably effeminate. Yet no 
 one can deny that it is a force in the 
 country, and one daily extending in power. 
 It is, however, at the present day, an 
 accepted fact; the novelty is worn off; we 
 are high church or low church as it suits 
 our intellectual calibre, or aesthetic fancies, 
 and the circumstance of being either is so 
 much a matter of course as to excite little 
 or no remark. In the year 1850 cere¬ 
 monialism occupied a very different posi¬ 
 tion, and created very different feelings. It 
 was new, and there was an attractive hue 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 113 
 
 of medievalism about it. Its apostles were, 
 not as now, often literates glad to conceal the 
 absence of the university hood by the richly 
 woven cope, but distinguished men; and 
 every one who attached himself to the new 
 creed professed it with the fervour and in¬ 
 tolerance of the typical apostate. Then after 
 reflection, those who adopted these forms 
 and ceremonies soon arrived at the truth, 
 that the logical conclusion of ritualism 
 was Romanism, and their next step was 
 to enrol themselves as adherents of the 
 Papacy. Few will contradict the assertion, 
 that the teaching of the ritualist has caused, 
 and is causing, numbers of Englishmen 
 and Englishwomen to embrace the Roman 
 Catholic faith. Such persons, however, now 
 accept quietly and unostentatiously their 
 new creed, and their desertion from Protest¬ 
 antism, therefore, creates little comment. 
 
 In 1850, and the years immediately pre¬ 
 ceding and succeeding that date, conversions 
 to the Roman Church were not only very 
 numerous, but the men who then swore 
 fealty to the Pope were among the most 
 eminent of England’s sons; and hence their 
 abandonment of the faith of their fathers 
 caused considerable commotion. Thus san¬ 
 guine Rome believed that the England which 
 had repelled her advances since the days 
 of Cardinal Pole, was ripe to receive those 
 views she had rejected at the Reformation. 
 Special missions were, therefore, organized 
 with the one object of the conversion of the 
 inhabitants of our stubborn island. Churches 
 were built, monasteries were founded, nun¬ 
 neries sprang up in secluded spots; and so 
 brilliant were the successes which this 
 Catholic activity obtained, that, to foreign 
 eyes, it appeared as if England was fast 
 losing hold of her Protestantism. The pope, 
 and continental archbishops and bishops, 
 saw the Catholic churches in England 
 crowded, the priests well received, the Irish 
 dignitaries treated with every respect by 
 the government of the day, and ritualism, 
 the precursor of Romanism, the fashionable 
 faith of the country. Yet it was, then as 
 now, only an agitation on the surface—the 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 great bulk of the nation was untouched by 
 the revival. The educated higher classes, 
 the middle classes, and the lower classes, 
 have always been opposed to the pretensions 
 of the papist or the ceremonialist; the 
 tendency of their religious feeling sets more 
 towards deism or puritanism than to super¬ 
 stition. It is from the minority—from an 
 emotional, a fashionable, a frivolous minority 
 —that ritualism draws her votaries and 
 Rome makes her converts. 
 
 The supreme Pontiff was not aware of 
 this fact. A foreigner, holding his court in 
 the distant city of Rome, and arriving at his 
 conclusions only by rumour and hearsay, 
 it was pardonable for him to mistake a 
 broad but shallow tributary for the main 
 stream. He dreamed that all England was 
 in favour of a return to Catholicism when 
 it was but a section of her people; and he 
 issued his famous state paper which was 
 only to show him how far the nation in its 
 entirety was removed from any wish of 
 again being subject to his jurisdiction. 
 He was to find that his yoke was as 
 hateful to England generally as it had 
 ever been. The disappointment of the 
 Vatican at the reception in England of 
 this memorable document was, however, 
 very keen. A totally different feeling had 
 been expected. Eor the last few years the 
 English Catholics had been appealing to 
 Rome to be placed on the same footing as 
 their brethren across St. George’s channel. 
 Instead of the vicars-apostolic who then 
 superintended their spiritual condition, the 
 English Catholics wished as in Ireland to 
 have the country parcelled out into sees, 
 and bishops openly acknowledged once more 
 to rule over the land of k Becket and Pole. 
 A few of the more latitudinarian English 
 Catholics—who were Englishmen first and 
 Papists afterwards—objected to the expres¬ 
 sion of this desire, since, they said, such an 
 introduction might interfere with their 
 allegiance to the sovereign, but these were 
 in the minority. The mass were in favour 
 of the establishment of a Catholic hier¬ 
 archy, and for the free exercise of their 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 religion with all its accustomed pomp and 
 splendour. 
 
 Nor was this feeling surprising; it was 
 but the natural development of the liberty 
 accorded by the Catholic Emancipation Act. 
 In every earnest and enlightened mind 
 religion is the predominating influence, 
 and consequently the Papist, relieved of 
 his political disabilities, was not content 
 until his religious disabilities were also 
 removed. He wanted the rank of his 
 clergy to be frankly admitted, a hierarchy 
 to be instituted, and his church to be 
 treated as at least the equal of the estab¬ 
 lished creed of the land. It was this 
 development that Sir Robert Peel had 
 feared, and which had caused him in the 
 earlier days of Catholic agitation to oppose 
 the Emancipation Act. “ If you give the 
 Catholics,” said he, “ that fair proportion 
 of national power to which their numbers, 
 wealth, talents, and education will entitle 
 
 them, can you believe that they will or can 
 remain contented with the limits which 
 you assign to them ? Do you think that 
 they will view with satisfaction the state 
 of your church or their own ? Do you 
 think that if they are constituted like 
 other men; if they have organs, senses, 
 affections, passions like ourselves; if they 
 are, as no doubt they are, sincere and 
 zealous professors of that religious faith 
 to which they belong; if they believe 
 your intrusive church to have usurped 
 the temporalities which it possesses—do 
 you think that they will not aspire to the 
 re-establishment of their own church in all 
 its ancient splendour ? Is it not natural 
 that they should ? If I argue from my 
 own feelings, if I place myself in their 
 situation, I answer that it is. May I not 
 
 then, without throwing any calumnious 
 imputations upon any Roman Catholics 
 . . . may I not, arguing from the motives 
 by which men are actuated, from the feelings 
 which nature inspires—may I not question 
 the policy of admitting those who must 
 have views hostile to the religious estab¬ 
 lishments of the state, to the capacity 
 
 of legislating for the interests of those 
 establishments and the power of directing 
 the government of which those establish¬ 
 ments form so essential a part ? ” 
 
 Therefore believing, as nearly 300 years 
 ago Cardinal Pole had believed when he 
 set out from the monastery by the blue 
 waters of the Lago di Guarda for the shores 
 of England, that our country was no longer 
 prejudiced against the Holy See, but 
 softened, almost repentant, and well-nigh 
 ready to return to its long-forsaken loyalty, 
 Pius IX. issued the bull ordaining “the 
 re-establishment in the kingdom of England 
 and according to the common laws of the 
 church, of a hierarchy of bishops deriving 
 their titles from their own sees.” The 
 whole country was mapped out into dioceses 
 and placed under the spiritual jurisdiction 
 of Cardinal Wiseman as archbishop of 
 Westminster, and twelve suffragans instead 
 of the eight apostolic vicariates that had 
 formerly existed. In addition to this 
 invasion of the territory of a Protestant 
 country, his Holiness reserved to himself 
 a power which the Vatican has never 
 dared to exercise in any Catholic kingdom. 
 All bishops appointed to these new sees 
 were to be nominated alone by the Pope, 
 and the government of the day was not 
 even permitted to have a voice in the 
 elections or to exercise the right of veto. 
 This piece of absolutism was at variance 
 with the etiquette usually followed by the 
 court of Rome on similar occasions. In 
 all countries holding the Catholic faith 
 the government either selects the candidate 
 for the episcopate or exercises the right of 
 veto on his appointment. 
 
 The case had arisen before. In 1813, on 
 the motion of Mr. Grattan for the immediate 
 consideration in a committee of the whole 
 House of the laws affecting the Roman Catho¬ 
 lics, the Papists had refused to grant the 
 Crown a veto on the appointment of Roman 
 Catholic bishops in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel 
 thus expressed himself:—“ Let the Catholics 
 recollect,” he said, “ that they are not only 
 unwilling to pay the same price for political 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 115 
 
 privileges that is exacted from the other 
 subjects of His Majesty, but that they 
 have hitherto refused to submit to the same 
 restrictions that with their own consent 
 are imposed upon the Catholics of other 
 countries wherein the government is not 
 Catholic; and this with the Pope’s consent. 
 When gentlemen refer us to the state of 
 the Catholics of Canada, and to their 
 admission to offices there and in Russia, 
 let them recollect that the cases are not 
 parallel—that in Canada the Protestant 
 sovereign of this country has the appoint¬ 
 ment of the Catholic bishop of Quebec; 
 and that when the Empress Catherine 
 founded the Catholic church of Mohilau, 
 the Pope, as a matter of course, granted 
 his sanction to the appointment of a bishop 
 nominated by the empress. Let gentlemen 
 recollect when they charge us with bigotry 
 and with intolerance, that the claims now 
 advanced by the Catholics are claims which 
 unquestionably would have been rejected 
 without hesitation at a time when Catholic 
 princes were on the throne of these realms, 
 and when Catholics composed its legisla¬ 
 ture.” It was therefore more the manner 
 in which this papal bull was issued than 
 the nature of the clauses contained in it 
 which excited the ire of the English people. 
 “ The thing itself in truth,” writes Lord 
 Palmerston, “is little or nothing, and does 
 not justify the irritation. What has goaded 
 the nation is the manner, insolent and 
 ostentatious, in which it has been done. 
 
 . . . Nobody w r ould have remarked or 
 
 objected to the change if it had been made 
 quietly, and only in the bosom of the 
 church. What the Pope and his priests 
 have lately done has materially injured the 
 Catholic cause.” 
 
 Certainly the excitement created by the 
 measure was extreme, and when calmly 
 considered was not a little ridiculous. 
 Meetings were held all over the country 
 denouncing in the strongest language the 
 papal bull and the new cardinal. All the 
 old Protestant stories as to the relationship 
 existing between priests and nuns were 
 
 freely circulated, and pamphlets, especially 
 illustrated pamphlets, which dealt in unsa¬ 
 voury monastic and conventual revelations, 
 had an immense sale. It was at the time 
 when the effigy of Guy Fawkes was generally 
 carried about the streets; but now, instead 
 of the old conspirator, with his well-known 
 Spanish hat, and lantern, and transpontine 
 boots, there appeared the stuffed figure of 
 Cardinal Wiseman clad in his scarlet robes, 
 which was consigned to the flames amid the 
 cheers of an enthusiastic mob. Addresses 
 poured in upon the queen from all parties 
 and from all institutions, breathing the most 
 fervid loyalty. At the lord mayor’s dinner 
 the lord chancellor awoke the wildest ap¬ 
 plause by introducing in his speech the 
 quotation from Shakspeare—“Under my 
 feet I’ll stamp thy cardinal’s hat, in spite of 
 pope or dignities of the church.” At the 
 theatre Charles Kean was playing King 
 John. When he came to the words in his 
 reply to Pandulph— 
 
 “ That no Italian priest 
 Shall tithe or toll in our dominions; 
 
 But as we under Heaven are supreme head, 
 So, under him, that great supremacy, 
 
 Where we do reign, we will alone uphold, 
 Without the assistance of a mortal hand; 
 
 So tell the pope; all reverence set apart, 
 
 To him, and his usurp’d authority 55 — 
 
 the performance was stopped for several 
 minutes, so frantic were the cheers of the 
 audience. Protestant associations, Father 
 Gavazzi, and “ Dr. Cumming of Scotland,” 
 made excellent capital out of the national 
 excitement, and caused the “'no Popery” 
 cry to swell in volume and fury. 
 
 Unfortunately Cardinal Wiseman had 
 done all in his power to irritate the preju¬ 
 dices of the English people by the issue of 
 a very arrogant and offensive pastoral letter. 
 It was dated “ out of the Flaminian Gate 
 at Rome,” thus reminding Englishmen that 
 from out of Rome itself came the declara¬ 
 tion of supremacy over them, and it was 
 addressed to the faithful about to become 
 his spiritual subjects. It calmly ignored 
 the legal rights of the English episcopate, 
 
116 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 and took not the slightest notice of the 
 existence of any other church or faith in 
 the kingdom save that of the Catholics. It 
 affected to look upon England as a nation 
 restored by an act of spiritual sovereignty 
 to the body of the Roman church, and 
 regarded the new hierarchy as the only 
 legitimate source of ecclesiastical jurisdic¬ 
 tion. “The great work,” it declared, “is 
 complete; what you have long desired and 
 prayed for is granted. Your beloved country 
 has received a place among the fair churches 
 which normally constituted form the splen¬ 
 did aggregate of Catholic communion; 
 Catholic England has been restored to its 
 orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from 
 which its light had long vanished, and 
 begins now anew its course of regularly 
 adjusted action around the centre of unity, 
 the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of 
 vigour.” The prime minister was far too 
 feverish and impulsive a man to allow an 
 occasion like the present to escape his 
 trenchant criticisms. The Whigs were no 
 longer in the ascendant, they were daily 
 becoming more and more unpopular in the 
 country; and Lord John Russell now thought 
 he saw his way to appeal to the passions of 
 the nation, and improve his political position. 
 As in his famous Edinburgh letter he had 
 made a bid for office by appealing to the 
 free traders, so now, in his equally memor¬ 
 able Durham letter, he bade for a further 
 tenure of power by appealing to the Protest¬ 
 antism of the country. The bishop of 
 Durham had written to the prime minister 
 upon the recent papal aggression, and Lord 
 John, without any consultation with his 
 colleagues, at once penned the following 
 answer, which forthwith found its way into 
 the newspapers:— 
 
 “Downing Street, 
 November 4 , 1850 . 
 
 “My Dear Lord,—I agree with you in con¬ 
 sidering the late aggression of the pope upon our 
 Protestantism as insolent and insidious, and I 
 therefore feel as indignant as you can do upon the 
 subject. I not only promoted to the utmost of 
 my power the claims of Roman Catholics to all 
 civil rights • but I thought it right, and even 
 
 desirable, that the ecclesiastical system of the 
 Roman Catholics should be the means of giving 
 instruction to the numerous Irish emigrants in 
 London and elsewhere, who, without such help, 
 would have been left in heathen ignorance. This 
 might have been done, however, without any such 
 innovation as we have now seen. 
 
 “It is impossible to confound the recent measures 
 of the pope with the division of Scotland into 
 dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the arrange¬ 
 ment of districts in England by the V/esleyan 
 Conference. There is an assumption of power in 
 all the documents which have come from Rome— 
 a pretension to supremacy over the realm of 
 England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway 
 which is inconsistent with the queen’s supremacy, 
 with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and 
 with the spiritual independence of the nation, as 
 asserted even in Roman Catholic times. 
 
 “ I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal 
 to my indignation. Even if it shall appear that 
 the ministers and servants of the pope in this 
 country have not transgressed the law, I feel 
 persuaded that we are strong enough to repel any 
 outward attacks. The liberty of Protestantism 
 has been enjoyed too long in England to allow of 
 any successful attempt to impose a foreign yoke 
 upon our minds and consciences. No foreign 
 prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten 
 his fetters upon a nation which has so long and so 
 nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion, 
 civil, political, and religious. 
 
 “ Upon this subject, then, I will only say that 
 the present state of the law shall be carefully 
 examined, and the propriety of adopting any pro¬ 
 ceedings with reference to the recent assumption 
 of power deliberately considered. 
 
 “ There is a danger, however, which alarms me 
 much more than any aggression of a foreign 
 sovereign. Clergymen of our own church, who 
 have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles and 
 acknowledged in explicit terms the queen’s 
 supremacy, have been the most forward in leading 
 their flock, step by step, to the very verge of the 
 precipice. The honour paid to saints, the claim 
 of infallibility for the Church, the superstitious 
 use of the sign of the cross, the muttering of the 
 Liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it 
 is written, the recommendation of auricular con¬ 
 fession, and the administration of penance and 
 absolution—all these things are pointed out by 
 clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of 
 adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the 
 bishop of London in his charge to the clergy of 
 his diocese. What then is the danger to be appre¬ 
 hended from a foreign prince of no great power, 
 compared to the danger within the gates from the 
 unworthy sons of the- Church of England herself? 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 117 
 
 “] have little hope that the propoimders and 
 framers of these innovations will desist from their 
 insidious course ; but I rely with confidence on 
 the people of England, and I will not bate a jot 
 of heart or life so long as the glorious principles 
 and the immortal martyrs of the Reformation 
 shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a 
 nation which looks with contempt on the mum¬ 
 meries of superstition, and with scorn at the 
 laborious endeavours which are now making to 
 confine the intellect and enslave the soul.—I re¬ 
 main, with great respect, &c., 
 
 J. Russell.” 
 
 This letter was received by the country 
 with various feelings. By some it was 
 looked upon as an exaggeration of matters, 
 and as an unworthy attempt to fan the 
 passions of the hour. The majority of the 
 premier’s colleagues, who had not been 
 consulted as to the composition of this 
 famous private state-paper, regarded its 
 issue with disfavour, and as calculated to act 
 detrimentally to the position of the cabinet. 
 But by a large portion of the nation its 
 thoroughly Protestant tone, and especially 
 the strictures passed upon the ritualists, 
 were hailed with delight. 
 
 The country party have always been the 
 warm adherents of royalty’s great ally, the 
 Church of England. They regard her not 
 only as a grand old historical corporation, 
 but as a communion in which will be found 
 a purer doctrine, a deeper faith, and a more 
 enlightened discipline than in any other 
 religious body. Their social instincts make 
 them dislike dissent, their religious princi¬ 
 ples make them dislike Popery. To the 
 old-fashioned country gentleman, whose 
 hall or manor-house is within easy reach of 
 the village church where moulder the bones 
 of his ancestors, the Church of England is 
 precisely the communion suited to his tastes, 
 his habits, and his prejudices : her creed is 
 Protestant, her clergy are gentlemen, and 
 her discipline is orderly, without mummery. 
 Holding these views, the country party had 
 in bygone days been among the most earn¬ 
 est of the opponents to the emancipation 
 of the Roman Catholics, whilst the sickly 
 sacerdotal pretensions of the Puseyites 
 
 were even more repugnant to their manly 
 English nature. They agreed with Lord 
 Eldon, that the union between the church 
 and the state was not supported to make 
 the church political, but the state religious; 
 and that the English constitution was not 
 based upon the principles of equal rights to 
 all men indiscriminately, but of equal rights 
 to all men conforming to, and complying 
 with, the tests which that constitution 
 required for its ascendancy. 
 
 As the leader of the country party, Mr. 
 Disraeli was desired to express his opinion 
 upon the recent agitation. In his “ Vindica¬ 
 tion of the English Constitution,” he writes, 
 “ It is one of the leading principles of the 
 policy of England that the religious dis¬ 
 cipline and future welfare of our citizens 
 are even of greater importance than their 
 political or present well-being;” and as we 
 proceed in this history we shall see how on 
 subsequent occasions he rallied the Tory 
 party for the defence of the union of 
 church and state. He therefore gladly 
 complied with the request, though he con¬ 
 sidered that, on the present occasion, the 
 Government was more to be blamed than 
 the Vatican for the scare that had been 
 created. Like the prime minister, he ex¬ 
 pressed his views through the medium of 
 the post. He addressed a letter to the lord- 
 lieutenant of his county. He considered 
 the Pope was not so much to blame as the 
 present cabinet; if Lord John Russell and 
 his colleagues had not foolishly gone out 
 of their way to show such marked atten¬ 
 tion to the Roman Catholic prelates of 
 Ireland, by openly giving them the rank 
 they silently claimed, the supreme pontiff 
 would never have been encouraged to put 
 forth his recent pretensions. There had 
 always been Roman Catholic bishops in 
 England who had exercised authority over 
 their respective congregations, and from 
 them had received every homage; yet the 
 state had never taken any more notice of 
 them than it had of the chief rabbi or the 
 president of the body of the Wesleyans. 
 On the other hand, the present govern- 
 
118 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 ment had granted to the Irish prelates 
 their titles of honour, had placed them in 
 the table of precedence, and had treated 
 them as if they were on a footing with our 
 own hierarchy. “ After the recognition 
 given by the government to the Irish hier¬ 
 archy,” writes Mr. Disraeli to the lord- 
 lieutenant, and commenting upon the con¬ 
 tents of the Durham letter, “ His Holiness 
 might well deem himself at liberty to 
 apportion England into dioceses, to he ruled 
 over by bishops. Instead of supposing that 
 he was taking a step ‘ insolent and insidi¬ 
 ous/ he might conceive he was acting in 
 strict accordance with Her Majesty’s govern¬ 
 ment. The fact is, the whole question has 
 been surrendered and decided in favour 
 of the Pope by the present government. 
 The ministers who recognized the pseudo¬ 
 archbishop of Tuam as a peer and a pre¬ 
 late, cannot object to the appointment of a 
 pseudo-archbishop of Westminster, even 
 though he be a cardinal. On the contrary, 
 the loftier dignity should., according to their 
 table of precedence, rather invest his Emi¬ 
 nence with a still higher patent of nobility, 
 and permit him to take the wall of his Grace 
 of Canterbury, and the highest nobles of 
 the land. The policy of the present gov¬ 
 ernment is, that there shall be no distinc¬ 
 tion between England and Ireland. I am 
 therefore rather surprised that the cabinet 
 are so * indignant/ as a certain letter with 
 which we have just been favoured informs 
 us they are.” 
 
 The Houses assembled February 4,1851, 
 and at once the papal bull became the 
 prominent subject of discussion. “ The 
 recent assumption of certain ecclesiastical 
 titles,” said Her Majesty in the speech from 
 the throne, “ conferred by a foreign power, 
 lias excited strong feelings in this country, 
 and large bodies of my subjects have pre¬ 
 sented addresses to me, expressing attach¬ 
 ment to the throne, and praying that such 
 assumptions should be resisted. I have 
 assured them of my resolution to maintain 
 the rights of my crown and the independ¬ 
 ence of the nation against all encroachment, 
 
 from whatever quarter it may proceed. I 
 have at the same time expressed my earnest 
 desire and firm determination, under God’s 
 blessing, to maintain unimpaired the reli¬ 
 gious liberty which is so justly prized by 
 the people of this country. It will be for 
 you to consider the measure which will be 
 laid before you on this subject.” 
 
 A lively debate then ensued. Lord John 
 Russell made a long explanation as to 
 the publication of the Durham letter; Mr. 
 Roebuck bitterly attacked it for having been 
 the means of creating an unworthy panic 
 in the country, and condemned the cabinet 
 for the course they had pursued with regard 
 to the treatment of the Irish hierarchy. 
 Mr. Disraeli also took part in the discussion. 
 He did not think, he said, that the famous 
 Durham letter was solely provoked by the 
 appointment of Cardinal Wiseman as arch¬ 
 bishop of Westminster. He believed the 
 noble lord at the head of the govern¬ 
 ment thought that the time had now arrived, 
 when he felt that a great change would 
 take place in the relations which must 
 hereafter subsist between the Crown of 
 England and the Pope of Rome, and the 
 prime minister had availed himself of this 
 last drop in the cup to adopt the policy 
 which he had long meditated. He could 
 not suppose that the noble lord only con¬ 
 templated the bringing in of a bill to 
 prevent Roman Catholics from styling them¬ 
 selves bishop or archbishop of any of the 
 towns or cities in the queen’s dominions; 
 he could not be about to bring in any such 
 measure as that, because then he would not 
 have been justified in stirring up the passions 
 of a mighty people, in exciting their highest 
 and holiest feelings, and in raising in this 
 country a spirit of controversy and polemical 
 dispute which recalled the days of the 
 Stuarts. “But if the noble lord,” con¬ 
 cluded Mr. Disraeli, “ be prepared to do a 
 great deal—if he be prepared to solve the 
 great political problem that may not be 
 incapable of solution, but that no minister 
 has ever solved—then, indeed, he may be 
 justified in the course he has taken; then, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 119 
 
 indeed, he may lay claim to the reputation 
 and the character of a great minister. 
 Such is the measure he must bring in to 
 authorize the course he has taken; such is 
 the measure I for one would humbly sup¬ 
 port ; such is the measure I believe the 
 country expects; and if it does not receive 
 it, I believe the opinions of Protestants and 
 Roman Catholics on one point will be 
 unanimous—that the conduct of the noble 
 lord cannot be justified.” 
 
 We know what was the measure which 
 Lord John introduced. A bill was brought 
 in to prevent the assumption by Roman 
 Catholics of titles taken from any territory 
 or place within the United Kingdom under 
 penalty of a severe fine, and to render void 
 ail acts done by or bequests made to persons 
 under such titles. The reception given to 
 the measure could hardly have gratified the 
 author. Mr. Roebuck declared that it was 
 “one of the meanest, pettiest, and most 
 futile measures that ever disgraced even 
 bigotry itself.” Mr. Bright said it was “ a 
 mere sham to bolster up Church ascendancy.” 
 Mr. Disraeli was, however, the most trench¬ 
 ant critic of the bill. He would not oppose, 
 he said, the introduction of the measure 
 because he thought it important “ that the 
 people, the community in general, should 
 see what is the result of that remarkable 
 agitation which has been fostered by the 
 government, and which has led, I admit, to 
 a national demonstration seldom perhaps 
 equalled.” After all these heavings the 
 mountain had been delivered, and this most 
 ridiculous of mice was the result! “What!” 
 he cried, “ was it for this that the lord 
 high chancellor of England trampled on a 
 cardinal’s hat, amid the patriotic acclama¬ 
 tions of the metropolitan municipality ? 
 Was it for this that the first minister, 
 with more reserve, delicately hinted to the 
 assembled guests that there had been occa¬ 
 sions when perhaps even greater danger 
 was at hand, as, for instance, when the 
 shadow of the Armada darkened the seas 
 of England ? Was it for this that all the 
 counties and corporations of England met ? 
 
 Was it for this that all our learned and 
 religious societies assembled at a period 
 the most inconvenient, in order, as they 
 thought, to respond to the appeal of their 
 sovereign, and to lose no time in assuring 
 Her Majesty of their determination to guard 
 her authority and her supremacy? Was it 
 for this that the universities of Oxford and 
 Cambridge—that the great city of London 
 itself—went in solemn procession to offer 
 at the foot of the throne the assurance of 
 their devotion ? Was it for this that the 
 electric telegraph conveyed Her Majesty’s 
 response to those addresses, that not an 
 instant might be lost in re-assuring the 
 courage of the inhabitants of the metropolis? 
 And what are these remedies ? Some Roman 
 Catholic priests are to be prevented from 
 taking titles which they had already been 
 prevented to a very considerable extent 
 from taking by the existing law; the only 
 difference being that they are now to be 
 prevented from taking a territorial title 
 which has not been assumed by a prelate 
 of the National Church; while it seems 
 that to that provision there is to be attached 
 a penalty. But a penalty of what amount? 
 One of 40s. perhaps. That is not yet stated, 
 but a penalty of that amount would, in my 
 opinion, be worthy of the occasion.” 
 
 Throughout the progress of the Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Titles Bill through the House of Com¬ 
 mons Mr. Disraeli pursued the same course 
 of banter and opposition. He called it “ a 
 blunder of the sudden,” in allusion to the 
 manner in which the prime minister had 
 described the papal bull; he protested 
 against the Whigs being allowed to govern 
 the country by “ a continual popish plot; ” 
 he objected to the penalty clause. “What 
 a mockery,” he cried, “when Her Majesty’s 
 ministers themselves be-Grace and be-Lord 
 these individuals, that they should now 
 propose penal enactments because they 
 are treated by the rest of Her Majesty’s 
 subjects with respect and with honour!” 
 After much discussion, to finish the story 
 of this miserable piece of legislation, the 
 Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, with all the vigour 
 
120 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 of its clauses eliminated in committee, 
 became a law which was never obeyed and 
 which was, after having been treated for 
 some years with silent contempt, quietly 
 erased from the statute-book. “The 
 ministers,” writes a recent historian, “were 
 in fact in the difficulty of all statesmen 
 who bring in a measure, not because they 
 themselves are clear as to its necessity or 
 its efficacy, but because they find that 
 something must be done to satisfy public 
 feeling, and they do not know of anything 
 better to do at the moment. The history 
 of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was there¬ 
 fore a history of blunder, unlucky accident, 
 and failure from the moment it was brought 
 in until its ignominious and ridiculous 
 repeal many years after, and when its 
 absolute impotence had been not merely 
 demonstrated, but forgotten.” 
 
 For a brief moment ministerial incapacity 
 was to be interrupted. Mr. Disraeli had 
 introduced a motion calling upon the cabinet 
 to bring forward some measure for the relief 
 of the agricultural interest, which was then 
 terribly depressed; a division ensued, and 
 the government won by a small majority. 
 In the next struggle they were to sustain 
 defeat. During the last few years the 
 Reform Bill of 1832, in spite of the chorus 
 of approval with which it had at first been 
 received, had become the subject of much 
 criticism among certain members of the 
 Liberal party. It was said that it was 
 not sufficiently comprehensive, that it was 
 somewhat invidious in the nature of its 
 clauses, and that there was scope for 
 amendment with regard to various of its 
 provisions. The most prominent amongst 
 the discontented was Mr. Locke King, the 
 member for East Surrey, a man of much 
 energy, with a keen eye to all absurd or 
 unjust entries in the statute-book, of no 
 little eloquence, and of considerable popu¬ 
 larity with his party. In the summer of 
 1850 he had asked leave to bring in a 
 bill to make the franchise in counties in 
 England and Wales the same as that in 
 boroughs, by giving the right of voting to 
 
 all occupiers of tenements of the annual 
 value of ten pounds. This motion was 
 supported by Mr. Hume, of economical 
 notoriety, by Mr. Bright, by Sir De Lacy 
 Evans, who then represented Westminster, 
 and by others of the more advanced section 
 of the Liberals. It was opposed by Lord 
 John Russell, though on a subsequent 
 occasion when the bill came up for the 
 second reading his lordship intimated that 
 he was prepared to recede from his previous 
 principle of “finality” and to disturb the 
 parliamentary settlement of 1832. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli delivered a short speech on 
 this occasion, expressing disapproval of Mr. 
 Locke King’s motion. He had been par¬ 
 ticularly struck, he said, at the erroneous 
 apprehension on the part of several members 
 of what the English constitution really was. 
 Then, according to a custom not infrequent 
 with him, he blended with his speech a 
 little of the elements of a constitutional 
 lecture. He had always believed that 
 every gentleman, whatever his opinions 
 might be as to the proper franchise for 
 England or Ireland, had considered that the 
 constitution of England was a monarchy, 
 modified by estates of the realm—that was, 
 by privileged classes, who were invested 
 with those privileges for the advantage of 
 the community. They had a Throne—they 
 had a body of Peers, and a body of Com¬ 
 mons, who were in possession of certain 
 privileges, which privileges they might 
 increase or diminish; but still those privi¬ 
 leges had always been, and must remain, 
 the privileges of particular orders, and 
 enjoyed by only a limited portion of the 
 community. They knew what was the re¬ 
 sult, whatever might have been the original 
 intention of such a constitution. It had 
 established the aristocratic principle in the 
 widest and most noble sense of the term. 
 But it had permitted all classes to aspire; 
 and however society might be divided in 
 olden days, there was no class which could 
 say it did not possess the privilege of 
 electing representatives to the House of 
 Commons, from the proudest manorial lord 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 121 
 
 to the humblest artisan. Less than a 
 quarter of a century ago that was the 
 acknowledged state of things. However, 
 they thought proper to terminate that 
 scheme. It was terminated by Lord John 
 Russell in his official capacity; enthusiasti¬ 
 cally supported by many members of the 
 House. There was no member opposite 
 who had not acquired his seat in the 
 House by adopting the views of govern¬ 
 ment, and the principles of the Reform 
 party. They were responsible for, and 
 they ought to be grateful to, the Reform 
 Act. But now a great many gentlemen 
 opposite seemed discontented with the 
 settlement of 1832, who at that time were 
 ready to vote black was white in its behalf 
 —who went to the country for the bill, 
 the whole bill, and nothing but the bill— 
 who had so profoundly and so maturely 
 investigated the question, that they resolved 
 that the perfect scheme which they adopted 
 should not be altered or modified, and who 
 gave their deliberate consent to a change 
 which they determined should be per¬ 
 manent. But ever since the bill, the whole 
 bill, and nothing but the bill, had been 
 gained, the result appeared to give only 
 partial satisfaction. Querulous complaints 
 of the law were constantly heard from hon. 
 gentlemen opposite, who were sent to that 
 House by the operation of that law, and 
 who represented what were called liberal 
 opinions in that House. Those hon. gentle¬ 
 men, they found, were constantly quarrelling 
 with the political arrangements which sent 
 them into the House. 
 
 He spoke not only his own feelings, con¬ 
 tinued Mr. Disraeli, but the feelings of many 
 of his friends, when he said they had no 
 superstitious reverence for the Reform Act. 
 He admitted he would have opposed it had 
 he been in the House at the time, brought 
 forward as it was by a party, in opposition 
 to whom, from historical conviction, he ever 
 acted. But it was carried by a large majority; 
 it was received as the settlement of a great 
 public question—not a great party question. 
 Still, though the Tories had no superstitious 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 reverence for the bill, they could not be 
 blind to the great public inconvenience and 
 injury likely to arise from the proceedings 
 of certain gentlemen opposite, who, in a 
 retail manner, were sapping that settlement 
 which they accepted at the time with such 
 wholesale enthusiasm. He did not think, 
 he said, and let us remember his words 
 when we have to deal with his bill of 
 1867, that it was a settlement that might 
 not have been improved. He regretted 
 that when the privileges of the working 
 classes were abrogated , no equivalent was 
 devised. He regretted that in the Reform 
 Act the rights of the working classes 
 were not more respected. But who voted 
 against them ? Who voted against the 
 freemen ? The liberal members, the clam- 
 ourers for the whole bill, and nothing but 
 the bill. He wished to know what hon. 
 gentlemen opposite meant. Did they mean 
 to say they would no longer endure the 
 ancient constitution of the country—a 
 monarchy modified by the political estates 
 of the realm ? If they were of opinion 
 that every acre ought to be represented— 
 every pound sterling of capital, and every 
 individual of the population, ought to be 
 represented in the House—if they said that, 
 then he replied, they proposed a revolution 
 in the constitution. If the House was to 
 represent all material and personal interests, 
 it was absurd to suppose any influence 
 could be exercised by any other estate of 
 the realm, or by the Crown itself. But 
 were they prepared to do that ? If so, why 
 did they come forward with a £10 franchise, 
 which, when met by an amendment, they 
 withdrew ? Were they prepared to say 
 that every man “full grown” should be 
 entitled to the suffrage, and ought to be 
 allowed to exercise it ? Why not make 
 the proposition ? On the contrary, the 
 most eminent members of their party had 
 made speeches against it. They did not 
 propose that; they disclaimed it; they 
 shrank from it; they admitted that it was 
 dangerous. Now, would these reformers 
 meet the question fairly, and tell the 
 
 16 
 
122 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 House that they were prepared to change 
 the constitution of the country ? They 
 would not. Hot one of them would do 
 that, because they knew that their answer 
 would be that they would have then to 
 entiust privileges to persons they would 
 not confer them on. 
 
 “ Is the possession of the franchise to be 
 a privilege,” asked Mr. Disraeli, “ the privi¬ 
 lege of industry and public virtue, or is it 
 to be a right—the right of every one, how¬ 
 ever degraded, however indolent, however 
 unworthy ? I am for the system,” he con¬ 
 tinued, “ which maintains in this country a 
 large and free government, having confi¬ 
 dence in the energies and the faculties of 
 man. Therefore, I say, make the franchise 
 a privilege, but let it be the privilege of 
 the civic virtues. Hon. gentlemen opposite 
 would degrade the franchise to the man, 
 instead of raising the man to the franchise. 
 If you want to have a free aristocratic 
 country—free because aristocratic—I use 
 the word aristocratic in its noblest sense— 
 I mean that aristocratic freedom which 
 enables every man to achieve the best posi¬ 
 tion in the state to which his qualities 
 entitle him; I know not that we can do 
 better than adhere to the mitigated 
 monarchy of England, with power in the 
 Crown, order in one estate of the realm, 
 and liberty in the other. It is from that 
 happy combination that we have produced 
 a state of society that all other nations 
 look upon with admiration and envy.” 
 
 Shortly after the bare victory of the 
 Whigs upon Mr. Disraeli’s motion to relieve 
 the agricultural interest, the member for 
 East Surrey a second time brought forward 
 his pet scheme for the consideration of the 
 House. The motion was again opposed by 
 Lord John Russell, but on this occasion 
 the ministers sustained a severe defeat; 
 and the premier, aware of the unpopularity 
 of the cabinet, felt he had no alternative 
 but to tender his resignation to the queen. 
 And now the usual anxiety prevailed as to 
 who was to be the successor. There was 
 no lack of material out of which a cabinet 
 
 might be formed, if the different elements 
 would put aside their prejudices and coalesce. 
 There were the Whigs, the Protectionists, 
 and the followers of Sir Robert Peel; a 
 coalition between either of these parties 
 would form a strong government; without 
 such coalition any government taking office 
 would be weak. Ho combination could, 
 however, be effected; each party had its 
 own favourite measures which it declined 
 to throw over. The Conservatives would 
 not abandon the policy of protection; the 
 Peelites would have nothing to do with the 
 wretched Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, then in 
 all the throes of amendments, whilst nothing 
 would induce the Whigs to forsake the 
 bill. Lord John Russell essayed to effect 
 a coalition with the followers of Sir Robert 
 Peel, and failed. Lord Aberdeen, the leader 
 of the Peelites, declined in the present 
 condition of the country as to the hatred 
 expressed against papal aggression, to form 
 an administration. Lord Stanley then 
 tried his hand, but was not successful. 
 Thus, after some little delay, and much 
 feverish expectancy on the part of the 
 Tadpoles and the Tapers, there was no 
 other course to be adopted than for the 
 late cabinet again to take office. After an 
 interregnum of eleven days Her Majesty, 
 having had a consultation with the Duke 
 of Wellington, commanded Lord John 
 Russell and his colleagues to resume their 
 respective posts. This order was publicly 
 announced March 3, 1851. 
 
 It was evident to all that the re-instated 
 cabinet was a makeshift, which would soon 
 go the way of all governments holding 
 their power on sufferance. The opening of 
 the Great Exhibition—that “ unwieldy, ill- 
 devised, unwholesome castle of glass,” as 
 Colonel Sibthorp called it—“ up-springing 
 from the verdant sod ” in Hyde Park, for a 
 time diverted the attention of the critical 
 public from the blunders of the Ministry; 
 but soon Lord John Russell and his col¬ 
 leagues, by their promises unfulfilled, their 
 inconsistencies, and their incapacity to 
 interpret the wishes of the nation, brought 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 123 
 
 themselves into stin iurther discredit. The 
 budget of Sir Charles Wood caused uni¬ 
 versal dissatisfaction; and as Mr. Disraeli 
 pointed out, the boasted surplus had been 
 cut down to half of its original estimate, 
 owing to certain claims made upon the 
 government by the East India Company. 
 In addition to this disappointment, the 
 measures introduced for the relief of the 
 agricultural interest had been withdrawn. 
 The continuation of the income tax was 
 also unpopular. When it had first been 
 introduced the free traders were most hostile 
 to the measure; it had been stigmatized as 
 “ a fungus growing from the tree of mono¬ 
 poly,” and as “the most unequal, most unjust, 
 and most vexatious ” of imposts. Yet the 
 party which condemned it when in opposi¬ 
 tion now retained it when in power. Indeed, 
 as Mr. Disraeli said, they could not do 
 without it, for that tax was “ the foundation 
 of the new commercial system,” the “ only 
 security for the continuance of free trade.” 
 But what dealt the final blow to the 
 tottering cabinet was what the French 
 called Vaffaire, Palmerston. 
 
 The foreign secretary was undoubtedly 
 the ablest man in the government; his 
 memorable speech on the Don Pacifico 
 debate proved that he had a command 
 of language, and a ready mastery of 
 details, with which until then he had not 
 been credited. A man of great quickness 
 in the despatch of business, somewhat 
 impulsive and hasty in his expressions, 
 both in his official correspondence and 
 conversation, and of much independence 
 of character, it was his custom as foreign 
 secretary to take more upon himself than 
 properly appertained to his post. According 
 to the strict rules of official etiquette it was 
 the duty of the minister who presided over 
 the Foreign Office to transmit all important 
 despatches to the chief of the cabinet for 
 perusal, which were afterwards laid before 
 the sovereign for the royal approval. Lord 
 Palmerston, however, preferred to ignore 
 this custom; he not only forwarded import¬ 
 ant state papers to the different embassies 
 
 without first showing them to the prime 
 minister, but he went so far as to transmit 
 them without deigning to consult the 
 opinion of his sovereign. This culpable 
 independence of conduct had on more than 
 one occasion compromised the Crown, with¬ 
 out the Crown having been in the least 
 aware of what the course was that had been 
 pursued. The prince consort, who was 
 deeply interested in foreign affairs, and upon 
 whose sound judgment, accurate prescience, 
 and carefully considered conclusions, the 
 queen naturally much relied, was offended 
 at the easy manner in which the foreign 
 secretary replied to despatches without due 
 consideration, and without consulting either 
 Her Majesty or his colleagues in the cabinet. 
 He brought the matter before the Duke of 
 Wellington, who occupied very much the 
 same position to the court as the family 
 solicitor does to an ordinary household, 
 and asked him whether, when he was 
 premier, he had not been in the habit of 
 interfering in the Foreign Office. The 
 duke answered most emphatically, “There 
 never went a paper which I had not 
 brought to me first; but Palmerston could 
 at no time be trusted, as he was always 
 anxious to do things by himself.” It was 
 now considered necessary to read our hasty 
 and independent foreign secretary a lesson 
 which would bring him to his bearings, and 
 restrain his freedom of action in the future. 
 Lord John Bussell, who it appears had 
 more than once complained of the license 
 of his subordinate in this matter—Lord 
 John, who took newspapers into his confi¬ 
 dence before extending it to his colleagues— 
 was summoned to the Isle of Wight, and a 
 grave consultation held. The deliberation 
 resulted in the following severe memor¬ 
 andum being drawn up and forwarded to 
 Lord Palmerston:— 
 
 “ With reference to the conversation about Lord 
 Palmerston which the queen had with Lord J ohn 
 Bussell the other day, and Lord Palmerston’s dis¬ 
 avowal that he ever intended any disrespect to her 
 by the various neglects of which she has had so 
 long and so often to complain, she thinks it right, 
 
124 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 in order to prevent any mistake for the future, to 
 explain what it is she expects from the foreign 
 secretary. 
 
 “ She requires: 
 
 “First, That he distinctly state what he proposes 
 to do in a given case, in order that the queen may 
 know as distinctly to what she has given her royal 
 sanction. 
 
 “ Second, Having once given her sanction to a 
 measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modi¬ 
 fied by the minister; such an act she must consider 
 as failure in sincerity towards the Crown,, and 
 justly to be visited by the exercise of her consti¬ 
 tutional right of dismissing that minister. She 
 expects to be kept informed of what passes between 
 him and the foreign ministers, before important 
 decisions are taken based upon that intercourse; 
 to receive the foreign despatches in good time, and 
 to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in 
 sufficient time to make herself acquainted with 
 their contents before they must be sent off. The 
 queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell 
 should show this letter to Lord Palmerston. 
 
 “ Osborne, August 12, 1850.” 
 
 The foreign secretary received this rebuke 
 with perfect temper, and behaved in the 
 matter like the high-minded gentleman 
 he really was. He replied in his usual 
 pleasant manner to his chief. He had 
 taken, he said, a copy of the memorandum 
 and would not fail to attend to the directions 
 which it contained; he explained why he 
 had not in the past sent despatches to the 
 queen, and promised to give no further 
 cause for complaint in the future; then he 
 good-humouredly added that if it were 
 necessary for him to have an additional 
 clerk or two to do any extra work, the 
 Treasury, perhaps, would not grudge the ex¬ 
 pense. We shall learn afterwards the reason 
 why he acted on this occasion with this 
 well-bred restraint. 
 
 For a time the foreign secretary con¬ 
 formed to the instructions he had received, 
 and behaved with the caution and dis¬ 
 cretion which generally follow a severe 
 reproof. But independence of action was 
 too strongly woven in the texture of his 
 mind for him to remain long controlled 
 and repressed. The English people had 
 sympathized strongly with Hungary in her 
 revolt against Austria; and when Louis 
 
 I Kossuth, who had been dictator of Hungary 
 during the greater part of the insurrection, 
 reached our shores he was the lion of the 
 hour, and received quite an ovation wher¬ 
 ever he showed himself. Lord Palmerston 
 keenly sympathized with the Hungarians, 
 and had used his influence to prevent the 
 surrender of Kossuth to Austria. Under 
 the prevailing excitement it struck certain 
 inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, 
 and Islington that the present moment 
 would be an excellent opportunity to show 
 their appreciation of the conduct of Lord 
 Palmerston in the matter. Accordingly 
 addresses were drawn up, in which the 
 foreign secretary was thanked for what he 
 had done towards securing the safety and 
 liberation of the “ illustrious patriot and 
 exile; ” whilst the Emperors of Austria 
 and Russia were stigmatized as “odious 
 and detestable assassins ” and “ merciless 
 tyrants and despots ’’—terms, whether true 
 or not, scarcely to be used without reproof 
 before an English foreign secretary con¬ 
 cerning sovereigns with whom England 
 was at peace. Lord Palmerston, however, 
 took no notice of these offensive epithets in 
 the addresses handed to him, beyond saying 
 that “he could not be expected to concur 
 in some of the expressions,” and declared 
 himself “ extremely flattered and highly 
 gratified ” at the compliment paid him by 
 the enlightened population of the Tower 
 Hamlets, Finsbury, and Islington. The 
 whole proceeding was, however, viewed 
 with extreme displeasure by the queen and 
 the prince consort. “ It is no question 
 with the queen,” wrote Her Majesty to the 
 prime minister, “whether she pleases the 
 Emperor of Austria or not, but whether 
 she gives him a just ground of complaint. 
 And if she does so, she can never believe 
 that this will add to her popularity with 
 her own people.” At the express wish of 
 the queen the conduct of Lord Palmerston 
 was brought before a cabinet council. Uo 
 formal resolution as to the want of caution 
 displayed by the foreign secretary on this 
 occasion was adopted; but Lord John Russell 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 125 
 
 wrote to the queen expressing a hope that 
 the deliberation of the council would have 
 its effect upon Lord Palmerston, and that 
 he himself had specially urged upon his 
 colleague the necessity of guarded conduct 
 in the present very critical condition of 
 Europe. 
 
 And now this enfant terrible of the cabinet 
 was to show how he interpreted the words 
 “ guarded conduct.” The very day he 
 had received this piece of advice, the news 
 of the coup d’etat in Paris reached London. 
 The queen, most anxious that nothing 
 should be said by Lord Normanby, our 
 representative at Paris, to commit England 
 to any expression of approval of what had 
 been done, sent full instructions to Lord 
 John Russell to that effect. Thus directed, 
 Lord Palmerston wrote officially to Lord 
 Normanby, informing him that he was to 
 make no change in his diplomatic relations 
 with the French government. To this de¬ 
 spatch our ambassador returned a reply, 
 which created an immense sensation through¬ 
 out the kingdom. He wrote that having 
 called on M. Turgot, the French minister for 
 foreign affairs, to communicate the instruc¬ 
 tions he had received from Her Majesty’s 
 government, he was informed by that 
 gentleman that Count Walewski, the French 
 ambassador in London, had written to Paris 
 that Lord Palmerston had expressed in 
 conversation his entire approval of the 
 course Louis Napoleon had pursued! Was 
 such indiscretion possible ? The queen at 
 once wrote to Lord John Russell:— 
 
 “ The queen sends the enclosed despatch from 
 Lord Normanby to Lord John Russell, from which 
 it appears that the French government pretend 
 to have received the entire approval of the late 
 coup d'etat by the British government, as con¬ 
 veyed by Lord Palmerston to Count Walewski. 
 The queen cannot believe in the truth of the 
 assertion, as such an approval given by Lord 
 Palmerston would have been in complete contra¬ 
 diction to the line of strict neutrality and passive¬ 
 ness which the queen had expressed her desire to 
 see followed with regard to the late convulsions at 
 Paris, and which was approved by the cabinet, 
 as stated in Lord John Russell’s letter of the 
 6th inst. Docs Lord John know anything about 
 
 the alleged approval, which, if true, would again 
 expose the honesty and dignity of the queen’s 
 government in the eyes of the world ? 
 
 “ Osborne, December 13, 1851.” 
 
 Lord Palmerston was called upon for an 
 explanation. He delayed furnishing any 
 statement as to his conduct for some days; 
 but when the document had been drawn 
 up, it fully showed that, in direct defiance 
 of the queen’s commands, and without any 
 consultation with his colleagues, he had 
 taken upon himself to thoroughly approve 
 of the steps the prince-president had taken. 
 Such gross insubordination and compromis¬ 
 ing activity could not be passed over. Lord 
 Palmerston was requested by his chief to 
 resign the seals of the Foreign Office, and 
 Lord Granville was sworn in as his successor. 
 
 Parliament met February 3, 1852. The 
 Palmerston case was, of course, uppermost 
 in men’s minds, and the House of Commons 
 was eager to listen to ministerial explana¬ 
 tions. In the debate on the address the 
 prime minister took the first opportunity 
 of stating the facts of the case. He nar¬ 
 rated fully the history of the differences 
 which had long existed between Lord 
 Palmerston and his colleagues; he stated 
 the rebuffs the foreign secretary had brought 
 upon himself from the court; and much 
 to the astonishment of the House, he for 
 the first time informed it of the severe 
 memorandum drawn up by the queen. 
 Lord Palmerston strongly objected to this 
 document having been made public; and 
 in his recent biography he gives his 
 reasons why he received the memorandum 
 so submissively, at the same time com¬ 
 plaining of the conduct of Lord John 
 Russell. 
 
 “I said to the Duke [of Bedford],” he 
 writes to Lord Lansdowne, “ that it was 
 very unhandsome by me, and very wrong 
 by the queen, for him, John Russell, to 
 have read in the House of Commons the 
 queen’s angry memorandum of August, 
 1850, hinting at dismissal. In regard to 
 the queen, he was thus dragging her into 
 the discussion, and making her a party to a 
 
12G 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 question which constitutionally ought to 
 be, and before parliament could only be, a 
 question between me and the responsible 
 adviser of the Crown; and I said that this 
 mention of the queen as a party to the 
 transaction had given rise to newspaper 
 remarks much to be regretted, and which 
 the prime minister ought not to have given 
 an occasion for. I said that, as regards 
 myself, the impression created by his read¬ 
 ing that memorandum was, that I had 
 submitted to an affront which I ought not 
 to have borne; and several of my friends 
 told me, after the discussion, that they 
 wondered I had not sent in my resignation 
 on receiving that paper from the queen 
 through John Russell. My answer to those 
 friends, I said, had been that the paper was 
 written in anger by a lady as well as by a 
 sovereign, and that the difference between 
 a lady and a man could not be forgotten 
 even in the case of the occupant of a throne; 
 but I said that, in the first place, I had no 
 reason to suppose that this memorandum 
 would ever be seen by, or be known to 
 anybody but the queen, John Russell, and 
 myself; that, secondly, my position at that 
 moment, namely, in August, 1850, was 
 peculiar. I had lately been the object of 
 violent political attack, and had gained a 
 great and signal victory in the House of 
 Commons and in public opinion: to have 
 resigned then would have been to have given 
 the fruits of victory to adversaries whom I 
 had defeated, and to have abandoned my 
 political supporters at the very moment 
 when by their means I had triumphed. 
 But, beyond all that, I had represented to 
 my friends, by pursuing the course which 
 they thought I ought to have followed, I 
 should have been bringing for decision at 
 the bar of public opinion a personal quarrel 
 between myself and my sovereign—a step 
 which no subject ought to take, if he can 
 possibly avoid it; for the result of such a 
 course must be either fatal to him or 
 injurious to the country. If he should 
 prove to be in the wrong, he would be 
 irretrievably condemned; if the sovereign 
 
 should be proved to be in the wrong, the 
 monarchy would suffer/’ 
 
 In the debate that ensued, Mr. Disraeli 
 was not silent. 
 
 The queen’s speech had been read, and it 
 was on the occasion of moving an address 
 in answer to the communication from the 
 throne that the leader of the Opposition 
 subjected the cabinet to his criticism. He 
 dealt first with the dismissal of Lord Pal¬ 
 merston, and then examined the other 
 matters contained in the speech. He com¬ 
 plained that the explanation of the prime 
 minister as to the dismissal of his colleague 
 was not satisfactory; it appeared to him “ a 
 Downing Street eclogue,” and the reasons 
 given were insufficient to account “ for cir- 
 cumstances so remarkable, and a catastrophe 
 so sudden.” The political system repre¬ 
 sented by Lord Palmerston Mr. Disraeli had 
 always felt it his duty to oppose, though he 
 had ever regarded the late foreign secre¬ 
 tary as a faithful British minister, believing 
 that the great object of his policy was to 
 maintain and vindicate the honour and the 
 interests of England. But he had never 
 severed the noble lord from the policy of 
 the cabinet; and if that policy were to be 
 continued, as he understood from the queen’s 
 speech, he would rather have it administered 
 by the late foreign secretary, whom they all 
 recognized to be able, than by any other 
 person he saw upon the Treasury Bench. 
 The past errors were not personal to Lord 
 Palmerston; they must be attributed to the 
 entire cabinet, and the noble lord should 
 not be treated as the scapegoat. Mr. 
 Disraeli also complained of the manner in 
 which the prime minister had introduced 
 the name of the sovereign into his speech. 
 
 “ I am bound to say,” said he, and 
 here for the first time in the House of 
 Commons we listen to him expressing his 
 views as to the majesty of the Crown, 
 that it should be a real power in the state, 
 and not, as the Whigs wished to make it, 
 merely an ornament. “ I am bound to 
 say, that I cannot at this moment recall 
 any analogous occasion in which the name 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 127 
 
 cf the sovereign was so frequently and 
 peculiarly used. Whatever was done at 
 the command of the sovereign was at least 
 done on the responsibility of the noble 
 lord; and though it may be expedient that 
 minutes should be read to this House, 
 which we are informed were drawn up 
 by a personage whose name is rarely intro¬ 
 duced in our debates, I must express my 
 astonishment at the narrative of midnight 
 despatches which were the cause, as I 
 understand—though I may have misap¬ 
 prehended the noble lord—of conduct on 
 his part of a very urgent, not to say a 
 precipitate nature. Now, I suppose, that 
 for everything which has been done the 
 noble lord, the first minister, is responsible, 
 and the noble lord,. the first minister, is 
 not a man to shrink from his responsibility: 
 I am at a loss, therefore, to comprehend 
 how the noble lord will account for that 
 introduction of Her Majesty’s name—that 
 frequent and unnecessary introduction— 
 which has taken place in the debate to¬ 
 night. As I am one of those who never 
 could have voted for that famous motion 
 in this House, that ‘ the power of the 
 Crown had increased, was increasing, and 
 ought to be diminished; ’ as, in fact, I 
 should be willing to hail as a fact, the con¬ 
 verse of that proposition; and as I think it 
 one of the great misfortunes of our time, and 
 one most injurious to public liberty, that the 
 power of the Crown has diminished, I am not 
 one likely to look with an unnecessary 
 jealousy on the assertion of the preroga¬ 
 tive of the Crown. But the noble lord is 
 the eminent representative of a political 
 party that has adopted opinions of a very 
 different character. The noble lord is a 
 member of the party which introduced, as 
 I think, to our disgrace, that resolution 
 upon the journal of the House ;* and cer- 
 
 * It was during the administration of Lord North that the 
 personal influence of the sovereign attained its highest pitch. 
 According to Fox, the king was “ his own unadvised minister.” 
 At length, in 1780, Mr. Dunning proposed and carried, in the 
 House of Commons, his notorious resolution, affirming “that 
 the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and 
 ought to be diminished.” Two years afterwards, Lord North, 
 who had been in office from 1770 to 1782, was compelled 
 to resign. 
 
 tainly, therefore, I am astonished that the 
 noble lord, on an occasion like the present, 
 should have come forward, and, as it seems 
 to me, have shifted from himself a respon¬ 
 sibility which, under the circumstances, he 
 should have been the first to adopt.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to criticise 
 the various clauses in the speech from the 
 throne. He did not consider the moment 
 favourable, as the prime minister had 
 stated, for the re-opening of the question 
 of parliamentary reform; but he would 
 consider the proposition of the noble lord 
 when it came before them entirely without 
 prejudice. He complained of the manner 
 in which our colonies had been adminis¬ 
 tered, and which had resulted in another 
 disgracefully-conducted Kaffir war. Then 
 he alluded to the time that had been wasted 
 in the passing of the wretched Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Bill. Had it vindicated the outrage 
 which was offered to their sovereign and her 
 kingdom ? Had it punished the “ insolent 
 aggression ? ” Had it baffled that great 
 European conspiracy against the realm of 
 England and the Protestant faith ? Why, 
 they all knew that it had been treated 
 with a contumely which could not be 
 expressed, and with a derision which it 
 certainly merited ! The great cardinal, who 
 had been ordered to quit England, was still 
 within the realm; “and I find him advertised 
 in the newspapers in the exercise of his 
 official duties as the lord cardinal arch¬ 
 bishop of Westminster.” Why was there 
 no mention of this flagrant violation of the 
 law in the queen’s' speech ? Another grave 
 omission he could not pass over. Why 
 was there no expression of sympathy with 
 the difficulties of the cultivators of the soil ? 
 All their difficulties had been occasioned 
 by legislation, and therefore they were 
 bound to consider whether those difficulties 
 could not also be remedied by legislation. 
 
 “ Have,” he said, “ as free an exchange of 
 commodities as you please, but take care 
 first that you place the British producer 
 upon terms of equality with those with 
 whom he has to compete; take care that 
 
128 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELI) 
 
 your legislation does not oppress him with 
 burdens which he alone hears, and beneath 
 the weight of which he must inevitably 
 sink.” He then quoted the opinions of 
 Mr. M'Culloch that the cultivator of the 
 soil was subjected to unjust taxation which 
 no other class of the community shared, and 
 to injurious restrictions on his industry; 
 and since it was impossible to adjust that 
 taxation with absolute equality or to 
 terminate those restrictions with a due 
 consideration to the revenue, the just and 
 scientific means by which a fair adjustment 
 could he arrived at were by countervailing 
 duties; hut, added the political economist, 
 just as these duties would he, the oppor¬ 
 tunity for applying them had been lost, and 
 the cultivators of the soil, in the present 
 temper of the country, must submit to the 
 injustice which was oppressing them.* 
 
 “That,” cried Mr. Disraeli, “is the political 
 morality of a political economist. If the 
 data of Mr. M‘Culloch he correct, I say 
 the consequence that he draws from them 
 is an immoral consequence; and I say that 
 the legislation that is founded upon them 
 is an immoral legislation. If it be the 
 conviction of parliament that any class of 
 producers is subject to unjust taxation, and 
 is subject to it that another class of the 
 community may be benefited by that taxa¬ 
 tion, they act immorally in upholding that 
 system. It is confiscation in another guise; 
 it is robbery under the formulae of political 
 economy. Remember what this class is 
 which for the last three or four years has 
 been so severely suffering, and is now so 
 severely suffering. Who are these farmers 
 whom gentlemen opposite seem to hold so 
 light? Why, they are the largest employers 
 Of labour in the United Kingdom The 
 farmers of the United Kingdom are the 
 most numerous and the most important 
 portion of the middle class. I know there 
 may be some of my friends who, remem¬ 
 bering the insolence with which they have 
 been treated by a section of the middle 
 
 * A Treatise on Taxation and the Funding System, by 
 J. R. M'Culloch, pp. 195-202, Longman’s, 1852. 
 
 class flushed with unexpected success, may 
 naturally not be indisposed to triumph at 
 the present altered position of the middle 
 class throughout Europe, . . . that 
 
 after all was only a limited section of the 
 middle-class. The power and prosperity of 
 the middle class are inseparable from the 
 greatness of England [Mr. Disraeli ob¬ 
 jected to the middle classes only when 
 they inspired and controlled a government, 
 not when they formed a part of it]; and 
 the most numerous portion of it is peculiarly 
 represented on this side of the House. For 
 my part I owe my seat to the middle class; 
 the farmers of England sent me here, and 
 therefore I protest against unequal laws 
 which impair their fortunes.” It was the 
 duty of the government to remedy such 
 evils. If the agricultural interest could not 
 be relieved from those injurious restrictions 
 and those unjust taxes, at least they should 
 have that countervailing compensation 
 which was their due on a fair considera¬ 
 tion of the subject. He saw around him 
 no very felicitous results of the new system. 
 He saw the cultivators of the soil growing 
 poorer and poorer. He saw a list of 
 bankrupt merchants, and secret societies of 
 amalgamated mechanics. He saw classes 
 arrayed against each other. No political 
 system, he concluded, could be sound which 
 had resulted in circumstances so menacing 
 and so ruinous. 
 
 The dismissal of Lord Palmerston was 
 looked upon not only as a great blow to the 
 Liberal cause throughout Europe, but as 
 the collapse of a career from w T hich great 
 things had been expected. The defence 
 of the foreign secretary, very different from 
 his brilliant speech on the Don Pacifico 
 debate, was weak, and consequently made 
 but a poor impression upon the House; it 
 was now fully known that the late minister 
 was disliked by the court; he had played his 
 part badly in the theatre of diplomacy, the 
 curtain had descended amid disapproval, 
 and he was not likely to have another 
 engagement. “There was a Palmerston,” 
 said Mr. Disraeli in his peculiar tone to 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 129 
 
 a friend whom he met at the Eussian 
 embassy. The ex-minister, however, was 
 not depressed at the prospect of his future. 
 He took his punishment very quietly; 
 he would bide his time until an oppor¬ 
 tunity would offer itself, and then, he said, 
 he would give “ Johnny Eussell tit-for-tat.” 
 
 “ I must say,” writes Lord Dalling in his 
 chatty biography of Lord Palmerston, “ that 
 1 never admired him so much as at this 
 crisis. He evidently thought he had been 
 ill-treated ; but I never heard him make an 
 unfair and irritable remark, nor did he 
 seem in any wise stunned by the blow he 
 had received, or dismayed by the isolated 
 position in which he stood. I should say 
 that he seemed to consider that he had a 
 quarrel put upon him, which it was his 
 wisest course to close by receiving the fire 
 of his adversary and not returning it. He 
 could not, in fact, have gained a victory 
 against the premier on the ground which 
 Lord John Eussell had chosen for the 
 combat, which would not have been more 
 permanently disadvantageous to him than 
 a defeat. The faults of which he had been 
 accused did not touch his own honour, nor 
 that of his country. Let them be admitted, 
 and there was an end of the matter. By 
 and by an occasion would probably arise in 
 which he might choose an advantageous 
 occasion for giving battle, and he was 
 willing to wait calmly for that occasion.” 
 
 His patience was not put to a severe test. 
 Before, however, he was to taste the sweets 
 of revenge the often agitated question of 
 parliamentary reform was again to come 
 before the House. In the speech from the 
 throne Her Majesty had said, “ It appears 
 to me that this is a fitting time for calmly 
 considering whether it may not be advisable 
 to make such amendments in the Act of 
 the last reign relating to the representation 
 of the Commons in parliament, as may be 
 deemed calculated to carry into more com¬ 
 plete effect the principles upon which that 
 law is founded.” Accordingly, early in the 
 session, February 9, 1852, Lord John 
 Bussell rose to move for leave to bring in 
 
 von i. 
 
 “ a bill to extend the right of voting for 
 members of parliament, and to amend the 
 laws relating to the representation of 
 the people.” Briefly, the result of his 
 measure was to reduce the franchise in 
 counties to twenty pounds rated value, and. 
 in boroughs to five pounds rated value; to 
 extend the franchise to all persons, whether 
 in counties or boroughs, who paid direct 
 taxes to the amount of forty shillings a 
 year; and to group with neighbouring 
 towns all boroughs with less than 500 
 electors. He estimated such boroughs to 
 be sixty-seven in number. Various mem¬ 
 bers on both sides of the House took part 
 in the debate, and it was somewhat late 
 before Mr. Disraeli rose to express his 
 opinion upon the provisions of the new 
 measure. 
 
 After a few remarks as to the incon¬ 
 venience of the bill not being ready to 
 be placed in the hands of members, and as 
 to the advisability of the House to have 
 full time to consider the scheme before 
 the second reading came on, he briefly 
 commented upon the novelties proposed 
 by Lord John Eussell. He would reserve 
 further criticism, he said, for another 
 occasion, when the subject was fairly 
 before the House. He, however, con¬ 
 gratulated parliamentary reformers on the 
 content with which they had accepted 
 the repast provided for them; the voracity 
 of their appetites seemed to him satisfied 
 with short commons. His impression, in 
 listening to the statement of the noble lord, 
 had been, that there was nothing in it 
 which had any tendency to disturb, he 
 would not say the balance between the two 
 great interests of the country, but he would 
 rather say the adjustment made by the 
 Eeform Bill in 1832. He did not use the 
 word balance, because he did not think 
 any such balance existed. He thought the 
 adjustment of 1832 gave a preponderance 
 to the towns and the commercial classes. 
 To that adjustment they bowed. So far as 
 he could discover from the oral statement 
 of the minister, he did not think there was 
 
 17 
 
130 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELL 
 
 anything in that new plan which had a 
 serious tendency to disturb it; and there¬ 
 fore, on that ground, as no change would 
 probably be in their favour, he felt con¬ 
 siderably relieved. At the same time, he 
 must tell the hon. member for Manchester 
 (Mr. Bright) that he could not at all accept 
 his dogma, that the present adjustment was 
 unfair because a borough like Thetford 
 returned two members, and a city like 
 Manchester returned no greater number.* 
 Throughout the whole of the arguments he 
 had heard on that subject from gentlemen 
 opposite, both here and as reported in other 
 places, a great fallacy was observable, and 
 pervaded all that they brought forward on 
 the subject, as he should be prepared to 
 show at the right time and on the fitting 
 occasion. The hon. gentleman had referred 
 to the cases of Thetford and Manchester, 
 and it was only because he had done so 
 that he entered upon the subject at all now. 
 The inference, founded on the two tests of 
 population and property, that because a 
 borough like Thetford returned two mem¬ 
 bers, therefore Manchester should return 
 the number of members proportionate to its 
 population and property, was altogether 
 erroneous. The inference, indeed, was the 
 other way. It was that such places as 
 Thetford should not return two members, 
 not that Manchester should return more. 
 A paper had just been put into his hands, 
 which had some reference to that part of 
 the subject. It related to North Cheshire. 
 The total population of the county was 
 
 * In the course of his speech Mr. Bright made the follow¬ 
 ing remarks:—“The noble lord did not explain, when he 
 said he should not disfranchise these boroughs, whether they 
 were to retain one member or two. He hoped it was deter¬ 
 mined that they should only have one. Take the cases of 
 Thetford and Harwich. These were two boroughs in which 
 the noble lord might possibly somewhere or other, by taking 
 in neighbouring villages, raise a constituency of 300 or 400 
 to 1000 ; but he asked the noble lord, was it consistent even 
 with the opinions he had expressed to-night, much less with 
 the opinions he expressed when introducing his first Reform 
 Bill, to maintain that Harwich—notorious Harwich—and 
 Thetford—notorious Thetford—should each have two mem¬ 
 bers, whilst each of the boroughs of the metropolis, one of 
 them having 35,000 electors, should have only two? . . . 
 In the very next session of parliament the question of the 
 transference of some of the members of some of the small 
 boroughs to larger constituencies, or to new constituencies, 
 would be mooted in that House.” 
 
 217,000 There were two considerable 
 manufacturing towns, and only two, in that 
 great division—Macclesfield, with a popula¬ 
 tion of 33,000, and the too-celebrated Stock- 
 port, with a population of upwards of 
 50,000; together 83,000, which, deducted 
 from the whole population of the northern 
 division of Cheshire, left 134,000. Now, 
 those two towns returned four members, 
 though the county population, which 
 amounted to 130,000, returned only two! 
 Even admitting the tests laid down by the 
 hon. member to be just, which he did not, 
 it could never be inferred from it that 
 Manchester should have eight, ten, or four¬ 
 teen members, the burden always of the 
 hon. gentleman’s argument on that point— 
 but only that Thetford should not have two 
 members. 
 
 With regard to the second condition, that 
 there should be no attempt to establish 
 the undue preponderance of any particular 
 party, he must reserve his opinion till they 
 had the details before them. When he 
 saw how the government proposed to deal 
 with sixty or seventy boroughs; when he 
 saw what those boroughs were, and how 
 they were to be managed under the new 
 arrangement—then he should better know 
 how to form an opinion. But he should 
 assume now that in 1852, after the experi¬ 
 ence on these subjects which the House 
 had acquired, any of those not very credit¬ 
 able manoeuvres as to the settlement of 
 boundaries which distinguished the first 
 Reform Bill, would not very easily occur. 
 He could not believe that any party in the 
 House, or out of it, would support a minister 
 in any arrangement of the new boroughs, 
 the object of which was to support his 
 own party in parliament: he had that con¬ 
 fidence in the increased knowledge both 
 of the House of Commons and the country 
 on those subjects, as to feel that such 
 manoeuvres could not be repeated. 
 
 He confessed, so far as he could form an 
 opinion, that his impression was that the 
 bill was one of very questionable propriety. 
 The noble lord had on several occasions 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 131 
 
 dilated on the wisdom of settling great 
 questions in moments of comparative calm 
 and tranquillity. He agreed with him. 
 He thought it was wise in a statesman if 
 he had a subject of great importance to 
 grapple with, a subject calculated to arouse 
 the passions and affect the interests of great 
 masses of the people, that he should attempt 
 it in moments of tranquillity; but he was 
 bound to deal with it so that the settlement 
 might be—he would not say final, for that 
 was not an epithet suitable to human legis¬ 
 lation—but permanent. So far as he could 
 now form an opinion, he could not say that 
 he thought the measure brought forward 
 by the noble lord in that sense a very 
 statesmanlike measure. What was the 
 great object of the £5 franchise ? That 
 they should admit the working classes to 
 the exercise of the suffrage. He had always 
 been the advocate of an industrial suffrage; but 
 he was not satisfied that that £5 franchise 
 would act in that way. He was not by 
 any means clear that there was no measure 
 better fitted for that purpose, no arrange¬ 
 ment more apposite and more calculated to 
 effect that end, than merely lowering the 
 amount on which the suffrage depended. 
 
 Still he was not prepared to interpose 
 any obstruction to the bill of the noble 
 lord. He had much hesitation as to the 
 propriety of introducing any measure at 
 all on the present occasion. He had his 
 doubts, too, whether the measure intro¬ 
 duced was of that deep and comprehensive 
 character required. He thought the noble 
 lord ought to bear in mind that it was of 
 the utmost importance that a question of 
 that kind should be maturely considered 
 before it was decided on; that all measures 
 for the adjustment of the franchise should 
 be of a permanent character. He thought 
 it would be just as well for hon. gentlemen 
 on both sides of the House that the 
 measure, then introduced by the minister 
 of the crown and supported by them, 
 should be one that would be likely to last. 
 The hon. gentlemen opposite had now had 
 some experience in that matter. They 
 
 received with enthusiasm the bill of 1832 ; 
 they denounced everybody who opposed it, 
 and insisted that it would in every respect 
 answer their purpose; they said nothing 
 less would satisfy them, and nothing more 
 would they accept; yet they had been 
 mistaken. He thought they ought to con¬ 
 sider—he would not say with suspicion, 
 but without passion—the proposition of 
 the minister on that occasion. It should 
 be remembered, too, that they had many 
 other important subjects to discuss during 
 the present session; and he warned them 
 not to be diverted in their attention from 
 other great reforms by parliamentary re¬ 
 form. The great body of the nation would 
 not be satisfied if the entire time of the 
 session was occupied with discussions on 
 parliamentary reform. The people out of 
 doors wished the whole question of colonial 
 government to be considered—the people 
 out of doors wished to have the principles 
 of taxation properly established—the people 
 out of doors were anxious to know whether 
 there would be any law reform ’or not- 
 These were reasons why they should not 
 approach the subject thrown before them 
 with any degree of passion; that they 
 should try to ascertain whether the time 
 really needed such a change as that then pro¬ 
 posed; whether that change was required by 
 the nation; and whether the proposition of 
 the government was calculated to satisfy it. 
 
 An event not unexpected, but which, when 
 it came, took the political world by surprise, 
 was, however, to interfere wfith the progress 
 of this the latest development in reform. 
 The opportunity was about to present itself 
 for Lord Palmerston to take his revenge. 
 For some time past a feeling of uneasiness 
 had prevailed as to the condition of Eng¬ 
 land in case, owing to the then turbulent 
 condition of Europe, a war should break 
 out. “I am perfectly willing to believe,” 
 said Mr. Disraeli in the debate on the ad¬ 
 dress, “ that no danger is at hand, and that 
 the world will continue to be governed by 
 the principles of peace, though we are going 
 to increase our armaments and call out our 
 
132 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 militia; but no one can deny that, not only 
 in the country, but throughout Europe, there 
 is a feeling of apprehension.” France was 
 a disturbing element. We did not know 
 what would be the next move of the prince- 
 president whose policy was now, in order to 
 render his position more sure, to flatter the 
 vanity and pander to the ambition of his 
 new subjects. It was both said and sung 
 that the devil only knew what he meant. 
 He was our ally, but it was the general 
 impression that he would throw the entente 
 corclicile to the winds if it would in any way 
 benefit his purpose. We were advised to 
 believe in the maxim Fidarsi e bene, ma non 
 fidctrsi e meglio. There was the usual scare 
 of a foreign invasion, and the timorous, and 
 indeed those who were not timorous, bade 
 us look to our national defences, fortify 
 our dockyards, keep our fleet ready to 
 guard the coast, and our regiments at 
 full strength, and have a strong mass of 
 reserves in existence to be drawn upon when 
 necessary. The volunteer system was pro¬ 
 posed, and was eagerly embraced by the 
 nation; before the year had closed, every 
 town had its corps of trained civilians ready 
 to bear arms, and, what was more to the 
 point, possessing the knowledge of how to 
 use them. So military and patriotic were 
 the youth of the country that there was 
 almost a feeling of disappointment when all 
 prospect of an invasion seemed abandoned. 
 
 As one of the consequences of this warlike 
 spirit, and of the dangers with which it 
 was thought we were menaced, the govern¬ 
 ment considered it prudent to inquire into 
 the state of the militia. When we look 
 upon our militia at the present day—the 
 regiments well officered, the men smart and 
 well drilled, the discipline as severe and 
 exact as in the regular service—and com¬ 
 pare it with the militia of “the good old 
 days,” when the officers, mostly civilians 
 who had received no military instruction 
 whatever, regarded the whole thing as the 
 farce it really was, and only as an excuse 
 for a month of amusement and pleasant festi¬ 
 vities, whilst the men, drawn from the very 
 
 scum of the country, were a nuisance and 
 the disgrace of every town in which they 
 took up their quarters, the contrast is 
 indeed striking. A Kaffir war, with its 
 usual complement of military blunders and 
 commissariat shortcomings, was then on 
 our hands; and it became therefore very 
 advisable to report upon the condition 
 of our reserves in case of emergencies. 
 
 Accordingly Lord John Russell introduced 
 a Militia Bill (February 20, 1852), which, 
 among other changes, recommended the 
 substitution of a local militia for the 
 regular force. Mr. Disraeli took part in 
 the debate that followed, but his remarks 
 were very brief. The honours of the 
 evening fell to Lord Palmerston, who, 
 amid the cheers of the House, mercilessly 
 criticised the bill. He wished to know 
 whether the measure was to be founded on 
 “ the militia ” or upon “ a local militia.” 
 If it were to be founded on a local militia 
 it would be of no use, as a local militia was 
 not liable to be called out except in cases 
 of actual invasion or of an enemy being in 
 force off our coasts. Therefore if they were 
 to have a militia it must be a regular 
 militia, liable to be called out and to 
 serve in any part of the United King¬ 
 dom when necessary. He proposed to 
 substitute the word “ regular ” for the word 
 “local,” thus of course altering the whole 
 character of the bill. The House was in 
 favour of the substitution, and after a 
 division the government found itself in 
 a minority of eleven votes. Thereupon 
 Lord John Russell resigned. “I have had 
 my tit for tat with John Russell,” writes 
 Lord Palmerston to his brother, “and I 
 turned him out on Friday last.” It has 
 been said that .the real reason for the 
 resignation of the cabinet was a fear 
 of being defeated on a vote of censure as 
 to the conduct of the Kaffir war, which 
 was on the eve of being moved. “ As it is,” 
 writes Lord Palmerston, “ the late govern¬ 
 ment have gone out on a question, which 
 they have treated as a motion, merely 
 asserting that they had lost the confidence 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 133 
 
 of tlie House; whereas, if they had gone 
 out on a defeat upon the motion about 
 the Cape, they would have carried with 
 them the direct censure of the House of 
 Commons.” 
 
 Our then only comic paper took the 
 matter up, and wrote a ballad upon it. 
 Lord John is made thus to lament:— 
 
 “It was upon a Friday night 
 My motion I brought on ; 
 
 When ’twixt leave for the bill and me, 
 
 Up started Palmerston! 
 
 “ Straight the whole house broke out in cheers, 
 In spite of his disgrace ; 
 
 He snubbed our bill, and with a sneer 
 Proposed his in its place. 
 
 “ And when my turn to answer came, 
 
 The House was cold as ice; 
 
 ‘ The game is done—I’ve won ! I’ve won ! ’ 
 Quoth he—and in a trice 
 
 “ Out go the whips ; M.P.’s rush out, 
 
 With Hay ter and Lord Mark ; 
 
 And from their whispers soon I see 
 . That things are looking dark. 
 
 “ And while the votes are adding up, 
 
 We wait; for ’twixt the lip and cup 
 Full often comes a slip ; 
 
 Taper look’d blank and sick with fright, 
 
 And Tadpole’s face in the gas gleam’d white ; 
 
 From his brow the dew did drip. 
 
 In a minority we are, 
 
 In spite of Hayter’s and Lord Mar¬ 
 cus’ energetic whip ! 
 
 “ One after one, their places gone, 
 
 With stifled groan and sigh ; 
 
 Each turn’d his face with a ghastly pang, 
 
 And reproach’d me with his eye. 
 
 “ From treasury bench condemned to fly, 
 
 Their salaries forego; 
 
 Each seem’d to say as he pass’d me by, 
 
 ‘ It’s all your fault, you know.’ ” 
 
 On the resignation of Lord John Paissell, 
 the Earl of Derby was commanded to form 
 an administration. “ Tt was on Saturday,” 
 laid the incoming prime minister to his 
 brother peers in the upper House, “ that I 
 received the, to me, surprising intelligence 
 of the result of the division in the House 
 of Commons, and of the consequent resig¬ 
 nation of Her Majesty’s ministers. On the 
 evening of that day I had the honour of 
 receiving from Her Majesty a command to 
 
 wait on her at the palace at half-past two 
 o’clock on the following day. My lords, I 
 had then to consider not what course it was 
 my interest, but what course it was my 
 public duty, to pursue. I had to weigh 
 deliberately and candidly on the one side 
 all the overwhelming difficulties of the 
 situation in which I was placed—all the 
 awful responsibility of the task which X 
 felt I might be called upon to perform ; 
 I had to weigh, on the other side, what 
 appeared to me the still more awful respon¬ 
 sibility, if it could be imputed to me that 
 from personal feelings and an unwillingness 
 to take on myself either labour or responsi¬ 
 bility, I had left by my act the queen and 
 the country in the present times without an 
 administration, however unworthy it might 
 be. The noble lord opposite [Lord Aberdeen] 
 will excuse me for saying that I saw little 
 prospect of any other administration being 
 speedily formed; and further, that I saw 
 little prospect of advantage from the resig¬ 
 nation of the late ministry being speedily 
 followed by their resumption of the reins 
 of government; and I therefore felt that 
 however unequal to the task, however great 
 the difficulties that might stand in the way 
 —difficulties arising from my own position, 
 and from those who agreeing with me in 
 opinion, are still unable to command a 
 majority in the other House of Parliament— 
 still great as all these difficulties were, 
 deliberately weighing and not overlooking 
 them, I felt it my first duty to my sovereign 
 and my country to determine that at this 
 time the country should not be without an 
 administration; and it was not, my lords, 
 without a deep consciousness of the respon¬ 
 sibility I was incurring, nor without a 
 thorough conviction of my own inability to 
 perform adequately the duties I was about 
 to undertake, that I at once intimated to 
 Her most Gracious Majesty, on receiving 
 her commands to that effect, my readiness 
 to attempt the task of the formation of a 
 Ministry.” 
 
 Thus passed into the cold shade of oppo¬ 
 sition the government of Lord John Pussell. 
 
CHAPTEB VII. 
 
 OFFICE. 
 
 With tlie exception of its chief and his 
 lieutenant, the cabinet formed by Lord 
 Derby was far from a strong one. It was 
 composed of peers almost unknown twenty 
 miles outside their park gates, and country 
 gentlemen, excellent chairmen of quarter- 
 sessions, but who had never prominently 
 come before the public or had made them¬ 
 selves a name in the House of Commons. 
 It was essentially an administration of 
 untried men. Shortly after the new premier 
 had prepared his list of those to serve under 
 him, the Duke of Wellington, anxious to 
 learn who were to constitute the Tory 
 administration, took the first opportunity, 
 when Lord Derby entered the House of 
 Lords, to ask the names of those who had 
 agreed to hold office. As the prime minister 
 went through the catalogue, the duke, who 
 had of late years become rather deaf 
 and who had never heard before of several 
 of the newly-created ministers, kept up 
 throughout the whole conversation a running 
 query of “ who ? who ? ” in the loud tones 
 of a deaf person. The peers opposite, much 
 amused at this incessant interrogation and 
 also at the perplexed air of his Grace 
 as name after name of men he had never 
 met, and of whose political existence he 
 had until then been in total ignorance, was 
 bawled into his ears, at once christened the 
 new cabinet the “ who ? who ? ministry.” 
 The nickname was quickly taken up by 
 club idlers and the editors of newspapers, 
 and the Derby administration during the 
 first weeks of its career was never designated 
 by any other title than that conferred on it 
 by Whig wit. 
 
 Lord Derby had for many years been one 
 of the brilliant stars in the firmament of 
 the political world. His powers as a par¬ 
 
 liamentary debater were unrivalled, and as 
 Mr. Stanley, there had been few men in the 
 House of Commons who more instinctively 
 detected the flaws in an argument, and 
 were more effective when put up to crush 
 an opponent or lay bare the faults of a 
 measure. The fire of his eloquence, and 
 the dashing onslaughts he was in the habit 
 of making upon the enemy, had gained 
 him the title of the “Bupert of debate.” 
 He was a brilliant classic, well read without 
 any affectation of erudition; and when he 
 chose to conquer his carelessness and indo¬ 
 lence of temperament, he possessed a grasp 
 over the details of business such as few 
 of the Manchester school could surpass. 
 Conscious of his rank, proud of himself, 
 and naturally of a somewhat haughty 
 disposition, he was not given to pay much 
 attention to the opinions of those with 
 whom he acted, and who were inferior to 
 him in station. They might follow him or 
 they might desert him (he did not care 
 very much which alternative they accepted), 
 but they should not lead him. He held 
 his own views, and he would carry them 
 out; he often arrived at his conclusions 
 after but a hasty and superficial inspection, 
 and not infrequently found them untenable. 
 Mr. Disraeli had said that his lordship had 
 been rightly named the Prince Bupert of 
 debate, since, however brilliant his attack, he 
 generally found on his return that his camp 
 had fallen into the hands of the enemy. 
 
 Before being placed at the head of a 
 cabinet. Lord Derby had seen some ser¬ 
 vice in the state. During the early part 
 of his career he had been an advocate of 
 the principles of reform, and under the 
 administration of Lord Grey had held 
 office first as chief secretary for Ireland, 
 
TflE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 135 
 
 and afterwards as secretary of state for 
 the colonies. When the Reform Bill was 
 brought forward he defended its provisions 
 with great warmth and eloquence, and also 
 carried the bill for national education in 
 Ireland. He gave his vote in favour of 
 the emancipation of the West India slaves, 
 and indeed was one of the principal agents 
 to whom the success of the measure was 
 due. But now it was that he severed him¬ 
 self from the Liberal party. The proposal 
 to reduce still further the Irish Church 
 establishment met with his strongest dis¬ 
 approval, and he resigned his seat in 
 the cabinet. In the administration of Sir 
 Robert Peel he held the seals again as 
 colonial minister; but on the “ apostacy ” 
 of that minister he threw in his fortunes 
 with the Protectionists, and became the 
 leader of the Conservative party. Impatient 
 of control, and irritable under instruction, 
 he yet permitted his able lieutenant to 
 assume an authority over him which no 
 one before had ever exercised. 
 
 In the ministry of which Lord Derby 
 was the chief, there were a few names 
 which subsequently attained if not to fame 
 at least to respectable distinction. Lord 
 Malmesbury was foreign secretary; Sir 
 John Pakington was the colonial secretary; 
 Mr. Walpole was at the Home Office; 
 Major Beresford was at the War Office; 
 Mr. Herries, who had been chancellor of 
 the exchequer under Lord Goderich, and 
 who had afterwards been secretary-at-war, 
 presided over the Board of Control; Mr. 
 Henley, then almost unknown, but who 
 afterwards developed into the best repre¬ 
 sentative of the landed interest the country 
 has possessed since the days of Sir William 
 Wyndham, was president of the Board of 
 Trade; Lord John Manners was first commis¬ 
 sioner of works; Lord St. Leonards, a sound 
 lawyer but no politician, was lord chancellor; 
 the attorney-general was Sir Frederick 
 Thesiger, afterwards the first Lord Chelms¬ 
 ford; the solicitor-general was Sir Fitzroy 
 Kelly. Last but far from least, since he was 
 the ruling spirit of the cabinet, Mr. Disraeli 
 
 was appointed to the post of chancellor of 
 the exchequer; and 'the charming humour 
 of the pencil and the brush represented 
 him, with three hats upon his head, toiling 
 along Downing Street with an old clothes 
 bag over his shoulder, upon which was 
 labelled “ budget.” 
 
 In this elevation to high office we have 
 another instance of how exceptional was the 
 political career of the late Lord Beacons- 
 field. Since the development of parlia¬ 
 mentary government during the last fifty 
 years the pursuit of politics has become a 
 profession, in which the prizes at its dis¬ 
 posal are given, more as the rewards of 
 ability, industry, and experience than as 
 the consequences of lofty station and social 
 combinations. The days are past when a 
 foolish peer had a seat in the cabinet on 
 account of the boroughs in his gift, or when 
 the young man of fashion, favoured by 
 a powerful minister, drew his salary as a 
 vice-president or an under-secretary of state. 
 If we examine the administrations before 
 the Reform Bill of 1832 we shall find that 
 men, at an age when they would now 
 seldom be asked to serve on important 
 committees, then held the seals of high 
 and responsible office. St. John (after¬ 
 wards Lord Bolingbroke) and Sir Robert 
 Walpole at thirty-two were secretaries-at- 
 war ; at twenty-three the second Pitt was 
 chancellor of the exchequer; at thirty-five 
 the Marquis of Rockingham became first 
 lord of the Treasury; Lord Shelburne was 
 president of the Board of Trade at twenty- 
 six; Canning was foreign secretary at six 
 and thirty; at thirty-two Addington was 
 speaker of the House of Commons; and 
 coming down to more modern times we 
 find the first Lord Durham privy seal at 
 six and thirty; Lord Palmerston secretary- 
 at-war at twenty-five ; Sir James Graham 
 first lord of the Admiralty at thirty-seven; 
 Sir Robert Peel chief secretary for Ireland 
 at thirty-four; Wellesley governor-general 
 of India at thirty-seven; Lord Normanby 
 lord-lieutenant of Ireland at the same age ; 
 Macaulay secretary-at-war before he was 
 
13G 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 forty, and numerous other instances of men 
 before they had reached their prime holding 
 some of the most important posts under 
 the crown. 
 
 This rapid advancement is now no 
 longer regarded with approval by the 
 country. We require those raised to high 
 and responsible office to he men not only 
 of ability, but of long parliamentary ex¬ 
 perience; and unless these conditions are 
 fulfilled, we decline to place much confidence 
 in the appointments. The mere talent of 
 youth inspires us with no faith, nor do we 
 rate at a high value the mere experience 
 which age seldom fails to afford. We have 
 no objection to the humbler posts in an 
 administration being occupied by youthful 
 genius or untried ability; but we demand 
 that those higher offices which entitle a 
 member to a seat in tile cabinet should only 
 be conferred upon those who have proved 
 themselves worthy of being intrusted with 
 the interests of the nation. As men on the 
 turf judge of the horses entered for an im¬ 
 portant race by their past performances at 
 inferior meetings, so on examining the list 
 of a cabinet does the country estimate the 
 value of the ministers constituting it by their 
 past conduct when in an inferior capacity. 
 Every member of a cabinet has invariably 
 served the Crown previously to his appoint¬ 
 ment within the inner circle of the adminis¬ 
 tration in some more modest post—as a 
 junior lord, or an under-secretary of state, 
 or as the vice-president of some board or 
 another, and the like; and thus both the 
 Crown and the nation have had an oppor¬ 
 tunity of judging how far the individual 
 is calculated to do justice to the higher 
 appointment. When Mr. Disraeli was 
 called to preside over the finances of the 
 country, he had never held any office—not 
 even the most subordinate—in the state; 
 his appointment is almost the only instance 
 in our history of a politician entering the 
 exclusive arena of the cabinet without 
 having first won his spurs as an official 
 hack. Genius requires no preparatory 
 training; at one hound Mr. Disraeli had 
 
 become the leader of a great party; at one 
 bound he had become a cabinet minister 
 It would he absurd to say that the 
 appointment of the new chancellor of the 
 exchequer gave universal satisfaction. Mr. 
 Disraeli was, so far as office was concerned, 
 an untried man; he had never made finance 
 his special study; he was brilliant and held 
 original theories on many subjects, and 
 therefore in the eyes of sober business men 
 he was considered dangerous. Most people 
 thought the appointment unwise, whilst 
 many looked upon it as the wildest and 
 most reckless act that Lord Derby could 
 have committed. “ He is a good orator,” 
 they cried, alluding to Mr. Disraeli, “ a 
 splendid debater, a perfect strategist, and 
 a consummate master, when he chooses, of 
 the art of saying something which means 
 nothing. He created the Protectionists a 
 party, and he therefore should he rewarded 
 by office; but if there he one post in the 
 administration which he should not occupy, 
 it is that of chancellor of the exchequer.” 
 “ It seems,” wrote the Morning Chronicle 
 —then a liberal organ of some note— 
 (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.” “ It is a mauvaise 
 plaisanterie,” said the Examiner (February 
 28), “a plagiarism from Punch, a copy of a 
 squib on an abortive attempt last year. 
 The names, with an exception here and 
 there, cannot he read in any society with¬ 
 out a laugh; and yet, in reality, it is no 
 laughing matter. For a serious affair there 
 certainly was never anything so comical.” 
 Even the Morning Post , the journal of the 
 party, was obliged to own that the appoint¬ 
 ment of Mr. Disraeli came upon the country 
 with surprise. “ It cannot he doubted,” it 
 wrote, “ that such an arrangement was 
 among the least expected of any which it 
 has been our duty to announce.” The 
 leading newspaper was more complimentary, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 137 
 
 but equally guarded in its comments upon 
 the appointment.* “No one can doubt,” 
 said the Times (February 24), “that Mr. 
 Disraeli is the man to lead the House 
 of Commons; but he certainly has con¬ 
 sulted rather his ambition than his genius 
 in his selection of office. It is very true 
 that he has dived into the depths and 
 flown to the heights of financial theory; 
 but the chancellor of the exchequer has 
 not merely to make profits or elucidate 
 maxims of finance. He has also to learn and 
 comprehend the numerous relations between 
 the commerce and the revenue of the coun¬ 
 try, to make elaborate financial expositions, 
 and to be prepared with replies on any 
 complicated question of details which con¬ 
 venience or even malice may suggest. In 
 preparing for such tasks Mr. Disraeli will 
 at least work against the grain, and he will 
 possibly find it difficult to be both a wit 
 and a chancellor of the exchequer.” 
 
 As soon as his appointment had been 
 made out, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to issue 
 his address. He saw that, in the present 
 feeling of the country, to return to the prin¬ 
 ciples of Protection where the necessaries 
 of life were concerned was impossible, and 
 therefore, unlike several of his colleagues, 
 he expressed his views as to the future 
 with great caution. As an individual he 
 still maintained his opinions as to free 
 trade, but as a minister it might be neces¬ 
 sary for him to change or modify his policy. 
 Trade was brisk; but he believed it was 
 more due to the recent discoveries in the 
 gold fields than to free trade. He saw, as 
 he had predicted, that the farmer was 
 suffering terribly, the sugar interest was 
 crushed, and the shipping trade, from 
 the repeal of the navigation laws, was 
 sorely depressed. He, therefore, resolved 
 
 * It has been said that Mr. Disraeli was first appointed to 
 the home office; but that as home secretary it would be his 
 duty to wait in his turn upon the queen, and as Her Majesty 
 at that time had no wish to admit him to this familiarity, 
 the original intention of Lord Derby was not carried out. 
 Upon what authority this statement has been made we know 
 not. The advice given by Sir Robert Walpole as to the study 
 of history may be equally applied to the mass of hostile 
 criticism upon the earlier part of Mr. Disraeli’s career— 
 “ Do not read it, it is full of lies.” 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 since Protection could not be restored, to 
 do all in his power to give compensa¬ 
 tion to the three interests which were 
 specially affected by the recent efforts of 
 the legislature. Still, in the address he 
 now issued to his constituents, he expressed 
 himself with much reserve, and indulged 
 only in generalities as to the future policy 
 he should advise. He stated that the queen 
 had been pleased to call him to her privy 
 council and had appointed him chancellor 
 of the exchequer. Therefore, “ according 
 to the salutary principle of the constitu¬ 
 tion,” •(* he resigned into the hands of his 
 constituents his seat, feeling sure that he 
 would be re-elected. Then he proceeded 
 to the subject-matter of the address. 
 
 “The late administration,” he said, “fell 
 to pieces from internal dissension, and not 
 from the assault of their opponents; and 
 notwithstanding the obvious difficulties of 
 our position, we have felt that to shrink 
 from encountering them would be to leave 
 the country without a government and Her 
 Majesty without servants. Our first duty 
 will be to provide for the ordinary and 
 current exigencies of the public service; 
 but at no distant period we hope, with the 
 concurrence of the country, to establish a 
 policy in conformity with the principles 
 which in opposition we have felt it our 
 duty to maintain. 
 
 “We shall endeavour to terminate that 
 strife of classes which of late years has 
 exercised so pernicious an influence over 
 the welfare of this kingdom; to accomplish 
 those remedial measures which great pro¬ 
 ductive interests, suffering from unequal 
 taxation, have a right to demand from a 
 just government; to cultivate friendly 
 
 f By the Act for the Security of the Crown and Succession 
 (6 Anne c. 7), it was enacted (1) that every person holding 
 “ any office or place of profit whatsoever under the crown,” 
 created since October 25, 1705, or in receipt of a pension 
 during the pleasure of the crown, should be incapacitated 
 from sitting in the House of Commons; and (2) that every 
 member of the House of Commons who accepted any of the 
 previously existing offices under the crown (except a higher 
 commission in the army) should be obliged to vacate his 
 seat, though still eligible for re-election. The Reform Act 
 of 1867 (30 and 31, Viet c. 102) dispenses with this neces¬ 
 sity to seek re-election in the case of a minister who is 
 removed from one office under the crown to another. 
 
 18 
 
138 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 relations with all foreign powers and secure 
 honourable peace; to uphold in their spirit, 
 as well as in their form, our political insti¬ 
 tutions ; and to increase the efficiency, as 
 well as maintain the rights of our national 
 and Protestant church. 
 
 “An administration formed with these 
 objects, and favourable to progressive im¬ 
 provement in every department of the 
 state, is one which we hope may obtain 
 the support and command the confidence of 
 the community, whose sympathies are the 
 best foundation for a strong administration, 
 while they are the best security for a mild 
 government/’ 
 
 A few days afterwards (March 13), he 
 went down into Buckinghamshire and pre¬ 
 sented himself for re-election. A Dr. Lee, 
 who, during the earlier years of Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli’s representation of the county, went 
 through the farce of posing as a rival 
 candidate without the slightest chance of 
 success, put in his usual appearance, and 
 was as usual speedily disposed of. The 
 chancellor of the exchequer then stood up 
 to address the vast audience that had 
 assembled from all parts of the country to 
 hear him. As soon as the cheers that 
 greeted his presence had subsided, he began 
 his speech. He opened by alluding to the 
 old stories of his enemies—that he had 
 started in life as a Radical, that he had 
 voted for this and then for that, and that 
 ‘ he could amuse an audience for hours 
 and send them away only wondering what 
 they had been hearing about.’ He, how¬ 
 ever, should not stop to vindicate his career; 
 if nothing could be said against him but 
 what he had done and said twenty years 
 ago, he thought it was some presumption 
 that they had a right to suppose that in the 
 interval he had said and done nothing that 
 could be very easily impugned. Whatever 
 were his indiscretions, they commenced 
 in Buckinghamshire, and Buckinghamshire 
 had permitted him to atone for them. In 
 politics, as in everything else, a man was 
 not the worse for having ‘sown his wild 
 oats.’ He, however, now promised his audi¬ 
 
 ence, that if they would only listen to him 
 on this occasion, they would not go away 
 “wondering what they had been hearing 
 about,” for it would be from no fault of his 
 if they took their departure without a 
 definite idea of what the intentions of the 
 government w T ere. 
 
 Then he proceeded to lay before 
 his hearers the programme of the cabinet, 
 which, briefly summed up, signified that 
 since the country generally was in favour 
 of free trade, the ministry would endea¬ 
 vour to substitute compensation for pro¬ 
 tection. The corn laws had been repealed, 
 without considering the burdens to which 
 the agricultural interest was subject. 
 The national debt had been increased to 
 terminate slavery, and markets had been 
 opened to slave-grown produce, in a manner 
 which even free traders of great celebrity 
 regarded as entirely unjustifiable towards 
 the colonial interest. The navigation laws 
 had been repealed, and British shipping had 
 thus been forced into competition with the 
 shipping of all the world, and the British 
 seaman and the British shipowner had sus¬ 
 tained losses of a very onerous and injurious 
 character. “ Gentlemen,” said Mr. Disraeli, 
 “it is our opinion that as much injustice 
 in the years 1846 to 1849 was done to 
 these three great interests, in which such 
 an immense amount of capital is invested 
 and on which the employment of so much 
 labour depends, justice should be done 
 them. We are not ashamed to say that 
 this is our political creed—that justice 
 should be done to all classes; and if that 
 be true, you will agree with me that justice 
 should be done to the British producer as 
 well as to the British consumer. If we can 
 show—which it is not difficult to do, because 
 all acknowledge it—that there are great 
 classes of producers in this country who are 
 suffering because they are placed in an 
 unequal competition, it is not only our 
 policy as a *party, it is our duty as English 
 statesmen, to see that interest placed in its 
 legitimate position.” 
 
 lie then entered into statistics, and 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 139 
 
 showed that land was improperly burdened 
 to the extent of about £2,000,000 or 
 £3,000,000 a }^ear, or in other words to 
 the extent of a shilling in the pound; 
 whilst at the same time the cultivator of 
 the soil was called upon to enter into un¬ 
 restricted competition with the cultivators 
 of the soil of all other countries. How 
 could, he asked, the landed interest pay 
 these he^vy burdens—burdens which no 
 other class in the community bore ? He 
 was in favour, like that great political 
 economist Mr. M‘Culloch, of a counter¬ 
 vailing duty; and he pledged himself to 
 secure for the agricultural interest ample 
 and complete redress. As it now was, the 
 people of England were eating a farmer 
 every night for their supper. It was 
 absurd to suppose that all the commercial 
 prosperity of the present day had merely 
 originated in their permitting free imports 
 to this country to compete with their 
 taxed exports at home. Unquestionably 
 the moment they opened the ports of this 
 country, a great expansion of their foreign 
 trade had taken place. Every Protectionist 
 predicted it, but at the same time they had 
 also said that such expansion would be 
 accompanied with considerable suffering, 
 which would overweigh the interests at 
 nome. The stress upon the farmer was 
 foretold, and unquestionably it had occurred. 
 
 He admitted with pleasure that the labour¬ 
 ing population had not suffered, nay that 
 their condition had even improved ; still 
 much of such improvement was due not 
 to free trade, but to the absence of Irish 
 competition caused by “that fatal emigra¬ 
 tion which has reduced the population of 
 the sister isle by millions.” He also owned 
 that the country had not suffered, what 
 they all had predicted it would suffer, from 
 the drain of gold in consequence of free 
 imports. And why ? Because the gold 
 mining operations had been so successful 
 that “last year the gold that came from 
 America went through the bank like a 
 sieve.” He then concluded by saying that 
 the cabinet had no objection to dissolve 
 
 parliament if the country earnestly wished 
 it, but that they would not have the 
 question pressed upon them by their op¬ 
 ponents. “ Confident myself,” he said, 
 “that in taking office we have at least 
 resolved to do our utmost for the advan¬ 
 tage of the country, I shall feel that the 
 consciousness of that duty will sustain us 
 under trying exigencies. And, gentlemen, 
 I may say that as the noble lord who is at 
 the head of the administration took Provi¬ 
 dence to witness in the senate of his country 
 that he was influenced by no personal 
 feeling in occupying the post of danger 
 which he now fills, I will also express my 
 hope that, whatever may be the fate of the 
 government, when we leave office there 
 will at least be among all temperate and 
 impartial men a sense that, however humble 
 may have been our efforts, we have en¬ 
 deavoured to do our duty to our country, 
 our sovereign, and our God.” 
 
 The House of Commons met, after its 
 brief adjournment, March 12, 1852. The 
 chancellor of the exchequer had scarcely 
 taken his seat upon the Treasury bench 
 before Mr. Yilliers, of corn-law fame, rose 
 up to catechise the government as to their 
 future policy. On the accession of a Con¬ 
 servative cabinet to power much alarm was 
 felt by a certain section of the country. 
 It was feared that legislation would retrace 
 its steps, and that Protection would oust 
 free trade from the markets. Lord Derby, 
 on the first resignation of the Kussell 
 ministry, had openly avowed his intention, 
 should he ever undertake the task of 
 forming an administration, of returning to 
 the principles of Protection. Several of 
 his colleagues in their election addresses 
 had expressed themselves as hostile to the 
 repeal of the corn laws, and had spoken 
 with no uncertain voice as to the course 
 they should recommend for the relief of 
 the landed interest. The Opposition was 
 alarmed. Anti-corn law meetings were 
 held all over the country to combat the 
 supposed retrogressive policy of the Tory 
 party; a coalition had been effected between 
 
140 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the Whigs and the Feelites on the basis of 
 supporting free trade; and since the new 
 government were in favour of Protection, and 
 the present parliament had been returned 
 ostensibly to pass free-trade measures, every 
 effort was to be made to force the Derby 
 cabinet to dissolve the Houses and appeal 
 to the country. It was the confident opinion 
 of the Whigs and the Peelites that a general 
 election would place the Tories in a most 
 palpable minority. 
 
 Mr. Yilliers embodied the current gossip 
 of the clubs and the journals in the ques¬ 
 tions he put to the leader of the House of 
 Commons. He wished, he said, to come to 
 a clear understanding with respect to the 
 intentions of Her Majesty’s ministers. What 
 was the principle or the policy on which 
 the government proposed to regulate the 
 foreign commerce of the country, and more 
 especially that branch of it which was 
 engaged in the supply of food for the 
 people ? A Protectionist party was in 
 possession of the government; what was 
 that Protectionist government going to do 
 for the cause of Protection ? In what 
 manner was the chancellor of the exche¬ 
 quer about to establish that policy with 
 which he had been identified in opposition? 
 Was the tenant farmer to have the 5s. fixed 
 duty which had been promised him at the 
 hustings—a duty by which the farmer 
 would get only 2s. on a quarter of wheat, 
 whilst it would enable the landlord to come 
 down upon him and say, “ I have got you 
 back Protection; you must now return me 
 the ten per cent. I abated off your rent.” 
 AYas this to be ? He begged the chancellor 
 of the exchequer to come forward and make 
 an open avowal of the intentions of the 
 government on the subject of their policy 
 with respect to the foreign commerce of 
 the country. The nation wanted no change 
 of policy; it wanted no dissolution, no 
 disturbance or struggle of any kind. All 
 it wanted was to be allowed to remain in 
 its present peaceful and prosperous con¬ 
 dition, and for that nothing was required 
 but a declaration on the part of the cabinet 
 
 that it had no intention to disturb the 
 policy of free trade. 
 
 Thus solemnly adjured, Mr. Disraeli rose 
 up to reply. He begged to assure the House, 
 in spite of the superior information of Mr. 
 Yilliers, who not only knew that corn was 
 to be taxed, but the exact amount of the 
 tax, and the exact benefit that would arise 
 from the impost, that the government had 
 no intention of introducing any scheme of 
 commercial or fiscal legislation before the 
 dissolution of parliament, in order that the 
 principle of Protection might be submitted 
 to the deliberate judgment of the electors. 
 Ministers intended to do nothing of the 
 kind. They considered that a very great 
 injustice had been done to the agricultural 
 and other interests by the change which 
 had taken place in 1846, and subsequently 
 in 1847, 1848, and 1849, and consequently 
 they were extremely desirous, for the bene¬ 
 fit of all classes of the community, that that 
 injustice should be redressed. It would, 
 therefore, be their duty to consider the 
 condition of the agricultural interest, and 
 to propose such measures as were best 
 calculated to remove the grievances under 
 which it laboured. Ministers were, however, 
 not pledged to any specific measure; they 
 reserved to themselves the right of adopting 
 what expedient they considered the most 
 efficacious for the object they had in view. 
 Other matters beside the agricultural in¬ 
 terest would also engage their attention. 
 They intended to bring before the House 
 the question of chancery reform, the dis¬ 
 franchisement of St. Albans, and the dis¬ 
 tribution of the forfeited seats, and measures 
 for the internal defence of the country. He 
 was not bound, said Mr. Disraeli, to have 
 answered the queries of Mr. Yilliers with 
 such frankness, and he hoped that gentle¬ 
 man would be satisfied with the course 
 the government intended to pursue. 
 
 Then he proceeded to turn the tables 
 upon his assailants. As the Opposition 
 had very candidly inquired what were the 
 principles on which the present adminis¬ 
 tration was formed, he, on behalf of the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 141 
 
 ministry, would likewise ask what were 
 the principles on which the Opposition was 
 formed. The Opposition had recently been 
 reconstructed ; it was now composed not 
 only of its original Whig element, but the 
 Peelites, led by Sir James Graham, had 
 joined it; and acting with it were also the 
 Free-traders led by Mr. Cobden. On what 
 principle was the new Opposition founded? 
 Was it the principle of Papal supremacy, 
 or of Protestant ascendancy ? Was it the 
 principle of household suffrage, or of elec¬ 
 toral groups ? Was it the principle of Mr. 
 Cobden, that free trade was the panacea 
 for all the evils of states, or was it a prin¬ 
 ciple framed in deference to the sentiments 
 of Lord John Russell, that free trade was 
 a great exaggeration ? He thought these 
 questions should be as frankly answered as 
 the questions which had been pressed upon 
 the government. He knew the difficulties 
 before him, but he did not despair of 
 baffling the manoeuvres of faction. Then 
 he took his seat. 
 
 A keen debate ensued. Lord John Rus¬ 
 sell complained that the ministers, being in 
 a minority, did not express their intention 
 of dissolving parliament and appealing to 
 the country. Mr. Herries proved, from 
 statistics in his hand, that the repeal of 
 the navigation laws had been injurious 
 to British shipping. Sir James Graham 
 refuted the figures of Mr. Herries, and 
 declared that, according to the constitu¬ 
 tional precedents of Mr. Pitt in 1784, of 
 Earl Grey in 1831, and of Lord John 
 Russell in 1841, the government being in 
 a minority, should speedily dissolve, and 
 not attempt to carry through the present 
 parliament the measures they proposed* 
 
 * “ Since the establishment of parliamentary government,” 
 writes Earl Grey, “ the ordinary description of the British 
 constitution, as one in which the executive power belongs 
 exclusively to the crown, while the power of legislation is 
 vested jointly in the sovereign and the two Houses of Par¬ 
 liament, has ceased to be correct, unless it be understood in 
 a legal and technical sense. It is the distinguishing feature 
 of parliamentary government that it requires the powers be¬ 
 longing to the crown to be exercised through ministers, who 
 are held responsible for the manner in which they are used, 
 who are expected to be members of the two Houses of. Par¬ 
 liament, the proceedings of which they must be able generally 
 to guide, and who are considered entitled to hold their offices 
 
 Most of the more prominent members on 
 both sides of the House took part in the 
 debate. The result of the discussion was, 
 from the Conservative point of view, that 
 the government did not intend to reverse a 
 free-trade policy, but that they thought that 
 that policy should be so altered and modi¬ 
 fied as not to press urgently upon one class 
 while benefiting another. The Opposition 
 was, however, dissatisfied with the various 
 statements, which, it said, had elucidated 
 nothing. Sir Alexander Cockburn summed 
 up the sentiments of his party in a few 
 words. “ What was the meaning of the 
 government?” he asked. “Did the modi¬ 
 fication of the right hon. gentleman the 
 chancellor of the exchequer mean the im¬ 
 position of duties and taxes upon the food 
 of the people ? It was essential that the 
 people should understand that there was a 
 policy by which the government meant to 
 stand or fall, or whether they merely pro¬ 
 posed to stand the chance of the next 
 election on the principle of “ Heads I win: 
 tails you lose.” 
 
 A few evenings (March 19) after the 
 debate, the question was put point-blank 
 by Lord John Russell to Mr. Disraeli, 
 
 only while they possess the confidence of parliament , and 
 more especially of the House of Commons." Constitutional 
 etiquette, however, demands that, on ministers coming into 
 office, no factious opposition should be directed against them 
 until after proof of gross incapacity. On the resignation of 
 the Russell cabinet, Lord John had openly declared that a 
 dissolution of parliament was not expedient; and yet, within 
 a fortnight of having made that statement, he was badgering 
 Mr. Disraeli because he did not dissolve ! The cases alluded 
 to by Sir James Graham are these:—In 1784 Mr. Pitt, 
 being in a parliamentary minority, said, “ Only give me 
 permission to pass the Mutiny Bill, and the House shall 
 be dissolved forthwith.” In 1831 Lord Grey was beaten 
 upon the Reform Bill by George Gascoigne, and he at once 
 tendered his resignation, unless the king were pleased to 
 dissolve the parliament. In 1841 the Russell government 
 was defeated on the vote of want of confidence carried by 
 Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert, therefore, recommended Lord 
 John to dissolve parliament with the least possible delay, 
 and call a new parliament together immediately. These 
 cases were, however, not parallel to the present situation. 
 In 1831 and 1841 the ministers were beaten in parliament 
 by a House of Commons of their own convening. The Derby 
 government was called to power in a House of Commons 
 assembled by the late government, and only brought into 
 power because the late government acknowledged themselves 
 unable to carry on the affairs of the country. The Conser¬ 
 vatives, therefore, thought they should be neglecting their 
 duty if they did not try to carry on the business of the 
 government until the sense of the country could be taken 
 upon certain grave questions. 
 
142 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 whether the ministry, being in an acknow¬ 
 ledged minority, “are prepared to advise 
 the crown to dissolve the present parlia¬ 
 ment and to summon a new one with the 
 least possible delay consistent with a due 
 regard to the public interest in reference to 
 those measures which are of urgent and 
 immediate importance ? ” The chancellor 
 of the exchequer at once rose and stated 
 that Lord John had addressed an unpre¬ 
 cedented question to Her Majesty’s govern¬ 
 ment. “ I shall, however,” said Mr. Disraeli, 
 “ reply to the noble lord. I think it is highly 
 unconstitutional and most impolitic that 
 Her Majesty’s government should pledge 
 themselves to advise Her Majesty to dis¬ 
 solve parliament at a stated and specific 
 period. The noble lord must feel that 
 circumstances might suddenly arise which 
 would render the fulfilment of such a pledge 
 not only injurious, but perhaps even im¬ 
 practicable. At the same time I have no 
 hesitation in saying that it is the intention 
 of Her Majesty’s government to advise Her 
 Majesty to dissolve this parliament so soon 
 as those necessary measures have been 
 passed—I should rather say, so soon as 
 those measures have been passed which are 
 necessary for the service of Her Majesty 
 and the security and good government of 
 her realm. I need only say further, that 
 it is our wish and our intention to meet 
 the new parliament that will be elected, so 
 that the decision of the now parliament may 
 be taken upon the question of confidence in 
 the present administration, and upon the 
 measures which they will find it their duty, 
 under those circumstances, to propose in 
 the course of the present year.” 
 
 Shortly after this announcement the 
 question of reform again came before the 
 House, and the chancellor of the exchequer, 
 as was his custom whenever the elective 
 franchise was discussed, made a long 
 speech. The irrepressible Mr. Hume had 
 requested leave to bring in a bill to amend 
 the national representation by extending 
 the elective franchise so that every man of 
 full age who had been the resident occupier 
 
 of a house or part of a house, as a lodger, 
 for a year, and had been duly rated, should 
 be registered as an elector, and be entitled 
 to vote for a representative in parliament. 
 At the same time he proposed the ballot, 
 triennial parliaments, and that the propor¬ 
 tion of representatives should be made 
 more consistent with the amount of popu¬ 
 lation and property. Mr. Disraeli began by 
 criticising the last proposition of Mr. Hume, 
 since it was, he said, the most interesting. 
 He denied the truth of that very common 
 but very inaccurate statement, that the 
 proportion of representatives was unfairly 
 arranged in favour of territorial influence. 
 It was said that the proportion of repre¬ 
 sentatives was so arranged by the present 
 system that the town populations were not 
 fairly represented in the English constitu¬ 
 tion and in the House of Commons. Such 
 an assertion was untrue. He would deal 
 with facts. Take North Cheshire for ex¬ 
 ample. In North Cheshire they had only 
 two towns, and both of great manufacturing 
 importance—Macclesfield and Stockport. 
 The total population of the county was 
 249,000; the total population of the two 
 towns he had just named was 93,000. 
 There remained, therefore, as the difference 
 between the two, 156,000 for the numbers 
 of the country population. But while the 
 two towns, with a population of 93,000, 
 returned four members to parliament, the 
 rural constituency, wfith a population of 
 156,000,returned no more than twomembers. 
 Take again the case of South Cheshire, in 
 which there was only one town of note, 
 that of Chester. The population of the 
 county was 206,000, and the population of 
 the town of Chester 28,000, leaving 178,000 
 of the population of that county who w T ere 
 not represented, except by the county 
 members. The town of Chester, with its 
 population of 28,000, returned two members, 
 while the county constituency of 178,000 
 returned only the same number. He would 
 instance other great manufacturing counties. 
 He would take the case of South Derby¬ 
 shire, where there was only one considerable 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 143 
 
 town. The population of South Derbyshire 
 was 166,000, and that of the town of Derby 
 a little exceeded 40,000, leaving 125,000 
 of rural population. That population of 
 40,000 returned two members, and the 
 rural population of 125,000 returned only 
 the same number. Take North Durham. 
 That district of the county contained the 
 important towns of Durham, Gateshead, 
 South Shields, and Sunderland. The entire 
 population of North Durham was 272,000, 
 including both the town population and the 
 county population; and it presented this 
 interesting fact, that while the population 
 of the towns was in amount exactly the 
 same as the county population, yet the 
 136,000 of the great commercial and 
 manufacturing towns he had named were 
 represented by six members, while the 
 county population of 136,000—the other 
 moiety of North Durham—were only re¬ 
 presented by two members. He might 
 still pursue the subject. Take the important 
 county of Kent. West Kent had a popu¬ 
 lation of 400,000. It contained four great 
 towns—Chatham, Greenwich, Maidstone, 
 and Rochester, one of those towns having a 
 population of 100,000. The population of 
 the towns was 169,000, and the remaining 
 rural population w T as 228,000; yet the 
 urban population of 169,000 returned seven 
 members to parliament, while the 228,000 
 only returned the two members for West 
 Kent. And examination into the cases of 
 North and South Lancashire, East Norfolk, 
 and the East and West Riding, presented 
 similar results. 
 
 “Year after year,” said Mr. Disraeli, “we 
 have been told of the monstrous injustice 
 of the distribution of the present electoral 
 system—that our representative system is 
 favourably to territorial influences, and that 
 artificial means have been devised of giving 
 preponderance to the landed interest. But 
 we never heard a single word of the re¬ 
 markable circumstances which I have just 
 adduced. We have been furnished with 
 many striking contrasts between the number 
 of representatives returned by the great 
 
 manufacturing towns in South Lancashire, 
 and by the smaller boroughs in the south 
 of England ; but no parliamentary reformer 
 has yet condescended to favour the House 
 with the results of a more extended research, 
 which would at least have allowed us to 
 bring to the discussion of this subject 
 more extensive views, and perhaps a more 
 temperate spirit.” 
 
 Having examined the subject so far, 
 continued Mr. Disraeli, he must confess 
 he had arrived at a different conclusion 
 from that of Mr. Hume. He thought 
 that his statistics, and the statistics of 
 his school, were founded upon partial 
 instances, and supported by fantastic com¬ 
 binations, which were calculated to convey 
 to the country erroneous impressions—im¬ 
 pressions not at all justified even by that 
 gentleman’s own data. All the data upon 
 which Mr. Hume had relied appeared to him 
 illusory; and as the facts to which he, the 
 chancellor of the exchequer, had appealed 
 were open to all, and might be found in the 
 books in the library of that House, and 
 in other equally accessible and authentic 
 documents, he should be surprised indeed 
 to find Mr. Hume maintaining his position, 
 that in the distribution of the representation 
 the town population, as contradistinguished 
 from and compared with that of the country, 
 had not been fairly and justly treated in 
 the present electoral system. It appeared 
 to him that that was a position that could 
 no longer be supported. 
 
 With regard to the proposals of triennial 
 parliaments and vote by ballot, pro¬ 
 ceeded Mr. Disraeli, he would state what 
 he had always said—he did not object 
 to them, but he saw no necessity to 
 adopt them. It would be a change, and a 
 change, unless for the better, was seldom 
 a wise proceeding. Nor did he see how the 
 ballot could be established. If they had 
 the ballot with a limited constituency, they 
 committed a greater injustice upon the 
 unenfranchised classes; and if they had 
 universal suffrage, they came to a new 
 constitution—“ a constitution,” cried Mr. 
 
144 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 Disraeli, “ commonly called the Sovereignty 
 of the People; you came to that constitu¬ 
 tion, in short, so much spoken of, so often 
 panegyrized by the reforming and liberal 
 members of this House—the constitution 
 of America. But the sovereignty of the 
 people is not the constitution of England; 
 for wisely modified as that monarchy may 
 be, the constitution of England is the sove¬ 
 reignty of Queen Victoria.” 
 
 But it had been alleged that vote by bal¬ 
 lot would put an end to all bribery and 
 corruption. Was that so ? He had papers 
 in his hand touching elections in the United 
 States, where the ballot was in all its glory. 
 Yet those papers stated that so alarming 
 was the increase of bribery that had taken 
 place in the elections for the state of New 
 York, that it demanded the serious atten¬ 
 tion of _the legislature. This was the way 
 he read how persons were treated at the 
 last election in that pattern America, and 
 under the beneficial influence of the ballot: 
 —“ Individuals were not merely beaten 
 from the polls, but they were knocked 
 down, beaten, and stabbed when proceeding 
 about their ordinary occupations in open 
 day, in distant parts of the city. The 
 police appeared to have been utterly ineffi¬ 
 cient, and the 100,000 citizen soldiers, of 
 whom the New York papers boasted so 
 much, were content to remain at home 
 while a few gangs of ruffians commanded 
 all the approaches to the polling-booths, and 
 in one instance destroyed the ballot-box.” 
 It was idle to suppose that open voting 
 or vote by ballot could check corruption; 
 it was a question of morality, not of politi¬ 
 cal discipline. “ I believe,” said Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli, “it is a growing conviction among 
 Englishmen that corruption is the conse¬ 
 quence, not of one form of voting or of 
 another, but of men being properly or im¬ 
 properly brought up. You may pass laws 
 ostensibly to prevent corruption in countries 
 where voting is secret, as well as in coun¬ 
 tries where voting is open; but corruption 
 cannot be stopped by acts of parliament; it 
 can only be stopped by elevating the tone 
 
 of the community, and making men ashamed 
 of the thing itself. You must seek for an 
 antidote to corruption in that direction, and 
 not in the newfangled systems of election. 
 I say, further, that the tone of the com¬ 
 munity in which we live has become more 
 elevated in this respect. Every successive 
 quarter of a century shows an improvement. 
 No man who knows anything of the tone of 
 public life a hundred years ago, can hesitate 
 to admit that corruption then ascended 
 much higher in society than it does at 
 present. You have driven corruption from 
 the higher classes. In proportion as edu¬ 
 cation and opinion extended among the 
 gentry, men became purer; and when the 
 same influences come into equal operation 
 among the humbler classes, it will be recog¬ 
 nized that it is for the interest of all classes 
 that bribery should disappear.” 
 
 In conclusion, he dealt with an assertion 
 which Mr. Bright and the rest of the Man¬ 
 chester school were constantly in the habit 
 of making—an assertion out of which they 
 derived considerable capital when address¬ 
 ing the ignorant portion of their constitu 
 ents “ Is the system to be endured,” cried 
 the Manchester politicians, “ in which only 
 one in seven of the adult population of this 
 country enjoys the franchise ? ” Mr. Disraeli 
 then entered into statistics compiled from the 
 census of 1841 and the electoral return of 
 1842-43, clearly proving that instead of 
 one in seven of the adult population enjoy¬ 
 ing the franchise, it was, as a matter of fact, 
 nearly one in three! “ What a difference,” 
 
 he laughed, “ from the statements made at 
 Manchester and at Leeds ! From those of 
 reform associations at Liverpool or any¬ 
 where else! What a difference from the 
 statements made in pamphlets! What a 
 difference from the statements of those 
 erratic orators who, during the recess, have 
 astonished the world ! Why, instead of one 
 in seven, it is absolutely little more than 
 half what you say, even including 1,500,000 
 of labourers, whom not one of you have 
 unequivocally proposed to enfranchise.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli therefore considered the 
 
AND IIIS TIMES. 
 
 145 
 
 propositions now before the House crude, 
 false, and based on grave statistical errors. 
 Neither he nor his party was opposed 
 to reform. The Conservatives did not 
 consider an extension of the franchise 
 as synonymous with the extension of 
 democratic power. It did not follow, 
 because they refused to listen to proposi¬ 
 tions of the kind now before them, that 
 they as a party were opposed to all reform. 
 No; the contrary was the fact. “But 
 I will tell the hon. gentleman,” said Mr. 
 Disraeli, looking at Mr. Hume, “what we 
 are opposed to—we are adverse to all crude 
 and unnecessary proposals founded on such 
 erroneous calculations as the present. I 
 tell him that if any project on this or any 
 other subject is brought forward, I hope it 
 will be founded on more accurate data than 
 the one before us. What we are opposed 
 to is tampering with the depositary of 
 political power—to constant shifting and 
 changing of the depositary of political 
 power—as the most injurious thing to a 
 country that can be conceived. You may 
 talk of tampering with the currency, and 
 there are few things worse; but that which 
 is worse is, tampering with the constituency 
 of England. If there is to be a change, 
 let it be a change called for by pure neces¬ 
 sity, and one which is calculated to give 
 general—I will not say final—but general 
 and permanent satisfaction. I ask, is the 
 proposition of the hon. member for Mon¬ 
 trose—the whole foundation of which I 
 have shown to be utterly fallacious—is that 
 a proposition calculated to give general and 
 permanent satisfaction? . . . We can¬ 
 
 not sanction the proposition of the hon. 
 gentleman or his friends. And may we 
 not flatter ourselves -that after the debate 
 of this night, he will reconsider these 
 things—that he will investigate them—that 
 he will calmly consider the important infor¬ 
 mation from the other side of the Atlantic 
 which I have given him—and that next 
 year, with a health, spirit, and energy 
 which I hope he will long enjoy, we may 
 find him coming forward more temperate 
 VOL. i. 
 
 in his views, and more careful in his state¬ 
 ments ? Till we have propositions of a 
 different character brought forward, I shall 
 stand by the settlement made in 1832 ; not 
 because it was a settlement made for our 
 party interests—for, on the contrary, it was 
 levelled against those supposed interests; 
 but the good sense of the country has exer¬ 
 cised a remedial influence over the devices 
 of rival factions, and under that settlement 
 of 1832 the country has on the whole, in 
 my opinion, been well governed. At any 
 rate, it is not what is styled the Liberal 
 party which should dispute that position. 
 There is not a great question, which during 
 the last twenty years has enlisted a pre¬ 
 ponderating amount of popular sympathy 
 out of doors, which this House has not 
 adopted and carried; and though I may 
 think that in more than one instance great 
 subjects have thus been dealt with in an 
 unwise and precipitate spirit, that should 
 be no cause of censure with hon. gentlemen 
 opposite. Until, therefore, they can suc¬ 
 ceed in showing that this country has of 
 late years been generally misgoverned— 
 and that would be a condemnation of their 
 whole course—and until they are prepared 
 to substitute for the existing House of 
 Commons a far more clear and coherent 
 scheme than any they have yet offered, I 
 must uphold an arrangement, which, though 
 conceived in no friendly spirit to the Tory 
 party, is one which has not proved hostile 
 to the national institutions—institutions 
 which, I believe, to be necessary not only 
 to the greatness of the country, but to the 
 freedom of the people.” These arguments, 
 which Lord John Russell admitted had 
 been gone through with “very great ability,” 
 carried the day. On the House dividing, 
 the motion of Mr. Hume was rejected by a 
 majority of 155. 
 
 The government were to score a still 
 greater victory. The change of a Russell 
 cabinet into a Derby cabinet had made no 
 difference in the feeling of the nation as to 
 the imperfect state of the internal defences 
 of the country. With France it was true 
 
 19 
 
146 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 we were then at peace; but every day 
 events proved that Louis Napoleon was 
 not only a bold man, but an unscrupulous 
 man, who would not hesitate to resort to 
 the wildest proceedings if by them he 
 pandered to the vanity of his new subjects, 
 or could render his tenure of power more 
 secure. In the clubs, in drawing rooms, on 
 provincial exchanges, the one subject upon 
 which all men agreed was the possibility of 
 England being invaded by a foreign enemy, 
 and that enemy our old foe, who was 
 burning to revenge Waterloo. It was said 
 that within twenty miles of our coast were 
 500,000 soldiers, who, thanks to the appli¬ 
 cation of steam to the purposes of marine, 
 could effect a speedy landing upon our 
 shores. Even the first Napoleon, it was 
 nervously argued, wanted but the command 
 of the channel for a brief twenty-four hours, 
 to see his 60,000 men, then under canvas 
 at Boulogne, marching through Sussex and 
 Kent straight upon London; and now, 
 through the agencies of the screw and the 
 paddle, but a fifth of that time would be 
 sufficient to see the blue coats and red 
 trousers of the French soldiery in our midst. 
 “ Only conceive,” cried Mr. Roebuck, then 
 preparing for his part as the dog “ Tear ’em,” 
 “only conceive what would be the con¬ 
 sequence, not merely to England, but to 
 mankind at large, of the occupation of Lon¬ 
 don but for twelve hours by an invading 
 force. Don’t tell me this is not likely to 
 happen. Let me call to your recollection 
 that London is the only capital in Europe 
 in which French armies have not planted 
 themselves. Those armies have roamed 
 through Europe, checked only first by frost, 
 and secondly by England; and let the 
 House be well assured that France has not 
 forgotten this latter check, but is, on the 
 contrary, now more than ever eager to have 
 her revenge. Yes! there is danger, and 
 great danger, ay, and immediate danger; 
 and speaking not as an individual, but as 
 a man interested in the destinies of 
 humanity, as a friend of the people, I 
 call upon the parliament to strengthen 
 
 England, not for the purpose of aggressive 
 warfare, but of national defence.” 
 
 In this appeal Mr. Roebuck rightly felt 
 the pulse of the country. Every one— 
 save the cheese-parers and the abject 
 traders who had studied pusillanimity as 
 a virtue behind the counters of Manchester 
 —was in favour of the maxim, “If you wish 
 for peace, prepare for war.” It was all very 
 well to talk of the spirit of England; but 
 of what avail would such spirit be against 
 a disciplined and aggressive foe ? “ Unor¬ 
 
 ganized, undisciplined, without systematic 
 subordination established and well under¬ 
 stood,” said the Duke of Wellington, “ this 
 spirit opposed to the fire of musketry and 
 cannon, and to sabres and bayonets of 
 disciplined troops, would only expose those 
 animated by such spirit to confusion and 
 destruction.” What was wanted was a 
 practised and capable force to be held in 
 reserve in case of emergency. The Whigs 
 had brought in a bill to amend the laws 
 relating to the local militia, which political 
 reverses had now caused them to abandon; 
 the Tories would therefore be greatly to 
 blame if, on an occasion like the present, 
 they were to ignore the defenceless condi¬ 
 tion of the country. Accordingly towards 
 the end of March Mr. Walpole was intrusted 
 with the task of carrying through the 
 House of Commons a bill to “ amend and 
 consolidate the laws respecting the militia.” 
 
 The speech in which he introduced his 
 measure was temperate and practical. He 
 did not think, he said, that the country 
 was menaced with any actual and im¬ 
 mediate danger; but, looking to the 
 elements of anarchy and confusion in 
 Europe, it was certainly necessary that 
 England ought in her means of defence 
 at least, whatever might be her means of 
 attack, to be placed on an equal footing 
 with other nations. Were they, or were 
 they not, in such a state of defence as 
 the inhabitants of a great country like 
 theirs ought to be ? The answer was not a 
 difficult one. They had, it was true, a large 
 army; but that army was not a quarter of 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 147 
 
 tlie army of Russia, not half the army of 
 Prussia, not a third of the army of France, 
 and very little more than the army of 
 Belgium; and yet they had to defend an 
 empire comprising one-sixth of the popula¬ 
 tion and one-eighth of the surface of the 
 habitable globe. Their troops were conse¬ 
 quently scattered over the whole world. 
 In case of sudden invasion or incursion, 
 what was the force which they could bring 
 to bear upon the south coast of England ? 
 He replied that, even by leaving the rest of 
 the country deprived of military force, they 
 could not bring to bear upon any one point 
 25,000 men. He did not forget the navy. 
 It was said that they had ships enough to 
 cover the whole of the south coast; but if 
 that were true, had they men enough to 
 man them? and if they had ships enough, 
 would the House vote the money to enable 
 the government to put them in commission? 
 Besides, in a case of invasion a fleet was 
 rarely serviceable unless aided by a covering 
 force by land. He proposed, therefore, to 
 have recourse to their national militia; it 
 was a force familiar to the country, it had 
 done good service in the past, and from it 
 they could recruit the regular army. The 
 objects of the measure he now brought 
 before the House were to create an addi¬ 
 tional force of 80,000 men, to be per¬ 
 manently established for the defence of 
 the kingdom. This force was to be raised 
 by means of bounties—say £3 or £4— 
 and the period of training and drilling 
 was to be twenty-one days, with a power 
 to the Crown to extend such period, in 
 cases of necessity, to fifty-six days. 
 
 So little was this militia bill a party 
 act, that its provisions were more or less 
 cordially approved of by the leading 
 members on both sides of the House. 
 There was, however, one conspicuous ex¬ 
 ception. In all matters not connected 
 with the development of commerce Mr. 
 Cobden held the short-sighted views of 
 the culpably thrifty and mean-spirited 
 tradesman. Every proceeding that tended 
 to keep the shop open and fill it with 
 
 wares, he warmly approved of; but 
 no sooner was it a question of ex¬ 
 pending anything upon the purchase of 
 iron shutters, or upon the increase of 
 the patrol for the better protection of the 
 warehouse, than he became acrid and 
 miserly, noisily asserting that there were 
 no thieves about, nor any probability 
 of a riot. On this occasion of the militia 
 bill he was very true to the teaching of 
 his contemptible philosophy. He did not 
 believe in the possibility of England being 
 invaded; and if she were, of what use, he 
 asked, would such a force be as the militia? 
 “ I can’t treat the thing as serious,” he 
 cried; “it just seems to me to be this, that 
 somebody wants to create soldiers; that 
 lords-lieutenant want patronage and fuss; 
 that somebody else seeks amusement with 
 red coats; and I do not believe that any¬ 
 body in this country seriously entertains 
 the fear of an invasion by France.” The 
 French, he continued, were a commercial 
 people, second only to ourselves as 
 a manufacturing nation, and they had 
 something far better to do than to 
 make a raid upon England. Instead of 
 increasing our army, we ought to reduce it. 
 He was satisfied with the defences of the 
 nation; why, therefore, was he to be taxed 
 in order that the militia should be increased? 
 It was absurd to say that the country was 
 in danger; he did not care for the opinions 
 of naval and military officers and such 
 people; the Marylebone vestry had declared 
 that the country was not in danger, and 
 that was sufficient for him. [What would 
 Mr. Cobden have thought if the English 
 farmer had argued in some such fashion: 
 He, Bill Hodges, was quite satisfied with 
 the duty on corn, why should he be harshly 
 taxed in order that the corn laws should be 
 repealed ? He did not care for the opinions 
 of economists, leaguers, and such folk; the 
 farmers’ ordinary at the “ Magpie and 
 Stump ” had declared that the corn laws 
 were necessary for the landed interest, and 
 that was sufficient for him!] It was the 
 custom of the Treasury bench, said Mr. 
 
143 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 Cobden, allowing his miserable economy to 
 get the better of his common sense, to chat¬ 
 ter about the paucity of the services, yet the 
 truth was they had more men in them 
 than were required. Bring the troops home 
 from the colonies, he suggested, and disband 
 them; order the ships home from their sta¬ 
 tions and burn them to the water’s edge, 
 provided France would do the same; then 
 taxation could be reduced, then the country 
 could be happy, prosperous, and contented. 
 He saw no reason for this increase of their 
 armaments; and as he considered the bill 
 a wanton act, he should oppose the measure 
 at every stage. Mr. Bright, of course, fol¬ 
 lowed suit. Comic satire has represented 
 Mr. Bright as a “ roaring bull,” making the 
 welkin of vested interests ring with his 
 deep-mouthed threatening tones. At this 
 time of his political career, however, his 
 roar was little more than the echo of the 
 eloquence of the great apostle of free-trade; 
 indeed, Mr. Bright so admired Mr. Cobden 
 as scarcely to be capable of expressing an 
 independent opinion; * satire would there¬ 
 fore have been more true to its art if 
 it had described the then representative 
 of Manchester as a spaniel instead of as a 
 member of the bovine herd. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli made a short speech upon 
 the first reading of the bill, and then more 
 in refutation of Mr. Cobden’s unpatriotic 
 arguments than in support of the measure 
 itself. He would not attempt, he said 
 sarcastically, to answer Mr. Cobden, who 
 had made one of those agreeable speeches 
 which he always listened to with pleasure. 
 Mr. Cobden was not merely against the 
 militia, but against all defence—against 
 the line, the household troops, the artillery, 
 and the cavalry; and his arguments pro¬ 
 ceeded on the assumption that in the 
 present state of the world no country need 
 defend itself. The chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer could not give his adhesion to 
 
 * It is true that Mr. Bright called the Derby cabinet a 
 “ confederated imposture,” but, as Mr. Disraeli had some 
 years before stigmatized the government of Sir Robert Peel 
 as an “ organized hypocrisy,” the originality of the remark is 
 perhaps open to dispute. 
 
 those opinions. There were features in the 
 present political arrangements of the world 
 which forbade him to believe that the reign 
 of peace was to be ushered in. So long as 
 he found the strongest places in the pos¬ 
 session of the weakest powers, so long as 
 he observed that throughout Europe and 
 Asia the richest countries were under the 
 dominion of the poorest sovereigns, he felt 
 that that was a state of things which would 
 lead no doubt hereafter, he hoped not in 
 his own time, to very great changes which 
 could not, he believed, be effected by any 
 other agency than war. It was the duty, 
 therefore, of a country like England to be 
 prepared for any emergency that might 
 arise. 
 
 The craven counsels of Mr. Cobden and 
 his school did not bear much fruit. On 
 the second reading of the bill the House 
 divided—ayes, 315; noes, 165; majority, 150. 
 The royal assent was given to the bill June 
 30, 1852. 
 
 During the first weeks of his tenure of 
 office Mr. Disraeli was deeply immersed in 
 business. In addition to the heavy work 
 involved in the preparation of his first 
 financial statement before a keenly critical 
 audience, scarcely a night passed without 
 him being called upon to make some reply, 
 which partook more or less of the nature 
 of a speech. How it was upon a question of 
 supply, then upon some railway extension, 
 then upon the hop duty, or the import 
 duties upon wine, or the paper duty, or the 
 Frome Vicarage case, or the corrupt prac¬ 
 tices at elections, or he had to explain 
 the clauses contained in a private bill 
 which the government either opposed or 
 supported. Silence and repose were denied 
 him. He had hoped that the defeat of Mr. 
 Hume would have restrained the activity of 
 the Reformers, and that they would have 
 been content to leave the bill of 1832 
 alone until they were more united as to 
 the amendments they proposed to effect. 
 He was soon undeceived. Only a few days 
 after the rejection of Mr. Hume’s motion, 
 Mr. Locke-King came forward to do battle, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 149 
 
 ever-faithful to liis old love, tlie county 
 franchise. He begged leave, April 27, 
 1852, to bring in a bill to make the 
 franchise, and procedure at elections in 
 England and Wales, the same as in the 
 boroughs, by giving the right of voting to 
 all occupiers of tenements of the annual 
 value of ten pounds; the time of taking 
 the poll to be limited to one day, and the 
 time of proceeding to election to be limited 
 to eight days. It was the same bill as he 
 had introduced the year before, with the 
 addition as to polling places and the dura¬ 
 tion of elections, and among the chief 
 supporters of the innovation were Mr. 
 Hume and Mr. Bright. 
 
 The chancellor of the exchequer gave the 
 motion his unqualified opposition. He 
 objected to it because it was partial, and 
 he also considered that the lax system, 
 session after session, of tampering with the 
 constitution, now of attempting to alter 
 the constituencies of the towns and then of 
 seeking to add to or adjust the constituencies 
 of counties, was mischievous, and could 
 only lead to conclusions which would be 
 unsatisfactory. He had also another objec¬ 
 tion to the bill. He had often said, and 
 it was the expression of a deep and sincere 
 conviction on his part, that he thought in 
 the construction of that memorable law, 
 the Reform Act of 1832, there was a very 
 great deficiency—which consisted in a want 
 of due consideration of the rights of the 
 working classes to the franchise. And if 
 there were that great deficiency in their 
 system of representation, he assuredly could 
 not understand how that measure, or the 
 other measures on the same subject which 
 had been so frequently proposed, were at 
 all to meet the deficiency. Under their 
 old system, by the suffrages of the freemen, 
 the political rights of the labourers were 
 acknowledged by the constitution. They 
 virtually destroyed those rights. He was 
 aware, of course, that the rights of the then 
 possessors were reserved. But the fountains 
 which supplied that constituency were 
 destroyed; and, in fact, they virtually ter¬ 
 
 minated the political rights of labour with 
 the class of freemen they destroyed. lie 
 traced much of the discontent in the country , 
 which at times had been painfully felt, with 
 regard to the Reform Act of 1832, to the 
 omission to which he had adverted. Yet, 
 what had been the remedy w T hich had been 
 offered by those who arrogated to them¬ 
 selves the sole privilege of representing 
 and championing the rights of the working 
 classes ? They came forward and proposed 
 a large extension of the suffrage, virtually 
 universal suffrage; their remedy was to 
 throw the whole power of the country into 
 the hands of a mere class. Instead of 
 securing a constituency which gave to 
 property all the rights of property, which 
 gave to labour all the rights of labour, 
 which cherished, in short, the existence of 
 those various classes, the recognition, the 
 legal and political recognition, of whose 
 interests had, he believed, been one of the 
 main causes of the flourishing condition of 
 the country, and of the duration of its 
 order—both social and political—they pro¬ 
 posed, as a remedy, a measure which 
 essentially was a measure of class legisla¬ 
 tion, because they proposed to give political 
 authority to a class so numerous that it 
 would overwhelm all other classes, and 
 entirely change the constitution of the 
 country. To such a change he was opposed, 
 as hurtful to the condition and character of 
 the nation. 
 
 Still, continued Mr. Disraeli, that was 
 no reason why they might not consider 
 whether an industrial franchise might 
 not be invented which would give satis¬ 
 faction to those who claimed to be repre¬ 
 sented in the legislation of the country. 
 That was a question which deserved the 
 grave consideration of any man responsible 
 for the good government of the country. 
 On the part of himself, and on the part 
 of his colleagues—he had said it before, 
 and he repeated it now, in order that their 
 opinions might not be misunderstood—he 
 stated that they did not necessarily associate 
 an extension of the franchise with the 
 
150 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 extension of democratic power. If he could 
 see any measure brought forward—well 
 matured, conceived, not in political passion, 
 but with a sincere desire of giving to deserv¬ 
 ing artisans the exercise of the suffrage in a 
 manner consistent with the maintenance of 
 those institutions the preservation of which 
 he believed were as much for the interest 
 of those artisans as they were for the 
 interests of any other class of the country 
 —he would give, and so would those with 
 whom he acted, to such a proposition a 
 dispassionate and kind consideration. But 
 the motion of Mr. Locke-King was not of 
 that class; and until some measure was 
 brought forward which, as he thought, met 
 the difficulties of the case, he must take his 
 stand upon the settlement which existed— 
 not from any superstitious reverence for 
 that settlement, hut because he was opposed 
 to year after year tampering with the con¬ 
 stitution of the country — a tampering 
 which he was convinced was the source of 
 political weakness and of national debility. 
 
 Let no one suppose, said Mr. Disraeli, 
 that there was, on the part of the present 
 government, any bigoted adherence to the 
 forms then existing. The present govern¬ 
 ment had only one object, an object 
 which he sincerely believed was that of 
 all the members of the House, the good 
 government of the country. But they 
 desired to see the greatness of the realm 
 maintained, and the prosperity of the 
 people secured. And if a change in the 
 franchise was only proposed as a mode of 
 obtaining political power, and of exciting 
 political agitation, to such proposal they 
 must give their unconditional and uncom¬ 
 promising opposition. He had too much 
 respect for Mr. Locke-King to describe his 
 motion as a measure of that kind. But he 
 must nevertheless describe it as essentially 
 unsatisfactory, not calculated in any degree 
 to meet the exigency of the state of affairs; 
 one which he could easily understand, if 
 successful, might lead to much disturb¬ 
 ance and readjustment, but which at the 
 same time could conduce to no permanent 
 
 or enduringly acceptable settlement; and, 
 therefore he must give to it—not because 
 that was the last session of the existing 
 parliament, but because he would take the 
 same view under any circumstances—an 
 unqualified opposition. On a division the 
 motion was lost by a majority of fifty-three. 
 
 The chief attraction of the session was, 
 however, Mr. Disraeli’s financial statement, 
 As the night approached for the details 
 of the budget to be laid before the House, 
 the excitement and curiosity became very 
 marked. Every seat in the speaker’s gal¬ 
 lery had been engaged days before-hand; 
 and on the afternoon of the debate the 
 lobbies were crowded with persons appealing 
 to members and corrupting door-keepers for 
 admission into the strangers’ gallery. The 
 House was fuller than it had ever been 
 since the famous Don Pacifico affair; for 
 though it was known that the statement to 
 be made was only a provisional statement, 
 and the budget only a provisional budget, 
 yet curiosity was very keen as to how the 
 new chancellor of the exchequer would 
 deal with his first financial exposition. 
 During the last three years he had been 
 almost the only member of his party who 
 had openly abandoned the principle of pro¬ 
 tection; what course, then, it was asked, would 
 he adopt which would satisfy the views 
 of those who sat on his side of the House, 
 and at the same time would recommend 
 itself to the nation generally ? How could 
 he compensate the agricultural interest for 
 their past sufferings ? It was known that 
 he disapproved of direct taxation; what 
 would he substitute for it ? As one opposed 
 to the principles of free trade, what duties 
 would he add, what remissions would he 
 effect ? Then, as is always the case when 
 expectation is at its height, imagination 
 and mendacity went hand in hand and 
 filled the newspapers and the clubs with 
 every fiction that rumour or gossip could 
 devise. One journal had it, “on the very 
 best authority,” that Lord Derby had 
 pledged himself to uphold the policy 
 of Protection, and that the moment Mr. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 151 
 
 Disraeli rose to address the House, some 
 most startling disclosures would he made. 
 Another declared, also “on the very best 
 authority,” that Mr. Herries was about to 
 move for the restoration of the navigation 
 laws. Liverpool and Manchester held mass 
 meetings, vowing cnat they would move 
 heaven and earth to turn out the govern¬ 
 ment if the duty of a single farthing were 
 placed on the importation of foreign corn. 
 Tadpole, who was an income-tax commis¬ 
 sioner, hovered nervous and worried between 
 White’s and the Carlton, wondering whether 
 there was any truth in the report that the 
 income tax was not to be renewed ? Taper, 
 who was drawing his £1200 a year in the 
 inland revenue, had heard that the excise 
 duties on soap and paper were about to be 
 removed, and that his appointment was in 
 danger. Then the men with their special 
 interests, and the men with their special 
 hobbies, wanted to know how they would 
 be affected by the forthcoming budget. 
 The farmers wanted to know whether the 
 malt tax would be taken off; the econo¬ 
 mists wanted to know what exemptions 
 were to be made to the principle of direct 
 taxation; the manufacturers wanted to 
 know what excise duties, which pressed so 
 heavily upon their wares, were to be 
 removed or reduced; Liverpool and Minc¬ 
 ing Lane were anxious as to the duty on 
 tea; the distillers hoped there would be a 
 clause in the budget placing the dealers of 
 home-made spirits in bond on a footing of 
 equality with the dealers of foreign and 
 colonial spirits, with regard to the loss by 
 leakage and evaporation; whilst the military 
 element made bets as to the cost of the 
 Kaffir war. In short, there was not an 
 individual or a calling which did not look 
 forward to the day when curiosity would 
 be satisfied, and timiditv be set at rest 
 from suspense. 
 
 At last the long anticipated moment 
 arrived. The order of the day had been 
 read for a committee of ways and means; 
 Mr. Bernal had taken his seat in the 
 chair; and then, amid encouraging applause 
 
 from both sides of the House, immediately 
 followed by the stillest silence, Mr. Disraeli 
 rose up (April 30, 1852) to lay before the 
 country his financial statement. It was 
 his habit in most of his carefully prepared 
 speeches, not merely to adhere to dry facts, 
 but whilst imparting a literary flavour to 
 his matter, at the same time to give it 
 an educational tone. On this occasion 
 he began by sketching the history of the 
 revenue, and the source from which it was 
 raised. There were three modes, he said, 
 of raising the revenue of this country—by 
 duties upon articles of foreign import, by 
 duties upon articles of domestic manufac¬ 
 ture, and by a system of direct taxation. 
 The income for the preceding year had ex¬ 
 ceeded the expenditure by some £2,000,000, 
 but for the year to come the expiration of 
 the income tax would leave a deficiency 
 estimated at the same amount. The ques¬ 
 tion, therefore, was, how was that deficiency 
 of £2,000,000 to be supplied ? He did 
 not, in the present parliament, certainly 
 think the prospect of making up that 
 deficiency by an increase of the customs 
 duties was very encouraging. For, during 
 the last ten years—from 1842 to 1851 
 —he found one very remarkable feature 
 in the financial management of the coun¬ 
 try, and that was, that in every one of 
 those years there had been a reduction 
 of duties upon foreign articles imported 
 into the country. They had reduced or 
 repealed duties upon coffee, upon timber, 
 upon wool, silk, spirits, and numerous 
 other articles, until in the ten years 
 mentioned they had struck off nearly 
 £9,000,000 of calculated revenue from 
 customs duties. That being the case, 
 said Mr. Disraeli, it would be somewhat 
 presumptuous on his part to suppose that 
 he could induce the House to supply 
 the deficiency by the imposition of fresh 
 duties upon imports. 
 
 Was his prospect, then, more encou¬ 
 raging when he sought to meet the diffi¬ 
 culty by having recourse to duties on 
 articles of domestic manufacture ? In 
 
152 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the great controversies upon commercial 
 legislation which had been agitated of 
 late, two opinions had been strenuously 
 advocated in that House as to the prefer¬ 
 able means by which the industry of the 
 country might be relieved—the one advo¬ 
 cating the repeal of customs duties, the 
 other the remission or the repeal of excise 
 duties. Between these two schools, what 
 was he to do ? As the calculated sources 
 of revenue from the customs had been 
 reduced, as he had just stated, by an 
 amount of £9,000,000; so, during the last 
 ten years, by various remissions of the 
 excise duties, a sum of £1,500,000 had 
 been lost on the excise. “ If one side of 
 this House, 1 ” laughed Mr. Disraeli, “are 
 of opinion that you must not supply a 
 deficient revenue by customs duties, and 
 the other side of the House are equally 
 convinced that an excise duty is more 
 injurious to the industry of a country than 
 a duty on the import of foreign articles, 
 what is the prospect of success for a 
 chancellor of the exchequer, if his means 
 of supplying a deficiency are limited to 
 those two still important sources of our 
 public revenue ? ” 
 
 There was, then, the alternative of apply¬ 
 ing to the third mode in which revenue 
 could be raised—direct taxation. Yet, 
 when he came to consider how hateful 
 both to the House and the nation was the 
 property and income tax, he felt that he 
 had as little to expect from direct taxation 
 as from indirect. What course was he to 
 adopt; for, in questions 1 of finance, the 
 feelings of the people were to be considered 
 as much as the principles of science ? In 
 theory, direct taxation was an easy, a 
 simple, and a captivating process; but, 
 when they came to apply it generally, it 
 was astonishing the obstacles they en¬ 
 countered and the prejudices they created. 
 In his opinion, if the principle of direct 
 taxation was to be permanently established 
 in the country, it should be as universal in 
 its application as indirect taxation. “No 
 doubt,” said Mr. Disraeli, ever true to his 
 
 dislike of partial and class legislation, “ by 
 establishing a temporary measure of direct 
 taxation based upon a large system of 
 exemptions, you may give a great impulse 
 to industry; you may lighten the springs 
 of industry very effectually for a time; 
 but—not to dwell upon the gross and 
 glaring injustice of a system of finance 
 that would tax directly a very limited 
 portion of the population—but looking 
 only to the economical and financial con¬ 
 sequences of such a system, who cannot 
 but feel that in the long run industry 
 itself must suffer from such a process ? 
 For, after all, what is direct taxation 
 founded on a system of exemptions ? It 
 is confiscation. It is making war upon 
 the capital which ultimately must employ 
 that very industry which you wish to 
 relieve.” 
 
 He then entered upon statistics most 
 gratifying for his opponents to listen to. 
 In spite of a vast remission of taxation the 
 actual income of the year 1851-52 had 
 exceeded the income estimated by Sir 
 Charles Wood, the late chancellor of the 
 exchequer, by more than £300,000. In 
 spite of the reduction of the duties on 
 sugar, coffee, and timber the customs had 
 exceeded by some £200,000 the estimates 
 formed by Sir Charles, whilst the consump¬ 
 tion and importation of coffee, sugar, and 
 timber had greatly increased. Throughout 
 the whole of the estimates of the late 
 chancellor of the exchequer there was the 
 same pleasant difference between the actual 
 receipts and the calculated receipts—the 
 excise, the post office, stamps, and taxes, 
 &c., all brought more money to the ex¬ 
 chequer than had been anticipated. These 
 statements certainly did not prove that free 
 trade had been ruinous to the country, and 
 they were vociferously cheered by the 
 Opposition. It was not, however, every 
 rival who would have had the courage or 
 the generosity of Mr. Disraeli to bring such 
 facts forward. At the same time we must 
 remember that this financial prosperity was 
 not entirely due to free trade; it was due 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 153 
 
 in no small measure to the levying of the 
 income tax, to the gold discoveries in America 
 and Australia, and to the impetus given 
 to business by the Great Exhibition. 
 
 The chancellor of the exchequer then 
 came to his own financial statement. 
 For the estimated expenditure of the 
 year 1852-53 he was scarcely responsible, 
 since its estimate had been prepared 
 by his predecessor in office, Sir Charles 
 Wood. That expenditure he put at over 
 £51,000,000, and he proposed to raise it 
 from the usual sources of indirect taxation* 
 From the calculations he had made there 
 would be, without the income tax, a deficit of 
 over £2,000,000; he would, therefore, ask for 
 a continuance of the duties on property and 
 income for a limited period, which would 
 leave him a surplus of some £500,000. 
 Then, in conclusion, he expressed the views 
 of the cabinet as to the principles upon which 
 the public revenue should be raised. He 
 looked with great apprehension upon the 
 opinions prevalent in the House of Commons, 
 which seemed opposed to all the great 
 sources of raising the income of the country. 
 He considered that nothing would be 
 more injurious than rashly and rapidly to 
 reduce the sources of indirect taxation, 
 whilst they had come to no general conclu¬ 
 sion as to the principles upon which direct 
 taxation should be levied. He was of 
 
 * The estimated expenditure for the current year, ending 
 in April, 1853, was £51,163,979, viz.:— 
 
 Debts and charges on Consolidated 
 
 Fund,.£30,550,000 
 
 Army,. 6,491,893 
 
 Navy (including Packet Service), . 6,493,000 
 
 Ordnance,. 2,437,000 
 
 Civil Estimates,. 4,182,086 
 
 Caffre War,. 660,000 
 
 Militia,. 350,000 
 
 Total,.£51,163,979 
 
 The sources of supply were estimated as follows:— 
 
 Customs,. 
 
 Excise,. 
 
 Stamps, ......... 
 
 Taxes,. 
 
 Property tax (half a year), . . . 
 
 Post Office,. 
 
 Woods,. 
 
 Miscellaneous,. 
 
 Old Stores,.- 
 
 £20,572,000 
 
 14,604,895 
 
 6,339,000 
 
 3,090,000 
 
 2,600,000 
 
 938,000 
 
 235,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 400,000 
 
 Total income, .... £49,038,895 
 
 opinion that, if the House continued in 
 that mood of mind, it would be impossible 
 to maintain the revenue of the country in 
 the manner which the public credit and 
 the wants of their national establishments 
 required. It was absolutely necessary that 
 the House of Commons should arrive at 
 some definite understanding on what prin¬ 
 ciple the revenue of the country should be 
 raised. Nothing was more pernicious than 
 the systematic reduction of indirect taxation 
 that had been going on, whilst at the same 
 time direct taxes were being levied from a 
 very limited class. “ Sir,” said the chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer, addressing the 
 chairman, “ we would not have shrunk from 
 undertaking the laborious effort of exam¬ 
 ining the whole of our financial system, 
 animated by these views and actuated by 
 this purpose. But I put it with confidence 
 to the committee whether it has been possible 
 for us to undertake a duty which demands 
 labour so patient, research so considerable, 
 and an amount of time which no member 
 of the government, I am sure, has yet been 
 able to devote to it. The committee will, 
 I am sure, recollect that it is only two 
 months since Her Majesty’s present govern¬ 
 ment acceded unexpectedly to office, . . 
 
 and although the indulgence of the House, 
 of which no person can be more sensible 
 than myself, has assisted me in attempting 
 to conduct the business of this House, still 
 the claims of the House and of my depart¬ 
 ment have, I can assure the committee, 
 rendered it physically impossible for me to 
 embark in such an undertaking.” 
 
 Thus, practically, Mr. Disraeli’s budget 
 was framed upon the lines of the Liberal 
 policy. He had no alternative. He dis¬ 
 approved of the income tax, yet he felt 
 bound to impose it; he disapproved of the 
 systematic reduction of indirect taxes, yet 
 he had to submit to it; he found in the 
 pigeon holes of the treasury a budget ready 
 to his hand, and time had been wanting to 
 manipulate it into a more Conservative 
 measure. He had said nothing as to Pro¬ 
 tection, and throughout his speech, with a 
 
 20 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
154 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 manly candour which refuted many of his 
 former protestations, he admitted that free 
 trade had not caused the revenue of the 
 country to decrease. Still, as we shall see 
 from the budget he, towards the end of the 
 year, laid before the country, and which 
 was his own measure, and not, as it were, 
 a compulsory adaptation of the scheme of a 
 Liberal cabinet, he was loyal to the interests 
 whose claims he had always advocated. 
 “Disraeli has this evening,” writes Lord 
 Palmerston, “made a good financial state¬ 
 ment. His speech of two hours was excel¬ 
 lent, well arranged, clear, and well delivered, 
 but it made out the complete success of 
 the financial and commercial measures of 
 the last ten years of the Peel and of the 
 Whig administration. . . . He was 
 
 vociferously cheered by Liberals and 
 Peelites, but listened to in sullen silence 
 by supporters of the government. . . . 
 
 He has entirely thrown over the idea of 
 import duty on corn—or in other words 
 the principle of Protection.” There is 
 some exaggeration in this statement. In 
 the first place, as we shall prove, he was 
 not listened to in sullen silence by his own 
 party, for his words were cordially approved 
 of by those sitting on the Tory side of 
 the House. Nor was his throwing over 
 the principle of Protection an act of recent 
 conversion, as Lord Palmerston’s remarks 
 would imply. During the last three years 
 Mr. Disraeli had, as we have shown by his 
 frequent utterances, maintained the im¬ 
 practicability of resorting to a duty on corn 
 in a crowded island like our own, where the 
 home-grown wheat was not in proportion 
 to the demands of the population. He 
 had abandoned the principle of Protection 
 so far as the necessaries of life were con¬ 
 cerned, and instead of Protection he had 
 substituted compensation: the interests 
 that had specially suffered, he asserted, 
 should be specially compensated. He was 
 in favour, as he more than once declared in 
 the House of Commons, of free trade, but 
 not of “ one-sided free trade.” 
 
 The speech he delivered on this occa¬ 
 
 sion was undoubtedly a great success. Sir 
 Charles Wood—and there was little love lost 
 between the late chancellor of the exchequer 
 and his successor in office—declared that he 
 concurred not only in the course which Mr. 
 Disraeli proposed, but in most of the obser¬ 
 vations addressed by that gentleman to the 
 House. He considered that the financial 
 statement of Mr. Disraeli had afforded the 
 most ample testimony to the success of the 
 Liberal commercial policy during the last 
 ten years. “A more triumphant case,” said 
 Sir Charles, “I do not wish to see made 
 out, than that which the right hon. gen¬ 
 tleman has made for us to-night; and I 
 trust that from his evidence—unsuspicious 
 as it is—honourably and candidly as it has 
 been given—the country will come to the 
 conclusion that this is the proper policy 
 that has been and ought to be pursued by 
 past and future finance ministers in this 
 country. ... I feel that there is no 
 necessity for me to make any statement 
 on this occasion. I thank the right hon. 
 gentleman for the bold manner in which he 
 has spoken out on our financial condition. 
 I am grateful to him for the kind manner 
 in which he has expressed himself towards 
 me personally. I thank him for the cordial 
 estimate which he has formed of the success 
 of our late policy; I take it as an augury 
 that no change will be attempted to be 
 made. I approve of the course which he 
 intends to take for the ensuing year; and 
 so far as depends upon me—and I trust 
 I may add the House—every facility will 
 be given him to pass his resolution with 
 the least possible delay.” 
 
 Mr. Hume was less generous and more 
 critical. He agreed with Mr. Disraeli in 
 denouncing all the exemptions allowed under 
 the income-tax; yet he was much surprised 
 that the measure, which had been branded by 
 the chancellor of the exchequer as unjust, 
 was to be continued. Still, as a free trader, 
 he thanked Mr. Disraeli; for, if ever there 
 was a speech which proved the truth of the 
 principles of free trade, it was the speech of 
 the hon. member for Bucks. It was highly 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 155 
 
 creditable to the right lion, gentleman, that 
 he should have stated the truth in the way 
 he had done. He hoped that Mr. Disraeli 
 looked back with regret and remorse on his 
 past career, and the manner in which Sir 
 Robert Peel had been persecuted. Yet, 
 he was not one of those who would now 
 cast back those taunts upon the right hon. 
 gentleman; on the contrary, he would give 
 credit to any man who, finding that he had 
 been in error, had the manliness to come 
 forward and state his conviction. As to 
 the future, he wished to see the income tax 
 made equal, and all exemptions removed, 
 and the people relieved from the burden of 
 indirect taxation. But Mr. Disraeli had 
 proposed to do nothing. The present 
 budget was a stand-still budget; it did 
 nothing but continue the present burdens 
 upon the country. He was sorry to disturb 
 the general unanimity of feeling by being 
 the only person to express dissatisfaction; 
 but he was dissatisfied, because he thought 
 that the people had a right now to expect 
 some relief from taxation. 
 
 Mr. Baring, who was a great authority 
 in the House upon commercial matters, 
 praised the prudence of the chancellor of 
 the exchequer in framing a “stand-still 
 budget,” when he was not sure what might 
 be the future expenditure of the country. 
 The free traders had been very jubilant; 
 but he considered that Mr. Disraeli 
 had taken too bright a view of the 
 result of the late commercial legislation. 
 He considered that the financial prosperity 
 of the country was due more to the imposi¬ 
 tion of the property and income tax than 
 to the principles of free trade. Without 
 that tax which, though imposed to meet a 
 pressing emergency, was continued for other 
 purposes, they would never have been 
 without a deficiency at airy one period, or 
 have attained their present position. Nor 
 did he see that, after all their reductions in 
 the excise and customs duties, they could 
 yet dispense with it. The Liberals declared 
 that they had taken off £10,000,000 of 
 taxes; but that was not the case, for the 
 
 income tax had extracted, during the last 
 ten years, £4,500,000 yearly from the 
 pockets of the nation; of course, with that 
 impost always ready to hand, the Liberals 
 could afford every now and then to give 
 a little in the way of remission of taxes. 
 “ If you pick my pocket,” said Mr. Baring, 
 “of £5 a year, at the end of ten years you may 
 make me a present of £10, and may give 
 me £1 or £2 occasionally in the meanwhile, 
 but let the debtor and creditor account be 
 taken, and what would be the result ? Let 
 the House take into consideration what 
 the country had paid in taxation by the 
 property tax, and he should be very much 
 surprised if it was not found that the 
 increase of remission was not so great as 
 had been supposed. He did not mean to 
 say that they would not show an increase; 
 but the remission of £10,000,000 had only 
 taken place for a year, while the imposi¬ 
 tion of £5,000,000 dated ten years ago.” 
 He did not think the general prosperity 
 of the country so great as had been sup¬ 
 posed, whilst certain interests—the colonial, 
 the shipping, and the agricultural—were in 
 anything but a state of prosperity. He 
 concluded by praising the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, “ who had a mind which could 
 grapple with anything, nor did he fail to 
 ornament, elucidate, and enforce whatever 
 he grappled with. The House had that 
 night had the exhibition of the greatest 
 talent and genius applied to the practical 
 concerns of the administration of the 
 country.” 
 
 From both sides of the House there 
 was but one opinion as to the lucid and 
 well-marshalled speech of the new chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer. Mr. Gladstone 
 congratulated Mr. Disraeli on his “very 
 able statements,” which he had laid before 
 the country “in a manner highly honourable 
 to him, and in a manner peculiarly his own.” 
 Mr. Bright “would say honestly that he 
 participated most largely in the satisfaction 
 generally expressed, not with the manner 
 only, but with the matter of the right hon. 
 gentleman’s speech.” Mr. Labouchere had 
 
156 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 listened to it “ with deep satisfaction,” and 
 rejoiced to see a man of such unquestioned 
 talent filling so high a position. Mr. 
 Muntz declared that “during the twelve 
 years’ that he had sat in parliament he had 
 never heard anything more able or lucid.” 
 Equally complimentary, as was to be ex¬ 
 pected, were the remarks of those who sat 
 on the Conservative side of the House. 
 Sir John Tyrell, who represented Essex, 
 denied that the Conservatives, as Mr. Hume 
 had alleged, had listened with long, gloomy 
 countenances to the speech of the chancellor 
 of the exchequer. The statement of Mr. 
 Disraeli was altogether a provisional state¬ 
 ment, and the budget a provisional budget. 
 The free traders were unnecessarily elated. 
 It did not follow, because the finances of 
 the country were in a satisfactory state, 
 that the commerce and trade of the country 
 were equally so. It could not be denied 
 that trade was bad; still, a satisfactory 
 statement from the chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer was perfectly compatible with the 
 existence of great distress in various parts 
 of the country. After the next election 
 controverted points would be settled. The 
 Conservatives did not make war upon 
 commerce, but on the unjust taxation of 
 the country; and when they spoke of 
 Protection, they referred to the redress 
 of grievances. Mr. Alderman Thompson, 
 who had sat in the House thirty-two 
 years, declared that he had never heard a 
 more clear financial statement. In spite 
 of the taunting references from the Liberals 
 to the free-trade tendencies of the chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer, he understood that 
 Mr. Disraeli preferred that the revenue 
 should be raised by indirect taxation; and 
 therefore he supposed the whole system 
 of taxation would be reconsidered, and 
 relief be given where relief was needed. 
 Mr. Hudson, who represented the shipping 
 interest of Sunderland, rose up to state 
 that the chancellor of the exchequer, in 
 speaking of the prosperity of the country, 
 had not contended that it was owing 
 to free trade. He had not put it upon 
 
 that principle at all: he merely stated 
 a fact. Mr. Hudson, therefore, reminded 
 the House that, before free trade existed, 
 the country had enjoyed as much pros¬ 
 perity as it now had, and that money was 
 quite as cheap in the market; whilst the 
 shipping, the colonial, and agricultural 
 interests were then not, as now, depressed 
 and half ruined. Other speakers took the 
 same tone. 
 
 The House was evidently in a generous 
 mood. Considering that Mr. Disraeli, 
 whenever the opportunity offered, seldom 
 spared his opponents, it was somewhat 
 remarkable that more was not made out 
 of what party spirit might have construed 
 into a recantation of opinion. Mr. Hume, 
 it is true, had said that “ the chancellor of 
 the exchequer stood now in the same 
 situation in which Sir Robert Peel stood 
 after he first introduced those important 
 changes in our financial and commercial 
 system ;” but that he would not pursue 
 the matter farther, and unnecessarily 
 wound the right hon. gentleman’s feelings. 
 Mr. Reynolds, in the course of his speech, 
 said that if Sir Robert Peel, when he 
 repealed the corn laws, had “ found the 
 Whigs bathing and ran away with their 
 clothes,” Mr. Disraeli in his turn, by his 
 financial statement, had found Sir Charles 
 Wood napping, and had run away with 
 his budget. Mr. Wakley, the member for 
 Finsbury, after declaring that the state¬ 
 ments made by Mr. Disraeli only proved 
 how sound were the principles of the free 
 traders, and how completely they vindicated 
 the course Sir Robert Peel had pursued, 
 cried out, “ Would to God Sir Robert Peel 
 had been alive to listen to the elaborate 
 and profound homage paid to him by the 
 chancellor of the exchequer in the expo¬ 
 sition of the facts that he had submitted 
 to the House to-night! Homage of a more 
 exalted character, or more calculated to 
 increase the admiration of the country for 
 the memory of that great statesman, was 
 never made either in a senate or any other 
 assembly.” With the exception of these 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 157 
 
 allusions to the past conduct of Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli, the debate was singularly free from 
 personalities—indeed, it was characterized by 
 a geniality, a forbearance, and a chivalrous 
 tone not always apparent in the proceed¬ 
 ings of the House of Commons. The reso¬ 
 lutions introduced by the chancellor of the 
 exchequer were unanimously agreed to. 
 
 A few nights after this financial state¬ 
 ment had been made, the ministers were 
 invited to a banquet in the city, presided 
 over by the lord mayor. Their reception 
 was most cordial; and as the host rose to 
 give the toast of the evening—“ the health 
 of Her Majesty’s ministers”—his good 
 wishes for the prosperity of the cabinet 
 were warmly re-echoed. Lord Derby re¬ 
 plied. His speech was listened to with 
 deep attention, for a rumour had got abroad 
 that he had not been well pleased with the 
 statements of his lieutenant, and that he 
 intended to take the first public opportunity 
 that offered to show the country that the 
 principle of Protection had not been aban¬ 
 doned. There was nothing in his matter 
 to create excitement until he came to his 
 closing remarks. “Not many days have 
 elapsed,” said Lord Derby, “ since a right 
 hon. friend of mine, in a speech which fully 
 and amply refuted the unworthy notion 
 that a man of wit and genius cannot grapple 
 with the ordinary details of statistics—that 
 a man possessing high ability, a vivid 
 • imagination, and great eloquence cannot 
 master the driest commercial and financial 
 topics — most ably and most eloquently 
 demonstrated to an admiring House of 
 Commons the great progress which our 
 trade and commerce have made in recent 
 years. . . . There was one point, how¬ 
 
 ever, which my right hon. friend in that able 
 speech did not touch upon, and properly 
 did not touch upon, because it did not 
 belong to the fiscal and financial branch of 
 the subject to which his attention was then 
 properly and exclusively devoted. But 
 although he did not touch upon that topic, 
 it is one which I conceive no government. 
 
 ought t^ lose sight of in estimating the 
 social and political condition of the country 
 —namely, not only the prosperity and the 
 advancement of commerce, but the effect 
 which may be produced on the condition 
 in which we may find those large classes 
 which, unconnected with commerce, are 
 yet an element of our strength as being 
 mainly producers, though they are also 
 consumers. My lord, a government charged 
 with the administration of the affairs of this 
 country would ill deserve the confidence of 
 any portion of the people, if it confined to 
 the interests of a single class the attention 
 which is due to all, or if it deprived a single 
 class of that share of its attention which it 
 is bound impartially to afford to all; and 
 the problem which every government has 
 to solve is—how to reconcile apparently 
 conflicting interests, so that while giving 
 no undue advantage to one class of our 
 fellow-citizens over another, it may pro¬ 
 mote the interests of all, and by mutual 
 concessions, and by mutual compromises, 
 may blend the interests of all in one 
 harmonious whole.” 
 
 When the press circulated these words 
 throughout the country considerable agita¬ 
 tion arose. What was meant by “ mutual 
 concessions and mutual compromises ? ” 
 How were the interests of all to be blended 
 in one harmonious whole ? The chancellor 
 of the exchequer was in favour of indirect 
 taxation and opposed to direct taxation; 
 were the government then about to return 
 to Protection ? These questions were freely 
 asked on all sides. The Peelites and the 
 free traders took alarm, and once more the 
 League held its meetings and stimulated 
 its spokesmen. Humour drew a cartoon, 
 in which it summed up the situation. The 
 scene was Epsom. Lord Derby was hold¬ 
 ing a confidential conversation with his 
 trainer, whilst two horses, labelled respec¬ 
 tively “ Protection ” and “ Free Trade,” with 
 their jockeys up, were seen curvetting about 
 on the course. “ Which do you declare to 
 win with, my lord ? ” asks Mr. Punch. 
 
CHAPTER Y III. 
 
 ON SUFFERANCE. 
 
 On meeting parliament in his new capacity 
 as chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli had laid before the House of Commons 
 the business necessary to be gone through 
 before the cabinet recommended a dis¬ 
 solution. He had said, apart from the 
 proceedings indispensable for the supply 
 of Her Majesty’s service, that there were 
 three measures of paramount importance 
 —the militia bill, chancery reform, and 
 the distribution of the four forfeited 
 seats consequent upon the disfranchise¬ 
 ment of Sudbury and St. Albans—which 
 he desired to see speedily enrolled upon 
 the statute-book. The militia bill had 
 already been brought before the House; 
 chancery reform was in the hands of the 
 lord chancellor; thus the assignment of 
 the forfeited seats was the only one of the 
 three measures which had as yet not been 
 presented for discussion. To Mr. Disraeli 
 this question of redistribution was now 
 intrusted. Sudbury had been disfranchised 
 in 1844, St. Albans but recently. Each 
 borough had returned two members to par¬ 
 liament; thus there were four seats now 
 vacant and ready to be offered to boroughs 
 and competing divisions of shires. 
 
 In a full house Mr. Disraeli moved 
 (May 10, 1852) “That leave be given to 
 bring in a bill to assign the seats forfeited 
 by the disfranchisement of the boroughs 
 of St. Albans and Sudbury.” He was of 
 opinion, he said, that those seats should 
 be filled up before the dissolution of 
 parliament took place. He was as unable 
 to define the magic in that particular 
 number 658 as he was to prove why 
 twelve should be the number fixed for that 
 tribunal which was the most popular in 
 
 the country.* The foundation of all these 
 arrangements was prescription; prescription 
 which consisted of rules created by experi¬ 
 ence and sanctioned by custom. Prescrip¬ 
 tion was, after all, the most important 
 element of order, of liberty, and of progress; 
 and although he was not inclined to yield 
 to that principle any superstitious ad¬ 
 herence, he was still of opinion that the 
 time was not arrived when prescription 
 could be lightly treated by a House of 
 Commons. The inconvenience of outraging 
 such a principle was more easy to compre¬ 
 hend than it was to establish the peculiar 
 arrangement in question. A violation of 
 prescription was an element of disturbance; 
 it led to discontent; it offered a premium 
 to extravagant projects; it invited men to 
 immature schemes and hazardous sugges¬ 
 tions ; and were it for no other reason than 
 that he felt it would be their duty to warn 
 the House against that which had become 
 a continuous and systematic deficiency in 
 the aggregate numbers of the House of 
 
 * The number of the members for the House of Commons 
 stands thus: — 
 
 For England and Wales,. . .... 493 
 
 Scotland,.60 
 
 (Before 1832, 45 ; after 1832, 53). 
 
 Ireland,.105 
 
 (Before 1832, 100). - 
 
 Total,.658 
 
 From Edward I. to Henry VIII., the House of Commons 
 consisted of 74 knights and about 200 burgesses. Henry 
 VIII. extended the right of election to Wales and to certain 
 counties and towns in England, and increased the number 
 of members by thirty-three. Between the reigns of Henry 
 VIII. and Charles II., no less than 180 members were added 
 to the House by royal charter alone. At the date of the 
 union with Scotland the number of members was 513. The 
 Act of union with Scotland added forty-five representa¬ 
 tives of that kingdom, afterwards increased to sixty. The 
 Act of union with Ireland made a further addition to the 
 House of 100 Irish members, afterwards increased to 105. 
 As we shall see, from the nature of Mr. Gladstone’s remarks 
 in reply to Mr. Disraeli, there is no constitutional limit to 
 the number of members of the House of Commons. 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 159 
 
 Commons. Deeply convinced of the incon¬ 
 venience and of the peril of indulging in 
 » that continuous and systematic deficiency 
 in their numbers, Her Majesty’s ministers 
 had felt it their duty to express that opinion 
 to the House. 
 
 If the government, continued Mr. Disraeli, 
 followed their own inclinations, he hardly 
 knew any subject which they would more 
 freely avoid than the settlement of questions 
 like the present. They were essentially in¬ 
 vidious. In old days, whenever questions 
 concerning the appropriation of vacant seats 
 were introduced, party passions were neces¬ 
 sarily excited. In a country where the 
 government was carried on by the machinery 
 of political party, it was scarcely possible to 
 offer a suggestion for the settlement of a 
 question of the kind, without, of course, 
 the imputation of political motives, and 
 perhaps without the possibility of political 
 bias. But at the present day, a ministry 
 that attempted to recommend to the House 
 measures for the settlement of such ques¬ 
 tions, had not merely to encounter the 
 ancient and traditionary sentiments of 
 opposite parties. Of late years another 
 element had entered into the discussion of 
 these subjects, which tended peculiarly to 
 embitter feelings, to create jealousies, and 
 to increase difficulties; and that was the 
 unhappy misunderstanding between town 
 and country, which he, for one, notwith¬ 
 standing all that had passed, hoped yet 
 might be of shorter duration than some 
 persons were disposed to believe. 
 
 That unfortunate jealousy which existed 
 between town and country had given rise 
 to an anxiety in a very considerable portion 
 of the country, to see whether other elements 
 wherewith to form a constituency might 
 not be devised than those which had 
 hitherto supplied elements of the electoral 
 body. He had seen many plans which, if 
 they were carried into effect, would send 
 members to parliament by means entitled 
 in every way to their respect, but other 
 than those which were generally had re¬ 
 course to. It had been proposed that two 
 
 of the members for the vacant seats should 
 be apportioned to the University of London. 
 He could truly say that that proposition 
 had not been viewed by Her Majesty’s 
 ministers with any sort of prejudice: it 
 had, on the contrary, been observed with 
 interest and with sympathy. He could 
 admire the idea that would permit science 
 and learning, by the immediate exercise of 
 the popular suffrage, to take their place in 
 that House, without the embarrassment of 
 political connection, and without the in¬ 
 conveniences of party passions. But when 
 that question was examined the difficulties 
 were not inconsiderable. 
 
 In all suggestions which would lay 
 down as a principle that the elements of 
 their constituent body should be of a 
 less absolutely material character than 
 heretofore—that the intellectual and the 
 moral qualities should be permitted to 
 exercise their influence on that House 
 without a necessary connection with poli¬ 
 tical party—in all those suggestions there 
 was something so plausible to the reason, 
 and so captivating to the imagination, that 
 he could easily understand that they had 
 excited a great public interest, and engaged 
 the approbation of many individuals who 
 were entitled to the highest respect. Sug¬ 
 gestions had been made, for example, that 
 it would be desirable that the learned 
 societies, for which that metropolis was 
 celebrated, should furnish a member or 
 members to that House; and, at the first 
 glance, remembering who would probably 
 be among the members thus deputed to 
 that House, it must be admitted to be 
 a proposition highly deserving of their 
 examination. Take the Royal Society, for 
 example. It was a very ancient society. 
 It was founded by a monarch. It had 
 been adorned from the days of Sir Isaac 
 Newton by some of the greatest men 
 whom England had produced. And at 
 that moment it counted among its members 
 some of their fellow-subjects of whom they 
 were most proud. But the House must 
 remember that, when they talk of the 
 
160 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 learned societies, in the nineteenth century 
 learned societies no longer necessarily con¬ 
 sisted of learned men. The necessity of 
 haying a large revenue, and of raising that 
 revenue by public subscriptions, permitted a 
 great number of individuals to be enrolled 
 among learned societies who had no other 
 claim to that distinction than that which 
 was conferred by their wealth and the 
 general respectability of their character. 
 They would not necessarily, therefore, be¬ 
 cause they delegated to the learned societies 
 the privilege of sending a member or 
 members to parliament, have a constituency 
 formed of learned men. 
 
 Another difficulty in the case was to 
 draw the line, if once they admitted a 
 principle so fluctuating in its elements. 
 If the Royal Society—he took that as the 
 oldest and the most distinguished—was 
 entitled to have a representative in that 
 House on the ground that that society itself 
 was a representative of science, there were 
 many other societies who might also assume 
 to represent science. Why, if they admitted 
 the Royal Society, on what principle could 
 they shut out the Geographical Society, or 
 the Zoological Society, or the Astronomical 
 Society ? And if they were to take all 
 those societies, and say that by aggregating 
 them together they should form a consid¬ 
 erable constituency to whom collectively 
 should be given a representative in parlia¬ 
 ment, what would prevent new geographical 
 societies, new zoological societies, and new 
 astronomical societies being formed to¬ 
 morrow, which might urge their claim to 
 the possession of the franchise on the same 
 plea ? In fact it was evident that, dealing 
 with the materials before them, it would 
 be in the power of any body of men— 
 any club, for example—to give themselves 
 a scientific designation, to affect scientific 
 pursuits, and to make that a claim for 
 the exercise of the franchise. Therefore, 
 on examining the claims of the learned 
 societies to that privilege, he felt that 
 the difficulties were too great for the 
 government to overcome, and they had 
 
 consequently reluctantly dismissed them 
 from consideration. 
 
 There was then, proceeded Mr. Disraeli, 
 the claim of the universities which were not 
 represented to consider. That appeared at 
 the first blush to be an extremely plausible 
 plea. The ancient universities of England 
 were represented—the University of Dublin 
 was represented—why then, for example, 
 should not the Scotch universities be repre¬ 
 sented ? But any one who had investigated 
 the question, who had looked into the condi¬ 
 tion of the Scotch universities, with every 
 wish to recommend such a measure to the 
 House, would find that the elements of a 
 popular constituency were totally wanting; 
 that in the Scotch universities, for instance, 
 there was no body like the Convocation of 
 their English universities; that they had 
 students who never, or rarely ever, became 
 graduates; that there was no privilege an¬ 
 nexed in Scotland to the taking out of an 
 academic degree, and that therefore it was 
 seldom that any individual took a degree. 
 If, then, they invested the united universities 
 of Scotland with the privilege of being repre¬ 
 sented in that House, the privilege would, 
 in fact, be in possession of a few rectors, 
 and about a hundred professors. The ele¬ 
 ments of a popular constituency were 
 altogether wanting.* Nor could he notice 
 the claim of the London University, as at 
 present that university was too immature, 
 its development too imperfect, for urging 
 any well-founded claim of the nature then 
 in question. 
 
 There had also been, he said, another 
 proposition made, which possessed many 
 causes why it should be entertained with 
 the deepest consideration. The government 
 had been urged to recommend to the House 
 to concede, at least, one member to the Inns 
 of Court. The four Inns of Court would, 
 no doubt, afford a considerable and most 
 respectable constituency—a constituency of 
 some thousands arising from corporations 
 
 * In 1858 a measure was introduced which conferred on 
 Scottish graduates no little share in the administration of 
 their respective universities. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 1G1 
 
 that had existed from immemorial ages, 
 that had taken a distinguished part in the 
 history of that country, and which had sent 
 to that House some of its most eminent 
 members. The government considered it 
 as no objection to that plan, that an 
 eminent lawyer, by the confidence of the 
 Inns of Court, might find his way into 
 that House without the taint of political 
 or party connection. The government 
 thought that, in an age favourable to 
 legal reform, for example, it was very 
 possible that the appreciation of his fellow- 
 lawyers might select some student who 
 would otherwise shrink from the coarser 
 collisions of public life on the hustings, 
 and yet might take his place in the House 
 of Commons as the representative of a 
 constituency of some thousands of honour¬ 
 able and learned men, and afford by his 
 erudition and his counsel a very great 
 assistance to the deliberations of that 
 House. But, after giving to the question 
 the most deliberate and the most anxious 
 consideration, the government found it 
 impossible to avoid the conclusion that 
 it would be a hopeless task to propose to 
 the House of Commons the allocation of 
 one or two members to the Inns of Court, 
 unless prepared to concede the same privi¬ 
 lege to other similar constituencies. 
 
 He knew, he said, there was a prejudice— 
 which he did not share—against the too 
 considerable appearance of lawyers in that 
 House. He begged to say that he did not 
 share it, because he remembered how much 
 of their liberty "was owing to their law, and 
 was founded upon their law, and that in the 
 most critical periods of their history, lawyers 
 had been the most eminent and fearless 
 champions of the rights of the people of 
 England. He confessed he was surprised, 
 therefore, at the existence of a prejudice 
 such as that, to which, however, he must 
 most reluctantly yield. It was one he had 
 always deplored, one which he could never 
 cease to lament, when he recollected that 
 lawyers had been not only the great upholders 
 of English liberties, but also the greatest 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 ornaments of the House of Commons; when 
 he remembered that Sir Edward Coke and 
 Lord Bacon both sat in that House; when 
 he remembered that the revered names of 
 Selden and of Somers both belonged to the 
 House of Commons; that in an after age 
 that House resounded with the golden elo¬ 
 quence of Mansfield, and was once adorned 
 by the majestic virtues of Romilly; and 
 that it was their happiness to remember 
 that amongst their members the esteemed 
 descendants of some of those great men 
 were still to be found. But though he 
 could not agree in a prejudice which he 
 thought unwarranted by facts, he felt it 
 would not do for the government to pro¬ 
 pose, unless the proposition were attended 
 by some identical or analogous projects, to 
 allot one or more of the four vacant seats 
 to the Inns of Court; therefore, on the part 
 of the government, after careful considera¬ 
 tion, and with the most ample desire to 
 introduce constituencies founded upon those 
 elements, and believing that they might 
 contribute to the increased reputation of 
 that assembly, he must renounce at present 
 any attempt to form a constituency out of 
 those interesting but, he feared, impracti¬ 
 cable elements. 
 
 Having, therefore, considered the various 
 suggestions that had been laid before him, 
 Mr. Disraeli said he would now proceed 
 to state how the government proposed to 
 deal with the four forfeited seats. The 
 constituency of the West Biding of York¬ 
 shire was about 37,000 ; and they proposed 
 to apportion two of the vacant seats to 
 that constituency, dividing the West Biding 
 into two districts, each of which should be 
 represented by two members. Leeds was to 
 be the town of election for the northern 
 division of the riding; and Wakefield the 
 election town for the southern division. 
 The two remaining seats were to be given 
 to the southern division of the county of 
 Lancashire. 
 
 There was no discussion on the motion. 
 The only opponent was Mr. Gladstone, 
 who, in a long speech, criticised less the 
 
 21 
 
162 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 details of Mr. Disraeli’s measure than the 
 expediency of introducing it at the present 
 moment. He disputed the statement that 
 the House of Commons was limited to any 
 “ constitutional number.” There was no 
 “magic” nor “cabalistic” virtue in the 
 total “658.” There was nothing beyond 
 mere accident, and the duration of about 
 forty years, that should recommend the 
 number 658 to their notice. There was 
 a popular error on that subject—there 
 was, he believed, an idea in the popular 
 mind that the number 658 represented the 
 great balance of interests in that country. 
 Yet, he would challenge Mr. Disraeli to 
 find that number distinctly stated in any 
 one single act of parliament relating to the 
 representation of the people in that House. 
 The number 658 was never intended to be 
 the legal and constitutional number which 
 composed the House of Commons. It was 
 a pure question of convenience and policy, 
 and nothing else, as to what the number of 
 members of that House should be. Still, 
 that was merely a secondary matter. The 
 question was, was it wise to bring forward 
 such a measure in a moribund parliament ? 
 The eve of a dissolution was the worst 
 possible moment to introduce a proposal 
 of that kind. The forfeited seats ought 
 not to be held up to the country as prizes 
 for every man to snatch at. The matter 
 ought to be discussed and settled, not in 
 an unsettled and provisional state of things 
 like the present, but when they had an 
 administration in possession of definite and 
 decided political power. He would not 
 meet the proposal by a direct negative, but 
 would move that the House pass to the 
 “orders of the day.” On a division, the 
 amendment of Mr. Gladstone was accepted 
 by a majority of eighty-six. It was not 
 until some years later that these forfeited 
 seats were dealt with. In 1861 the govern¬ 
 ment of Lord Palmerston accepted, to a 
 certain degree, the proposals of Mr. Disraeli. 
 Two seats were then given to the West 
 Riding of Yorkshire; but, instead of South 
 Lancashire being divided, a third member 
 
 was placed at the disposal of the county, 
 and the town of Birkenhead was enfran¬ 
 chised. 
 
 This rejection of Mr. Disraeli’s scheme 
 was not so much directed against the 
 measure itself, as it was against the gov¬ 
 ernment declining at once to appeal to 
 the country. The burning question of the 
 hour was, whether Protection or free trade 
 was to be the commercial policy of the 
 future. Lord Derby had himself said, on 
 taking office, that he would abide by the 
 verdict of the nation as to the maintenance 
 or rejection of free-trade principles. Why, 
 then, did he not dissolve parliament ? It 
 was an unheard of thing, cried the Liberals, 
 for men who had made Protection a battle- 
 cry for years, to take office, and then to 
 refuse to state openly whether they intended 
 to propose an alteration in the corn laws or 
 not! The game of thimble-rig was about 
 to be played, and the country gulled and 
 plundered under a thimble-rig administra¬ 
 tion ! The Conservatives were keeping 
 matters dark, in order at the election to 
 canvass the counties as Protectionists and 
 the boroughs as free traders ! 
 
 “ It was in vindication of the constitu¬ 
 tional principle,” said Mr. Gladstone, “ that 
 a government which found itself at issue 
 with the existing parliament upon a 
 cardinal point of its policy, was bound 
 either to resign (which of course no one 
 recommends under the circumstances) or 
 else to make its appeal to the people. 
 But there was another object which 
 parliament, I think, had in view; and 
 that was, to discharge its solemn duty 
 to those great principles of commercial 
 policy which we are bound, I think, to see 
 well brought home into haven, and that at 
 the earliest moment. It is a folly against 
 which every man ought to guard, to sup¬ 
 pose that because the government are in 
 power, and the principles of our law in 
 regard to commerce have not been altered 
 by past measures, therefore we are to rest 
 satisfied. It would be, I think, no fulfil¬ 
 ment, but an abandonment of our duty, to 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 163 
 
 be contented that the matter should so 
 remain. It has been admitted on the other 
 side, that it is the solemn duty of us all to 
 bring this question to a formal and final 
 issue; and that can only be done, as the 
 head of the government stated, and all its 
 members, I believe, have allowed, by an 
 appeal to the people at a dissolution; and 
 therefore, in seeking a dissolution, it is not 
 for any partial or party object, but it is 
 because, if there be one duty more clearly 
 incumbent than another at the present time 
 upon that large majority of the House of 
 Commons who have on repeated occasions 
 testified their own cordial adhesion to the 
 principles of free trade, it is this—that they 
 should not be content to leave those princi¬ 
 ples to exist upon sufferance—to leave them 
 at the mercy of the chapter of accidents; 
 that they should not be content (I frankly 
 own it) to leave these principles, as matters 
 now stand, in the guardianship of gentlemen 
 whose own inclinations, without doubt or 
 disguise, are opposed to them, but that we 
 should expedite that process which the 
 prime minister himself has justly and 
 fairly proposed—namely, that of obtaining 
 the deliberate judgment of the constituency 
 in regard to,the principles of our commer¬ 
 cial legislation; and then we should find 
 the government in a position to lay down 
 the course of policy by which they intend 
 to be guided, and, if they find the opinion 
 of the public adverse to the policy they 
 had pursued, they might frankly and finally 
 own and submit to that state of facts; so 
 that, at length, this great controversy may 
 be ended, and the machinery of the consti¬ 
 tution fall into its usual course and order.” 
 
 A wit in the House of Commons was 
 asked, What was meant by “ factious oppo¬ 
 sition?” “Wait till you see the Liberals 
 out of office,” he quietly replied. Lord 
 Derby declined to be dictated to. He had 
 said, on taking office, that for his own 
 part he thought that the appeal to the 
 constituencies ought to be made as speedily 
 as was consistent with the interests of the 
 country; but at the same time he declared 
 
 that neither taunts nor calumnies would 
 induce him to recommend a dissolution 
 sooner than he thought expedient. He 
 had assumed, he would not say office, but 
 its responsibilities, from no party motive of 
 his own; the late government fell by their 
 internal weakness, by their notorious inca¬ 
 pacity, by the lukewarmness of their friends, 
 and by their own quarrels. They had de¬ 
 clared a dissolution inexpedient for them¬ 
 selves, and he wished to know with what 
 face they now came forward in factious 
 opposition, and sought to drive him to 
 appeal to the country, after his declaration 
 that the system of free trade should not be 
 altered during the present session, but that 
 the attention of the government would be 
 solely directed to those great measures of 
 legal and social reform on which the heart 
 of the nation was set. If the business of 
 the country were factiously interrupted, the 
 evil that might result would be visited on 
 the heads of those agitators who created 
 the interruption. Though he desired to 
 repair the injustice which certain classes of 
 the community had sustained by the repeal 
 of the corn laws, such a step could only be 
 taken after careful deliberation, and then 
 not by a bare majority, but after an expres¬ 
 sion of very general concurrence on the 
 part of the country. The question he would 
 then put before the country would be, “Will 
 you give your confidence to the men who 
 deserted the helm of the state in the hour 
 of danger, and then joined in factious oppo¬ 
 sition to render all government impossible ? 
 Or will you rely on the government which 
 did not shrink from the post of danger, 
 which is determined to uphold the Protes¬ 
 tant religion, to strengthen religious and 
 moral education, to resist the aggression of 
 those demagogues who employ their power 
 over the masses only to mislead them, and 
 to maintain the prerogatives of the crown 
 and the privileges of parliament? These 
 were the principles on which he should 
 appeal to the country; he would then use 
 the words put into the mouth of the mean¬ 
 est criminal, but not unworthy of the first 
 
1G4 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 minister of the Crown, ‘ I elect to be tried 
 by God and my country/ ” 
 
 In the present conflict of opinions, and 
 owing to the expeditious manner in which 
 the government had conducted the public 
 business intrusted to them, the time for 
 dissolving parliament was rapidly approach¬ 
 ing. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, thought the 
 hour opportune to inform his constituents 
 of what had occurred in the past, and what 
 was about to take place in the future. He 
 utilised the leisure of the Whitsuntide 
 recess in drawing up an important document 
 addressed to his supporters. We give it in 
 full, as since the date of its first issue it has 
 never been republished:— 
 
 “Gentlemen, — I take the opportunity of re¬ 
 turning into the county to inform you that on the 
 dissolution of parliament, which may be shortly 
 expected, I shall again solicit the distinguished 
 office of being your member—an honour which 
 you have twice unanimously conferred on me. 
 
 “The occasion is critical, and it is as well to 
 disentangle from the misrepresentations of igno¬ 
 rant or interested persons what is really at stake. 
 
 “ In 1842 Sir Robert Peel, at the head of the 
 Conservative party, converted a considerable and 
 continuous deficiency in the public revenue into a 
 surplus by the imposition of an income tax, which 
 also permitted him greatly to mitigate our tariff. 
 
 <l These measures realized all the success which 
 the Conservative party anticipated from them. 
 In the course of four years, seven millions of 
 pounds of customs duties were repealed without 
 materially diminishing the revenue derived from 
 that branch, and no domestic interest in the 
 country suffered from the change. 
 
 “ The principles on which these alterations were 
 effected were the removal of prohibitions, the re¬ 
 duction of duties to such a scale as admitted ‘ fair 
 competition ’ with domestic produce, and the free 
 admission of all raw materials. 
 
 “ I had the satisfaction of voting for these 
 measures, in company with those gentlemen who 
 now honour the present government with their 
 support. 
 
 “ Since the four years closing with 1845, during 
 which the Conservative party carried these wise 
 and beneficial measures, two great changes in our 
 commercial system have taken place—the free 
 introduction of foreign corn and of slave-grown 
 sugar. 
 
 “ The first of these arrangements was not origin¬ 
 ally contemplated in the commercial policy of Sir 
 Robert Peel, for he opposed the repeal of the corn 
 
 laws within a few months previously to his abro¬ 
 gating them. When he recommended their repeal 
 it was to meet an emergency; and he stated to 
 Lord George Bentinck, in my hearing, that he 
 believed that repeal would not materially affect 
 the price of agricultural produce. 
 
 “ The admission of slave-grown sugar was not 
 approved by Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 “ These two measures, unlike the preceding 
 ones, have occasioned severe suffering among the 
 producing classes which they affect. The distress 
 of the agricultural classes has been admitted, an¬ 
 nounced, and deplored from the Throne, under the 
 advice of a Whig ministry ; and the consequences 
 of the alteration of the sugar duties were so dis¬ 
 astrous to our free-producing colonies that, within 
 two years after the passing of the Act of 1846, a 
 Whig ministry also found it necessary to modify 
 their own measure. 
 
 “ The sufferings of the agricultural and colonial 
 classes have arisen from their being thrown into 
 unlimited competition with the foreigner on un¬ 
 equal terms with the rest of their fellow-subjects. 
 Those unequal conditions result in great measure 
 from the peculiar imposts and the vexatious regu¬ 
 lations to which our agricultural and sugar- 
 producing industries are subject. 
 
 “ The same precipitation which attended the 
 repeal of the productive duties on corn and sugar 
 accompanied the repeal of the navigation laws. 
 Even the proposers of that measure now admit 
 that ‘ the shipping interest, exposed to severe 
 rivalry, is subject to burdens and restrictions 
 which impede its prosperity.’ 
 
 “ This is the language of the minister who 
 himself repealed the navigation laws, and yet left 
 the burdens and restrictions which impede the 
 prosperity of our mercantile marine. This opinion 
 will be found in the recent address of Lord John 
 Russell to his constituents. That address deserves 
 the attentive study of the shipping interest. 
 
 “ Her Majesty’s ministers would consider these 
 burdens and restrictions with a view to their 
 removal. 
 
 “ The farmers hitherto have been the persons 
 who have been most injured by the repeal of the 
 corn laws ; but the diminution of rent in Great 
 Britain is greater than is generally supposed. In 
 preparing the financial statement for the year, it 
 was officially represented to me that I must con¬ 
 template, in estimating the produce of the income 
 tax, a diminution of rent not much less in amount 
 than five millions sterling. Practically speaking, 
 in this country rent has become a return for 
 the capital invested in the improvement of land. 
 Laws to secure a return for such investment are 
 not for a moment to be tolerated, but laws which 
 by imposing unequal taxes discourage that invest* 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 1G5 
 
 ment are, irrespective of their injustice, highly 
 impolitic; for nothing contributes more to the 
 enduring prosperity of a country than the natural 
 deposit of its surplus capital in the improvement 
 of its soil. Justice to the land, in all systems of 
 finance, is equally the interest of the proprietor 
 and the farmer, but it is also equally the interest 
 of the community. 
 
 “There is no portion of the United Kingdom 
 that has suffered more from the precipitate repeal 
 of the corn laws than Ireland. The claim of that 
 country to the consideration of parliament is 
 irresistible. 
 
 “ The time has gone by when the injuries which 
 the great producing interests endure can be alle¬ 
 viated or removed by a recurrence to the laws 
 which, previously to 1846, protected them from 
 such calamities. The spirit of the age tends to 
 free intercourse, and no statesman can disregard 
 with impunity the genius of the epoch in which 
 he lives. But every principle of abstract justice, 
 and every consideration of high policy, counsel 
 that the producer should be treated as fairly as 
 the consumer, and intimate that when the native 
 producer is thrown into unrestricted competition 
 with external rivals, it is the duty of the legis¬ 
 lature in every way to diminish, certainly not to 
 increase, the cost of production. 
 
 “ It is the intention of Her Majesty’s ministers 
 to recommend to parliament, as soon as it is in 
 their power, measures which may effect this end. 
 
 “ One of the soundest means, among others, by 
 which this result may be accomplished is a revision 
 of our taxation. The times are favourable to such 
 an undertaking; juster notions of taxation are 
 more prevalent than heretofore ; powerful agencies 
 are stirring which have introduced new phenomena 
 into finance, and altered the complexion of 
 the fiscal world ; and the possibility of greatly 
 relieving the burdens of the community, both by 
 adjustment and reduction, seems to loom in the 
 future. 
 
 “ But nothing great can be effected by any 
 ministry unless they are supported by a powerful 
 majority in parliament. Our predecessors were 
 men who, for personal honour and administrative 
 ability, need not shrink from a comparison with 
 any body of individuals qualified to serve Her 
 Majesty; but they w T ere never sure of a parlia¬ 
 mentary majority : hence much of their unsatis¬ 
 factory conduct. They were justified, from the 
 broken state of parties, in their continuance in 
 office, which they never evinced any unworthy 
 readiness to retain ; but it is far from desirable 
 that such indulgence should become a chronic 
 weakness of our constitution. 
 
 “ In the brief period during which we have held 
 the reins, although placed in a position of great 
 
 embarrassment, from the impossibility of at once 
 appealing to the country, we have introduced 
 three measures which, it is hoped, will soon 
 become the law of the land. One is a measure 
 of internal defence, which it is believed will soon 
 prove both popular, economical, and efficient; the 
 second would confer on an interesting and im¬ 
 portant colony a constitution founded on the right 
 principles which should govern dependencies ; the 
 third will at length achieve a complete reform of 
 the Court of Chancery. 
 
 “ There was a fourth measure which we pro¬ 
 posed. Two petty boroughs, long infamous for 
 corruption, had been justly and wisely disfran¬ 
 chised. We recommended to parliament that 
 these forfeited seats should be transferred to two 
 of the most important communities of the country, 
 distinguished not only for their vast wealth and 
 teeming population, but by all the enduring ele¬ 
 ments of national greatness. A combination of 
 parliamentary sections defeated on a technical 
 pretext this wise and generous proposition, which 
 would have added strength and lustre to the 
 House of Commons, and have asserted the popular 
 principle in a manner consistent with that main¬ 
 tenance of classes which becomes a free and ancient 
 monarchy, and which is the best security for order 
 and liberty^. 
 
 “ The time of the House of Commons has been 
 much occupied of late by a discussion whether the 
 management of the Boman Catholic college of 
 Maynooth requires investigation. Without pre¬ 
 judging the question, Her Majesty’s ministers 
 have felt it their duty to support such an inquiry. 
 We have been anxious to subdue the heat of 
 religious controversy, and to deal impartially with 
 all Her Majesty’s subjects, whether in communion 
 with the Church of Rome or the Church of Eng¬ 
 land ; but we cannot sanction an opinion now in 
 vogue that, since the Act of 1829, the constitution 
 of the country has ceased to be Protestant. By 
 the Act of Settlement our form of government is 
 that of a Protestant monarchy ; and it is our 
 belief that the people of this country are resolved 
 so to maintain it, not only in form, but in spirit. 
 
 “Various schemes have been devised for the 
 extension and improvement of the education of 
 the people, and among others a measure was 
 proposed by an intelligent community during the 
 present session of parliament, to the principles of 
 which we could not accede. The only principle 
 in the present diversity of religious opinion which 
 seems to be just is that of encouraging the volun¬ 
 tary efforts of the several religious bodies by 
 grants of public money in proportion to the extent 
 to which those efforts have been made. In assert¬ 
 ing for all this universal right, we claim for the 
 church, the national depository of sacred truth. 
 
166 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 that the freedom of her efforts in the cause of 
 education should not be fettered by regulations 
 and restrictions which are not required to afford 
 security for a due application of the public funds. 
 
 “I have touched, gentlemen, on most of the 
 topics which now engage the attention of the 
 country. They are not mean issues. The country 
 will have to decide whether it will maintain a 
 ministry formed on the principles of Conservative 
 progress; whether it will terminate for ever, by 
 just and conciliatory measures, the misconceptions 
 which have too long prevailed between producer 
 and consumer, and extinguish the fatal jealousy 
 that rankles between town and country ; whether 
 our colonial empire shall be maintained and con¬ 
 firmed ; whether the material development of 
 Ireland shall at length be secured ; whether such 
 alterations as time and circumstance may appear 
 to justify and require in the construction of the 
 House of Commons shall be made in that spirit 
 of revolution which has arrested the civilization 
 of Europe, or in the spirit of our popular though 
 not democratic institution ; whether the Church 
 of England shall still remain a national church ; 
 whether the Crown of England shall still be a 
 Protestant crown. 
 
 “ I believe that the county of Buckingham is 
 not in doubt on these heads, and therefore I ap¬ 
 peal to you with confidence for your support. I 
 cannot vie with the patriots and the statesmen 
 whom for so many generations you have sent up 
 to parliament; but I will promise you this, on 
 my part and on that of my colleagues, that if 
 public opinion ratify the choice of our gracious 
 sovereign, we will earnestly endeavour that the 
 honour and the interests of the country shall not 
 suffer by our administration. 
 
 “ I remain, Gentlemen, 
 
 “ Your obliged friend and servant, 
 “ B. Disraeli. 
 
 “ Hugiienden Manor, 
 
 “ June 2, 1852.” 
 
 Since the government declined to dis¬ 
 solve the Houses until the urgent measures 
 they deemed necessary to pass had been 
 entered upon the pages of the statute-book, 
 it pleased a certain section of the Opposition 
 to imitate recent tactics, and use every 
 effort to thwart the ministerial policy. 
 Nothing that was introduced was right; 
 everything that was not introduced was 
 wrong. If the militia bill was hurried 
 through committee, an unnecessary scare 
 was being created throughout the country; 
 if the consideration of its clauses was de¬ 
 
 ferred, the government were neglecting the 
 most vital interests of the people. If the 
 Maynooth grant was brought forward, 
 the government were being intimidated by 
 the Roman Catholics; if it was not brought 
 forward, the government were animated by 
 a bigotry and intolerance disgraceful in an 
 enlightened age like the present. If a con¬ 
 stitution for New Zealand was discussed, 
 our domestic prosperity was being sacrificed 
 to a meddling colonial policy; if the debate 
 on New Zealand was postponed, we forgot 
 that we were an empire, and interested our¬ 
 selves only in insular details. Then there 
 were acrid discussions as to the remission 
 of the hop duty, the paper duty, the adver¬ 
 tisement duty, and the stamp on newspapers. 
 Whatever the government proposed was 
 disputed; whatever it opposed was warmly 
 advocated. In the eyes of these obstruc¬ 
 tionists ministers were always in error. 
 
 Lord John Russell took advantage of this 
 splenetic conduct on the part of certain of 
 his followers to pass in review (June 14, 
 1852) the labours of the session. The osten¬ 
 sible reason for his appearance in the char¬ 
 acter of a self-elected critic upon ministerial 
 mismanagement, was the occasion of an 
 outrage having been committed upon a 
 British subject. It seems that a Mr. Mather, 
 an Englishman, had been cut down in the 
 streets of Florence by an Austrian officer, 
 and Lord Malmesbury, as the secretary for 
 foreign affairs, had been intrusted with the 
 diplomatic task of demanding reparation for 
 the insult. According to Lord John, the 
 foreign secretary had pursued a double 
 course; he was frightened of Austria, but 
 bullied Tuscany; in his correspondence with 
 Vienna he had treated the affair as an un¬ 
 happy accident, whilst in his correspondence 
 with Florence he considered it a wanton 
 outrage. Nor could he, continued the ex¬ 
 premier, congratulate Lord Malmesbury 
 upon the course he had pursued respecting 
 the pecuniary consideration to be offered to 
 Mr. Mather. The foreign secretary had 
 pressed Mr. Mather to name a sum to com¬ 
 pensate him for his wounded feelings; when 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 167 
 
 that sum was named, it was considered 
 exorbitant, and instructions were then sent 
 to the British representative at Florence to 
 demand from the Tuscan government “a 
 sum proportionate to the sufferings of Mr. 
 Mather.” Such a mode of conducting the 
 affair, Lord John considered, could only lead 
 to ridicule and contempt; it would degrade, 
 not the country, but the government. 
 
 Having thus delivered himself upon the 
 text of his discourse, the speaker branched 
 off to other topics, and entered upon a severe 
 criticism of the course of action the Derby 
 cabinet had adopted since their accession 
 to power. They had taken office upon a 
 distinct understanding that they were to 
 declare their policy, whereas they had stu¬ 
 diously concealed it. What he and the 
 country generally desired to know, con¬ 
 tinued Lord John, was not so much the 
 particular measures to be proposed by the 
 government, as the spirit in which they 
 were to be framed. Did the present govern¬ 
 ment, or did they not, adopt the financial and 
 commercial policy which was established in 
 1842, and which was continued until the 
 present moment ? Was the policy of the last 
 ten years beneficial to the country ? ought it 
 to be followed and adhered to, and care taken 
 that it should not be abrogated ? Ought 
 that policy to be their guide, or was it 
 injurious, mischievous, and would the inju¬ 
 rious effects be averted by alteration ? To 
 these questions neither the House nor the 
 country ever had anything like an answer. 
 At first everybody entertaining liberal 
 opinions had been delighted with the speech 
 of the chancellor of the exchequer, for it 
 was looked upon as conclusive in favour of 
 a free-trade policy. “ The right hon. gentle¬ 
 man, however,” said Lord John, pointing 
 to Mr. Disraeli, “found a critic, a com¬ 
 mentator, and an adversary; and who was 
 he ? He appeared at the Mansion House 
 in the person of the first lord of the 
 treasury. That was the scene which Lord 
 Derby chose for criticising his chancellor of 
 the exchequer. The noble earl pointed out 
 a great omission in his colleague’s address, 
 
 and supplied it by something not as lucid 
 and conclusive as the chancellor of the 
 exchequer’s statement, but by something 
 that was eminently obscure and ambiguous. 
 This was certainly a novel proceeding. As 
 a member for London I have often had 
 occasion to dine in the city, but it never 
 occurred to me to avail myself of any of 
 those opportunities to answer my own chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer.” 
 
 Now what did these conflicting state¬ 
 ments signify ? he asked. The premier 
 talked mysteriously of Protection, whilst 
 the chancellor of the exchequer in his 
 recent address to his constituents, said 
 that the time for restoring the protective 
 duties of 1846 had gone by. Which policy 
 was to be followed ? He hoped, after the 
 farmers had been deceived for the last 
 four years about Protection being re¬ 
 stored, that they would not allow themselves 
 again to be deceived by the promise of 
 measures which were to give them pros¬ 
 perity—a prosperity which indeed was only 
 to be attained by the exercise of their skill 
 and industry. In conclusion, the speaker 
 condemned the various measures, with the 
 exception of the militia bill, which the 
 government had supported during the ses¬ 
 sion. He found fault with their conduct in 
 the matter of chancery reform, with their 
 disturbance of the system of education in 
 Ireland, and with their efforts to give the 
 Established Church a portion of the grant 
 for education. Such mismanagement arose, 
 he said, from the government holding no 
 decided opinions whatever. “ This country,” 
 concluded Lord John Bussell, “will never 
 be satisfied, unless they have men ruling 
 the country who have some principles and 
 some opinions. It may seem to be a popu¬ 
 lar thing to say that the country has only 
 by a majority to express an opinion in 
 favour of a corn law, and that the corn laws 
 will be re-imposed; or that if there be a 
 majority against such a policy, then we 
 shall have free trade. That may seem to 
 be a popular declaration, and one likely to 
 attract popular favour; but depend upon it, 
 
168 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 it is not so. The people of this country 
 would be better pleased to see men who 
 had some opinions, and who were ready to 
 bring questions clearly before them. Is the 
 country likely to place its confidence in a 
 government that has no opinions, no princi¬ 
 ples, and which is ready to be guided, by 
 any wind that may rise, into any port that 
 is open for them ? ” 
 
 This attack upon the Conservative policy 
 gave rise to a debate, in which various 
 members joined before Mr. Disraeli stood 
 up in vindication of himself and his party. 
 Lord Stanley defended the foreign secretary 
 as to his management of the Mather affair. 
 Lord John Russell had supposed that the 
 transaction had been characterized in two 
 different ways by Lord Malmesbury; but 
 in terming it an accident, the noble lord 
 merely expressed an opinion that there was 
 nothing in it of a national character; that 
 it was the hasty act of an individual; but 
 looking at it as a personal, not a national 
 act, it was brutal and unprovoked. The 
 inquiry before the Tuscan court had been 
 a fair one, and the officer had been tried 
 before a legal tribunal of his country and 
 acquitted. It was very difficult to say 
 what course the government could take, 
 when a British subject had been insulted 
 in a foreign country, and the offender, when 
 tried by a national tribunal, had been 
 acquitted, though illegally. It w T ould be, 
 he said, most unwise to make Austria solely 
 responsible for a transaction of that kind, 
 since it would virtually recognize the 
 military occupation of Tuscany by that 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Osborne lamented that the case of 
 Mr. Mather should have been mixed up 
 with the imbecility of the present govern¬ 
 ment. The attempt to defend the foreign 
 secretary had done little to clear up the 
 case. The government was bound to call 
 upon Austria, who had expressed no con¬ 
 trition for the offence; on the contrary, 
 she commended the officer who cut down 
 Mr. Mather. He charged Lord Malmes¬ 
 bury with having trifled with the honour 
 
 of the country, and having disgraced them 
 all in the eyes of Europe. 
 
 The Marquis of Granby drew the atten¬ 
 tion of the House to the commercial policy 
 of the country. If it could be shown that 
 their late policy had benefited the people 
 at large, it should be continued and carried 
 out; but if, as he believed it had had, and 
 would have, evil effects on all classes, it 
 should be gradually modified, and eventually 
 reversed. He read a variety of statements 
 showing that the colonies, Scotland, Spital- 
 fields, the shipping interest, as well as 
 other trades, so far from prospering, were 
 suffering; he doubted even whether the 
 manufacturing interest was in a state of 
 real prosperity. Pauperism, crime, and 
 emigration had increased; while the de¬ 
 posits in savings banks had, since 1846, 
 gradually declined. 
 
 Lord Palmerston declined to follow Lord 
 Granby, regarding all such discussions 
 upon a question that was dead as waste of 
 time. He wished to address to the House 
 a few observations upon the first topic; 
 and he confessed that he had read with 
 anything but feelings of satisfaction the 
 papers relative to the affair of Mr. Mather. 
 He found much to criticise in the proceed¬ 
 ings both of the late and of the present 
 government—in almost all parties, in short, 
 but Mr. Mather and his son. What was 
 the course which, in that case, the British 
 government ought to have pursued? First, 
 to ascertain the facts of the case, and if 
 there had been a wrong, to require the 
 punishment of the offender and compen¬ 
 sation to the sufferer. Ho one could say 
 that in that case a grievance was not suf¬ 
 fered. The outrage had been committed 
 by an Austrian officer at Florence. Who 
 was responsible? The government under 
 which the outrage was committed; but 
 where there was no power there ought to 
 be no responsibility. The Austrians in 
 Florence were dependent upon the will of 
 the Austrian government, not upon that of 
 Tuscany; the Austrian troops in Florence 
 were not amenable to the Tuscan govern- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 1G9 
 
 ment; so that Austria was, primd facie , the 
 government from which reparation should 
 have been demanded. The present cabinet 
 were also open to criticism for calling upon 
 the sufferer to assess his own damages. 
 He agreed with the government in the im¬ 
 portance of maintaining the independence 
 of Tuscany; but that could not be done by 
 making one country pay for what had been 
 done by another. The practical lesson 
 read to Tuscany might have been better 
 read to Austria. The papers showed the 
 lamentable condition of a large portion of 
 the Italian states; and he hoped the 
 present government, being upon friendly 
 terms with the two governments mainly 
 interested in the decision of that matter, 
 would endeavour to persuade the govern¬ 
 ments of France and Austria to terminate 
 the anomalous state of things which pre¬ 
 vailed in many of those states. 
 
 When Lord Palmerston had concluded, 
 Mr. Disraeli rose up. He said no one 
 could pretend that, though the act in ques¬ 
 tion was outrageous and cruel, it was not, 
 what Lord Malmesbury had described it, 
 an accidental one. When it was said that 
 the government had not applied for redress 
 in the right quarter, but that they ought 
 to have applied to Austria, he replied that 
 the course they had pursued had been the 
 result of anxious inquiry. Where a state 
 maintained diplomatic relations with the 
 British government, it was felt that with 
 rights there must be correlative duties; and 
 as Tuscany had been recognized and treated 
 as an independent state, an outrage upon 
 a British subject in Tuscany ought to be 
 repaired by Tuscany. He had no doubt 
 that Austria would have been very willing 
 that they should seek reparation of her 
 instead of Tuscany, as it would have been 
 a virtual acknowledgment of her suprem¬ 
 acy in that country; but that was not 
 the policy which the present government 
 wished to maintain with relation to Italy. 
 He fully justified the course taken by 
 Lord Malmesbury, and his recommendation 
 to Mr. Mather to accept, as an acknow- 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 ledgment of a wrong, a fine from the 
 government of Tuscany. With reference to 
 the closing observations of Lord Palmerston, 
 Mr. Disraeli avowed that the government 
 looked with great interest and anxiety to 
 the state of Italy; but he reminded the 
 noble lord that it was not worse now than 
 the present government had found it. Her 
 Majesty’s ministers were bound to proceed 
 in the matter with great deliberation; 
 yet he hoped the time might come when 
 the fairest portion of Europe should no 
 longer be occupied by foreign garrisons. 
 
 He then proceeded to deal with the 
 “postscript” of Lord John Bussell, and to 
 defend the government from the charges 
 advanced by the member for London, in 
 his criticism of the work of the session. 
 “I am bound to notice,” he said, “the 
 elaborate attack of the noble lord. He 
 has taken a review of what has occurred 
 during the brief period that we have sat 
 upon these benches. We have heard from 
 him a statement of that kind before, during 
 the course of this session. The very first 
 night that I took my seat, the noble lord 
 rose and opened his batteries. He has 
 since recurred to the attack; but his drums 
 were muffled, and the fire slackened. How 
 we have a last effort; but it is a forlorn 
 hope that will not take the citadel.” Mr. 
 Disraeli begged to differ from Lord John as 
 to the value of the measures for chancery 
 reform; he believed that if they passed 
 they would confer upon the country the 
 greatest blessing that society had for a 
 long while experienced. He explained, at 
 some length, the conduct of the govern¬ 
 ment in treating of the great question of 
 education, and denied that they had recourse 
 to unjustifiable proceedings—that they had 
 stealthily obtained, and cheated the House 
 out of, a money vote. In spite of the charges 
 brought against them, ministers had no fear 
 as to the future. 
 
 “ Sir,” said Mr. Disraeli, “ the noble 
 lord may rest assured that we shall go to 
 the country* with no undue confidence, I 
 trust, but at least in a manner which will 
 
 22 
 
170 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 allow us to meet the people without shame. 
 And, whatever the noble lord may say of 
 our change of opinions, I shall he prepared 
 to vindicate them here, or before my con¬ 
 stituents, in a manner which, I trust, will 
 entitle me to maintain their good opinion 
 which 1 now possess. I deny that there 
 has been, on our part, at any time since 
 the unfortunate circumstances of 1846— 
 circumstances which I ever deeply deplored 
 —I deny that there has been any attempt 
 to change the position which we then took 
 up. Sir, I do now, and ever shall, look on 
 the changes which took place in 1846, both 
 as regards the repeal of the corn laws and 
 the alteration of the sugar duties, as totally 
 unauthorized. I opposed them, as most of 
 my honourable friends about me opposed 
 them, from an apprehension of the great 
 suffering which must be incurred by such 
 a change. That suffering in a great degree, 
 although it may be limited to particular 
 classes, has in some instances been even 
 severer than we anticipated; but, sir, I 
 deny that, at any time those laws were 
 passed, either I or the bulk of those with 
 whom I have the honour to act have ever 
 maintained a recurrence to the same laws 
 that regulated those industries previous to 
 1846. You cannot 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. Why, 
 what is your charge against my Lord 
 Derby? You say that he recommended a 
 fixed duty, and now that he has intimated 
 his belief that the country would not 
 support such a policy. Well, but is a 
 fixed duty a recurrence to the laws which 
 regulated the introduction of corn or sugar 
 prior to 1846 ? If my Lord Derby had 
 declared that he counselled a recurrence to 
 those laws, don’t you think that you would 
 be ready to refer to his speeches—that 
 night after night you would din in our 
 ears your quotations from what he said ? 
 I defy you to produce a single sentence of 
 the kind. 
 
 “When we come to this question of a 
 fixed duty, that is talked of so much, I 
 must say now what I said before in this 
 House, that I will not pin my political 
 career on any policy which is not, after all, 
 a principle, but a measure. . . . Our 
 
 wish is, that the interests which we believe 
 were unjustly treated in 1846 should receive 
 the justice which they deserve, with as little 
 injury to those who may have benefited 
 more than they were entitled as it is 
 possible for human wisdom to devise. Sir, 
 I call that reconciling the interests of the 
 consumer and the producer, when you do 
 not permit the consumer to flourish by 
 placing unjust taxes upon the producer; 
 while at the same time you resort to no 
 tax which gives to the producer an unjust 
 and artificial price for his productions. 
 Those are the views which we supported 
 in opposition. Those are the views which 
 we are resolved, if possible, to carry into 
 effect. Our object is to do justice to those 
 classes, towards whom we believe that in 
 1846 you acted unjustly; and we attempt 
 to do that without disturbing the system 
 which is now established. Sir, I believe 
 that the country will support these views. 
 I believe that that temperate, that remedial, 
 and that purely conciliatory policy will be 
 by the country ratified. And when the 
 noble lord, the member for the city of 
 London, talks of our being a party without 
 principles, why, he seems plainly to admit 
 that he is an Opposition without a cry. 
 In his woefulness he confesses his desola¬ 
 tion; no principle, no opinion, no movement, 
 no agitation. What is left to the noble 
 lord ? With the imagination of a poet— 
 for he is still a poet—at his last gasp, to 
 my great surprise he discovered a resource. 
 
 ‘ Something/ says the noble lord, ‘ we 
 must rally round. We must rally round 
 the only thing that is left to us, that 
 profound apophthegm of the right hon. 
 gentleman, the member for Ripon’ (Sir 
 James Graham). The right hon. gentleman 
 has emblazoned on his standard the original, 
 the inspiring inscription, ‘Don’t put any 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 171 
 
 confidence in Lord Derby/ A year ago 
 was emblazoned on that self-same standard, 
 ‘Do not trust in the noble lord, the mem¬ 
 ber for the city of London/ Sir, we shall 
 survive the want of confidence reposed in 
 us by the right hon. gentleman, the member 
 for Eipon; and if the only way in which 
 the noble lord thinks he can make the 
 present government unpopular—if the only 
 mode by which he thinks he can unseat the 
 present administration—is by announcing 
 to the country that it does not possess the 
 confidence of the right hon. gentleman, 
 the member for Eipon, why then, sir, I 
 must express my heartfelt conviction that 
 this time next year we shall still have the 
 honour of serving Her Majesty.” 
 
 The confidence of Mr. Disraeli in the 
 Conservatism of the country was soon to be 
 put to the test. Before the summer heat 
 had made St. Stephen’s an infliction, causing 
 its members to look fondly forward to the 
 breezes of the moors or the delights of 
 country-house life, parliament had been 
 dissolved. In marked contrast to the 
 incapacity of the late government, all the 
 measures which the Derby cabinet had 
 proposed had been disposed of before the 
 end of June. The pages of the statute- 
 book clearly proved not only the ability, 
 but the activity of ministers, in spite of 
 interruption and all the tactics of obstruc¬ 
 tion. The militia act had become law; a 
 constitution had been granted to the distant 
 island of Hew Zealand; various reforms 
 had been effected in our courts of law and 
 equity, notably an act to diminish the 
 technicalities of special pleading and to 
 amend the procedure in the common law 
 courts; the abolition of the office of the 
 masters had remedied some of the grievances 
 complained of by societies in the court of 
 chancery; the jurisdiction of the county 
 courts had been extended; whilst true to 
 his maxim, Sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas 
 est, Mr. Disraeli had seen that two acts 
 for the improvement of the water supply 
 of the metropolis and the restriction of 
 intramural interments were carried. 
 
 The success of the government in thus 
 effectively dealing with public business 
 was made the subject of comment by Lord 
 Lyndhurst, who referred to the past labours 
 of the session in complimentary language. 
 After stating that the large number of public 
 measures and the vast amount of private 
 business pending at the beginning of the 
 session had been disposed of, he said he 
 thought it his duty to come down to the 
 House to congratulate the cabinet and 
 the country on the course pursued by his 
 noble friend at the head of the government. 
 “I thank my noble friend,” he said, “for 
 the firmness with which he resisted those 
 repeated attacks which were made—those 
 clamours which were raised on account of 
 his resisting the cry for an immediate dis¬ 
 solution. It was of the greatest importance 
 to the country that the proceedings to which 
 I refer should have taken place. I may 
 venture to say further, that during the four 
 months that have elapsed since my noble 
 friend came into office, bills of greater 
 importance have passed your Lordships’ 
 House than have passed during any session 
 since the commencement of the present 
 parliament; and I am sure my humble 
 thanks and the thanks of the country are 
 due to my noble friend for having resisted 
 the clamours that were raised.” 
 
 “ If the government,” said Lord Derby in 
 reply, “ are entitled to any praise, it is for 
 what my noble and learned friend has given 
 us credit, namely, for having resisted im¬ 
 portunity from various quarters, urging us 
 in the most vehement manner to dissolve 
 parliament, at a time when it would have 
 been extremely convenient for us personally 
 to have dissolved; but we refrained from 
 advising that step, seeing that a dissolution 
 of parliament at that moment would have 
 involved the country in great present incon¬ 
 venience, and possibly, or even probably, 
 would have led to the postponement, if not 
 the loss, of many useful measures which we 
 thought it our bounden duty to attempt to 
 carry into law. ... I stated at the 
 commencement of the session that we 
 
172 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 should endeavour to abstain, as far as 
 possible, from all topics of a party or 
 controversial character; and if we deserve 
 credit for anything, it is for having formed 
 a just estimate of that degree of public 
 spirit which we believe would prevail in 
 this and the other House of parliament, 
 if they would permit us to act upon the 
 principle we had announced, of not urging 
 measures which might lead to controversy, 
 and inviting them to join with us, forgetful 
 and regardless of party considerations, in 
 urging forward those measures which, apart 
 from all party feeling, were imperatively 
 demanded for the benefit of the country— 
 involving the promotion of the military 
 defences of the country, a vast improve¬ 
 ment in the courts of law and equity, and 
 provisions for the sanitary welfare of the 
 metropolis. My lords, I am happy to say 
 that this and the other House of parliament 
 have fully justified the estimate we formed 
 in that respect; and although the expecta¬ 
 tion that it would be possible to pass all 
 these bills—nay, I almost say to pass any 
 of them—was treated in the first instance 
 with a species of contemptuous ridicule, I 
 have the satisfaction to say, at the close of 
 one of the shortest sessions on record, that 
 . not one of these great objects remains 
 unaccomplished; and if this government 
 should cease to exist from the day on which 
 I am speaking, it would be a source of 
 unfeigned satisfaction and gratification to 
 me, that the four months during which we 
 have held office have been marked by the 
 passing of as many important measures, 
 and as beneficial to the public interest, as 
 under any previous administration, however 
 strong and powerful.” 
 
 Parliament was dismissed July 1, 1852. 
 “It is my intention,” said Her Majesty, 
 addressing both Houses, “without delay to 
 dissolve this present parliament; and it is 
 my earnest prayer that in the exercise of 
 the high functions which, according to our 
 free constitution, will devolve upon the 
 several constituencies, they may be directed 
 by an all-wise Providence to the selection 
 
 of representatives whcse wisdom and patriot¬ 
 ism may aid me in my unceasing endeavours 
 to sustain the honour and dignity of my 
 crown, to uphold the Protestant institutions 
 of the country and the civil and religious 
 liberty which is their natural result, to 
 extend and improve the national education, 
 to develop and encourage industry, art, and 
 science, and to elevate the moral and social 
 condition, and thereby promote the welfare 
 and happiness of my people.” 
 
 During the autumn the country was the 
 battle-ground on which was contested the 
 struggle for victory between the opposing 
 forces of Protection and free trade. Mani¬ 
 pulated statistics, false conclusions, and 
 garbled extracts were freely circulated by 
 both sides; and all was deemed fair that 
 led to triumph. 
 
 A few days after the dissolution, July 
 14, Mr. Disraeli met a large body of his 
 constituents at dinner at Newport Pagnel. 
 He took the opportunity to lay before his 
 audience the latest development of his views 
 respecting “ protection,” “ the better adjust¬ 
 ment of agricultural burdens,” “ a fixed 
 duty upon corn,” and the “new principle 
 of justice to the cultivators of the soil.” 
 After a few prefatory remarks he proceeded 
 to say:—“ Gentlemen, when I addressed 
 you last as your member in this room, you 
 will remember what was then the position 
 of the Opposition of that day. It was one 
 of great difficulty. The change of 1846 
 was a change of the most remarkable 
 description. I was, among others, opposed 
 to that change. I thought the risk of that 
 change was too great under the circum¬ 
 stances—too great for this country to incur. 
 I thought the disturbing circumstances, so 
 far as the agricultural interests were con¬ 
 cerned, which that change would produce 
 were not a matter of theory—that they 
 were inevitable, and that no one had a 
 right to incur the responsibility of voting 
 for a change so unpremeditated, so insecure, 
 and so inconsistent; and I must say, gentle¬ 
 men, that every subsequent session of par¬ 
 liament has perfectly fortified the opinion 
 
V 
 
 AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 173 
 
 I then formed. I knew—all knew—the 
 effects of that change upon our position. 
 We all knew that we should have very 
 great difficulty to regain the position we 
 had lost. At all times it is difficult to 
 regain a position which is forfeited; and I 
 stated years ago my individual conviction 
 of that sound policy which it was your 
 duty to follow. 
 
 “ But, gentlemen, your opponents were 
 ever anxious that you should pursue 
 a false policy. They have always said, 
 ‘ Ask only for that which it is impos¬ 
 sible to get, and then you will occupy 
 a sensible position.’ But, gentlemen, we 
 occupy safe ground by demanding that 
 which is truly practicable, instead of fol¬ 
 lowing the tactics of an Opposition which 
 would, in the precipitancy of their strong 
 convictions, knock their brains against the 
 first opposing wall they meet. I told you 
 to form your views a little more deep than 
 foolish. I said ‘ There is great agricultural 
 distress in consequence of a change in the 
 law: your opponents taunt you when you 
 seek to go back to that law, and they are 
 all-sufficient in their opposition. I want 
 you to ascertain what is the cause of your 
 suffering, and if possible to accept the new 
 policy, and to consider what recompense 
 you can find in other measures.’ 
 
 “ Gentlemen, that was the advice I pre¬ 
 sumed to give, and it is a question most 
 interesting to the numerous and influential 
 body assembled here to-day. I say, what is 
 the reason the English producer, the English 
 occupier of land, cannot compete with the 
 foreign producer or occupier of land ? I 
 have always said—and I don’t know that 
 I have ever heard any argument of an intel¬ 
 ligent opponent that I could really refer to 
 as in any way conclusive against it—I have 
 always said the reason is ‘ that the English 
 producer is under a system of taxation—a 
 system which is, in general, applied to 
 himself—which is in particular applied to 
 the class to which he belongs—entailing 
 upon him burdens which do not allow him 
 to run the race on equal terms with the 
 
 others.’ That is what I said. And, gentle¬ 
 men, I have also said that the protectionist 
 system was not to be justified unless you 
 can show these circumstances exist. And 
 I still believe these circumstances do exist 
 in the country, however much they may be 
 modified, and that the principle of Protection 
 is sound—that in a society which is arti¬ 
 ficial, in which there exists a financial system 
 so complicated as our own, it was much 
 better to adhere to compensating arrange¬ 
 ments for the protection of the cultivator 
 of the soil than that you should madly 
 leave him an unequal competitor with the 
 foreigner. And this principle, I say, is 
 always to be modified according to existing 
 circumstances. But, gentlemen, the pro¬ 
 tective principle was not only a sound one, 
 but it was a principle to the advantage of 
 the country, and the only principle upon 
 which our present system of finance could 
 be vindicated. You could not vindicate 
 a system that rested individually and 
 mainly upon the cultivators of the soil, 
 unless in its operation it gave some com¬ 
 pensatory relief to those whom it placed 
 under particular restrictions. Well, I say, 
 gentlemen, if the country has chosen to 
 abrogate that system, and if the majority of 
 the people of this country are of opinion it 
 would be unwise to recur to it, I say we 
 must seek by other means, and in another 
 direction, to place the cultivators of the 
 soil in a fair and just position. 
 
 “ Now, gentlemen, that is all I have ever 
 said. It is what I am perfectly ready to 
 maintain. I said it in Opposition as your 
 member; and I say now, as a minister of the 
 crown, I am perfectly prepared to advise Her 
 Majesty to carry it out. Now, gentlemen, 
 it has sometimes been said that the policy 
 I wish to pursue has been but of limited 
 compass—that it referred only to the bur¬ 
 dens entailed upon land by our system of 
 unfair taxation. Well, in the first place, 
 if there are any particular burdens on one 
 class which the rest of society do not bear, 
 I say, as a matter of principle, that there 
 ought to be redress. But I utterly deny 
 
174 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 that at any time I have told you that 
 proper measures of redress were solely or 
 wholly to be got by any advantage which 
 might arise from the adjustment of par¬ 
 ticular burdens entailed by local taxation. 
 Three years ago, in this room, I advised 
 you to take that particular grievance into 
 your consideration, and to work it out, 
 because your claim for redress was founded 
 upon justice, and because justice would be 
 sanctioned by the great body of the country. 
 And what has happened since I thus ad¬ 
 vised you proves that my advice was a 
 good one, for many gentlemen in the House 
 of Commons, who did not represent agri¬ 
 cultural constituencies, voted for the motions 
 I brought forward on the subject, because 
 they could not withhold their approval of 
 what had the high sanction of national 
 justice for its support. But, gentlemen, 
 I have not told you—I do not tell you 
 now—that this would give you a sufficient, 
 or that this would give you the chief means 
 of redress. I say no. It is in reviewing, 
 it is in adjusting the whole system of 
 national taxation, it is in placing this 
 system upon a just basis, that the producer 
 will find that justice which the consumer— 
 which every fair and upright man—could 
 wish him to secure. 
 
 “ Gentlemen, the old question was simply 
 this:—You said it required a system of legis¬ 
 lation which would secure to you an artificial 
 price. You were always taught to believe 
 that in raising prices you would find redress; 
 and in my opinion it would have been very 
 wise, not materially to have destroyed the 
 old system. But there is another view of 
 the case—another view of your position— 
 another means by which you may obtain 
 redress—and a means more practical than 
 recurring to the past, which is beset with 
 infinite difficulties. It is not to increase 
 prices in order that you may have a fair 
 remuneration for your toil: but it is to 
 reduce the cost of production (immense 
 cheering). 
 
 “ Now, that is the sound advice which 
 the agricultural interest must act upon. 
 
 You are told that it is one of the neces¬ 
 sities for the prosperous condition of 
 England, that the bread of the people 
 should be cheap. Well, I say, take care 
 that the producer of that bread shall be 
 able to produce it as cheap as possible. 
 Now you will find if you adopt that view 
 of the case, that you who are the occupiers 
 of the soil will more gradually get the 
 feeling of the country in your favour, and 
 at the same time more perfectly secure 
 compensation for yourselves. It is, as I 
 have said, in reviewing the system of 
 taxation which exists, and in the adjust¬ 
 ment of that system, that the cultivators 
 of the soil will find that compensation 
 which they have a right to expect from the 
 abrogation of that law which gave them 
 artificial prices; and I say, in accordance 
 with the spirit of the age and with the 
 temper of the country, let your produce 
 now be raised upon the cheapest possible 
 principle. But then it follows, you must 
 not allow your native produce to be shackled 
 by laws which hinder the producer from 
 competing with foreign countries. It fol¬ 
 lows that, in the new principle of justice, 
 the cultivators of the soil shall no longer 
 remain the only class incapable of receiving 
 a fair profit for their industry. It follows, 
 you must take care that the same justice 
 be done to all Her Majesty’s subjects. And 
 I am well aware, gentlemen, if the question 
 be viewed in that light, and if taxation 
 shall certainly be placed upon a new prin¬ 
 ciple, I am convinced we shall be able to 
 bring forward measures of relief which will 
 receive the sympathy, and approbation, and 
 support of all the various classes of this 
 country. 
 
 “ Now, I am sometimes told that we 
 supported in Opposition what is called the 
 Protectionist policy, but have abandoned 
 it in the responsible position of the minis¬ 
 ters of the crown. Gentlemen, I should 
 like to hear that accusation made in the 
 House of Commons by any of my opponents. 
 You know very well I have never been one 
 of those who asserted that any sufficient 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 175 
 
 compensation for the abrogation of a law 
 of protection could be fairly found in a 
 moderate fixed duty upon corn. I have 
 all along declared in my official position 
 that I should be extremely glad, as a 
 financial measure, if a moderate duty were 
 agreed upon. It would bring an immense 
 quota to the national revenue; and I think 
 it is a very great mistake, so far as financial 
 considerations are concerned, to suppose 
 that a duty upon corn is a trifle; but it 
 seems to be determined that we shall not 
 raise any portion of the revenue from 
 foreign grain. But suppose that a measure 
 were passed—say a five shilling or a four 
 shilling duty upon the importation of corn 
 into this country; suppose this, and I ask 
 will that place you in a position equal to 
 that which you occupied in 1845? (No! 
 no! no !) This would be a relief, gentlemen, 
 I have never supported, and it would not 
 by any means greatly contribute to place 
 you in a just position. . . . Well, I 
 
 say, gentlemen, it is in my opinion the 
 duty of a government to redress the griev¬ 
 ances under which the agriculturists have 
 unjustly suffered. ... I shall not, for 
 the present, trouble you with the details of 
 any measures we may present. We have 
 been sometimes asked, ‘ Why don’t you say 
 what you will do ? ’ Why, gentlemen, we 
 ought to go to the country upon principle, 
 and not upon details. We say or think 
 there should be measures brought forward 
 to place the cultivators of the soil in a 
 position to allow them to compete with 
 foreign industry. That is the principle. 
 We are not going to tell you what these 
 measures of detail are. Ay or no, do you 
 think it fair that English industry should 
 be burdened ? That is the question.” 
 
 He then concluded:— 
 
 “ It is my firm conviction that the 
 government of Lord Derby will meet par¬ 
 liament in the autumn with an absolute 
 majority. To me that is not a subject of 
 doubt. And the Ministry shall therefore 
 no longer have to meet a hostile parliament, 
 or be restrained in its policy by any over¬ 
 
 powering opposition. We shall meet par¬ 
 liament prepared to do our duty, under a 
 firm conviction that the country will steadily 
 protect us. I will not conceive the alter¬ 
 native ; but, at the same time, no one can 
 be blind to the fact, that the Opposition will 
 create its organization upon revolutionary 
 principles. Happy was the prescience of 
 Lord Derby when he told the Whig Oppo¬ 
 sition that the pear was not ripe last year 
 the Whigs were in office. They have 
 shown us their character, and their policy 
 has been received with universal scouting 
 by the country: and they cannot, gentle¬ 
 men, attain to popularity again except by 
 calling to their counsels the Jacobin clubs 
 of Lancashire.* But I feel, gentlemen, that 
 the present government is necessary for the 
 preservation of the English constitution; 
 but the future institution of the Opposition 
 already peeps from its shell and develops 
 its horns, and from that shell the Opposi¬ 
 tion cannot emerge except enveloped in the 
 slime of sedition. A change in the institu¬ 
 tions of the country will be the condition 
 of its success; and you must indeed be false 
 to all your professions—false to that high 
 spirit which Englishmen have ever shown 
 —false to the traditionary association of 
 your country—if you suffer an Opposition 
 founded upon such principles to govern 
 this nation. Well, then, gentlemen, when 
 we meet in the county hall, on Eriday, 
 I want to know if you will support the 
 principles and practices which I have so 
 feebly detailed ? (Loud cries of Yes! yes!) 
 Will you be prepared to say, ‘We shall 
 have justice done to the soil; we shall have 
 our legislation conceived in the spirit of the 
 age, which is the spirit of justice?’ Will 
 
 * “ The hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) has 
 complained that the chancellor of the exchequer has described 
 that party as a Jacobin Club, and has asked the right hon. 
 gentleman for a definition of a Jacobin Club. I think I can 
 supply him with one. A Jacobin Club is an association that 
 passes its resolutions outside the walls of parliament, and 
 then attempts to force them on parliament by an appeal not 
 to their reason but to their fears. A Jacobin Club is a body 
 of men that presumes to tell the legislature that unless their 
 dictation is submitted to there shall be a war upon the insti¬ 
 tutions of the state .”—Speech of Mr. Isaac Butt , House 
 of Commons , November 26, 1852. 
 
176 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 you be prepared to say, ‘We will have the 
 Protestant constitution of this country pre¬ 
 served, not with the sectarianism of bigots, 
 but with those who believe that Protes¬ 
 tantism is the only safeguard of English 
 liberty V These, gentlemen, are the issues 
 before you. Be prepared to fight against 
 those difficulties and compunctions which 
 an unwise and eccentric Opposition may 
 create, and in the ancient spirit of the men 
 of Buckinghamshire, which has conquered 
 in times that are past, and which now, I 
 believe, will carry us on to the higher 
 triumph which yet awaits us.” 
 
 Three days after this speech was nomi¬ 
 nation day. The re-election of Mr. Disraeli 
 was practically unopposed. Dr. Lee, of 
 Hartwell House, put in his customary ap¬ 
 pearance, and received his customary sup¬ 
 port. In addition to Dr. Lee, the Whigs had 
 entered the Hon. C. Cavendish for the con¬ 
 test ; but as we shall see from the result, the 
 constituency had no intention to oust their 
 two Tory members from the House of Com¬ 
 mons. When Mr. Disraeli stood forward 
 to address his supporters he was greeted 
 with loud cheers, and much waving of 
 handkerchiefs from the fair sex, who had 
 no little influence over the Conservative 
 cause in Bucks. 
 
 In reply to taunts that his cabinet had 
 done nothing since their accession to power, 
 the chancellor of the exchequer carefully 
 recapitulated the various measures which 
 had been passed in the late session of par¬ 
 liament. “ I have no wish, however,” said 
 he, “ to regain a renewal of confidence by 
 an appeal only to the past. No vulgar 
 sneers shall prevent me from following that 
 path which I have chalked out for myself, 
 or from attempting to fulfil those events 
 which I feel are looming in the future. (A 
 voice, “ What are theyV’) Well, you ask, 
 so I ’ll tell you. The first event looming 
 
 in the future is that in a few davs I shall 
 
 %/ 
 
 be one of the members for Buckingham¬ 
 shire ” (loud laughter). He desired to have 
 the renewal of their confidence, because it 
 would assist him in carrying out, with the 
 
 aid of his colleagues, a policy which he 
 believed would be most beneficial to the 
 country. He had been taunted with the 
 question of “Are you a free trader, or 
 are you not ? ” He was almost surprised 
 that the big and the little loaf had not put 
 in an appearance. The time had gone by 
 when those exploded politics could interest 
 the people of that country. Ho one sup¬ 
 posed that the present administration had 
 any intention to bring back laws that were 
 repealed in 1846. He disapproved of those 
 laws, because he had always maintained 
 that the English financial system was based 
 upon a protective system, and that if they 
 destroyed the protective system, they must 
 reconsider the financial system, which was 
 its creature. He was glad to find that even 
 his opponents had come round to his 
 opinions as to local taxation. Still he did 
 not pretend to think that any adjustment 
 of local taxation would give the redress 
 that was necessary to the cultivator of the 
 soil; nor did he think that in entering 
 upon the question of taxation, they were to 
 consider the interests of any one class 
 alone, however respectable. He carried 
 his views much further, and he looked 
 with confidence to the moment when the 
 government would bring forward measures 
 which, from their wise and comprehensive 
 character, would relieve every class in the 
 country by the introduction into the system 
 of taxation of principles more just and bene¬ 
 ficial than those which had hitherto been its 
 basis. He must defer to the fitting occasion 
 and to the fitting place the details of the mea¬ 
 sures the cabinet were about to introduce. 
 
 “I am bound,” he said, “as a solicitor 
 for your favours, to state to you the 
 general tenor of the policy which I 
 should recommend, and the great object of 
 the policy I wish to achieve; but can 
 anything be more preposterous or more 
 ridiculous than that I should be called 
 upon to explain to the electors of the 
 county of Buckingham all the details of 
 measures so vast, as they necessarily must 
 be, embracing the interests of a great com- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 177 
 
 munity like this ? ” ITe told them what 
 was the spirit of the policy that animated 
 the cabinet, and from the result of the 
 general election he felt sure that the govern¬ 
 ment would be permitted to bring forward 
 those measures and carry them through 
 parliament. 
 
 The number of electors on the register 
 was between 5000 and 6000; at the close 
 of the polling the result was as follows:— 
 
 Dupre,.1999 
 
 Disraeli,.1968 
 
 Cavendish,.1403 
 
 Lee, ..665 
 
 Parliament met November 11, 1852, and 
 the Houses were opened by the queen in 
 person. The sanguine prophecies of Mr- 
 Disraeli had, however, not been fulfilled; 
 for though the contest had been close, it 
 was estimated that the result of the elec¬ 
 tions had placed the government in a 
 minority. The following list, compiled 
 from careful sources, furnishes what may 
 be considered an accurate statement as to 
 the balance of parties in the new House 
 of Commons:— 
 
 
 *5 a 
 
 Ph cl> 
 
 ' 3 
 
 tn 
 
 ta 
 
 £'-3 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 •H 
 
 •4^ 
 
 *02 
 
 <E 
 
 .Q 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 S'g 
 
 O 
 
 P4 
 
 0 
 
 © 
 
 
 O ^ 
 
 H 
 
 CD 
 
 -4-» 
 
 o< 
 
 O 
 
 
 English Counties,. 
 
 144 
 
 113 
 
 26 
 
 5 
 
 Welsh “ . 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 Scotch “ . 
 
 30 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 — 
 
 Irish “ . 
 
 64 
 
 24 
 
 40 
 
 
 English Cities and Boroughs, . 
 
 320 
 
 126 
 
 183 
 
 11 
 
 Welsh “ “ 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 ... 
 
 Scotch “ “ 
 
 23 
 
 ... 
 
 22 
 
 1 
 
 Irish “ “ 
 
 39 
 
 13 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 Universities,. 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 St. Albans and Sudbury ) 
 
 655 
 
 312 
 
 325 
 
 18 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 (disfranchised), ) * 
 
 *± 
 
 
 
 
 Total, ...... 
 
 659 
 
 
 
 
 Double return,. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 House of Commons, .... 
 
 658 
 
 
 
 
 Before the regular work of the session 
 began, a sad but splendid act of homage 
 had to be performed. Some few weeks 
 before the assembling of parliament (Sep¬ 
 tember 14, 1852), the great Duke of Wel¬ 
 lington had passed peacefully to his rest. 
 
 VOL. L 
 
 He had lived so loug before the public, his 
 bent form clad in its frock coat and white 
 trousers was so familiar an object in the 
 Row and down Whitehall, warrior and 
 minister he was so completely one of the 
 institutions of the country, that it seemed 
 almost impossible for the nation to exist 
 without him. As soldier, as diplomatist, 
 as statesman, as trusty counsellor, ever 
 ready to do his “ duty,” his deeds, his 
 advice, his rule, had filled so many pages 
 of English history, that the blank created 
 by his withdrawal from the scene of mortal 
 labours was experienced by all; even those 
 who only knew him by sight missed him, 
 and felt as if a kind of bereavement had 
 fallen upon them. Reading his history, we 
 are sometimes compelled to reflect whether 
 we are not after all entering upon the 
 regions of fiction, so splendid are the 
 triumphs of the great duke, so uninter¬ 
 rupted his successes, so dazzling the glory 
 that attends upon his services. What 
 commander either in ancient or modern 
 history can compare with him ? No matter 
 in what country, or against what foe, he was 
 uniformly successful. He was triumphant 
 in India, in Portugal, in Spain, in France. 
 None could resist his tactics, his subtle 
 stratagems, his skill in marshalling the 
 forces at his command. His men were ill- 
 provisioned; he was hampered by conflicting 
 orders; an irritable Opposition at home did 
 all in its power to thwart his designs : yet 
 what a list of glories he added to the annals 
 of the British arms ! Assaye, Argaum, 
 Ahmednuggur, victories on the plains of 
 India which crushed the insurrection of 
 the Mahratta chieftains; Rorica, Yimiera, 
 Busaco, victories which expelled the French 
 from the valleys and mountains of Por¬ 
 tugal; Talavera, Fuentes d’Onoro, Almeida, 
 Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, Salamanca, Vit- 
 toria, victories which forced the French 
 to quit the Peninsula; the battles of the 
 Pyrenees, Toulouse, and the crowning 
 triumph of Waterloo, which exiled the 
 “ despot of Europe ” to the lonely isle of 
 St. Helena. No wonder that when the 
 
178 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 splendid general returned to London he 
 was the hero of the hour. Coriolanus was 
 never more worshipped :— 
 
 “ The matrons flung their gloves, 
 
 Ladies and maids their scarfs and handkerchiefs, 
 Upon him as he passed; the nobles bended 
 As to Jove’s statue; and the commoners made 
 A shower of thunder with their caps and shouts.” 
 
 As in the history of warfare the successes 
 of the famous soldier had been unique, so 
 in the history of rewards were his honours 
 unparalleled. Victory after victory raised 
 him step by step in the ranks of the 
 peerage. The battle of Talavera created 
 him Baron Douro of Wellesley and Viscount 
 Wellington of Talavera. On the fall of 
 Ciudad Rodrigo he was raised to the dignity 
 of an earl. After Salamanca he was created 
 Marquis, and on his return to England he 
 wore the strawberry leaves as Marquis of 
 Douro and Duke of Wellington. Three 
 times had he received the thanks of parlia¬ 
 ment—acknowledgments often accompanied 
 by no mean grants from the crown. On 
 taking his seat for the first time among his 
 brother peers, the lord chancellor, after 
 returning the thanks of the House for his 
 Grace’s “ great and eminent services to his 
 king and country,” thus addressed the noble 
 warrior:—“ I cannot forbear to call the 
 especial attention of all who hear me to a 
 fact in your Grace’s life, singular, I believe, 
 in the history of the country, and infinitely 
 honourable to your Grace, that you have 
 manifested upon your first entrance into 
 this House your right under various grants 
 to all the dignities in the peerage of this 
 realm which the crown can confer. These 
 dignities have been conferred at various 
 periods, but in the short compass of little 
 more than four years, for great public ser¬ 
 vices occurring in rapid succession, claiming 
 the favours of the crown.” 
 
 Few men are excellent in a double 
 capacity, and the great duke was no 
 exception to the rule. As a soldier, he was 
 one of the most consummate generals that 
 warfare has ever developed. As a states¬ 
 man, he was not even in the second rank; 
 
 his prejudices narrowed his sense of judg¬ 
 ment ; he was too hasty in arriving at his 
 conclusions, and he was often too unsym¬ 
 pathetic and exclusive to interpret aright 
 the feelings and wishes of his country. 
 The two principles of his political creed 
 were to maintain the English constitution 
 as it was framed before the first Reform 
 Bill, with all its unjust partialities and 
 irritating restrictions, and to uphold the 
 articles of the treaty of Vienna in their 
 integrity. Yet he possessed advantages 
 accorded to few statesmen, however eminent. 
 He was the confidential adviser of the 
 court; his opinion carried an enormous 
 weight in the Upper House; and he was 
 the honoured friend of every sovereign in 
 Europe, and on terms of cordial intimacy 
 with all the great foreign ministers. Thus 
 he knew, from his personal acquaintance 
 with the leaders of European diplomacy, 
 what were the wishes and ambitions of 
 every state in the family of nations. 
 Almost to the very day of his death, 
 when any important question was under 
 consideration, the country was not fully 
 satisfied until it became known “ what the 
 duke thought about it.” 
 
 “ I was marvellously struck,” writes 
 Charles Greville in his “Memoirs,” after 
 a ride through St. James’ Park with the 
 Duke of Wellington, “with the profound 
 respect with which the duke was treated, 
 everybody we met taking off their hats 
 to him, everybody in the park rising 
 as he went by, and every appearance 
 of his inspiring great reverence. I like 
 this symptom, and it is the more re¬ 
 markable because it is not popularity, but 
 a much higher feeling towards him. He 
 has forfeited his popularity more than 
 once; he has taken a line in politics 
 directly counter to the popular bias; but 
 though in moments of excitement he is 
 attacked and vilified, when the excitement 
 subsides there is always a returning senti¬ 
 ment of admiration and respect for him, 
 kept alive by the recollection of his splendid 
 actions, such as no one else ever inspired. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 179 
 
 Much, too, as I have regretted and censured 
 the enormous errors of his political career 
 (at times), I believe that this sentiment is 
 in a great degree produced by the justice 
 which is done to his political character, 
 sometimes mistaken, but always high- 
 minded and patriotic, and never mean, 
 false, or selfish. If he has aimed at power 
 and overrated his own capacity for wielding 
 it, it has been with the purest intentions 
 and the most conscientious views. I believe 
 firmly that no man had ever at heart to a 
 greater degree the honour and glory of his 
 country; and hereafter, when justice will 
 be done to his memory, and his character 
 and conduct be scanned with impartial 
 eyes, if his capacity for government appears 
 unequal to the exigencies of the times in 
 which he was placed at the head of affairs, 
 the purity of his motives and the noble 
 character of his ambition will be amply 
 acknowledged. . . . He coveted power, 
 
 but he was perfectly disinterested, a great 
 patriot, if ever there was one; and he was 
 always animated by a strong and abiding 
 sense of duty.” 
 
 At the opening of the Houses, Her 
 Majesty alluded to the loss sustained by 
 the nation in the following words inserted 
 in the royal speech:—“ I cannot meet you, 
 for the first time after the dissolution of 
 parliament, without expressing my deep 
 sorrow, in which I am sure you will partici¬ 
 pate, that your deliberations can no longer 
 be aided by the counsels of that illustrious 
 man whose great achievements have exalted 
 the name of England, and in whose loyalty 
 and patriotism the interests of my throne 
 and of my people ever found an unfailing 
 support. I rely with confidence on your 
 desire to join with me in taking such steps 
 as may mark your sense of the irreparable 
 loss which the country has sustained by the 
 death of Arthur Duke of Wellington.” 
 
 In the debate on the address to the 
 throne the prime minister, before entering 
 upon the details of public business, referred 
 to the topic which was then occupying the 
 thoughts of almost every man, not only in 
 
 England, but throughout the civilized world. 
 “ My lords,” said Lord Derby, “ it is impos¬ 
 sible that we should assemble together in this 
 house of parliament without remembering, 
 as Her Majesty has been pleased in her 
 speech to remember, the great loss we have 
 sustained. As I rise to address your lord- 
 ships, my eyes naturally turn to the head 
 of this table, and looking at the seat to 
 which a noble lord has so appropriately 
 alluded, I miss there one whose venerable 
 form occupied that place, and whose gray 
 head, resting upon his hand, upraised to 
 assist his imperfect hearing, was listening 
 with conscientious and laborious atten¬ 
 tion to the arguments of even the 
 humblest member that might be addressing 
 your lordships. Again, my lords, I see 
 him rising from his seat, and amid the 
 breathless silence of the House, in homely 
 phrase, addressing to your lordships the 
 thoughts of a powerful mind, which seized 
 intuitively the very pith and marrow of 
 the matter. Slowly and deliberately he 
 gave forth those pithy and sententious 
 maxims which were the result of his in¬ 
 tuitive sagacity, of his large and matured 
 experience, of his deliberate wisdom. It 
 is, indeed, upon no light theme that I now 
 speak. When contemplating the character 
 of him whose loss we now deplore, difficult 
 indeed is the task to do justice to its 
 greatness. His unparalleled achievements 
 in the field, and all his actions, marked 
 him the great leader; his sagacity in coun¬ 
 sel, his loyalty to his sovereign, his deep 
 devotion to the interests of his country, his 
 noble self-reliance, his firmness and zeal, 
 his abnegation of all selfish views in con¬ 
 sideration of the interest of his country— 
 my lords, all these great and high qualities 
 have already been written in the undying 
 page of history; all these are engraven on 
 the hearts and minds of his countrymen; 
 all these have been honoured by his 
 sovereign; all these have been liberally 
 acknowledged and confessed by the world. 
 My lords, he is gone. He is gone where 
 human honours are worthless. Yet, my 
 
180 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 lords, history, while recording his many 
 virtues, will not he unmindful of one great 
 trait that shone through his entire char¬ 
 acter. In all the vicissitudes of his long 
 career, in the battle-field, at the head of 
 his troops, in the councils of statesmen, 
 in the cabinet of his colleagues, in the 
 chamber of his sovereign, in the assembled 
 parliament, unbiassed by the blandishments 
 of ambition, and unblinded by the blaze of 
 his own transcendent glories, steadfastly 
 refusing to listen to the aspirations of am¬ 
 bition, superior to all bias of political party, 
 in every stage of his career, his actions 
 were marked by a simplicity and singleness 
 of purpose, the never-failing characteristic 
 of every great mind.” 
 
 A few days after passing this graceful 
 tribute of respect and regret to the memory 
 of the illustrious deceased, the prime min¬ 
 ister again rose in the House of Lords to 
 propose a resolution in reply to a message 
 from Her Majesty respecting the funeral 
 of the Duke of Wellington. Thursday, 
 November 18, was the day fixed for the 
 interment of the remains in St. Paul’s 
 cathedral; and a select committee was 
 appointed to consider the arrangements, so 
 as to facilitate the attendance of peers. 
 Similar proceedings took place in the 
 Lower House. As leader of the Commons, 
 it fell to the duty of Mr. Disraeli to deliver 
 the following brilliant funeral oration. We 
 give it in full, since it has not been reprinted, 
 and is only to be found in the pages of 
 Hansard:— 
 
 “ Sir, the House of Commons is called 
 upon to-night to perform a sorrowful, but a 
 noble duty. It has to recognize in the face 
 of the country and of the civilized w T orld 
 the loss of the most distinguished of our 
 citizens; and it has to offer to the ashes of 
 the great departed the solemn anguish of 
 a bereaved nation. Sir, the princely per¬ 
 sonage who has left us was born in an age 
 more fruitful of great events than any 
 other period of recorded time. Of its vast 
 incidents, the most conspicuous were his 
 own deeds — deeds achieved with the 
 
 smallest means and against the greatest 
 obstacles. He was, therefore, not only a 
 great man, but the greatest man of a great 
 age. Amid the chaos and conflagration 
 which attended the close of the last century, 
 there arose one of those beings who seem 
 to be born to master mankind. It is not 
 too much to say that Napoleon combined 
 the imperial ardour of Alexander with the 
 strategy of Hannibal. The kings of the 
 earth fell before his fury and subtle genius; 
 and at the head of all the powers of Europe 
 he denounced destruction against the only 
 land that dared disobey him and be free. 
 The providential superintendence of the 
 world seems scarcely ever more manifest 
 than when we recollect the dispensations of 
 our day—that the same year which gave to 
 France the Emperor Napoleon, produced 
 also for us the Duke of Wellington; that in 
 the same year they should have embraced 
 the same profession; and that, natives of 
 distant islands, they should both have 
 repaired for their military education to that 
 illustrious land which each in his turn 
 was destined to subjugate. During that 
 long struggle for our freedom, our glory— 
 I might say for our existence—Wellesley 
 fought and won fifteen pitched battles—all 
 of them of the highest class—concluding 
 with one of those crowning victories that 
 give a colour and a form to history. Dur¬ 
 ing this period, that can be said of him 
 which can be said of no other captain— 
 that he captured 3000 cannon from the 
 enemy, and never lost a single gun. 
 
 “But the greatness of his exploits was, 
 perhaps, even surpassed by the difficulties 
 which he had to encounter. Eor he had to 
 encounter a feeble Government, a factious 
 Opposition, a distrustful people, scanda¬ 
 lous allies, and the most powerful enemy in 
 the world. He won victories with starving 
 troops, and he carried on sieges without 
 munitions. And as if to complete the 
 fatality which attended him throughout 
 life in this respect, when he had at last 
 succeeded in creating an army worthy of 
 the Roman legions and worthy of himself, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 1S1 
 
 this invincible host was broken np on the 
 eve of the greatest conjuncture of his life, 
 and he had to enter the field of Waterloo 
 with raw levies and discomfited allies. But 
 the star of Wellington never paled. He 
 has been called fortunate; but fortune is a 
 divinity which has ever favoured - those 
 who are at the same time sagacious and 
 intrepid, inventive and patient. It was his 
 own character that created his career—alike 
 achieved his exploits and guarded him from 
 every vicissitude; for it was his sublime self- 
 control alone that regulated his lofty fate. 
 
 “ Sir, it has been of late years somewhat 
 the fashion to disparage the military char¬ 
 acter. Forty years of peace have, perhaps, 
 made us somewhat less aware how consider¬ 
 able and how complex are the qualities 
 which go to the formation of a great general. 
 It is not enough that he must be an engineer, 
 a geographer, learned in human nature and 
 adroit in managing men : he must also be 
 able to fulfil the highest duty of a minister 
 of state, and then to descend to the hum¬ 
 blest office of a commissary and a clerk; 
 but he 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 ele¬ 
 ments that are perpetually changing he has 
 to combine, sometimes under overwhelming 
 heat, sometimes under overpowering cold— 
 oftentimes in famine, and frequently amidst 
 the roar of artillery. Behind all these cir¬ 
 cumstances there is ever present the image 
 of his country, and the dreadful alternative 
 whether that country is to welcome him 
 with laurels or with cypress. Yet those 
 images he must dismiss from his mind, 
 for the general must not only think, but 
 think with the rapidity of lightning; 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. Unquestionably, sir, all this 
 
 may be done in an ordinary manner, by an 
 ordinary man, as every day of our lives we 
 see that ordinary men may be successful 
 ministers of state, successful authors, and 
 successful speakers; but to do all this with 
 genius is sublime. Doubtless to be able 
 to think with vigour, with depth, and 
 with clearness in the recess of the cabinet 
 is a fine intellectual demonstration; but 
 to think with equal vigour, clearness, and 
 depth amidst the noise of bullets, appears 
 the loftiest exercise and the most complete 
 triumph of the human faculties.* 
 
 “ Sir, when we take into consideration 
 the prolonged and illustrious life of the 
 Duke of Wellington, we are surprised how 
 small a section of that life is occupied by 
 that military career which fills so large a 
 
 * The critics cf Mr. Disraeli, always on the look out to 
 detect faults, found that this eloquent passage was plagiar¬ 
 ized from an article written, so early as the year 1829, by, 
 it was alleged, M. Thiers in the Revue Trhnestre, on 
 Marshal Gouvion de St. Cyr. 
 
 “ An engineer,” writes M. Thiers on the gifts requisite to 
 make a great general, “ a geographer, a man of the world, 
 metaphysician, knowing men, knowing how to govern them, 
 an administrator in great things, a clerk in small—all these 
 things it is necessary to be, but these are as yet nothing. 
 All this vast knowledge must be exercised on the instant, in 
 the midst of extraordinary circumstances. 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 so 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 combination 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 is sublime. ... To think in the quiet of one’s 
 cabinet, clearly, strongly, nobly, this undoubtedly is great; 
 but to think as clearly, as strongly, as nobly, in the midst of 
 carnage and fire, is the most perfect exercise of the human 
 faculties.” In extenuation it was said that Mr. Disraeli had 
 read the article many years ago, had been much struck by it, 
 and had committed some of the passages to memory. “ All 
 t his is very natural,” wrote the Times , who came to the 
 defence of the attacked orator. “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 a speech, and 
 the confidence of the hearers, so much as avowed quotations.” 
 
182 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 space in history, Only eight years elapsed 
 from Vimiera to Waterloo, and from the 
 date of his first commission to the last 
 cannon shot which he heard on the field 
 of battle scarce twenty years can be 
 counted. After all his triumphs, he was 
 destined for another career; and the greatest 
 and most successful of warriors—if not in 
 the prime, at least in the perfection of man¬ 
 hood—commenced a civil career scarcely 
 less successful, scarcely less splendid, than 
 that military one which will live for ever 
 in the memory of man. He was thrice the 
 ambassador of his sovereign at those great 
 historic congresses that settled the affairs 
 of Europe; twice was he secretary of state; 
 twice he was commander-in-chief of the 
 forces; once he was prime minister of 
 England; and to the last hour of his life 
 he may be said to have laboured for his 
 country. It was only a few months before 
 we lost him that he favoured with his 
 counsel and assistance the present advisers 
 of the crown respecting that war in the 
 East of which no one could be so competent 
 to judge, and he drew up his views on that 
 subject in a state paper characterized by all 
 his sagacity and experience; and indeed 
 when he died, he died still the active chief¬ 
 tain of that famous army to which he has 
 left the tradition of his glory. 
 
 “ Sir, there is one passage in the life of 
 the Duke of Wellington which in this place 
 and on this occasion I ought not to let pass 
 unnoticed. It is our pride that he was one 
 of ourselves: it is our glory that Sir Arthur 
 Wellesley once sat on these benches. If 
 we view his career in the House of Com¬ 
 mons by the tests of success which are 
 applied to common men, his career, although 
 brief, was still distinguished. He entered 
 the royal councils, and filled high offices 
 of state. But the success of Sir Arthur 
 Wellesley in the House of Commons must 
 not be tested by the fact that he was a 
 privy councillor or a secretary of a lord- 
 lieutenant. He achieved here a success 
 which the greatest ministers and the most 
 brilliant orators may never hope to accom¬ 
 
 plish. That was a great parliamentary 
 triumph when he rose in his place to 
 receive the thanks of Mr. Speaker for a 
 brilliant victory; and later still when at 
 that bar to receive, sir, from one of your pre¬ 
 decessors, in memorable words, the thanks of 
 a gratified senate for accumulated triumphs. 
 
 “ Sir, there is one source of consolation 
 which, I think, the people of England 
 possess at this moment under the severe 
 bereavement over which they mourn. It 
 is their intimate acquaintance with the 
 character and even the person of this great 
 man. There never was a man of such 
 mark, who lived so long and so much in 
 the public eye. I will be bound there is 
 not a gentleman in the House who has not 
 seen him ; many there are who have con¬ 
 versed with him ; some there are who have 
 touched his hand. His image, his coun¬ 
 tenance, his manner, his voice, are impressed 
 on every memory and sound almost in every 
 ear. In the gilded saloon and in the busy 
 market-place, to the last, he might be found. 
 The rising generation among whom he lived 
 will often recall his words of kindness; and 
 the people followed him in the street with 
 that lingering gaze of reverend admiration 
 which seemed never to tire. Who, indeed, 
 can ever forget that venerable and classic 
 head, ripe with time, and radiant as it were 
 with glory— 
 
 “ 1 Stilichonis apex et cognita fulsit 
 Canities ? ’ 
 
 “ To complete all, that we might have a 
 perfect idea of his inward and spiritual 
 nature, that we might understand how this 
 sovereign master of duty fulfilled the 
 manifold offices of his life with unrivalled 
 activity; he himself gave us a collection of 
 military and administrative literature which 
 no age and no country can rival. And 
 fortunate in all things, Wellington found 
 in his lifetime an historian whose immortal 
 page now ranks with the classics of that 
 land which Wellesley saved. 
 
 “ Sir, the Duke of Wellington has left to 
 his country a great legacy—greater even 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 183 
 
 than his fame; he has left to them the 
 contemplation of his character. I will not 
 say of England that he has revived here 
 the sense of duty; that, I trust, was never 
 lost. But that he has inspired public life 
 with a purer and more masculine tone I 
 cannot doubt; that he has rebuked by his 
 career restless vanity, and regulated the 
 morbid susceptibility of irregular egotism, 
 is, I think, no exaggerated praise. I do not 
 believe that among all orders of English¬ 
 men, from the highest to the lowest—from 
 those who are called on to incur the most 
 serious responsibilities of office, to those 
 who exercise the humblest duties of our 
 society — I do not believe there is one 
 among us who may not experience moments 
 of doubt and depression when the image of 
 Wellington will occur to his memory, and 
 he find in his example support and solace. 
 
 “Although the Duke of Wellington lived 
 so much in the mind and heart of the 
 people of England—although at the end of 
 his long career he occupied such a pro¬ 
 minent position, and filled such , august 
 offices—no one seemed to be conscious of 
 what a space he occupied in the thoughts 
 and feelings of his countrymen until he 
 died. The influence of true greatness was 
 never, perhaps, more completely asserted 
 than in his decease. In an age in which 
 the belief in intellectual equality flatters 
 so much our self-complacency, every one 
 suddenly acknowledges that the world has 
 lost its foremost man. In an age of utility, 
 the most busy and the most common-sense 
 people in the world find no vent for their 
 woe, and no representation for their sorrow, 
 but the solemnity of a pageant; and we, 
 who are assembled here for purposes so 
 different, to investigate the sources of the 
 wealth of nations, to busy ourselves in 
 statistical research, to encounter each other 
 in fiscal controversy, we offer to the world 
 the most sublime and touching spectacle 
 that human circumstances can well produce 
 —the spectacle of a senate mourning a hero.” 
 
 The public funeral was not only the most 
 splendid that England has ever accorded to 
 
 any of her famous sons, but the most 
 impressive. Every shop throughout the 
 kingdom was closed; in all our great cities 
 business was suspended, and there were 
 none so poor or so lowly in condition as 
 not to deck themselves here and there 
 with bits of crape, out of compliment to 
 the mighty warrior who had burnished the 
 arms of his country with a glory they had 
 not reflected since the days of Marlborough. 
 As the coffin passed through the crowded 
 streets, every head was uncovered; not a 
 jest, not a sneer, no repulsive horse-play 
 broke upon the sorrows of the hour and 
 marred the harmony of reverential grief. 
 Gorgeous as was the funeral pageant with 
 its sable trappings, its long line of private 
 carriages, its host of distinguished mourners, 
 yet the most impressive tribute to the 
 memory of the great duke was the decorous, 
 the orderly, the respectful behaviour of the 
 millions that, coming from all parts of 
 the country, then thronged the streets of 
 London. In describing the events of that 
 memorable day to his brother peers, Lord 
 Derby took the opportunity of alluding to 
 the good conduct on that occasion of so 
 vast a crowd. 
 
 “When,” he said, “we consider how 
 large a proportion of the population of 
 these United Kingdoms was for that single 
 day crowded together in the streets of 
 the metropolis—when you remember, as 
 those at least remember to whose lot 
 it fell to take part in the procession, 
 and who saw it throughout its whole 
 length and breadth—when you remember 
 that on a line of route three miles in 
 length, extending from Grosvenor Place to 
 St. Paul’s Cathedral, there was not a single 
 unoccupied foot of ground, and that you 
 passed through a living sea of faces, all 
 turned to look upon that great spectacle— 
 when you saw every house, every window, 
 every housetop, loaded with persons anxious 
 to pay their last tribute of respect to the 
 memory of England’s greatest son—when 
 you saw those persons (those, at least, 
 within the streets) remaining with entire 
 
184 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 and unflinching patience for many hours 
 in a position in which movement was 
 hardly possible, and yet that scarce a 
 single accident occurred to the most feeble 
 woman or child amid that vast mass— 
 when, throughout the whole of that length, 
 not only was a perfect decorum preserved, 
 and a perfect and ready assistance given to 
 the efforts of the police and the military, but 
 there was no unseemly desire to witness 
 the magnificent spectacle, no light and 
 thoughtless applause at the splendour of 
 that spectacle, and that the people of 
 England, in the awful silence of those 
 vast crowds, testified in the most emphatic 
 manner the sense in which every man 
 among them felt the public loss which 
 England had sustained—I know not, my 
 lords, how you may have looked upon this 
 manifestation of public feeling and good 
 sense and order; but I know this, that as I 
 passed along those lines it was with pride 
 and satisfaction I felt that I was a country¬ 
 man of those who knew so well how to 
 regulate and control themselves; and I 
 could not help entertaining a hope that 
 those foreign visitors who have done us 
 and themselves the honour of assisting at 
 this great ceremonial might upon this 
 occasion, as upon the 1st of May, 1851,* 
 bear witness back to their own country 
 how safely and to what extent a people 
 might be relied upon in whom the strongest 
 hold of their government was their own 
 reverence and respect for the free institu¬ 
 tions of their country, and the principles 
 of popular self-government controlled and 
 modified by constitutional monarchy. 
 
 “And who will forget,” continued Lord 
 Derby, “ the effect within the cathedral ? 
 When, amidst solemn and mournful music, 
 slowly, and inch by inch, the coffin which 
 held the illustrious dead descended into its 
 last long resting-place, I was near enough 
 to see the countenances of many of the 
 veterans who were companions of his 
 labours and of his triumphs, and was 
 near enough to hear the suppressed sobs 
 
 * The date of the opening of the Great Exhibition. 
 
 and see the hardly-checked tears, which 
 would not have disgraced the cheeks of 
 England’s greatest warriors, as they looked 
 down for the last time upon all that was 
 mortal of our mighty hero. Honour, my 
 lords, to the people who so well know how 
 to reverence the illustrious dead ! 
 
 “ Honour to the friendly visitors—especi¬ 
 ally to France, the great and friendly nation 
 that testified by the presence of their repre¬ 
 sentative their respect and veneration for 
 his memory! They had regarded him as a 
 foe worthy of their steel. His object was 
 not fame nor glory, but a lasting peace. 
 We have buried in our greatest hero the 
 man among us who had the greatest horror 
 of war. The great object of this country 
 is to maintain peace. To do that, however, 
 a nation must possess the means of self- 
 defence. I trust that we shall bear this in 
 mind, not in words only, but in our actions 
 and policy, setting aside all political and 
 party considerations, and that we shall 
 concur in this opinion—that, in order to 
 be peaceful, England must be powerful; 
 but that, if England ought to be powerful, 
 she ought to be so only in order that she 
 should be more secure of peace.” 
 
 “ 0 friends, our chief state oracle is mute : 
 
 Mourn for thejnan of long-enduring blood, 
 
 The statesman-warrior, moderate, resolute, 
 Whole in himself, a common good. 
 
 Mourn for the man of amplest influence, 
 
 Yet clearest of ambitious crime, 
 
 Our greatest yet with least pretence, 
 
 Great in council and great in war, 
 
 Foremost captain of his time, 
 
 Rich in saving common-sense, 
 
 And, as the greatest only are, 
 
 In his simplicity sublime. 
 
 0 good gray head which all men knew, 
 
 0 voice from which their omens all men drew, 
 
 0 iron nerve to true occasion true, 
 
 O fall’o. at length that tower of strength 
 Which stood four-square to all the winds that 
 blew! 
 
 Such was he whom we deplore. 
 
 The long self-sacrifice of life is o’er. 
 
 The great World-victor’s victor will be seen no 
 more.” t 
 
 f “ Ode on the death of the Duke of Wellington,” by 
 Alfred Tennyson. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 “ UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION.” 
 
 Shortly after the assembling of parliament 
 it was very evident that the Opposition were 
 resolved to have the question which had 
 been so much discussed during the recent 
 elections, as to the conduct of the govern¬ 
 ment towards the principles of free trade, 
 fully and fairly settled. Scarcely had Mr. 
 Disraeli re-seated himself upon the Treasury 
 bench than the agitation began to exhibit 
 itself in the debate on the address. Were 
 the government about to abandon free trade 
 and support Protection, or were they desirous 
 of upholding free trade and renouncing 
 Protection ? These were the questions put 
 forward. The paragraph in the queen’s 
 speech as to the future commercial policy 
 of the Conservative party was, in the 
 opinion of the Opposition, vague and un¬ 
 intelligible.* It might mean something, 
 and it might mean nothing; it “ had been 
 dictated,” thev said, “bv the genius of 
 rigmarole, and traced by the hand of mysti¬ 
 fication.” Why could not ministers, they 
 asked, write plain English ? What was 
 the interpretation to be put upon that 
 curious expression “ recent legislation ? ” 
 If the working classes were well off, what 
 was the meaning of the statement that 
 something required to be done to relieve 
 the injury inflicted upon the industry of 
 the country ? The paragraph, the Oppo¬ 
 sition said, was studiously evasive and 
 deceptive. If the policy of free trade were 
 
 * “ It gives me pleasure,” said Her Majesty, “to be enabled, 
 by the blessing of Providence, to congratulate you on the 
 generally improved condition of the country, and especially 
 of the industrious 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 dis¬ 
 passionately to consider how far it may be practicable 
 equitably to mitigate that injury, and to enable the industry 
 of the country to meet successfully that unrestricted com¬ 
 petition to which parliament, in its wisdom, has decided that 
 it should be subjected.” 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 not to be reversed, why had it not been 
 distinctly avowed in the speech from the 
 throne ? Why did not Mr. Disraeli, who 
 had screwed up his courage to many points, 
 take his physic like a man ? why did he 
 make so many gulps in swallowing this 
 free-trade potion ? “ Why,” asked Mr. Ber¬ 
 
 nal Osborne, “ did the right hon. gentleman, 
 who was the genius and soul of his cabinet, 
 condescend to be tied together with a 
 bundle of incompetent marquesses and men 
 who were at least questionable as to their 
 principles, however honourable they might 
 be in other respects ? Why did he not say, 
 ‘I am a free trader; I hunted Sir Robert 
 Peel to his grave; I maligned Sir Robert 
 Peel; but I see that I committed a griev¬ 
 ous error, and I am now a free trader?’” 
 Punch represented the chancellor of the 
 exchequer as a timid, shivering, little boy 
 standing on the steps of a bathing machine, 
 whilst Mr. Cobden, caricatured as a bathing 
 woman wading through the sea of free trade, 
 was employing all his wiles to make the 
 child of Protection plunge in. 
 
 These questions "were now to receive a 
 definite answer. In pursuance of notice 
 Mr. Yilliers rose (November 23, 1852) to 
 move the following resolutions :— 
 
 “That it is the opinion of this House 
 that the improved condition of the country, 
 and particularly of the industrious classes, 
 is mainly the result of recent commercial 
 legislation, and especially of the Act of 
 1846, which established the free admission 
 of foreign corn, and that the Act was a 
 wise, just, and beneficial measure. 
 
 “That it is the opinion of this House 
 that the maintenance and further extension 
 of the policy of free trade, as opposed to 
 that of Protection, will best enable the prop- 
 
 24 
 
186 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 erty and industry of the nation to bear the 
 burthens to which they are exposed, and 
 will most contribute to the general prosper¬ 
 ity, welfare, and contentment of the people- 
 
 “ That this House is ready to take into 
 its consideration any measures consistent 
 with the principles of these resolutions, 
 which may be laid before it by Her 
 Majesty’s ministers.” 
 
 Upon these resolutions a long and 
 weighty debate took place. Mr. Yilliers, as 
 the mover of the motion, was naturally the 
 first to open fire. He considered it most 
 important that the House of Commons should 
 come to some positive declaration on the 
 great question at issue. He declined to 
 wait until the chancellor of the exchequer 
 had introduced his financial statement. He 
 wished to know at once what was the com¬ 
 mercial policy of the present cabinet. Lord 
 Derby had consented to be tried by his 
 country, and that statement was sufficient 
 to justify the motion being brought forward. 
 The prime minister had been tried, and the 
 verdict had gone against him. “ Certainly,” 
 says Lord Derby, “you differ from me in 
 this matter; but if you only give me a little 
 time I have got a colleague so fertile in his 
 resources, and of such transcendent abilities, 
 that he will soon prepare a substitute for 
 you—something that you will be delighted 
 with—something that, if he only is per¬ 
 mitted to produce it, is sure to be satis¬ 
 factory to all parties.” He, Mr. Yilliers, 
 did not deny that that was possible; there 
 were geniuses of that kind, particularly in 
 connection with medicine, who discovered 
 remedies for every sore which the flesh 
 was heir to. Mr. Disraeli could no doubt 
 prepare measures which would be uni¬ 
 versally palatable if he had only plenty of 
 time to produce them; but time pressed, 
 and delay was dangerous. 
 
 Nor had these resolutions been pro¬ 
 posed with any factious object of over¬ 
 throwing the government. “ I myself,” 
 said Mr. Yilliers, “ am not disposed to 
 attach so much importance to the exist¬ 
 ence of a ministry as some people are. I 
 
 have seen four or five ministries in office 
 since I have been in parliament; and so far 
 as I have been able to judge, there has- 
 been a strong family likeness between them 
 all. The country never suffers very much 
 from any of them; those who accede to 
 power generally do that which they resisted 
 in Opposition, which is pretty much what 
 their predecessors did before them. My 
 own impression is that no great genius is 
 required to administer a government. I 
 believe that all the real business in the- 
 public offices is done by a certain number 
 of public servants—able and valuable men— 
 of whom we hear very little, and that it 
 must be owing to some lack of judgment, 
 or some want of capacity, whenever a 
 government becomes sufficiently unpopular 
 to be displaced. That I may not be mis¬ 
 understood, however, I beg again to state 
 that in making this motion I have no object 
 of displacing the ministry.” Still, he far 
 from approved of the tactics of the govern¬ 
 ment. Ministers had dissolved the last 
 parliament, the verdict of the country had 
 gone against them, and they “bowed,” as 
 they called it, to the national judgment. 
 
 “Certainly,” sneered Mr. Yilliers, “ I must 
 say that a more convenient course for a 
 party I never heard of, than that of dissolv¬ 
 ing parliament to obtain a verdict from 
 public opinion as to whether they are right 
 or wrong, and the adoption of such course 
 afterwards. One cannot but be amused at 
 it. To use a rather vulgar metaphor, it is 
 merely ‘ Heads I win, tails you lose/ If 
 Protection succeeds, so much the better; we 
 are all right. If free trade is successful,, 
 we ‘ bow ’ to the verdict of the country; but 
 at all events we remain in.” The member 
 for Wolverhampton then entered into 
 statistics to prove how beneficial free-trade 
 measures had been, not only to the opera¬ 
 tives in the manufacturing towns, but also 
 to agricultural labourers and tenant-farmers. 
 It was perfectly true, he said, that farmers- 
 had very distinct grievances; there were 
 the law of distress, the law of settlement, 
 compensation for unexhausted improve- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 187 
 
 ments and the game laws; but these, he 
 asserted, were distinct from Protection. He 
 admitted that the farmers had been a very 
 ill-used class, but in his opinion their dis¬ 
 tress had been made capital of by the Con¬ 
 servatives for party ends. For the sake of 
 the agricultural as well as the manufactur¬ 
 ing interest, therefore, he desired to know 
 what the commercial policy of the country 
 was to be. “I do hope,” concluded Mr. 
 Villiers, “that the right hon. gentleman, 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, will not 
 attempt to evade this real question by talk¬ 
 ing of factiousness, or by impugning my 
 personal motives; but that he will address 
 himself in a straightforward way to the 
 question before the House, and that he will 
 not sit down without letting us at last 
 know what he does really mean. Already 
 enormous mischief has been done by the 
 course taken by the hon. gentleman opposite 
 ever since 1846.” 
 
 Thus appealed to, Mr. Disraeli at once 
 rose to reply. He considered the speech of 
 Mr. Villiers not appropriate to the occasion. 
 Parliament had met, not to decide whether 
 the corn laws or sugar duties should be 
 repealed, but whether ministers, by their 
 conduct since their accession to office, had 
 fulfilled the pledges they gave both to the 
 legislature and the country; and whether, 
 having announced that they would defer 
 their own opinion to that of the nation on 
 a subject of great importance, the govern¬ 
 ment had frankly or otherwise communi¬ 
 cated to the Houses the resolution at which 
 they had arrived. Mr. Villiers had said 
 that “ enormous mischief ” had been done to 
 the country by the course which had been 
 pursued by the Protectionist party since 
 1846. If such a statement were true, he, 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, was far 
 from wishing to escape from the issue before 
 them; on the contrary, it was his opinion 
 that it was the duty of the House of Com¬ 
 mons, if that charge should be proved, to 
 express, in a manner which could not be 
 mistaken, that parliament had no confidence 
 in men who had perpetrated “enormous 
 
 mischief.’ Under the circumstances, he 
 therefore trusted, said Mr. Disraeli, that 
 the House would allow him, in a calm and 
 dispassionate manner, to trace the conduct 
 of the Protectionists since the period to 
 which Mr. Villiers had referred. He hoped 
 that the Chamber would permit him to 
 place before it, in an impartial and accurate 
 statement, the principal parliamentary in¬ 
 cidents which had occurred during the last 
 four or five years, in so far as they related 
 to that great question of free trade. He felt 
 it his duty, not only to the government, 
 but to parliament and the country, to enter 
 upon these details, and he was sure that 
 after his explanation the House would draw 
 a very different inference of the conduct of 
 the Protectionist party from that deduced 
 by Mr. Villiers. 
 
 Let him, therefore, at the outset, pro¬ 
 ceeded Mr. Disraeli, state in a manner that 
 could not be misapprehended, the principal 
 reasons on which the Protectionists opposed 
 the repeal of the corn laws as proposed 
 by the late Sir Eobert Peel. They had 
 objected to that change on two broad 
 and distinct grounds. The main ground 
 was, that they believed it a change which 
 would prove injurious to the interests of 
 labour. That was the chief and principal 
 ground on which he had individually 
 placed his own opposition to it. Was 
 it or was it not the cause of labour? 
 That was the ground of the opposition of 
 the Protectionists as a party to the repeal. 
 The second reason of their objection was, 
 that the repeal of the corn laws would occa¬ 
 sion injury to considerable interests in the 
 country. On a subsequent occasion, in 1850, 
 when the matter had been incidentally 
 referred to in the House, he himself, con¬ 
 tinued Mr. Disraeli, had used the expression 
 with reference to the corn laws, that it was 
 a question of labour, or it was nothing. 
 After the repeal of the corn laws, there 
 were two other great measures connected 
 with that system of commercial policy, 
 which was popularly, but very indefinitely 
 described by the name of free trade, which 
 
188 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 were proposed and carried. The minister 
 who proposed the repeal of the corn laws 
 and carried it was dismissed from office, 
 and was succeeded by another statesman, 
 who proposed the repeal of the sugar laws; 
 but that proposition for the repeal of the 
 sugar laws was not approved by the 
 minister who repealed the corn laws. 
 He mentioned the circumstance, because 
 the question had always been argued as if 
 from the beginning there had been two 
 great parties in the House—the one banded 
 together to carry what was called free trade 
 in all the great articles of popular consump¬ 
 tion, and the other marshalled for the pur¬ 
 pose of opposing that policy. Shortly after 
 the repeal of the sugar duties was carried 
 parliament was dissolved; a new parlia¬ 
 ment assembled, under the management of 
 Lord John Russell, and after considerable 
 delay and hesitation another great measure, 
 the repeal of the navigation laws, was pro¬ 
 posed and carried. Then there commenced 
 in due time the complaints of three great 
 interests—the agricultural, the colonial, and 
 the shipping interests. He might fairly say 
 that the five years which elapsed, between 
 the election of 1847 and the recent dissolu¬ 
 tion, were mainly engaged in discussions, 
 or in legislation upon the agricultural, the 
 colonial, and the shipping distress. 
 
 Now, continued Mr. Disraeli, let him put 
 this fact before the House—it was a fact 
 which might be convenient for certain 
 members to forget—that from the time that 
 the repeal of the corn laws was passed until 
 the present moment, not a single attempt 
 had been made in the House of Commons 
 to abrogate the measure of 1846. Yes, and 
 in spite of the interruptions with which 
 that statement had just been received, he 
 repeated it—he repeated it on behalf of 
 that party which had perpetrated “ enor¬ 
 mous mischief”—that from the moment the 
 corn laws were repealed until the present 
 date, not a single motion had ever been 
 made in the House of Commons to bring 
 back that Protection which had been so 
 unfairly attacked by Mr. Villiers. 
 
 “ Now, sir,” said Mr. Disraeli in explana¬ 
 tion of the conduct of his party, “let 
 me ask what was the reason we did not 
 bring forward a motion to question the 
 policy of the Act of 1846, which up to 
 that time we had consistently and honour¬ 
 ably opposed ? It was because we had laid 
 it down from the first as a great principle 
 that the fate of that proposition depended 
 not on the injury it might inflict on any 
 particular interest in the country, but on 
 the way in which it should affect the 
 condition of the working classes; and there 
 being no facts before us of a sufficiently 
 large character to convince us that the 
 condition of the working classes had been 
 injured by the act of 1846, we did not 
 think it our duty to make any motion, 
 when in Opposition, which questioned the 
 policy of the law. Well now, sir, let me 
 remind the House what was our conduct 
 with respect to the other two branches of 
 this great question. Did we—did the 
 party who are said to have perpetrated 
 ‘enormous mischiefs’—did we, on the 
 subject of the sugar laws, act in that 
 factious spirit which has been described 
 by the hon. and learned gentleman [Mr. 
 Yilliers] who is himself so susceptible with 
 regard to imputations of factious conduct?” 
 Mr. Disraeli then stated that with respect 
 to the sugar laws all that the Protectionists 
 had done was to confine their exertions to 
 a calm and elaborate investigation of facts, 
 through a committee of which out of the 
 fifteen members constituting it only three 
 were Protectionists, and that the result 
 of the investigation was to cause the Con¬ 
 servatives who were then in Opposition 
 materially to influence the policy of the 
 minister of the day.* The conduct of the 
 Protectionists had been the same towards 
 the navigation laws; they had opposed the 
 repeal, but never had they once attempted 
 
 * Owing to the statements of this committee Lord John 
 Eussell was compelled to admit that his legislation on the' 
 subject of the sugar duties had been “ rash and hasty,” 
 and he therefore begged leave to introduce immediately 
 a bill to suspend the change of duty, and to prolong the 
 Protection which he himself had taken away. 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 189 
 
 to abrogate the decision of the House. On 
 what grounds was the charge, then, sus¬ 
 tained that since 1846 the Protectionists 
 had been guilty of “enormous mischief ?” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli next proceeded to give a 
 history of the efforts of his followers since 
 the repeal of the laws relating to the three 
 great measures he had alluded to. On the 
 general election of 1847 taking place, the 
 organization of political parties had been 
 entirely broken up; very high prices for all 
 kinds of farm produce, from peculiar cir¬ 
 cumstances, then existed; and the opinions 
 which influenced the constituent body on 
 that occasion could hardly be said to have 
 had any reference to the merits or the 
 principles of recent legislation. A large 
 Protectionist party had, indeed, been re¬ 
 turned to that House from a feeling which 
 always animated great bodies of people 
 in the country, who thought they owed 
 sympathy or gratitude to those who had 
 fought their battles or carried their colours. 
 Still, it was very well known that at the 
 election of 1847 the economical controversy 
 was not at all entered into, at least by the 
 farmers. The farmers were then, said Mr. 
 Disraeli, receiving high prices, and political 
 parties were in a state of disorganization; 
 and although a large party had been returned 
 to the House in favour of the agricultural 
 interest, the fact was that no pressure from 
 that interest, or from any of the cultivators 
 of the soil, was made to induce their 
 advocates in that House to bring forward 
 their complaints. 
 
 However, in 1850 the pinch which the 
 Conservatives had foreseen not only com¬ 
 menced, but was in acute operation. 
 What was now the conduct of the party 
 which had perpetrated “enormous mischief?” 
 The Protectionists "were then appealed to 
 by their constituents, who loudly com¬ 
 plained of the great losses and sufferings 
 they endured. What was the course the 
 Conservative party took ? Did they come 
 forward and demand the restoration of 
 Protection ? On the contrary, they said 
 they opposed the repeal of the corn laws 
 
 on tw T o grounds—it was injurious to labour 
 and to the growers of corn. Still, as they 
 were not satisfied that the interests of 
 labour had been injured by the change, 
 they could not lend themselves to the cry 
 of the farmer, and demand the restoration 
 of Protection solely on his account. How¬ 
 ever, they said this to the agricultural 
 interest, “ If you find your sufferings acute, 
 if you find your distress is intolerable, if 
 you find the cost of production not re¬ 
 munerated by your returns, we will consider 
 your position with reference to taxation; 
 and if we can relieve you of burdens which 
 others are not subject to, or by any other 
 means equally justifiable give you relief, 
 we will do our duty to you in the House 
 of Commons, and we will endeavour to 
 obtain you that relief.” In pursuance of 
 that advice and at the request of his 
 friends, he, Mr. Disraeli, brought forward 
 in that House a motion of a remedial 
 nature, which received, if not the sanction 
 of the House, at least undoubtedly con¬ 
 siderable sympathy. 
 
 Now, in 1851, a change of govern¬ 
 ment very unexpectedly took place. In 
 1851, at the first moment the House 
 met, continued Mr. Disraeli, he gave notice 
 of a motion the object of which was to 
 relieve the cultivators of the soil from the 
 pressure of certain local taxation—not a 
 measure to restore Protection, not a measure 
 to question the policy of the repeal of the 
 corn laws, but a measure brought forward 
 with a distinct disclaimer on his own part 
 of any wish to enter upon that question, 
 and with a statement that he thought it 
 most unwise to make that controversy one 
 of public discussion in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, and that any recurrence to the 
 system which had been abrogated could 
 only be justified by the overwhelming 
 opinion of the country. He brought 
 forward that remedial motion with regard 
 to agriculture which was, he thought, 
 lost in that House only by a majority of 
 ten votes. He might say that the division 
 upon that question displaced the govern- 
 
190 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 ment from their seats, for although minis¬ 
 ters did not resign office upon that 
 point, yet on finding themselves a few 
 days afterwards upon another subject 
 in a minority they felt it their duty to 
 resign; and Lord John Russell subsequently 
 confessed that it was the division upon 
 Mr. Disraeli’s motion which had mainly 
 decided the opinion of the government 
 as to giving up office. 
 
 Lord Derby then came into power. 
 “ Now look to the position of Lord Derby 
 at that moment,” said Mr. Disraeli. “He 
 was at the head of a party in parliament, 
 one principle of whose conduct was, that it 
 was unwise to disturb the repeal of the 
 corn laws which had taken place in 1846, 
 unless called for by the nation in an un¬ 
 mistakable manner. He had recommended 
 that course while there was a most powerful 
 party in the country discontented with the 
 advice which he gave; and are hon. gentle¬ 
 men to be surprised that there should be a 
 strong party in this country favourable to 
 what they call Protection, notwithstanding 
 the course which we might feel it our duty 
 to take in either house of parliament ? 
 We must remember that the farmers of 
 England, according to the statement of the 
 hon. and learned member for Wolver¬ 
 hampton, had at that very time lost 
 upwards of £90,000,000 in one year. 
 Well it might be perfectly wise, just, and 
 beneficial that a body of English producers 
 should lose more than £90,000,000 in a 
 single year; but this I will venture to say, 
 with great deference to all those lights of 
 political economy whom I see opposite, that 
 you may rely upon it that so long as human 
 nature remains what it is, a large body of 
 producers will not lose millions without 
 feeling very much discontented at the 
 legislation which has caused such loss, and 
 without challenging the justice of the 
 legislation of which they are victims. But 
 you had something more than this; you 
 had the great colonial interests of this 
 country in a state of absolute ruin, and, 
 in addition, you had the great shipping 
 
 interest subjected to unrestricted competi¬ 
 tion by a minister (Lord John Russell) who 
 at the same time did not remove those bur¬ 
 dens and restrictions which, only six months 
 ago, he told the greatest commercial consti¬ 
 tuency in the world absolutely impeded its 
 prosperity. Are you surprised, then, that 
 there should be an important party—a party 
 that, from their numbers and their great and 
 ramified interests, may be fairly called a 
 national party — who were discontented 
 with the recent legislation to which I have 
 alluded ? Lord Derby, however, had made 
 up his mind that nothing could justify a 
 return to the abrogated system, unless the 
 labouring classes were largely and perma¬ 
 nently suffering. 
 
 “What, then, was the conduct of Lord 
 Derby in 1851 ? He was called upon 
 unexpectedly to form a government. He 
 had to announce a policy which, while it 
 showed sympathy with those great classes 
 in the country, the sufferings of which are 
 always proved by hon. gentlemen opposite, 
 would be consistent with the principle he 
 had laid down for his government, that 
 they should not disturb the existing laws 
 unless the working classes were suffering 
 from their adoption. The programme of 
 Lord Derby was one of compromise and 
 of conciliation. How moderate it was I 
 will show by recalling it to the consid¬ 
 eration of the House. In 1851 did Lord 
 Derby come forward and say, ‘We must 
 return to the sliding scale of 1846 ? ’ On 
 the contrary, he said, ‘I will propose, as 
 regards the agricultural interest now suffer¬ 
 ing so much, that we shall have a counter¬ 
 vailing duty, such as has been approved 
 of by men of the highest character and 
 authority upon such subj ects. You acknow¬ 
 ledge the agricultural interest is subject to 
 certain peculiar burdens as regards taxation, 
 and to certain restrictions as regards their 
 industry. Well, I open books of great 
 authority on political economy, and they 
 tell me that a countervailing duty is the 
 legitimate compensation under such cir¬ 
 cumstances.’” Therefore, in 1851, a mode- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 191 
 
 rate countervailing duty had been the pro¬ 
 position of Lord Derby, and not an attempt 
 to disturb the settlement of 1846. Mr. 
 Disraeli now proceeded to show how Lord 
 Derby acted towards the sugar duties and 
 the shipping interest. With regard to the 
 sugar duties, “all Lord Derby proposed 
 was, that the descending scale of duties 
 should be arrested, and that only for a 
 time, while the colonies were suffering from 
 the great trial through which they were 
 passing.” As to the re-establishment of 
 the abrogated navigation laws, the prime 
 minister had declared “ that any recurrence 
 in that respect would be impossible.” 
 Where, then, was the “enormous mischief” 
 perpetrated by the Protectionist party ? 
 
 Mr. Disraeli then began to state the 
 reasons, already given in another part of 
 this history, why the government had not 
 immediately dissolved parliament on their 
 taking office; he also sketched the utility 
 of the measures the ministers had passed 
 since their accession to power. He next 
 proved, by extracts from the speeches of 
 certain of the Peelite party, that that 
 section of the Opposition had held very 
 much the same views as to the mitigation 
 of agricultural and colonial distress as 
 had the Protectionists, and hence were 
 • equally guilty, if any were guilty, of 
 having committed “enormous mischief” 
 during the last five years. Therefore, on 
 account of those reasons, he could not vote 
 for the resolution of Mr. Villiers, which 
 appeared indirectly to cast reflections upon 
 the past policy of the Protectionists. 
 
 “ I cannot agree to his resolution,” said 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, “and I will 
 give you, if you will let me, the reasons 
 why I cannot do so. I have to-night put 
 before the House the case of the govern¬ 
 ment; and if I have seemed to trench on 
 the patience of the House, I hope they will 
 be generous enough to remember that they 
 sit in the character of a jury to-night; that 
 in speaking to them I am appealing to 
 opinion which will decide more important 
 things than the fate of a government. It 
 
 is, therefore, fitting that whatever may be 
 the decision of the House I should have an 
 opportunity of putting the government in a 
 right position, and especially with reference 
 to parties who are, we are told, banded 
 together to overturn it. I have shown the 
 House that from the beginning we resolved 
 never to attempt to repeal any of those 
 three measures; that under no circumstances 
 did we think the country could retrace its 
 steps unless the condition of the working 
 classes became permanently worse; that 
 during all this time there was a strong and 
 most suffering party out of the House— 
 a party whose sufferings were not only 
 acknowledged by statements made by 
 ministers, but sympathized with by our 
 sovereign. And we are told that we were 
 not to encourage those men under all their 
 distresses, suffering, as they believed, from 
 the desertion of their natural leaders: that 
 we were not to secure for them at least the 
 constitutional appeal which, if they did not 
 labour under misapprehension, would, they 
 believed, give them the means of redressing 
 their grievances. I wish to bring in no 
 external causes for the course we took; but 
 I can only say, as one returned to this 
 House by my constituents, that I cannot 
 comprehend the feelings which should have 
 induced me to desert them in their hour of 
 trial. Difficult as was the position in which 
 we were placed with their suffering interests, 
 that position was immensely aggravated 
 when the chief minister of the Crown was 
 frequently recommending the sovereign 
 either to acknowledge those sufferings or 
 bringing in measures of partial and tempo¬ 
 rary relief. How could you expect that 
 these interests would believe your laws 
 conclusive, when from the throne you 
 seemed to regret their consequences, and 
 were constantly meddling with the legisla¬ 
 tion you had yourselves proposed ? I have 
 shown the House that, acting on these two 
 principles, we determined first that we 
 should not disturb that legislation unless 
 the working classes were permanently 
 suffering; secondly, that we would by 
 
192 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 remedial legislation mitigate as mucli as 
 possible any just claims for relief placed 
 before ns—claims which I have shown 
 that the leaders of almost all parties have 
 attempted to alleviate.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli next discussed the question of 
 the dissolving of parliament. The govern¬ 
 ment had resolved to appeal to the country 
 and abide by its verdict, whether Protection 
 or free trade was to be the commercial policy 
 of the future. What had been the conse¬ 
 quence of the line they had taken ? The 
 consequence had been that the Protec¬ 
 tionists, having had a fair trial, having gone 
 through a fair contest, and having been 
 beaten, were not ashamed to acknowledge 
 their discomfiture. If they had not had that 
 opportunity there would have beeu for 
 years a parliamentary party in the country, 
 and in that House, who would have believed 
 in the possibility of carrying out a Pro¬ 
 tectionist system of policy; and whenever 
 a period of suffering, arising from any of 
 those vicissitudes which w T ould periodically 
 occur, should have happened, the distress 
 would have been attributed to the policy 
 the Liberals were so anxious to support. 
 
 “Well, sir,” proceeded Mr. Disraeli, “hav¬ 
 ing after the general election considered 
 the verdict of the country, Her Majesty’s 
 government felt they had but one course to 
 take—frankly to accept and unreservedly 
 to act upon it. But I am told that w T e 
 have not done that. I am told that the 
 language of the queen’s speech from the 
 throne was not satisfactory. Why, certainly, 
 we did not think it our duty to recommend 
 Her Majesty to speak like a partisan. 
 There ought to be a certain degree of 
 reserve in the language to be used by the 
 Crown under any circumstances. The 
 speech from the throne is always recom¬ 
 mended by the advisers of the Crown; but 
 still it is the speech of the sovereign, and 
 the sovereign might be called—even on the 
 morrow—to use different language for a 
 different purpose. For these reasons it has 
 always been deemed constitutional and 
 proper that the speech from the throne 
 
 should be distinguished by a fitting reserve.” 
 Yet he denied that the wording of the 
 speech was “ vague and unsatisfactory.” 
 It distinctly stated that the principle of 
 their commercial code was the principle 
 of “ unrestricted competition.” “ What 
 the queen’s speech really said,’ explained 
 Mr. Disraeli, “ was that if it should appear 
 that recent legislation in effecting a great 
 deal of good—we did not dispute that—had 
 done some harm—we did not say that it 
 had—then the House would take the 
 matter into consideration. The good was 
 positive, the harm only was conditional. 
 Her Majesty’s speech contained a distinct 
 affirmation that the principle of our com¬ 
 mercial code was ‘ unrestricted competition.’ 
 That policy having been accepted by the 
 government after due deliberation, the first 
 minister of the Crown, on the first night of 
 the session, announced the fact in the most 
 explicit manner. I also made on the same 
 night some observations in this House which 
 the right hon. member for the university 
 of Oxford” (Mr. Gladstone) “thought so 
 strong, that he intimated hon. members on 
 this side of the House, as Protectionists, 
 would stultify themselves by continuing to 
 support the government.” Surely such 
 statements, remarked the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, ought to be sufficient to pro¬ 
 claim the future commercial policy of the 
 cabinet. 
 
 In the opinion of Mr. Disraeli the resolu¬ 
 tions of Mr. Yilliers were unprecedented. 
 Let the House of Commons for a moment, 
 he argued, try their justice, equity, and 
 policy by parallel instances in similar cases. 
 He would take first the case of that House 
 after the Reform Bill, and the position of 
 the government in 1835. Sir Robert Peel 
 and his friends had offered to the Reform 
 Bill a powerful and prolonged opposition. 
 Sir Robert suddenly became minister in 
 1835, and when he was minister he ex¬ 
 pressed his determination not to disturb the 
 Reform Bill, although he did not approve 
 of it. What, asked the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, would then have been thought 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 193 
 
 of the Opposition, if in a new parliament, 
 and with a ministry in such a position, 
 they had proposed a resolution declaring 
 that the Reform Bill was a “just, wise, and 
 beneficial ” measure ? Why, by such a 
 course parliamentary government would be 
 rendered impossible in the country ! Sup¬ 
 pose again, he said, that the followers of Sir 
 Bobert Peel were to come into office, what, 
 pray, was to prevent them being met with 
 a resolution declaring that the Ecclesi¬ 
 astical Titles Act which they had opposed 
 was a “wise, just, and beneficial’’ measure ? 
 Ministers, said Mr. Disraeli, had fulfilled all 
 their pledges but one—the assimilation of 
 their financial to their commercial system; 
 and they were now ready to fulfil that. 
 Had it not been for the vexatious motion 
 now before them the measures of the gov¬ 
 ernment would already have been brought 
 forward. The present cabinet declined to 
 be ministers on sufferance; they neither 
 desired nor would they submit to carry on 
 the government under any indulgence which 
 was foreign to the spirit of the British 
 constitution. 
 
 “ Sir,” concluded Mr. Disraeli, “ I believe 
 I have now said all that is necessary 
 for me to address to the House; and 
 I am content here to leave the case of 
 the government. I have placed before the 
 House, very imperfectly I can easily con¬ 
 ceive, the whole of that case. The subject 
 is somewhat large, and I have endeavoured 
 to be as succinct as circumstances required. 
 If I had only personal feelings to consider, 
 I should sit down; but I think, without 
 vanity, and speaking in the name of the 
 government, that there is, in the circum¬ 
 stances in which we find ourselves placed, 
 something which may justify me in looking 
 beyond personal considerations. We believe 
 that we have a policy which will conduce 
 to increase the welfare, content, and pros¬ 
 perity of the country. I hope it is not an 
 unworthy ambition to desire to have an 
 opportunity of submitting that policy to 
 parliament. But I am told that that is 
 not to be the case. How, although I have 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 too much respect for this House to con¬ 
 descend to advocate the cause of a govern¬ 
 ment, yet I will say something on behalf of 
 a policy. I will not, therefore, without a 
 struggle, consent to yield to an attack so 
 unfair as that to which we are subjected. 
 I will not believe, remembering that this 
 is a new parliament, that those who have 
 entered it for the first time have already, 
 in their consciences, recorded their opinions. 
 On the contrary, I believe that they will 
 listen to the spirit and to the justice of the 
 plea which I put before them to-night. It 
 is to those new members, on whichever 
 side of the House they may sit, that I 
 appeal with confidence. They have just 
 entered, many of them after much longing, 
 upon that scene to which they have looked 
 forward with so much anxiety, suspense, 
 and interest. I have no doubt they are 
 animated with a noble ambition, and that 
 many of them will hereafter realize their 
 loftiest aspirations. I can only say, from 
 the bottom of my heart, that I wish that, 
 whatever may be their aim in an honourable 
 career, their most sanguine hopes may 
 not be disappointed. Whatever adds to 
 the intelligence, eloquence, and knowledge 
 of the House, adds also to its influence; 
 and the interests of all are bound up in 
 cherishing and maintaining the moral and 
 intellectual predominance of the House of 
 Commons. To the new members, therefore, 
 I now appeal. 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 sanctuary of the constitu¬ 
 tion, and not become the tools and victims 
 of exhausted factions and obsolete politics. 
 I move the following amendment—‘That 
 this House acknowledges with satisfaction 
 that the cheapness of provisions, occasioned 
 by recent legislation, has mainly contributed 
 to improve the condition and increase the 
 comforts of the working classes; and that un¬ 
 restricted competition having been adopted, 
 after due deliberation, as the principle of 
 our commercial system, this House is of 
 opinion that it is the duty of the govern- 
 
 25 
 
194 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 ment unreservedly to adhere to that policy 
 in those measures of financial and adminis¬ 
 trative reform which, under the circum¬ 
 stances of the country, they may deem it 
 their duty to introduce/ ” 
 
 A long debate ensued. The Protectionists 
 were perfectly willing to adopt the policy of 
 free trade, since the country desired it; but 
 they declined to support the resolution of 
 Mr. Yilliers, which was tantamount to a 
 condemnation of their tactics in the past. 
 Mr. Bright followed Mr. Disraeli. He 
 denied that the Protectionists had not 
 attempted to unsettle the legislation of 
 1846, and he referred to motions made 
 by various members of the party hostile 
 to free trade and the abolition of the 
 navigation laws. The country, he said, 
 had now been appealed to, and the verdict 
 had been delivered against Protection. Par¬ 
 liament had been asked to pronounce the 
 final judgment on the question, and there¬ 
 fore it was only right that Mr. Yilliers, 
 who for fifteen years had been the consistent 
 leader of free trade in that House, should 
 be the person to draw up the terms of 
 judgment, and not Mr. Disraeli, who had 
 been a Protectionist during the whole 
 period of his career. Between the two 
 resolutions there was, he considered, a 
 great difference. The one established a 
 principle, the other a fact. The one pro¬ 
 claimed the benefit of free trade to the 
 whole country and the whole world, whilst 
 the other left everything to hazard—it 
 referred to certain injustice to be righted, 
 to certain interests to be compensated, and 
 to any amount which parliament might be 
 induced to give. Remembering, cried Mr. 
 Bright, the conduct of the Protectionists 
 in the past, he declined to put implicit 
 confidence in their future policy without 
 express stipulations and conditions. Was 
 it a fact that Mr. Disraeli and his party 
 recommended the farmers not to endeavour 
 to unsettle the Act of 1846, and that they 
 had tried to put down the clamorous com¬ 
 plaints of the farmers, as the question of 
 the labourers was the only one involved in 
 
 the matter ? Did not they, on his side 
 of the House, recollect the speeches made 
 by the Protectionists all over the country, 
 and with what excited feelings their simple 
 hearers had been sent back to their towns 
 and counties ? 
 
 The chancellor of the exchequer had 
 sought to defend himself by referring 
 to the conduct of Sir Robert Peel in 
 1835. When a precedent was quoted 
 there ought at least to be some analogy 
 between the cases. Did Sir Robert Peel, 
 from 1832 to 1835, employ himself in that 
 House, or did his followers employ them¬ 
 selves in the country, in proving that the 
 Reform Bill was destructive of the British 
 constitution, and that it was absolutely 
 necessary for him and them to take the 
 first opportunity of appealing to the country 
 to undo that act ? If Sir Robert Peel had 
 been guilty of that, the very first propo¬ 
 sition that would have been laid before 
 the House of Commons would have been a 
 resolution bearing to the Reform Bill pre¬ 
 cisely that relation which the motion now 
 before the House bore to the corn-law 
 repeal. Nor could he, continued Mr. Bright, 
 omit to notice another mis-statement. It 
 had been frequently asserted by the Pro¬ 
 tectionists that the corn law was originally 
 granted to the landlords to compensate 
 them for the special burdens which had 
 been imposed upon them in the taxation 
 of the country; or else it was for the 
 purpose of preparing the landlords to 
 endure some special burdens which the 
 enactment of the corn law would enable 
 them to bear. 
 
 What grounds were there for that asser¬ 
 tion ? He did not recollect ever having 
 found, in the debate of 1815 on the 
 corn laws, one single word that led to the 
 conclusion that the corn law was then 
 granted to the landowners to compensate 
 them for any exclusive burdens that they 
 bore. He had never heard of any chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer imposing any tax 
 upon the landed portion of the com¬ 
 munity for the burdens they had to 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 195 
 
 endure, or that the landed interest was 
 well able to bear all their share of the 
 taxation because that interest enjoyed the 
 protection of the corn laws. On the con¬ 
 trary, statistics plainly disproved such a 
 statement; no single tax had been laid upon 
 land, or upon the landowner as a land- 
 owner, but all interests had been included in 
 the imposition of the taxes, and none were 
 excluded from the benefits which might 
 result from the repealing of taxation. It 
 was true that the agricultural class had 
 sustained a loss. “We never pretended to 
 deny that,” said Mr. Bright, “but always 
 said that it would be the one result of the 
 repeal of the law. But if they have a loss, 
 it is made up by increased production, by 
 greatly improved cultivation, and extended 
 markets for the sale of wool and animal 
 food. They had also, like all the rest of 
 the population, lighter burdens to bear and 
 cheaper living, besides an enormous gain 
 to all classes of our population who are 
 consumers of agricultural produce at all.” 
 
 The country, concluded the member for 
 Manchester, had decided against Protection, 
 and therefore the resolution of Mr. Yilliers 
 should be accepted, and not the amendment 
 of Mr. Disraeli. The resolution confirmed 
 the decision of the nation; the amendment 
 was made with a reservation which might 
 possibly involve them in hurtful and inju¬ 
 rious consequences in the future. If the 
 country, by supporting the resolution of 
 Mr. Yilliers, showed that the advantages 
 of free trade were universally appreciated, 
 it might bring other nations round to the 
 doctrine, and so much more would the free- 
 trade policy be advantageous. “No man 
 of sense,” said Mr. Bright, “imagines that 
 government will attempt to restore Pro¬ 
 tection ; but I believe it is for the good of 
 the country and the character of the House, 
 that we should establish, by a final decision 
 to-night, that which was believed by the 
 majority of 1846, namely, that the Act 
 abolishing the duty on foreign corn was a 
 just, a wise, and beneficial measure. I 
 must call the attention of the House to the 
 
 admissions made as to the prosperous con¬ 
 dition of the labouring classes in all parts 
 of the country. Look at their employment, 
 how steady it is, and how satisfactory their 
 wages. Look at their moral and social 
 condition, and observe what tranquillity 
 prevails all over the country. Is that no 
 compensation to you the holders of five, 
 ten, or twenty thousand acres ? Is it no 
 advantage to you, even if you had suffered 
 pecuniarily—which, as a body, I believe 
 you have not; but if you had, is it no 
 compensation to you that you can enjoy 
 without the envy of any class your high 
 ancestral position—enjoy it without the 
 consciousness that some poor wretch is 
 suffering in order that you may be rich ? 
 If you look at it in that light you will find, 
 in the condition of the labouring classes, 
 ample compensation for any injury which 
 you suppose the repeal of the corn law may 
 have inflicted on you. ... I ask the 
 House to sanction its own policy, to set its 
 seal irrevocably on what it did in 1846, and 
 by its vote of to-night to establish on a firm 
 basis the charter of free industry to the 
 people of this kingdom.” 
 
 The government had frankly admitted 
 their willingness to adopt a free-trade policy; 
 they only objected to the resolution of Mr. 
 Yilliers since it cast reflections upon their 
 past conduct, and rendered their position 
 unnecessarily humiliating. Lord Palmer¬ 
 ston, who, if once Protection were cast to 
 the winds, saw no objection to serve under 
 Lord Derby, thought he perceived a plan 
 whereby the difficulties of the situation 
 could be solved. He proposed an amend¬ 
 ment, which, whilst confirming the policy 
 of free trade, would at the same time relieve 
 the government from having to consent to 
 disagreeable admissions. He rose up and 
 thus delivered himself. “Eespecting the 
 resolution of Mr. Yilliers,” he said, “ there 
 was not one word in it to which he could 
 not subscribe.” He concurred in the opinions 
 it expressed with regard to the past, with 
 regard to the present, with regard to the 
 future. He thought the measures of policy 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 196 
 
 % 
 
 of which it treated were wise, were just, 
 and had been beneficial. Therefore, if 
 the motion of Mr. Yilliers were put by the 
 Speaker to the House, “ay” or “no,” he 
 w r ould he compelled by his own convictions 
 to say “ ay ” to that resolution, and to agree 
 to all the affirmations which it contained. 
 
 “ But, sir,” argued Lord Palmerston, “ I 
 cannot but consider, also, not only my own 
 convictions and opinions, but the opinions 
 of others who are desired to concur in 
 the proceedings of this House. How, sir, 
 there is a large party in this House who 
 have entertained opposite opinions. That 
 party have—honourably I think—yielded 
 their personal and original convictions to 
 their sense of what is the opinion of the 
 country and of this House. I am far from 
 joining in taunts and reproaches upon those 
 who so yield their early impressions to the 
 irresistible force of events. Why, sir, in a 
 free country like this there could be no 
 more dangerous doctrine to establish than 
 this—that it is disgraceful to men to yield 
 their convictions to the force of counter¬ 
 acting events and circumstances. If every 
 man in this country were to be chained for 
 ever to the opinions which he entertained 
 in the earliest part of his career, there could 
 be no progress or improvement in the land. 
 We meet here from day to day for no other 
 purpose than to convince each other; and 
 every man who endeavours to persuade 
 people to come round to his opinions, 
 debars himself, I think in justice, from 
 the right of reproaching them when he has 
 succeeded. Then, I say, that I think that, so 
 far from casting reproaches upon that large 
 party in this House and in the country who 
 have surrendered their original impressions 
 to the convictions which an overwhelming 
 course of events has produced, we should 
 consider that course as honourable to them 
 as it is beneficial to the country. And 
 the resolution proposed by Her Majesty’s 
 government does, in my opinion, contain the 
 fullest acknowledgment of the benefits which 
 the present system of commercial legisla¬ 
 tion has produced, and does pledge every 
 
 man who votes for it to contribute to render 
 that system henceforward permanent.” 
 
 He was at a loss to conceive, continued 
 Lord Palmerston, how a man who voted 
 for that resolution could afterwards shelter 
 himself under any ambiguity in its lan¬ 
 guage to back out of an opinion to which 
 that resolution irrevocably pledged him. 
 He really saw very little difference in 
 substance and effect between the resolution 
 of Mr. Yilliers and the amendment of Mr. 
 Disraeli. If anything, the amendment was 
 in some respects stronger than the resolu¬ 
 tion, because it concluded with an expression 
 of the opinion of the House as to what it 
 was the duty of the government to do— 
 a rather unusual thing he thought. For 
 his part, said Lord Palmerston, he certainly 
 should prefer the form adopted by Mr. 
 Yilliers in stating the readiness of the 
 House to consider any measures which 
 might be proposed in conformity with the 
 policy which that House affirmed ought to 
 be established. Still there was one passage 
 in the resolution of Mr. Yilliers wffiich he 
 regretted to come across, and which did 
 appear to him to be fairly considered by 
 the Conservatives as a bar to their accept¬ 
 ance of that resolution. 
 
 “ How, sir,” said Lord Palmerston, with 
 that geniality and good taste which so 
 often characterized him, “ all that the 
 country asks of parliament — all that 
 the country cares about, in my opinion, 
 is, what parliament means to do in this 
 matter—what is to be the principle upon 
 which the legislation of the country 
 is to be founded. I do not think that 
 the country cares, and I do not think 
 it has much right to care what may 
 be the private opinions of gentlemen 
 as to that policy. I think it is rather 
 following the example of tribunals whose 
 conduct we are not much in the habit of 
 approving; it is somewhat like the prac¬ 
 tice of the Inquisition to compel people 
 to come before you; and not content with 
 declaring that their conduct will be in 
 conformity with your views and inten- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 197 
 
 tions, to force them to go down on their 
 knees and recant their opinions, or to 
 profess opinions which yon choose to im¬ 
 pose upon them. Sir, we are here an 
 assembly of gentlemen, and we who are 
 gentlemen on this side of the House 
 should remember that we are dealing with 
 gentlemen on the other side; and I for 
 one cannot reconcile it to my feelings to 
 call upon a set of English gentlemen un¬ 
 necessarily, for any purpose that I have 
 in view, to express opinions they do not 
 entertain, or to recant opinions which may 
 be still lingering in their minds. I will 
 grant, if you like, that they still think that 
 the measures of free trade were not just: 
 wise I think they can hardly refuse to 
 acknowledge them, when they say that 
 those measures have mainly contributed 
 to produce the improved condition of the 
 country generally, and of the industrious 
 classes especially; for it is hard, I think, 
 to say that measures which have had such 
 an effect have not been in their nature 
 wise. I myself am of opinion that when 
 the party who still call themselves by the 
 antiquated name of Protectionists come to 
 consider calmly and free from the irritation 
 of former disputes the free-trade measures 
 and their results, they will come round to 
 our opinions on the point of justice as well 
 as on that of expediency. But it is in my 
 opinion unnecessary, and is nothing to the 
 purpose, to know what they think as to 
 the original justice or injustice of this 
 policy. I should therefore, sir, very much 
 wish that some middle course could be 
 suggested, and that some resolution might 
 be proposed which, on the one hand 
 asserting in the broadest manner the 
 determination of this House to further 
 and continue the policy which we approve 
 of, should, on the other hand, be free from 
 those expressions which prevent the reso¬ 
 lution of my hon. and learned friend from 
 being unanimously adopted.” 
 
 He considered the motion before the 
 House should not be converted into a 
 party question, or made the occasion for | 
 
 a party struggle. If, argued his lordship, 
 the resolution of Mr. Yilliers were pressed, 
 it might be rejected. Such a fate was not 
 impossible ; because he thought there were 
 many members of the House, not only many 
 of those younger greenhorns who had been 
 appealed to by speakers on both sides, but 
 many of the more experienced old stagers 
 of parliament, who would be disinclined 
 to convert the motion before them into an 
 opportunity for overturning the govern¬ 
 ment. He himself was one of those who 
 held that opinion. It was a separate 
 question altogether, and ought to be kept 
 separate from any considerations of con¬ 
 fidence or want of confidence in the 
 administration. It was profaning a great 
 principle of domestic policy to convert it 
 into a mere engine of temporary party 
 warfare. “And supposing that the reso¬ 
 lution of Mr. Yilliers should be rejected!” 
 cried Lord Palmerston. “ Why, it would 
 go forth over the length and breadth of the 
 land, and over the Atlantic to the United 
 States, that the free-trade party was in 
 a minority in the House of Commons, 
 and that the verdict of the country, as 
 expressed by parliament, was against free 
 trade. People would say, ‘ You have a 
 Protectionist House of Commons, and how 
 can we possibly rely upon the permanence 
 of a system which is at variance with the 
 settled convictions and declared opinions 
 of the majority of the House of Commons ? 5 
 That would certainly be a great calamity, 
 and was a thing to be avoided as one which 
 would be very mischievous in its effects. 
 And even if the resolution of Mr. Yilliers 
 were carried by a small majority, would 
 
 that be a satisfactorv result ? Would it be 
 
 %/ 
 
 a satisfactory result compared with a vote 
 unanimously given, as it might be, he 
 hoped by the whole House of Commons, 
 affirming the principle of free trade as the 
 permanent foundation of the commercial 
 policy of that country ? 
 
 “ I think that on an occasion like this,” 
 continued Lord Palmerston, “ when the great 
 I interests of the country are the subject of 
 
198 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 discussion, and when the decision of parlia¬ 
 ment may have on the one hand a most 
 advantageous result to the cause of which 
 so many persons are so honourably the 
 champions; and when, on the other hand, 
 evil consequences might be produced to 
 the interests which they wish to support 
 generally, I think we might all of us cast 
 aside the feelings arising from the contest 
 which is over, that we might accept the hand 
 which is tendered by those with whom we 
 have hitherto been fighting, and that we 
 ought not to be too nice in requiring or 
 compelling them to state what is the degree 
 of conviction that has been wrought in 
 their minds. If they consent to act with 
 us, I think we ought to be satisfied with 
 that; and I think it is ungenerous on the 
 part of the majority, if majority there be, 
 to endeavour to compel the minority to 
 subscribe to opinions of which they may 
 not entirely approve. Such a course in 
 preventing unanimity, or almost unanimity 
 —for in fact I should prefer to have just two 
 or three voting against the proposition for 
 the look of the thing, and for the sake of 
 greater contrast—such a course would be, 
 in my opinion, not only ungenerous, but it 
 must fail of its purpose, and we only deprive 
 ourselves of the authority which a unani¬ 
 mous vote would give to this House. I say, 
 I think it is not only ungenerous to ask 
 gentlemen to express opinions which they 
 do not conscientiously entertain, but I think 
 it is impolitic and unwise, as well as unjust 
 —that we are defeating our own purpose, 
 and depriving ourselves of the principles of 
 a policy which we think essential to the 
 interests of our country; we are depriving 
 those principles of a great amount of sup¬ 
 port which is now tendered to us, and which 
 if only rests with us to accept.” Lord 
 Palmerston then concluded by saying that he 
 would not at present move a second amend¬ 
 ment with a third set of resolutions, but 
 would suggest one which might run thus:— 
 “ That it is the opinion of this House that 
 the improved condition of the country, and 
 especially of the industrious classes, is 
 
 mainly the result of recent legislation, which 
 has established the principle of unrestricted 
 competition, has abolished taxes imposed 
 for purposes of protection, and has thereby 
 diminished the cost and increased the 
 abundance of the principal articles of the 
 food of the people. 
 
 “ That it is the opinion of this House that 
 this policy, firmly maintained and prudently 
 extended, will best enable the industry of 
 the country to bear its burdens, and will 
 thereby most surely promote the welfare 
 and contentment of the people. 
 
 “ That this House will be ready to take 
 into consideration any measures consistent 
 with these principles, which, in pursuance 
 of Her Majesty’s gracious speech and recom¬ 
 mendation, may be laid before it.” 
 
 That form of words, Lord Palmerston 
 contended, contained everything except the 
 word “ just;” and the insertion of that word 
 would not prevent any ministry from giving 
 “relief” or “compensation” to the agricul¬ 
 tural interest. He left the suggestion with 
 members on the Conservative side of the 
 House, thinking they might be disposed to 
 consider it as offered in a spirit of con¬ 
 ciliation. 
 
 This suggestion led to some discussion. 
 Sir William Clay wished to know first, of 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, whether 
 he was willing to withdraw his amendment 
 upon the understanding that the House 
 acquiesced in the resolution moved by 
 Lord Palmerston; secondly, of Mr. Villiers, 
 whether, on a similar understanding, he 
 would withdraw his motion; and thirdly, 
 of the chancellor of the exchequer, whether, 
 in the event of Mr. Villiers refusing to 
 withdraw his motion, he, Mr. Disraeli, 
 would accept the resolution of Lord Pal¬ 
 merston as a substitute for his own. 
 
 Sir James Graham, before answers were 
 returned to those questions, wished to make 
 a statement relative to the share he himself 
 had taken in framing the original reso¬ 
 lutions moved by Mr. Villiers. He then 
 narrated the communications he had had 
 with Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 199 
 
 respecting the wording of the resolutions 
 and the changes they underwent, in which 
 he had sought to retain certain words with 
 the view of traversing a presumption arising 
 upon the queen’s speech, that the question 
 of compensation would be entertained, and 
 he had inserted the words, “ without inflict¬ 
 ing injury on any important interest” ex¬ 
 pressly to bar that question. He declined 
 to be a party to any compromise if those 
 words were omitted; but if they were 
 adopted, he should beg Mr. Yilliers to 
 withdraw his motion. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone said that he did not think 
 that, with regard to the question of com¬ 
 pensation, the government ought to be 
 precluded from bringing it forward by an 
 anticipatory motion. The House might take 
 one of two courses: either allow the govern¬ 
 ment to go on with unfettered hands, or 
 adopt a vote of want of confidence, which 
 was the sound, constitutional course. He 
 had intended to vote for the original motion, 
 though there were reasons which would 
 make that course painful to him; but the 
 amendment proposed by Lord Palmerston 
 had saved him from that alternative, and 
 the interests of free trade would, he thought, 
 be best served by the concurrence of the 
 great body of the House in that amendment. 
 
 Lord Palmerston hoped that there was 
 now a prospect of a general understanding. 
 He had no objection to the words proposed 
 by Sir James Graham if they were confined 
 to the future. Both sides of the House 
 must feel that it was of great national 
 importance that the question should be set 
 at rest. It was not a question as to the 
 private opinions of the administration, but 
 what the government meant to do; and 
 all must see that the reversal of their late 
 policy was unattainable. Let the House, 
 therefore, calm the public mind, and, with¬ 
 out criticising past opinions, affirm what 
 was to be the foundation of their future 
 commercial legislation. 
 
 Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, though he pre¬ 
 ferred the resolution of the government, 
 thought it unnecessary to be very nice in 
 
 verbal criticism, and therefore recommended 
 the resolution of Lord Palmerston to the 
 favourable consideration of his friends. 
 
 The Marquis of Granby declared that he 
 could not agree with any of the resolutions; 
 they were a mass of mystification, which 
 completely baffled him. He then added, 
 emphatically:—If the country had been 
 benefited by the commercial policy of 
 1846, and if the working classes in the 
 country were better off now than they had 
 been before, then he thought that some 
 acknowledgment was due to the memory 
 of a man whose patriotism he for one had 
 never doubted, and the purity of whose 
 motives he had never impugned. If that 
 were true, which he denied, then some 
 acknowledgment was due to the memory 
 of that statesman—some acknowledgment 
 that he was not only patriotic and con¬ 
 scientious, but that he was also far-seeing 
 and sagacious. Lord Granby concluded by 
 asking Mr. Disraeli whether he had not 
 been throughout generously and without 
 reserve supported by the Protectionist party. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli rose up and readily responded 
 to the appeal of the noble marquis. “I 
 have been reminded,” he said, “ how gene¬ 
 rously and without reserve I have been 
 supported by the Protectionist party in 
 this House and in the country. I can 
 truly say, sir, that ever since I have been 
 honoured by that confidence, of which till 
 the last hour of my life I shall be proud, 
 I have done everything that any ability I 
 possess could command, and any energy I 
 had could accomplish, in behalf of the 
 cause of the land of England. I think it 
 has been unjustly treated by recent legisla¬ 
 tion ; but as far as the terms go which I 
 have used in the amendment I have laid 
 upon the table of the House, I cannot 
 resist the conviction that receut legislation, 
 so far as it has produced cheapness of pro¬ 
 visions, has contributed to the welfare of 
 the working classes. One would suppose 
 from some observations that have been 
 made, and from the derisive cheers which 
 occasionally arise from, gentlemen opposite 
 
200 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 that a Protectionist government had sud¬ 
 denly come down to the House of Commons 
 to announce that they had changed their 
 opinions. I can only say that if any 
 gentleman suppose that to be the case, he 
 must take a very erroneous and perverted 
 view of what has occurred. 
 
 “ Here is a government which in no 
 way succeeded to office in connection 
 with that question. With the consent and 
 concurrence not only of the House, but 
 of the whole country, it was determined 
 that the question of Protection should 
 be left to the decision of the country to 
 be declared by a general election. The 
 verdict of the country has been of an 
 unmistakable character. We have bowed 
 to that unequivocal declaration. If we 
 had acceded to office in order to advocate 
 a system of Protection; if we had dissolved 
 parliament on that question and found that 
 the country would not support us, we 
 should have felt it our duty immediately to 
 relinquish the posts which we now occupy. 
 But, sir, I am not aware from all that 
 has occurred that it is at all our duty; 
 and if there be any gentleman in the House 
 who thinks it is our duty, and if it is the 
 opinion of the majority of this House that 
 it is our duty, that is an issue which can 
 easily and speedily be tried. Sir, I have 
 said myself that this was a question of 
 taxation. Ho one has pretended, for ex¬ 
 ample, that the native industry of any 
 country has a right to any artificial sup¬ 
 port, unless it be subjected to some peculiar 
 burdens or to some weight of taxation which 
 otherwise might not be considered of an 
 equitable character. If I find that Protec¬ 
 tion, as it is called, being now abrogated, it 
 is yet possible to recommend to the House 
 a policy which will relieve the interests that 
 are suffering from the withdrawal of that 
 system, and which will allow them to 
 compete with the industry of the country 
 as fair rivals, I think that that is not 
 only a consistent course for one who has 
 advocated the principle of Protection in 
 former times, but that I am still doing my 
 
 duty to that party in this House and out 
 of it who have so generously supported 
 me; and I declare most sincerely that it is 
 only because I think I can bring forward 
 measures which will have the effect of 
 relieving all those interests that have suf¬ 
 fered from the precipitate abrogation of 
 past laws, and at the same time of con¬ 
 tributing to the general advantage of the 
 community, that I consent for a moment 
 to hold the position which I now occupy.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli then vindicated the passage 
 in the queen’s speech which had been so 
 much criticised, and asserted that its mean¬ 
 ing was perfectly clear and intelligible. The 
 country had voted in favour of free trade, 
 and therefore the financial measures he 
 would shortly introduce would be based 
 upon the principle of unrestricted competi¬ 
 tion. He strongly objected to the three 
 odious epithets (wise, just, and beneficial) 
 in the resolution of Mr. Villiers, and conse¬ 
 quently should give them his unhesitating 
 opposition. He considered that the phra¬ 
 seology of that resolution was injurious to 
 the Conservatives, and as a matter of general 
 policy unwise. “ It is all very well to 
 say,” he remarked, “that these are only 
 words; that many who did not think the 
 legislation of 1846 wise and beneficial may 
 be of that opinion now, though they thought 
 otherwise then. But no one can have two 
 opinions as to the meaning and the motive 
 with which these words were inserted; and 
 we are of opinion that in public, as in 
 private life, it is a mistake to submit 
 to insult.” He, therefore, objected to the 
 resolution; deeming it “unjust, ungenerous, 
 and unwise.” 
 
 The amendment proposed by Lord Palm¬ 
 erston was, however, a very different measure; 
 and though, with the “pardonable vanity of 
 human nature,” he, Mr. Disraeli, might pre¬ 
 fer the amendment that he himself had drawn 
 up, still the two suggestions were really so 
 similar in character, that it would be trifling 
 with the House to press which was the 
 one to be adopted. “With respect,” said 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, “ to the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 201 
 
 e 
 
 amendment which has been suggested by 
 the noble lord, I confess, that although I 
 may have that parental fondness which has 
 been already confessed in the debate, I 
 cannot feel that I should be justified in 
 opposing the general feeling of the House 
 in any respect whatever. In the noble 
 lord’s resolution there may be expressions 
 to which I might demur; there may be 
 expressions in it which I might regret to 
 see placed on the journals of the House 
 with my individual responsibility and 
 sanction; but, after all, that is mere fight¬ 
 ing about words and not about facts. I 
 believe that there is no difference between 
 us with respect to facts; that it is a mere 
 question of phrases; and I certainly shall 
 not oppose the general feeling of the House 
 as regards any preference they may have 
 for the amendment of the noble lord over 
 that of the government. That is a question 
 of very minor importance. The real ques¬ 
 tion before us is, whether the hon. and 
 learned member for Wolverhampton and 
 his friends are to outrage the feelings of 
 this side of the House, and of many gentle¬ 
 men on the other side, by a course which I 
 think, totally irrespective of personal feel¬ 
 ing, is most impolitic and unwise.” 
 
 The debate was not allowed to flag from 
 lack of speakers. Lord John Eussell now 
 rose up to regret that the government had 
 not advised Her Majesty to make a distinct 
 declaration from the throne on the subject 
 of their commercial and financial policy, 
 respecting which the country had been so 
 long divided. It had become, therefore, 
 absolutely necessary that some member on 
 the Opposition side of the House should 
 bring forward a resolution upon that sub¬ 
 ject, and hence none was so fitting as 
 Mr. Villiers. He himself, said Lord John, 
 had advised the insertion in the resolutions 
 of the words, “ wise and just.” The amend¬ 
 ment of the government appeared to him 
 equivocal, leaving it doubtful whether the 
 law of 1846 might not be characterized as 
 an act of injustice and folly, which should 
 be reversed. Although Mr. Disraeli had 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 denied it, the question at issue really was, 
 free trade or Protection. All who were of 
 opinion that free trade should be persevered 
 in should unite, if possible, in a vote to that 
 effect. He recommended, however, to Mr. 
 Villiers that, since Mr. Disraeli had offered 
 to substitute for his amendment that of 
 Lord Palmerston, he should declare his 
 willingness to adopt that resolution. 
 
 Mr. Cobden warned members on the 
 other side that, if they raised the question 
 of compensation in the shape of taxation, 
 they v r ould cause another struggle as 
 disastrous for them as the last. He was 
 anxious that the House should bring the 
 question to a test, whether, after a dissolu¬ 
 tion, they stood, in respect to the question 
 of free trade, in as good a position as before. 
 He therefore entreated Mr. Villiers not to 
 shrink from dividing the House. 
 
 Mr. Villiers vindicated the course he had 
 taken, and declined to withdraw his resolu¬ 
 tion. “It is because,” he said, “there is 
 evidently yet a serious difference of opinion 
 upon the success of the free-trade policy 
 and because the majority feel bound to 
 declare their opinion, that I have proposed 
 this resolution, and that I now feel bound 
 to adhere to it as truly and simply declar¬ 
 ing the opinion of the country.” 
 
 On the order of the day being read for re¬ 
 suming the adjourned debate, the chancellor 
 of the exchequer withdrew his amendment. 
 Lord Palmerston now moved in lieu of it 
 a resolution “ that the improved condition 
 of the country, and especially of the in¬ 
 dustrious classes, is mainly the result of 
 recent legislation, which has established the 
 principle of unrestricted competition, has 
 abolished taxes imposed for the purposes 
 of protection, and has thereby diminished 
 the cost and increased the abundance of 
 the principal articles of the food of the 
 people.” 
 
 One of the most amusing of the party 
 speeches delivered during this memorable 
 debate came, as might have been expected, 
 from Mr. Bernal Osborne, the wag of the 
 House. He began by laughing at the 
 
 26 
 
202 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 various amendments put before them; yet 
 to his mind the only one they ought to 
 adopt was the original resolution of Mr. 
 Villiers. It was, he sneered, no question 
 of words—it was not a matter to be left to 
 the etiquette of the pump-room of Bath, or 
 to a master of the ceremonies. It was the 
 vindication of a policy—a policy which Sir 
 Robert Peel commenced in 1842 and com¬ 
 pleted in 1846. It might be all very well 
 for certain gentlemen to indulge in nice 
 criticism, but they were there to consider 
 what was just and right; it was a great 
 question of political morality, and not a 
 question of what was agreeable to the feel¬ 
 ings of the Conservative party. He there¬ 
 fore expressed his surprise at the amendment 
 proposed by Lord Palmerston, and still 
 more at his speech. He was aware that 
 some people looked upon his lordship as a 
 sort of wet nurse to the present administra¬ 
 tion—who attended them in their infancy, 
 and cherished them in their adversities last 
 session; so perhaps it was quite natural 
 for the noble lord to step in to relieve the 
 British Protectionist when he was almost 
 choking with their endeavours to swallow 
 a crust of free-trade bread. He had a 
 strong impression that the sympathies of 
 Lord Palmerston would hereafter be enlisted 
 more by the Tory benches than by his old 
 and tried friends. 
 
 It might be all very well for the noble 
 lord to say of his new friends and 
 connections on the other side of the 
 House that they were pursuing a politic 
 course; but his lordship went a little too 
 far when he contended they were pur¬ 
 suing a creditable course. For his part, 
 commented Mr. Osborne, no honest poli¬ 
 tician could say that the conduct of the 
 Protectionist party had been a credit to 
 themselves. Why, in the first place, could 
 there be anything more audacious than the 
 speech of the chancellor of the exchequer ? 
 It appeared to him that Mr. Disraeli had 
 taken a leaf out of the book of a great 
 French character—no, he did not allude to 
 M. Thiers, but to Danton—who when 
 
 asked to give a reason for his success said, 
 “ Audacity, always audacity.” What had 
 been the course pursued by Mr. Disraeli ? 
 That gentleman had declared that neither 
 he nor Lord Derby had endeavoured to 
 reverse the system of free trade. True, Mr. 
 Disraeli never had possessed the courage to 
 make a direct or specific attempt to reverse 
 the free-trade policy; but the House must 
 recollect the course which he allowed his 
 friends and supporters to take. The coun¬ 
 try was flooded with pamphlets attacking 
 the principles of free trade. Meetings 
 were held all over the kingdom upholding 
 Protection; and members went about from 
 one town to another raging against the 
 commercial system introduced by Sir 
 Robert Peel. 
 
 Let the House, said Mr. Osborne, begin¬ 
 ning to examine a bundle of papers, listen 
 to some of the sounds emitted during this 
 period of Conservative passion. This was 
 what Lord Malmesbury had said:—“He 
 hoped to God the time would never come 
 when the free-trade theory would be con¬ 
 summated ; but should it please God in His 
 anger that it should be effected, then would 
 this great kingdom soon return to her normal 
 and natural state—a weather-beaten island 
 in a northern sea.” “ If this country,” cried 
 another Protectionist, “ were to continue 
 great and free, moderate import duties 
 must be established; the experiment of 
 free trade had been tried and failed; com¬ 
 mon sense always said it would fail. He 
 recommended the tenant-farmers to perse¬ 
 vere; let each, when they returned home, 
 tell their neighbours to persevere, and jus¬ 
 tice would sooner or later take place.” At 
 a meeting presided over by one of the 
 members for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), 
 three groans had been proposed for Sir 
 Robert Peel as “the arch-enemy of the 
 human species.” When Lord Derby came 
 into power, a deputation waited upon his 
 lordship, asking what he intended to do ? 
 And this was the noble earl’s answer:—“ If 
 there be any,” said Lord Derby, “ who are 
 of opinion that I am flinching from or 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 203 
 
 hesitating in the advocacy of those princi¬ 
 ples which I held in conjunction with my 
 late friend (Lord George Bentinck), I author¬ 
 ize you to assure one and all, that those who 
 represent that in my case will find no hesi¬ 
 tation, no flinching, no change of opinion. 
 I only look for the day when it may be 
 possible for me to use the memorable words 
 of the Duke of Wellington on the field of 
 Waterloo, and say, ‘ Up guards and at ’em!’” 
 When the member for North Lincolnshire 
 (Mr. Christopher) was appointed chancellor 
 of the duchy of Lancaster, what did that 
 minister say in his address to his con¬ 
 stituents ? “I accept office under the 
 administration of the Earl of Derby from 
 a conviction of his sincere desire to reverse 
 that financial and commercial policy which 
 is so injurious to native industry and 
 capital.” 
 
 And these are the gentlemen, cried 
 Mr. Osborne, who we are assured have 
 done nothing to reverse the policy of 
 1846, and whose feelings we are to be 
 so careful not to wound! The chancellor 
 of the exchequer was, of course, a safer 
 and more discreet man; yet, said Mr. 
 Osborne, it was ludicrous, when they re¬ 
 ferred to his statements in the past, for 
 him to come down to the House and 
 assert that he had never attempted to 
 reverse the policy of free trade. But now 
 they were told that Protection was one 
 of those things which were obsolete and 
 exhausted. Was the House sure of that ? 
 Was it quite sure that the conversion of the 
 Protectionists was sincere ? He for his own 
 part did not believe that it was sincere; and 
 he objected, as a matter of principle, to men 
 carrying on the government of the country 
 who were opposed in their hearts to the 
 principles of free trade. He maintained 
 that Mr. Disraeli, who had so bitterly 
 accused Sir Kobert Peel of bamboozling 
 one party and plundering another, had no 
 right to hold office for one moment to carry 
 out principles which he had stolen from 
 other people. He must say that since the 
 lamented demise of that celebrated oriental 
 
 juggler Ramo Samee—a gentleman who 
 was equally known for his dexterity of 
 hand and his great courage—a gentleman 
 who could alike cut for himself a hand 
 of trumps and swallow a broadsword—he 
 had known no individual with so many 
 ingenious devices and such inordinate 
 capacity of swallow as Mr. Disraeli, the 
 creator of his party in that House. But 
 let them, warned the wag, not be deluded 
 by a great conjuror from giving their vote 
 for what was just and right. They need 
 not be alarmed at the threat of the resigna¬ 
 tion of ministers. That was an old threat, 
 and sure he was that they all would “bow ” 
 to that decision. The time had gone by 
 when there need be any difficulty in 
 creating a ministry, and one use of the 
 present cabinet was certainly to show 
 how a ministry could be improvised. The 
 House might depend upon it, that so long 
 as the cholera did not carry off the govern¬ 
 ment clerks, the government would be 
 carried on. For his own part he had no 
 confidence in the principles of Mr. Disraeli 
 or his party. He therefore called on the 
 House not to give their confidence to a 
 gang of political latitudinarians who had 
 no belief, politically speaking, save on the 
 Treasury bench, no hope but in the per¬ 
 petuity of place. He would therefore vote 
 in all sincerity for the resolution of Mr. 
 Villiers. 
 
 The debate continued to draw its interest¬ 
 ing yet somewhat monotonous length along. 
 Speaker after speaker rose up to add his 
 tributary of talk to the general flood of 
 criticism. All the arguments of the free 
 traders followed on the same lines; the 
 same well-worn theories, the same often- 
 quoted statistics, the same reproofs as to 
 the past policy of the Protectionists, were- 
 all launched forth and freely employed. 
 The free traders could not understand why 
 those who opposed them objected to admit 
 that the repeal of the corn laws was 
 “wise, just, and beneficial. ,, Protectionists 
 appeared to have no hesitation in declaring 
 that the policy which had rendered corn 
 
204 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 cheap—which had provided for the admis¬ 
 sion of foreign corn, and thereby made the 
 food of the people abundant and cheap—was 
 “ w'ise,” and yet they would not avow that 
 the Act of Parliament was a “ wise act! ” 
 Surely such objection seemed to the ordinary 
 mind a very remarkable refinement. Then 
 as to the word “just.” Why should that 
 term be a stumbling-block to the Conserva¬ 
 tives ? The corn laws had been laws not 
 imposed for the benefit of any particular 
 class, or to be continued on that ground; 
 but as being, in the first place, in harmony 
 with the general policy of the country, 
 which was the protection of native industry 
 —the protection, amongst other producers, 
 of the producers of corn. In the next 
 place the question was understood to be 
 one of public policy, and that it was 
 considered desirable to raise within the 
 country sufficient food for the susten¬ 
 ance of the people. These were the great 
 public reasons for the maintenance of 
 the corn laws. Still, the moment parlia¬ 
 ment decided that it was not wise to keep 
 up the system of Protection—that it was 
 not wise to diminish the food of their own 
 people, and make the food dear in order to 
 obtain the advantage of having it all pro¬ 
 duced within themselves—from the moment 
 such a declaration was made those laws 
 ceased to be just, because they could only 
 be considered just when defended on the 
 ground of public welfare. So soon as 
 parliament had declared that they were 
 not for the public welfare—that none but 
 a certain class, such as the owners of land, 
 could profit by them, and that the great 
 body of the nation were not benefited by 
 them—the laws at once were stamped with 
 the mark of injustice, Why then, asked 
 the free traders, should Protectionists object 
 to admit that the repeal of the corn laws 
 was “ just ? ” 
 
 And the same hostility to the word 
 “beneficial” was equally ill-founded. The 
 Protectionists had no hesitation in declar¬ 
 ing that the improved condition of the 
 country, and especially of the working- 
 
 classes, w r as owing to recent legislation, and 
 also, that that policy should be further 
 pursued. If, then, they admitted that great 
 benefits had flowed from such a policy— 
 that the food of the people had been im¬ 
 proved thereby, and that great benefits had 
 been conferred on the whole body of the 
 nation—it was, indeed, impossible to under¬ 
 stand the objection of the Conservatives to 
 the word “ beneficial.” What that party, 
 in fact, really said, was this :—“ Here is a 
 measure which parliament in its wisdom 
 has enacted, and which has conferred great 
 benefits on the people; we admit the wis¬ 
 dom, the justice, and the beneficial policy 
 of parliament, yet we will not avow that 
 the measure itself was either wise, or just, 
 or beneficial.” “ It reminds me,” said Lord 
 John Russell, “ of a remark made by Lord 
 Plunkett with reference to one of the 
 scruples of Lord Brougham, when he said, 
 it was rather more fit for a novel, to be 
 called The Delicate Distress , than for parlia¬ 
 ment.” 
 
 Then, contended the free traders, it was 
 surprising how the government could pos¬ 
 sibly regard the original resolution of Mr. 
 Villiers as a vote of want of confidence. If 
 ever there was a question on which the 
 House was entitled to be quite unfettered 
 by governmental considerations, it was cer¬ 
 tainly the one now before them; because 
 ministers had told the people at the very 
 commencement that the government had 
 placed their own opinions on the shelf, and 
 that the country was to pronounce freely 
 upon the matter, without any reference to 
 the private opinions of the cabinet. If that 
 were so, why, then, should the free traders 
 in the House of Commons be prevented 
 from pronouncing freely their opinion of 
 the policy and justice of recent commercial 
 legislation, simply because ministers chose 
 to put the construction of a vote of want of 
 confidence on the motion of Mr. Villiers? 
 The Liberal party was not being fairly dealt 
 with by the government exhibiting such 
 extreme sensitiveness. It was only right 
 that free traders should give the proper 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 205 
 
 reasons why they supported their commer¬ 
 cial policy—their verdict should he graven 
 on the rock, and not written on the sand. 
 It was not sufficient to admit that the repeal 
 of the corn laws had cheapened provisions; 
 it was not sufficient for free traders to defend 
 their policy on the prosperity of the day. 
 They must take higher ground, and advo¬ 
 cate the repeal of the corn laws on the 
 broad principle of civil right and justice, 
 and on the basis that a man has a right to 
 freedom of exchange. If they merely justi¬ 
 fied a policy on the ground of its rendering 
 provisions cheap and the prosperity it pro¬ 
 duced ; if, at the same time, they shrank 
 from declaring that it was a just policy— 
 who should say, that if from various causes 
 provisions rose, or manufacturing or com¬ 
 mercial distress overclouded the country, 
 they would not be told that the time had 
 arrived for the reconsideration of a policy 
 which had been built on the cheapness of 
 provisions, and the manufacturing prosperity 
 it produced ? Such a mode of dealing with 
 a question would justify confiscation or 
 repudiation. They might say of confisca¬ 
 tion that it had benefited the parties in 
 whose favour it had taken place, by their 
 enjoying the property of those persons who 
 had been robbed; or they might allege the 
 same of repudiation. It was, therefore, 
 necessary for free traders to contend most 
 emphatically, that their commercial policy 
 was not only a beneficial one, but also a 
 just and righteous policy. The Protection¬ 
 ists might find that resolution somewhat 
 bitter to swallow, yet the flavour would, to 
 a certain extent, be counteracted by the 
 sweets of office. 
 
 And after all, what a monstrous anomaly 
 it was, cried the free traders, that the cabinet 
 should tell the House of Commons, “ We 
 are going to carry out a given policy, which 
 we admit has been attended with such 
 advantages; but if this House should declare 
 that that policy is ‘just, wise, and beneficial,’ 
 we will resign.” What did the government 
 mean ? Did they want to have an oppor¬ 
 tunity of whispering against and assailing 
 
 in secret the policy which they professed 
 to be engaged in carrying out ? Did they 
 mean to adopt it, and then at the same 
 time say that it was unwise and unjust ? 
 
 These questions naturally led up to the 
 charge, freely brought against the govern¬ 
 ment by the Liberals, of double-dealing as 
 to the manner in which the subject of free 
 trade had been taken up. Ministers, asser¬ 
 ted the free traders, had said to the country 
 at the time of the elections, “ Are you for 
 free trade or are you for Protection ? We 
 shall be ready to bring forward protective 
 measures if the decision of the country is 
 in favour of them; but otherwise we shall 
 assent to the free-trade policy which has 
 of late been adopted.” Such a move, con¬ 
 tended the Opposition, was utterly imprac¬ 
 ticable with the working of the constitution 
 and with parliament. An absolute sovereign 
 could have said, “Let the people decide, 
 and let them tell their representatives their 
 own views with respect to commercial 
 policy,” but not an English prime minister. 
 What had been the consequence ? As the 
 head of a party, it was inevitable that those 
 who were joined with Lord Derby should 
 take part on one side or the other in the 
 elections, and thus they had had a most 
 extraordinary spectacle and a most extra¬ 
 ordinary result, because they had gentlemen 
 going into the towns and saying, “ We are 
 against any tax on bread; we could not 
 bear a return to the corn laws, and we 
 support Lord Derby; ” and other gentlemen 
 going into the country and saying that 
 the greatest mischief had been done by the 
 repeal of the corn laws, and that they were 
 for Protection, and, therefore, that they 
 supported Lord Derby. Thus, laughed the 
 Liberals, they had now a provision for 
 a perpetual cabinet. Formerly ministers 
 had been obliged to hold certain opinions, 
 certain views, certain principles; and if the 
 administration found that it was thwarted 
 in those principles, when it thought they 
 ought to be carried into effect, it no longer 
 remained in office. Lord Derby had, how¬ 
 ever, acted differently. His case was this 
 
206 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 "If the country approve of Protection, 
 I will carry protective measures; if the 
 country approve of free trade, then I will 
 "bring forward free-trade measures; but if 
 I am right, and free trade produces great 
 calamities, then I turn Protectionist again.” 
 Thus the same minister might be a Pro¬ 
 tectionist, then a free trader, and then again 
 a Protectionist. Such an arrangement was 
 certainly a novelty. Free traders knowing, 
 therefore, who were in power, and the slip¬ 
 pery tactics of ministers, should be on their 
 guard; they should resolve not to have 
 their commercial policy tampered with; 
 nor should they be ashamed to openly 
 avow the benefits that had resulted from 
 its establishment. 
 
 So argued the free traders, one after the 
 other ; some supporting the original motion 
 of Mr. Villiers, others—the more genial and 
 generous—declaring that they would give 
 their vote in favour of the amendment of 
 Lord Palmerston. 
 
 The Protectionists, in their turn, were 
 equally eloquent and monotonous in the 
 vindication of their principles. None of 
 them, they declared, had entertained a 
 lurking wish that any import duty upon 
 corn, either directly or indirectly, should be 
 attempted. An appeal had been made to 
 the country, and the verdict had been most 
 decided; they also would ask their oppo¬ 
 nents whether the country party could have 
 met defeat with better feeling ? There had 
 been no question raised as to the manner 
 in which that verdict had been obtained, 
 but there might have been. There had 
 been no counter-charge of farmers deluded, 
 though there might have been. There had 
 been a quiet submission to a victory gained. 
 Why, then, insult a defeated party by those 
 three words—wise, just, and beneficial— 
 which had been so properly designated as 
 odious ? Certainly there was no more 
 odious dose for honest country gentlemen 
 to swallow than a sentiment which was not 
 their own. There was a great difference 
 between an agreement as to what was the 
 opinion of the country, and in adopting 
 
 that opinion as one’s own. The country at 
 large had upheld the principle of free trade, 
 and the Protectionists were of opinion that 
 it was the duty of every member of the 
 House to carry out that principle. Why 
 should more be required ? They could not 
 describe the repeal of the corn laws as, 
 strictly speaking, a wise and just measure. 
 If the corn laws were in accordance with 
 the general policy of the country at the 
 time when they were changed; and if 
 all advantages were taken away from those 
 persons who had hitherto enjoyed advan¬ 
 tages in the shape of Protection, without 
 removing any of the restrictions or impedi¬ 
 ments which existed in the cultivation of 
 the soil—no matter how beneficial such 
 measure had been to the majority of the 
 people—wisdom and justice could never be 
 predicated of any act unless it were equally 
 beneficial to every class of the community. 
 The measure of 1846 was not just. It was 
 too sudden and precipitate, inasmuch as that 
 particular interest which had been protected 
 up to that period had not been allowed 
 sufficient time to prepare itself for the 
 altered circumstances in which it became 
 placed. Adam Smith had laid it down in 
 the “ Wealth of Nations ” that where by high 
 duties they had protected any particular 
 industry of a country, so as to induce the 
 employment of a great number of people 
 or a great amount of capital and labour in 
 that particular branch of industry, humanity 
 suggested that in restoring free trade they 
 ought to do it "by slow gradations, and 
 with much reserve and circumspection.” 
 In the repeal of the corn laws the free 
 traders had not been actuated by that 
 humanity, and therefore the measure was 
 not strictly wise or just. 
 
 Nor could they, further argued the Pro¬ 
 tectionists, agree to the statement that the 
 prosperity of the country was due to free 
 trade. In their opinion the prosperity of 
 the country had been much exaggerated. 
 To listen to free traders, it would appear as 
 if the present was the first time the country 
 had ever been in a prosperous state. As a 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 207 
 
 matter of fact the prosperity of the present 
 day bore no comparison with the prosperity 
 of 1834, 1835, and 1836. Let the House 
 listen to a few statistics. From 1831 to 
 1841 the population had increased ten per 
 cent.; but from 1841 to 1851 it had only 
 increased one per cent. Between 1815 and 
 1843 real property had increased nearly 
 sixty per cent.; while from 1843 to 1850 
 it had only been ten per cent. From 1815 
 to 1843 personal property had increased 
 thirty-seven per cent.; yet between 1843 
 and 1850 it had actually declined five per 
 cent. From 1831 to 1841 their exports 
 had increased thirty-five per cent.; but 
 from 1841 to 1851 only twenty-three per 
 cent.; while their imports of raw material 
 and the consumption of wool had not 
 increased nearly so much in the latter 
 period as in the former. “I do not ask 
 the House,” said the statistics-loving Mar¬ 
 quis of Granby, “whether considering all 
 the improvements which have taken place 
 —considering the energy and enterprise 
 which have been elicited—considering the 
 advantages we now have in the inventions 
 of machinery, in the inventions for bringing 
 out the wonderful power of steam by land 
 and by sea—I say, considering all these 
 circumstances and all the advances of the 
 age in inventions and science, am I not 
 entitled to ask if we are not, in point of 
 fact, in a stationary state rather than in 
 that state of progress we are entitled to 
 expect?” Nor was this all. Manufac¬ 
 turers, in endeavouring to meet foreign 
 competition, had been obliged to produce 
 articles so worthless that they did not 
 last half so long as those formerly produced 
 when under the enjoyment of Protection. 
 Had it not been, cried Protectionist after 
 Protectionist, for the vast supply of precious 
 metals which had been poured into the 
 country, and for the large emigration that 
 had taken place, this boasted free trade 
 would have been a decided failure. 
 
 Therefore, holding these views—views 
 supported by solid facts—the Protectionist 
 party declined to stultify their conduct in 
 
 the past by admitting the accuracy of Mr. 
 Villiers’ resolution. The very year after 
 the repeal of the corn laws there had been 
 a collapse in the commercial world which 
 had shaken credit to its very centre. In 
 the crash capital to the extent of upwards 
 of £50,000,000 had been swept away in a 
 few months, and many of the highest and 
 some of the oldest of the commercial firms 
 of the country had been levelled in the 
 dust. Money, wealth, prosperity, all had 
 disappeared ; the government had fixed the 
 rate of interest for advances by the Bank 
 of England at eight per cent., and in private 
 transactions that rate of interest had risen, 
 under the severity of the pressure, as high 
 as twenty per cent. Yet that had been 
 under this vaunted system of free trade! 
 It certainly was an extraordinary and unex¬ 
 pected retribution that trade and commerce 
 should have staggered under the first shock. 
 Yet free traders still persevered in their 
 system, and domestic agriculture was .the 
 next to reel under the blow. During the 
 succeeding years an amount of agricultural 
 depression had been experienced never 
 before known. Agricultural capital had been 
 swept away by millions, and the pressure 
 had continued with increased and accumu 
 lating violence from year to year until 
 Providence had opened to England those 
 vast regions and stores of mineral wealth, 
 whence had flowed ever since riches to an 
 enormous extent. “Providence, sir,” cried 
 Mr. Booker, one of the members for Here¬ 
 fordshire, “and not human legislation nor 
 any efforts or results of human wisdom, 
 has removed the pressure and produced 
 these blessings under which the country 
 is now beginning to revive; and, sir, if 
 the principle of Protection to our native 
 industry and capital were now prevailing— 
 firmly maintained and prudently extended 
 or relaxed as occasion justified—I know of 
 no limit within which our national pros¬ 
 perity would now be confined.” 
 
 Then the Protectionists proceeded to 
 dispute the soundness of the theory of the 
 free traders as to cheapness. Cheapness, 
 
208 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 they declared, was not a desideratum. 
 Cheapness was no proof of national pros¬ 
 perity and welfare; on the contrary, in 
 proportion as things were cheap the nation 
 was impoverished. Cheapness signified 
 much work and little wages.* What had 
 Sir Robert Peel himself asserted when re¬ 
 ferring to the corn laws. “ He had looked 
 about,” he said, “ over the world, and had 
 endeavoured to ascertain the proportion 
 in which the people of various countries 
 consumed, in order to ascertain whether 
 they got more for their individual con¬ 
 sumption of the necessaries of life where 
 these commodities were cheap as compared 
 with where they were dear. He found 
 that in Poland and Russia the consumption 
 was about five bushels of grain to each 
 individual per year; Germany, wdiere corn 
 was dearer, six bushels per head; in France, 
 where corn was dearer than in any other 
 country excepting England, seven bushels 
 per head; but in England the average 
 consumption was eight bushels per head, 
 and nearly the whole of that consisted of 
 wheat.” 
 
 Therefore, argued Protectionists, it was 
 not only absurd, but a cruel thing to 
 represent cheapness as a blessing. Let 
 it be remembered, they said, that every 
 article they ate, every beverage they drank, 
 and every article whether of dress or furni¬ 
 ture in daily use, was manufactured by the 
 poor; and then to assert that those things 
 should be cheap was opposed to common 
 sense. Nor were the working classes dead 
 to the fact. All over the country trades’ 
 delegates had held meetings, and they had 
 resolved, firstly, that free trade had a most 
 
 * “ Now, there is one other great danger which working 
 men have to look to, and that is, that the great staple indus- 
 stries of England should gradually be starved and ruined by 
 the system of foreign bounties which every nation that is 
 jealous of our greatness is now using to crush our superiority. 
 Just remember that when they say your commercial great¬ 
 ness depends upon having cheap labour, that cheap labour 
 means low wages, and low wages means uncomfortable 
 homes, and uncomfortable homes dwindling families, and 
 dwindling families means a poor mother of the household, 
 overworked and crushed by undue toil, and the father in 
 despair at the end of his days, closing those days, not in his 
 own home, but in some great State-paid institution.”— 
 Lord Sandon at Ormskirk, July 12, 1881. 
 
 pernicious effect upon the minds and 
 actions of statesmen, was destructive of 
 honest dealing, subversive of morality, 
 ruinous to the national resources and 
 character, and therefore ought to be en¬ 
 tirely abandoned; and secondly, that the 
 principle of protection to humanity, to 
 the products of labour, land, and capital 
 in Great Britain and her colonies, was the 
 true basis of political and social economy, 
 calculated to give employment and fair 
 remuneration and profit on capital, and 
 thereby to secure the peace and pros¬ 
 perity of the empire. With these resolu¬ 
 tions staring them in the face, how could 
 the opponents of Protection argue that the 
 entire community—particularly the work¬ 
 ing classes—were in favour of free trade ? 
 
 Nor was this all. Protectionists were 
 asked to vote that the Act of 1846 was 
 “wise, just, and beneficial,” when almost 
 every prophecy made by the free traders 
 had not been fulfilled. “ There was hardly 
 anything,” cried Mr. Ball, one of the most 
 honest and zealous supporters of Protection 
 in the House, “ which the free traders 
 had said that had not been falsified by the 
 event; and scarcely a prediction had turned 
 out as they had anticipated. Mr. Cobden 
 had asserted that if the unnatural corn 
 laws were repealed no Briton need any 
 longer emigrate, and that emigration was 
 created altogether by landlords and the 
 corn laws. He had even said that those 
 who were driven to emigrate were men 
 condemned to transportation for the benefit 
 of the landowners. Now, what was the 
 result ? Poverty had driven our poor by 
 hundreds and thousands from Britain, and 
 hundreds and hundreds of broken-hearted 
 farmers had been condemned to a premature 
 grave. More than that, hundreds and 
 thousands of farmers were so hopelessly 
 damaged and ruined by what had been 
 done, that they could never be reinstated 
 again. ... He never would be a party 
 to approve of any resolution which went to 
 say that the happiness of the people and 
 the prosperity of the country had been the 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 209 
 
 result of free trade. He did not believe it. 
 But lie would say this, that after the country 
 had showed itself determined to have free 
 trade, when he saw what was the result 
 and what had been the response of the 
 country, he was bound, as one of those who 
 went there to make laws, to maintain and 
 uphold the laws; and there was nothing 
 more necessary for all parties to observe, 
 than that when the people of this country 
 spoke through the majority in that House, 
 the minority were bound in duty to sub¬ 
 mit ; and therefore he was compelled, of 
 necessity, to say that he must submit. 
 But he would not abandon the field if he 
 were not to take with him the honours of 
 war. He would not go out of the field if 
 he were to be insulted, as he was going; 
 and, therefore, he would never accept the 
 resolution of Mr. Villiers. . . . The 
 
 Protectionists had been necessitated to 
 surrender the principles which they had 
 advocated—they acknowledged that they 
 had been beaten; but he hoped their op¬ 
 ponents would remember that even the 
 Indian who scalped his fallen foe did not 
 lacerate his dead body, and that they would 
 in their hour of triumph not forget the 
 kindly and generous feelings which so 
 universally distinguished the English char¬ 
 acter in such circumstances. And he said 
 further, that if their real object was to 
 obtain a settlement of this question, they 
 would evince kindlier feelings and a better 
 grace and endeavour to win their opponents 
 over by harmony and good fellowship, so 
 as to have a united testimony given to 
 their principles. Then they would better 
 deserve their triumph by the magnanimity 
 of their conduct; whereas, by trampling on 
 those whom they had defeated, and by 
 manifesting such bitterness of feeling and 
 pouring ridicule on those who had fought 
 them valiantly and foot to foot, and would 
 have beaten them if they had been able, 
 they were only irritating the wound which 
 they ought to seek to heal.” 
 
 So argued the Protectionists. They did 
 not regret their opposition to the principles 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 of free trade in the past; they did not 
 consider their objections to that policy to 
 have been disproved; but they would “ bow 
 cheerfully ” to the decision of the country. 
 They based their arguments upon the views 
 maintained by their leader. Where grave 
 political questions were disputed it was 
 advisable to appeal to the country and to 
 carry out the verdict then given. The chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer followed the course, 
 on this occasion, which Sir Eobert Peel had 
 laid down as the duty of a statesman when 
 called upon to sacrifice private opinions 
 for the public good. Throughout his politi¬ 
 cal career Mr. Disraeli had disapproved of 
 the one-sided system of free trade which the 
 country then was so warmly advocating. 
 He considered such a system, unless based 
 upon reciprocity, as ruinous to many of our 
 most important commercial interests. He 
 was opposed to any theory which tended to 
 benefit one class at the expense of another. 
 If other nations united with us in carrying 
 out the principles of free trade, he would 
 most cordially support such co-operation; 
 but for England to admit the produce of 
 the world into her ports free and untaxed, 
 whilst other countries consented only to 
 receive her goods on the payment of heavy 
 duties was, in his judgment, to court ruin. 
 Such a policy was not free trade, but com¬ 
 mercial suicide. Those were his views, and 
 he never hesitated to express them; Pro¬ 
 tection, in its narrowest sense, he had never 
 upheld, but reciprocity was in his eyes a 
 measure “wise, just, and beneficial.” 
 
 Still, the country was opposed to his 
 opinions, and it was the duty of an enlight¬ 
 ened statesman serving under a constitu¬ 
 tional government to “adapt his conduct to 
 the exigency of the moment.” He acted as 
 Sir Eobert Peel had acted when yielding to 
 public opinion in the matter of the Catholic 
 Emancipation Bill. “ I cannot,” said Sir 
 Eobert, “ purchase the support of my 
 honourable friends by promising to adhere 
 at all times and at all hazards, as minister 
 of the crown, to arguments and opinions 
 which I may have heretofore propounded 
 
 27 
 
210 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 in this House. I reserve to myself dis¬ 
 tinctly and unequivocally the right of 
 adapting my conduct to the exigency of 
 the moment and to the wants of the 
 country. . . . This has been the con¬ 
 
 duct of all former statesmen at all times 
 and in all countries. My defence is the 
 same with that of all others under similar 
 circumstances, and I shall conclude by 
 expressing it in words more beautiful than 
 any which I myself could use—I mean the 
 words of Cicero— Hcec didici, hcec nidi, hcec 
 scripta legi, hcec de sapientissimis et clarissimis 
 viris, et in hac republica et in aliis civitatibus 
 monumenta nobis literce prodiderunt, non 
 semper easdem sententias ctb iisclem sed quas- 
 cunque reipublicce status, temporum inclinatio, 
 ratio concordicepostularent, esse defendendas” 
 In all great debates there is generally one 
 speech which, for the grasp of its subject, 
 the soundness of its arguments, the power 
 of its analysis, and the brilliancy of its dic¬ 
 tion, stands out notably among its fellows. 
 In this memorable free-trade discussion the 
 chief honours among the Opposition were 
 carried off by Mr. Sidney Herbert. His 
 speech was not only an excellent party 
 speech, but he concluded with a panegyric 
 upon the late Sir Robert Peel, as loyal as 
 anything that political devotion has ever 
 called forth. Mr. Herbert had been a Pro¬ 
 tectionist, but had afterwards enrolled him¬ 
 self under the standard of Sir Robert Peel; 
 the words that therefore fell from his lips 
 on this occasion, though keenly critical, 
 were yet, except when he had occasion to 
 allude to Mr. Disraeli, generous and tolerant. 
 He began by discussing the two original 
 motions before the House, the one of Mr. 
 Yilliers and the other of Mr. Disraeli. Be¬ 
 tween these two motions he could not, he 
 said, have a moment’s hesitation. One was 
 moved by a gentleman who had proposed 
 that question to the House years ago, and 
 who had struggled for it under great diffi¬ 
 culties and in small minorities. He knew 
 that Mr. Yilliers had fought his battle with 
 singular skill and consistency, and not 
 without much labour had brought it to a 
 
 O 
 
 happy issue. During the whole time that 
 Mr. Yilliers had argued the question of the 
 corn laws—and they were warm times—he 
 had not left a single enemy on either side 
 of the House. But in opposition to that 
 motion of Mr. Yilliers was a notice of an 
 amendment coming from a quarter which 
 certainly did not inspire confidence. The 
 speech of Mr. Disraeli—able as it was— 
 impressive in manner, ingenious in argu¬ 
 ment—left on his, Mr. Herbert’s mind, a 
 most painful impression. The chancellor 
 of the exchequer had set out by stating that 
 he was going to give an account of the 
 course which the Protectionist party had 
 taken since 1846, which should be studiously 
 accurate and impartial. Yet no speech 
 could have been more singularly inaccurate. 
 “ There are many gentlemen,” said Mr. 
 Sidney Herbert, “on the opposite side of 
 the House with whom I have long lived 
 in relations not only of private friendship 
 but of political co-operation; and although 
 I am no longer by party connected with 
 them, I do not hesitate to say that their 
 political reputation as members of a class 
 which forms the chief element of stability 
 in this country, and whose public virtue 
 entitles them to public respect, is most 
 important. It was not, then, without 
 pain that I heard a statement made— 
 a course described—which was, in my 
 mind, an imputation of the deepest dye 
 upon the character of those gentlemen. 
 We all recollect the period that in¬ 
 tervened between 1846 and 1852. Was 
 the country quiet ? Was there no agita¬ 
 tion upon this question ? At market tables 
 —in theatres—at Protection societies, one 
 hundred in number—was everything said 
 with a view to secure the stability of the 
 policy of 1846 ? For my part I acquit 
 the right hon. gentleman the chancellor of 
 the exchequer, as far as his own convictions 
 are concerned, of the charge of ever having 
 been a Protectionist. I never for one 
 moment thought he believed in the least, 
 degree in Protection. I do not accuse him 
 of having forgotten what he said or what 
 
 o o 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 he believed in those years. I only accuse 
 him of having forgotten now what he then 
 wished it to appear that he believed. . . 
 
 But how will all this appear to the con¬ 
 stituencies of the country ? What will 
 they think when they come to learn that 
 a vast number of gentlemen holding very 
 strong language upon the subject of Pro¬ 
 tection—delaying the re-arrangement of 
 rents, which in some cases has become a 
 necessity to the farmer, upon the plea that 
 the legislature would revise the system 
 which established free trade—what will be 
 their feelings when they hear that their 
 object in agitating was not the restoration 
 of Protection, but to secure the stability of 
 the commercial policy of 1846 ? ” 
 
 Mr. Herbert then read extracts from the 
 speeches of various Protectionists, showing 
 that during the years intervening between 
 1846 and 1852 members had openly advo¬ 
 cated a return to Protection. He, however, 
 did not, he remarked, bring forward these 
 extracts to taunt members for changing 
 their opinions. “ I am the last man,” he 
 said, “who would do so, for I am in no 
 position to speak ill of converts. I had had 
 myself to pass through that ordeal, to break 
 up political friendships and to sacrifice 
 office—whatever that may have been worth 
 —because my convictions bad been entirely 
 altered on this subject, and because I 
 thought it was not for a man of honour, 
 holding opinions different from those which 
 he held before, to occupy a station of 
 responsibility, and to shrink from attempt¬ 
 ing to give effect to those opinions upon 
 a question on which immediate action was 
 necessary.” He always felt that the prin¬ 
 ciple of Protection would have to be aban¬ 
 doned; but then it became necessary to 
 know who supported it and who deserted 
 from it, and that brought him to the ques¬ 
 tion whether a resolution, such as the one 
 Mr. Villiers had proposed, was necessary. 
 He thought it was necessary because, owing 
 to the ambiguity of the royal speech, they 
 had no other meaus of knowing the indi¬ 
 vidual opinions of members of parliament 
 
 211 
 
 sent here to settle either the principle of 
 free trade or of Protection. He could not 
 accept the amendment of the chancellor of 
 the exchequer. It was not declaratory of 
 the opinion of the House upon free trade. 
 It seemed more like a resolution to test a 
 divided cabinet than anything else; with 
 the duty and conscience of the ministry 
 the House had nothing to do. It was 
 clearly not the duty of the House of Com¬ 
 mons to lay down what was to be the 
 business of the executive. The only objec¬ 
 tion he had to the resolution of Mr. Villiers 
 was that it did cast censure upon the Con¬ 
 servative party; and after all generosity 
 was the best policy. 
 
 “ Our system,” said Mr. Herbert, geni¬ 
 ally, “is one of political propagandism— 
 we are all anxious to make proselytes 
 —and therefore we ought not to repel 
 a man or a body of men, when they come 
 over to our side, with hard words and 
 terms of humiliation. I must say for myself 
 that I should lament to see a system estab¬ 
 lished by which when a person or a party, 
 from the lapse of time or the occurrence of 
 fresh circumstances, see reason to doubt the 
 accuracy of his former opinions, is anxious 
 to retrace his steps and to adopt sounder 
 views—I should regret the establishment 
 of a system by which such person would 
 be subjected to personal humiliation before 
 he was accepted as a convert. I recollect 
 an observation made by a witty contempo¬ 
 raneous writer, to the effect that all religious 
 sects in free countries succeeded in making 
 converts except the Jews; and he asked, 
 rather quaintly, how it could be expected 
 that any man would become a convert to a 
 faith, the profession of which must begin 
 with a surgical operation? And in the 
 same way I must say I feel strongly— 
 being anxious to bring over as many as 
 I possibly can to the standard under which 
 I fight—that I shall not succeed if I tell 
 hon. gentlemen who differed from me in 
 former times, that their agreement in opinion 
 with me must be commenced by their doing 
 penance—by putting on a white sheet and 
 
212 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 standing in the pillory for their former 
 misdeeds.” He would therefore give his 
 vote in favour of the resolution of Lord 
 Palmerston, which confirmed the principles 
 of free trade, without being offensive to the 
 party which had opposed them. Then in 
 answer to the appeal of certain free traders 
 that the memory of Sir Robert Peel should 
 be vindicated, he thus concluded:— 
 
 “ 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 humiliation of an adversary; and he 
 would have recollected this — that the 
 humiliation, if humiliation it were, was 
 a humiliation to be inflicted not only upon 
 those who had assailed him, but also 
 upon gentlemen for whose character he had 
 the warmest regard. I don’t confound hon. 
 gentlemen opposite with those who calum¬ 
 niated 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 disappoint¬ 
 ment 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 Treasury bench, and the 
 Opposition seconded the application of the 
 words by loud applause. 
 
 Not the least interesting feature in this 
 long debate were the tributes of respect 
 and esteem paid to the memory of Sir 
 Robert Peel by members on both sides of 
 the House. The distinguished repealer of 
 the corn laws was now no longer an 
 “ apostate” or “ traitor,” but the purest of 
 patriots and the most practical of statesmen. 
 “As to Sir Robert Peel,” said the Pro¬ 
 tectionist, Mr. Cayley, “ he always gave him 
 credit for the honesty of his convictions. 
 He did not object, on the contrary he 
 thought he was quite right, having changed 
 his convictions to change his policy. There 
 was only some difference between them as 
 to the mode in which he carried out his 
 change of opinion as regarded his party.” 
 Lord Granby declared that all men should 
 now acknowledge that Sir Robert Peel 
 “ was not only patriotic and conscientious, 
 but also farseeing and sagacious.” Sir 
 John Pakington said—“ In connection with 
 the question of change of views, there have 
 been allusions this evening by different 
 gentlemen, and among others by my noble 
 friend the member for Leicestershire (Lord 
 Granby), to the late Sir Robert Peel. My 
 noble friend spoke in a frank and an 
 honourable spirit on that subject. The 
 members of government have been pointedly 
 alluded to on that subject since; and there¬ 
 fore I cannot and will not shrink from 
 saying that no single word of disrespect to 
 Sir Robert Peel ever has escaped, or ever 
 will escape, my lips. It was my misfortune 
 in 1846 that I could not concur with 
 Sir Robert Peel, and in opposing him on 
 that occasion I made a great sacrifice of 
 both party feeling and personal feeling. I 
 opposed the right hon. gentleman then, 
 and, with whatever degree of diffidence I 
 did so, I never shrank from voting against 
 him when my conscience would not allow 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 213 
 
 me to vote with him. But I agree with my 
 noble friend, that a purer patriot never 
 lived.” Sir James Graham, alluding to Sir 
 Bobert Peel, thus delivered himself, “ Amidst 
 all his characteristics I should say the 
 Christian temper and forgiveness of my 
 right hon. friend was that which most 
 distinguished him. I say also that he 
 always considered what, under circum¬ 
 stances of public emergency, it was politic 
 to do in reference to the good of the country, 
 and the maintenance of the cause which he 
 espoused.” But the most eloquent of all 
 these panegyrics was the tribute paid by 
 Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 “I trust,” the member for the Univer¬ 
 sity of Oxford said, “notwithstanding the 
 bitter exasperation and extraordinary pro¬ 
 longation of the conflict now closing, that a 
 similar spirit of moderation and forbearance 
 still predominates in this House; and I dare 
 tell the hon. member for the West Biding, 
 that I feel no force at all in his appeal to 
 me,* when he quotes the name of Sir Bobert 
 Peel, not because that name is not vene¬ 
 rated and precious in my eyes, but because 
 I conceive that in giving the vote which 
 we are about to give in favour of the resolu¬ 
 tion of my noble friend, we are taking the 
 course that he himself would have adopted. 
 It is our honour and pride to be his follow¬ 
 ers ; let us imitate him in that magnanimity 
 which was one of the most distinguishing 
 characteristics of the man. Ho doubt Sir 
 Bobert Peel when he severed the ties of 
 five-and-thirty years, during which he was 
 associated with the party opposite, felt the 
 price that he was paying for the perform¬ 
 ance of his duty. It was no small matter 
 in the advanced stage of a life like his to 
 break up, and to break up for ever, its 
 habits and its associations. He looked, 
 perhaps, for his revenge; but for what 
 revenge did he look ? He did not seek to 
 vindicate it by stinging speeches, or by 
 
 * Mr. Cobden had said, u How the friends of the late Sir 
 Robert Peel can go into the lobby with the Protectionist 
 party, and vote against the proposition that their own 
 measure of 1846 was a wise, and a just, and a beneficial 
 measure, passes my comprehension .”—November 26, 1852. 
 
 motions carried in his favour, or in favour 
 of his policy, if they bore a sense of pain 
 and degradation to the minds of honourable 
 men. The vindication for which he looked 
 was, I am confident, this:—He knew that 
 the wisdom of his measures would secure 
 their acceptance. He knew that those who 
 had opposed them from erroneous opinions 
 would acknowledge them after competent 
 experience. He looked to see them estab¬ 
 lished in the esteem and sound judgment 
 of the country. He looked to see them 
 governing by slow but sure degrees the 
 policy of every nation of the civilized world. 
 He thought that he would have his reward, 
 first, in the substantial and enormous good 
 that he was the instrument in the hands of 
 Providence for effecting; and secondly, in 
 the reputation that he believed would be 
 his own appropriate reward. 
 
 And as to that aristocracy, whose prepos¬ 
 sessions he might feel that he was then 
 violently thwarting, he, with prophetic 
 insight, anticipated the day when the very 
 men who reviled him—if they were men, as 
 he believed them, of honest judgments and 
 intentions—that those very men, who had 
 used opprobrious language, never so ill- 
 deserved, would in the course of time see 
 that he had never rendered them so great 
 and so solid a service as when, with the 
 whole power of his government, he pro¬ 
 posed to parliament the repeal of the com 
 laws. His belief was, that their cause was 
 a great and sacred cause—that the aris¬ 
 tocracy of England was an element in its 
 political and social system with which the 
 welfare of the country was inseparably 
 bound up, and to him, therefore, it was a 
 noble object of ambition to redeem such 
 a cause from association with a policy 
 originally adopted in a state of imperfect 
 knowledge and with erroneous views, but 
 which, with the clear light of experience 
 poured upon it, was each day assuming moro 
 and more in the view of the thinking portion 
 of the community the character of what was 
 sordid and what was false. He anticipated 
 those bloodless, those painless rewards. 
 
214 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 which would he honourable and delightful 
 to him, had it pleased God to spare him, 
 which will be honourable and delightful to 
 my hon. friend the member for Bury (Mr. 
 F. Peel), and to those who are entitled to 
 claim kindred with that great man; which 
 are now delightful to us who had in former 
 times the high privilege of combating by 
 his side, and who are now as fondly as ever 
 attached to his memory. Those were the 
 vindications for which he looked, and, look¬ 
 ing for those vindications, and seeing that 
 we have now arrived at the point when we 
 are celebrating the obsequies of that obnox¬ 
 ious policy, and when we are about to adopt 
 by an overwhelming majority, in one sense 
 or another, a declaration admitted to be 
 perfectly unequivocal of the beneficial 
 character and excellence of the system 
 which he defended, oh, I say, in such a 
 moment as this, if we still cherish a desire 
 to trample upon those who fought manfully 
 and have been defeated fairly, let us en¬ 
 deavour to put it away from ourselves, to 
 rejoice in the great public good we have 
 been enabled to attain, and to take courage 
 from the attainment of that good for the 
 performance of public duty in the future!” 
 
 After a keen debate of three nights, the 
 House at length came to a division on the 
 question, “that the words proposed to be 
 left out stand part of the question.” There 
 were 592 members in the House—256 voted 
 in favour of Mr. Villiers’ motion, 336 against 
 it—majority, 80. A division then took 
 place on Lord Palmerston’s amendment, 
 previously to which seventy-one members 
 left the House, and the votes appeared as 
 follows:— 
 
 For the amendment, . . . .468 
 
 Against it,.53 
 
 Majority in favour of the amendment, . 415 
 
 The following was the final form of the 
 resolutions, as passed by the House:— 
 
 “ That it is the opinion of this House that 
 the improved condition of the country, and 
 especially of the industrious classes, is 
 mainly the result of recent legislation, 
 
 which has established the principle of un¬ 
 restricted competition, has abolished taxes 
 imposed for the purposes of Protection, 
 and has thereby diminished the cost and 
 increased the abundance of the principal 
 articles of the food of the people. 
 
 “ That it is the opinion of this House that 
 this policy, firmly maintained and prudently 
 extended, will, without inflicting injury on 
 any important interest, best enable the 
 industry of the country to bear its burdens, 
 and will thereby most surely promote the 
 welfare and contentment of the people. 
 
 “ That this House will be ready to take 
 into consideration any measures consistent 
 with these principles, which, in pursuance 
 of Her Majesty’s gracious speech and recom¬ 
 mendation, may be laid before it.” 
 
 Such was the end of the memorable 
 debate on free trade which ushered in the 
 doom of Protection, and caused reciprocity 
 to be a word of reproach. The speeches 
 delivered on that occasion have a peculiar 
 interest for us at the present day. After 
 some thirty years’ trial, we are beginning 
 to think whether our position as the iso¬ 
 lated teacher and practiser of the principles 
 of free trade is causing us to bring forth 
 the fruit we had anticipated. In spite of 
 all the lore of the economists, we find that, 
 save ourselves, every country is advocating 
 more and more strenuously, as the century 
 ages, the selfishness of Protection, and 
 beating us in the race for wealth and 
 commercial prosperity. On all sides— 
 from the farmer, the manufacturer, the 
 hop merchant, the wool merchant, the 
 sugar refiner, the iron founder, the ship 
 builder, and the rest—we listen to moans 
 as to the impossibility of making head¬ 
 way against untaxed foreign competition 
 and cheap foreign labour. Perhaps the 
 day is not far distant when our govern¬ 
 ment, mindful of our producing as 
 well as of our consuming classes, may 
 arrive at the conclusion expressed by 
 Mr. Disraeli when opposing the then new 
 commercial system: — “Reciprocity,” he 
 said, “ is indeed a great principle—it is 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 215 
 
 at once cosmopolitan and national. But 
 the system you are pursuing is one quite 
 contrary:* you go on fighting hostile tariffs 
 
 * The speech recently delivered by the leader of the Con¬ 
 servative party in the House of Lords (July 7, 1881) on the 
 sugar bounties, expresses the sentiments of numerous de¬ 
 pressed interests at the present day. The Marquis of Salis¬ 
 bury, rising to present a petition from merchants, planters, 
 and others connected with the island of Barbadoes, said, 
 “ He had taken the less usual course of giving notice in order 
 that he might preface the presenting of the petition with a 
 few remarks, not only because it was a petition from a distant 
 colony and therefore specially deserving of consideration and 
 attention, but because it expressed the feelings of a portion 
 of Her Majesty’s subjects who were complaining, like many 
 others at the present moment, that their interests were 
 adversely affected and the just reward of their industry with¬ 
 drawn by the fiscal action of foreign powers. The growth of 
 that feeling in this country must be familiar to their lord- 
 ships, and it was not necessary that he should dwell upon 
 the remarkable change of opinion which had taken place in 
 many centres of industry, or upon the fact that proposals 
 were now being heard which ten or twenty years ago would 
 have been thought impossible. He did not propose to enter 
 upon that portion of the commercial discontent of the present 
 day which dealt with the question of adverse fiscal duties, 
 and which claimed retaliatory duties as a protection. That 
 was a subject of exceeding difficulty, and he would be sorry 
 to say anything that might be interpreted to be at variance 
 with those principles of commercial policy which this country 
 had deliberately adopted. The particular case which the 
 planters and merchants of Barbadoes wished to bring before 
 their lordships and before the English public did not deal 
 with that class of proposals commonly known under the name 
 of reciprocity. The fiscal measures of foreign governments 
 gave advantages to their own subjects in two ways. They 
 imposed duties of protection which excluded our goods from 
 their markets. In that way they gave a bounty to their own 
 traders at the expense of their own consumers. The case 
 which he had to bring before the House did not belong to 
 that class. It was a case of foreign governments by direct 
 bounties drawn from the resources of the taxpayer cheapening 
 the products of their own manufacturers and so driving the 
 manufacturers of other countries, and especially of this 
 empire, out of the market. The consumption of sugar had, 
 as was known, grown enormously during the last ten years, 
 owing to the increase of population and wealth and the aboli¬ 
 tion of duty in this country, but the import from the West 
 Indian planters had been almost absolutely stationary, while 
 the advantage of the state subsidy was shown by the fact 
 that within the last few years the export of beetroot sugar 
 had advanced from 000,000 tons to more than 1,500,000 
 tons. The question had engaged the consideration of succes¬ 
 sive governments, and it was thought that the best course 
 would be to allow the matter to be referred to a committee 
 of the House of Commons, and that committee made an able 
 and exhaustive report last session. The prayer of the peti¬ 
 tion and the considerations which he should urge on the 
 government did not go beyond the proposals of the committee. 
 He only asked that due attention should be given to those 
 proposals, and that they should not be entirely neglected. 
 Five or six years ago there was a very flourishing sugar 
 refining industry in this country. The compatition of the 
 French refiner, supported by the bounty out of the French 
 taxes, had driven the English refiner out of the French market, 
 and all the establishments which existed five or six years ago 
 had now been closed, and the trade was absolutely destroyed. 
 Let him not he told that we were hound hy the principles of 
 free trade to look on coldly and calmly and see the destruc¬ 
 tion of British industries accomplished. If they laid down 
 that doctrine, nothing would induce them to interfere when a 
 
 with free imports, and the consequence is 
 that you are following a course most 
 injurious to the commerce of the country.” 
 
 foreign government was destroying British industry. They 
 might be quite sure that those undertakings which had hitherto 
 been so successful would be imitated in other industries, and 
 industry after industry would be destroyed by the co-operation of 
 foreign governments with foreign manufacturers, against which 
 the British manufacturer was absolutely powerless. If it really 
 was the case that considerable benefit to the consumer resulted 
 from this policy there would, no doubt, be a very material 
 consolation. But it was always open to a foreign govern¬ 
 ment to enter into partnership with its own manufacturers 
 to destroy British industry altogether, and when that was 
 done there was no necessity that the bounty should be con¬ 
 tinued. Already the French government had made a further 
 step along this path—already a bounty was given on ships. 
 He did not know what effect this step was likely to have on 
 the British industry of shipbuilding, but it was looked upon 
 with considerable alarm, and he regarded it as a danger 
 against which our own manufacturers and government would 
 have to guard. One of the great difficulties in dealing with 
 this question, as was pointed out by the Earl of Beacons- 
 field, was the network of favoured-nation clauses which now 
 existed, and which would hinder us from taking any isolated 
 action; but the committee to which he had referred were of 
 opinion that the government should institute careful inquiry, 
 and that in the event of its being found impossible to arrive 
 at an international agreement for the suppression of bounties 
 when the existing treaties expired, the opportunity should 
 be taken by Her Majesty’s government of making such 
 alterations as would leave them at liberty to deal with the 
 question. With reference to the negotiations which were 
 now going on with France, he thought that Her Majesty’s 
 government were bound to see that some arrangements were 
 made, if they did enter into a treaty, for redressing the great 
 injury under which a once flourishing British industry and 
 a considerable number of workmen were now suffering. If 
 they agreed with the French government in this matter, he 
 had no doubt that Austria would be disposed to come to 
 terms. The matter was one for negotiation, and if advo¬ 
 cated by England and France combined there would be a 
 greater chance of success than if it were urged by England 
 alone. At all events, he earnestly trusted that Her Majesty’s 
 government would not simply let the matter pass by. There 
 was a cry arising for remedies which it might puzzle and 
 perplex statesmen to apply. He knew that a great authority, 
 the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster—the same authority 
 who some thirty years ago was so fond of telling them that 
 all nations would become free traders—now said that the 
 demand for any action of a reciprocal or retaliatory character 
 was a sign of lunacy.* He certainly had no wish that any 
 action should be adopted which was inconsistent with the 
 sound doctrines of free trade, but he should hesitate to appiy 
 the name of lunatic to all who were of the opposite opinion, 
 because he feared that by so doing he would be forced to 
 the conclusion that there were a larger number of lunatics 
 in the world than sane people. He did not think that calling 
 people lunatics would stop the cry which had arisen. If 
 the government took no pains to remove such grievances 
 as he had indicated, he feared that, before long, they ivould 
 he confronted hy a political force ivith which they would 
 find it difficult to deal? 
 
 * This is what Mr. Bright said (Nov. 23, 1852) in his speech in favour of 
 the motion of Mr. Yilliers—“ Don’t you think that if this country, by sup¬ 
 porting the motion of my hon. friend, shows that the advantages of free trade 
 are universally appreciated, it may bring other nations round to the doctrine, 
 and so much more will the free-trade policy be advantageous. Let us then 
 put upon the books a resolution that nobody can mistake, and it will have a 
 good effect, not only throughout the United Kingdom, but in every civilized 
 nation in which the subject is under discussion.” 
 
CHAPTEE X. 
 
 THE BUDGET. 
 
 Since the principle of unrestricted competi¬ 
 tion had now, by the verdict of the House 
 of Commons, been definitely accepted as 
 the basis of the future commercial policy 
 of the country, the financial statement of 
 the chancellor of the exchequer was eagerly 
 awaited by all parties. Mr. Disraeli did 
 not allow the nation to remain long in 
 suspense. Within a week of the debate 
 upon the motion of Mr. Villiers, the budget 
 was introduced (December 3, 1852), to a 
 house crowded in every part. The first 
 financial statement of the chancellor of 
 the exchequer had been a merely pro¬ 
 visional affair ; the second, however, it was 
 said, was to be a comprehensive and original 
 undertaking. The House listened to the 
 orator with that curiosity and readiness of 
 appreciation which the audience in a theatre 
 display towards a new and original play, 
 written by one who has hitherto only 
 exhibited marked talent in adaptations. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli began by requesting the 
 House to consider the financial statement 
 he put before it as a whole; and he there¬ 
 fore trusted that, in justice to himself, 
 members, on whichever side they sat, 
 would not, until the views of the govern¬ 
 ment were fairly placed before them, be 
 carried away by any feeling of the moment, 
 too precipitately to decide on the motives 
 and principles of the policy which it was 
 now his duty to propound. Since the 
 system of unrestricted competition had 
 been entirely and finally adopted by 
 the country, he would first treat of the 
 claims of those who considered that they 
 had received peculiar injury from what 
 had been familiarly described as “ re¬ 
 cent legislation.” Those suffering interests 
 had within the last few years been fre¬ 
 
 quently before the House. They were the 
 shipping interest, the sugar - producing 
 interest, and the agricultural interest; and 
 it now became a most important question 
 how the grievances they complained of 
 could be redressed. He would deal with 
 each of these interests separately, and he 
 sincerely hoped that parliament would 
 approach the discussion in a generous 
 spirit. He could conceive no state of 
 society more to be deprecated than one 
 in which there were minorities, but power¬ 
 ful minorities, who believed that they were 
 subjected to injustice in consequence of 
 changes in the law, contributing to other¬ 
 wise universal welfare. 
 
 First let them consider the state'of the 
 shipping interest. It was not disputed 
 that that interest, owing to the repeal of 
 the navigation laws, was at that moment 
 subject to burdens to which it ought not 
 to be liable, and which, even in the words 
 of Lord John Eussell, “ impeded its pros¬ 
 perity.” The grievances complained of by 
 that body could thus be classed. There 
 were the grievances as to vexatious taxa¬ 
 tion, under the head of light dues and 
 passing tolls; the grievances as to the 
 rules regulating the pilotage of the country; 
 the Admiralty grievances under which an 
 individual attached to the mercantile marine 
 was enlisted in the royal navy, and the 
 grievances relating to salvage and anchor¬ 
 age. The history of these complaints was 
 a curious chapter in English social life. 
 For instance, vessels had not only to pay 
 dues for the advantage of lighthouses, but 
 also for private lights; they were taxed to 
 maintain the charities of a corporation; 
 and they had to pay “ passing tolls ” to 
 harbours into which they never entered 
 
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 217 
 
 Then there were the anomalies of pilotage. 
 A Thames pilot could steer a ship to a 
 Cinque port, but he could not steer it back; 
 another pilot connected with another cor¬ 
 poration performed the duty of returning. 
 Thus the shipping interest having to em¬ 
 ploy two men to execute a duty which one 
 man could discharge, the expense was pro¬ 
 portionately increased, and the burden in 
 many cases was found to be excessive. 
 The license allowed to the merchant sailor 
 was also curious. When a merchant ship 
 found herself on a foreign station, it fre¬ 
 quently happened that one of the crew 
 without any ceremony quitted his captain 
 without any notice, and often without any 
 cause, and immediately enlisted in a ship 
 belonging to the royal navy that happened 
 to be on that station. Such right and 
 privilege acted very injuriously upon the 
 discipline and general conduct of the mer¬ 
 chant shipping. The merchant sailor, in 
 spite of his engagement with his captain, 
 simply hoisted his red shirt, enlisted in the 
 royal vessel that might be in the offing, 
 and at once demanded his wages. Thus the 
 captain of the merchantman not only lost 
 one of his crew, but was called upon imme¬ 
 diately to pay wages which otherwise would 
 not have been due until the ship arrived 
 in port. 
 
 Again, in the matters of anchorage 
 and salvage, the royal navy pressed hardly 
 upon the mercantile marine; a merchant 
 vessel could be disturbed in her anchorage 
 by the superior claim of a ship belonging 
 to Her Majesty’s navy; and as to the oper¬ 
 ation of the present system under which 
 salvage was conducted, the mercantile ma¬ 
 rine was also very adversely affected by it. 
 These grievances the government were pre¬ 
 pared to redress. “ We propose,” said Mr. 
 Disraeli, “ to reduce the taxation which is 
 paid by the shipping interest under the 
 claim of supporting the lighthouses of the 
 country—namely, the interest of debt which 
 has been incurred, the contribution to chari¬ 
 ties and passing tolls to harbours which 
 ships never enter. We propose to termi- 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 nate these three great sources of unjust 
 taxation; and we believe we shall be able 
 to effect this object by the annual sum 
 of £100,000. The shipping interest will 
 then have to pay only for the light¬ 
 houses which benefit them—which guide 
 their ships and save their lives; and I 
 am sure they will no more complain of a 
 tax levied upon them for such objects and 
 upon such principles, than any other class 
 of the community will complain of the 
 peculiar taxes to which they may be sub¬ 
 ject, but for which they gain in return 
 peculiar advantages. We propose, in the 
 second place, to submit to the consideration 
 of a committee of the House of Commons 
 the whole question of pilotage, in order 
 that we may arrive at a result which I am 
 sure will be impartial and satisfactory, as 
 well as final. We propose that the three 
 Admiralty grievances of which the ship¬ 
 ping interest complain—anchorage, salvage, 
 and enlistment — shall be entirely termi¬ 
 nated, or, at least, subject to regulations 
 which will deprive them of the injustice and 
 injury which are so justly complained of.” 
 
 The claims of the sugar-producing colonies 
 next attracted his attention. “We must 
 forget,” Mr. Disraeli cautioned the House, 
 “that sugar has been the battlefield of 
 parties. We must form an opinion upon 
 the condition of those colonies from the 
 stern naked facts which may be placed 
 before us, and not with any recollection of 
 the past. We may deplore the legislation 
 that is past; we may be of opinion, gentle¬ 
 men on both sides, that the conduct of this 
 country towards the sugar-producing colo¬ 
 nies has been inconsistent and incoherent ; 
 that great unnecessary damage and devas¬ 
 tation have been occasioned; that, as an 
 interest, they have been treated in a wan¬ 
 ton and indefensible manner: but what we 
 have to decide to-night is, what in the 
 present state of affairs we can justly do for 
 them.” He then laid before the committee 
 the claims of the sugar-producing colonies 
 for relief from England, compiled from a 
 memorial presented by the West India 
 
 28 
 
218 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 body. These claims, briefly summed up, 
 were:—First, the arrest of the descent of 
 the duties on foreign sugar; secondly, 
 the reduction of the duty upon British 
 plantation sugar; thirdly, a guarantee of 
 additional loans for emigration and im¬ 
 provement ; fourthly, the permission to 
 refine bonded sugar; fifthly, the permis¬ 
 sion to use molasses in British breweries; 
 and sixthly, the equalization of the duties 
 on rum and British spirits. With regard 
 to the first two demands, he proved from 
 returns in his hands, that there was no 
 valid claim for a differential duty, or for 
 a diminution of the colonial duty. He 
 found that the consumption of colonial 
 sugar had greatly increased, and that 
 foreign sugar had decreased. Therefore, 
 clearly on the first two points the colonial 
 sugar planters had no ground for complaint; 
 their trade had extended, and they were 
 not interfered with by foreign competition. 
 
 “ I may be called traitor,” said Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli, amid the cheers and laughter of his 
 audience, “ I may be called renegade; but I 
 want to know whether there is any gentle¬ 
 man in this house, wherever he may sit, 
 who would recommend a differential duty 
 to prop up a prostrate industry which is 
 actually commanding the metropolitan mar¬ 
 ket, under the circumstances which I have 
 placed before parliament ? It is unneces¬ 
 sary to enter into any argument on the 
 point. No person could think of propos¬ 
 ing an increase of differential duties except 
 for the attainment of a definite object. If 
 that object be to give the command of 
 the home market to our colonies, it is al¬ 
 ready attained.” Then as to the request for 
 additional loans to defray the expense of 
 emigration and improvement, Mr. Disraeli 
 stated that measures had been taken to 
 send Chinese emigrants to the West Indies 
 for labour; and as for the want of an ad¬ 
 ditional loan, why, the sum of £500,000 
 already provided for the encouragement of 
 emigration to their sugar-producing colonies 
 had not yet been exhausted! He would 
 not enter at present into the claims as to 
 
 the use of molasses in breweries, and the 
 reduction of the duty on rum; but as to 
 the petition of the West India body to 
 refine their sugar in bond, the government 
 would grant that request. There was less 
 saccharine matter in colonial sugar than 
 in foreign sugar, practically enhancing the 
 duty on colonial sugar. The colonists asked 
 to refine their sugar in bond for home con¬ 
 sumption—that was, that the government 
 should take the duty on the refined pro¬ 
 duce, and not upon the coarse or raw sugar. 
 “Here,” exclaimed the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, “ we have an opportunity of 
 conceding to them a great boon, which is 
 quite consistent with the principle of unre¬ 
 stricted competition I announce on the 
 part of the government, that we are pre¬ 
 pared to concede this boon; we think it 
 ought to be conceded, and we believe it 
 will afford great relief, and also give a fresh 
 impulse to the manufacture of colonial 
 sugar.” 
 
 He now came to that long-agitated 
 question, the condition of the agricultural 
 interest. That interest was of opinion 
 that it suffered unduly from the burden of 
 taxation, and he would now look into the 
 subject for the information of the House. 
 Local taxation resolved itself into three 
 principal rates—the highway rate, the 
 county rate, the poor rate—rates which 
 the agricultural party declared pressed very 
 severely upon them. As to the highway 
 rate, six bills had already been brought 
 into parliament with the view of establish¬ 
 ing a better administration of that tax, and 
 now a seventh bill was being prepared, 
 which the government hoped would win 
 the confidence of the House and the 
 country, and have a beneficial effect, both 
 administratively and financially, on the 
 districts affected by the highway rate. 
 With respect to the county rate, the tax 
 was a slight one; any interference with it 
 would lead to much disturbance in the 
 general taxation of the country, and, there¬ 
 fore, he frankly avowed that he was not 
 prepared to make any change, in that por- 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 219 
 
 tion at least, of their local taxation. He 
 next had to consider that great rate, called 
 the poor rate. He had always held, and 
 still held, that the absolute incidence of all 
 local taxation was perfectly indefensible in 
 point of principle, therefore he had not 
 altered his views upon this subject. It 
 was, however, his duty to remember that 
 a very great change had taken place in the 
 burden of the poor rate; between the years 
 1848 and 1851 it had diminished nearly 
 twenty-five per cent. That decrease mate¬ 
 rially influenced him in the course he was 
 about to take. The amount expended for 
 the relief and maintenance of the poor in 
 1851, instead of being over £6,000,000, 
 as had been calculated, was really under 
 £5,000,000. 
 
 “I am afraid,” said Mr. Disraeli, com¬ 
 menting upon the vociferous applause with 
 which this statement had been received by 
 the Opposition, “ I am afraid that is really 
 not a cheer on account of the diminution 
 of pauperism. I am afraid it is a cheer for 
 recent legislation. How I don’t want to 
 disturb ‘ recent legislation,’ but your cheer 
 is a very illogical one, and I must show 
 you—what I should not otherwise have 
 done, because I don’t want to raise any 
 controversy on the subject—that recent 
 legislation may not have had anything to 
 do with this result. How you,” said he, 
 addressing the Opposition, “think ‘recent 
 legislation ’ is the cause of the poor rates 
 in 1851 having been under £5,000,000, and 
 upon that you cheered; but then it so 
 happens that in 1846, before ‘ recent legis¬ 
 lation’ took place, the rates were rather 
 less.” 
 
 Mr. Bright—“With the same price of 
 corn ? ” 
 
 “I think,” continued Mr.Disraeli, “though 
 I don’t want to do it, I could produce some 
 returns of the prices of corn which would 
 show that diminished poor rates may co¬ 
 exist with high prices of corn—one return, 
 for instance, which, when I quoted it, the 
 late Sir Robert Peel said ought never to 
 have been printed; but there are greater 
 
 subjects for us to consider than the triumph 
 of obsolete opinions [this remark made in 
 Mr. Disraeli’s best manner caused immense 
 laughter amid the Opposition]. Yes, I look 
 upon one-sided free trade as an obsolete 
 opinion, just as you look upon Protection— 
 obsolete because they are lost in the great 
 principle of the day, that of unrestricted 
 competition.” Therefore, concluded Mr. 
 Disraeli upon this subject, believing that 
 the country was in a most prosperous state 
 '.and that pauperism was on the decline, and 
 taking also into consideration the measures 
 he was about to introduce, he was not 
 “prepared to recommend any change in 
 the present system of raising the local 
 taxation of the country.” 
 
 Having discussed the position of these 
 three interests—the shipping, the colonial, 
 and agricultural—he now approached the 
 more important topic of viewing the taxa¬ 
 tion of the country under the new circum¬ 
 stances in which all parties and conditions 
 of men had agreed they were to be placed. 
 “ So long,” he said, “ as there were two 
 great parties in this country who questioned 
 the principle upon which our commercial 
 code ought to be established, it was impos¬ 
 sible to obtain any general adhesion to the 
 principle upon which our financial policy 
 ought to be constructed. So long as a man 
 thought that his industry ought to be pro¬ 
 tected, he was prepared to endure a heavy 
 burden of taxation artificially distributed. 
 So long as a man thought that his industry 
 should be free from all restriction, of course 
 he demurred against the system which 
 imposed restriction upon the financial 
 arrangements of the country and raised the 
 prices of the articles which he consumed. 
 It is obvious, generally speaking, that the 
 doctrine of unrestricted competition is not 
 consistent with restricted industry—in a 
 word, if you decree that the community 
 are to receive low prices for their produce, 
 your policy ought to be one which will put 
 an end, as soon as possible, to high taxes. 
 Well, sir, after the general election, and 
 after the solemn verdict of the country, we 
 
220 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 had to ask ourselves what were the measures 
 which it was best to recommend to parlia¬ 
 ment—now that this principle was formally 
 and definitely established, what were the 
 measures most consistent with that prin¬ 
 ciple, and which would enable the com¬ 
 munity to encounter that competition which 
 it must now in every form, and in every 
 sense, be prepared to meet ? 
 
 “Well, sir, when we took that subject into 
 consideration, giving it the utmost thought 
 we could command, it appeared to us that we 
 must arrive inevitably at this result—that 
 we should best enable the people to engage 
 in that competition to which they are now 
 for ever destined, by cheapening as much 
 as possible that which sustains their lives. 
 We look, therefore, to articles that are of 
 prime necessity; and if we find that those 
 articles of prime necessity are subjected to 
 some of the heaviest taxes in our tariff, 
 then we say that these are arrangements 
 inconsistent with the new system established 
 and the new principle of which we have 
 approved. It is the boast of hon. gentlemen 
 opposite, that they have given cheap bread 
 to the community; but the principles upon 
 which you have given cheap bread to the 
 community are principles which ought to 
 make you cheapen the sustenance of the 
 community in every form. The House, 
 therefore, will not be astonished that Her 
 Majesty’s government are prepared to re¬ 
 commend parliament to deal with the malt 
 tax. Here is a prime necessity of life 
 subject to a very heavy tax, and a very 
 high tax levied under circumstances which 
 greatly restrict industry.” He recom¬ 
 mended that the duty — which produced 
 more than five millions—should be dimin¬ 
 ished one half; and that there should be 
 paid an uniform duty of Is. 3 ^d. and 5 per 
 cent, per bushel upon barley, bere, and bigg; 
 abolishing the differential duty against the 
 two latter, and also the drawback upon 
 spirits made from corn in Scotland. He 
 proposed that the alteration should take 
 effect on the 10th of October next; a draw¬ 
 back being allowed to holders. At the 
 
 same time half the duty on hops would be 
 
 remitted. 
 
 He turned now to another branch of the 
 subject. He was about to deal with an 
 article as popular with the people as malt, 
 as much a necessary of life, and subjected 
 to a much heavier tax. He alluded to 
 the tea duties. “ I hardly know,” said 
 the chancellor of the exchequer, “ anything 
 more diverting than to open Pepys’ “Diary,” 
 where we see it stated, ‘Took a cup of 
 the new China drink—very pleasant;' 
 and to remember that not two centuries 
 have passed, and the exotic novelty which 
 pleased one evening that fantastic gentle¬ 
 man is now the principal solace in every 
 cottage in the kingdom.” It had been said 
 that, because tea was an article of limited 
 production, therefore it was impossible that 
 there could be any reduction in the price. 
 He denied the statement. When he looked 
 to the gradual increase in the importation 
 of tea into this country—from 500,000 lbs. 
 in the days of Mr. Pepys to over 70,000,000 
 lbs. a year at the present day, and to the 
 vast resources of China so far as tea trees 
 were concerned—he felt sure that there 
 would never be any difficulty in the future 
 in supplying England with tea. He pro¬ 
 posed to reduce the present duty of 2s. 2 \d. 
 per pound to Is. per pound; but that the 
 reduction should take place during the term 
 of six years, beginning with a reduction of 
 4 \d. per pound the first year, and diminish¬ 
 ing it to 2 cl. per pound each year, until the 
 duty reached Is. It was necessary to make 
 the change gradual, since the increased 
 supply would be gradual, as it took three 
 or four years to make a tea tree. “ I be¬ 
 lieve,” said Mr. Disraeli, “ that if you adopt 
 that system you will very little injure the 
 revenue; that you will gradually enable 
 the people of this country to have a supply 
 at a very reasonable rate of a very favourite 
 beverage; and that you will do more than 
 that—that you will give a great stimulus 
 to the commerce, the shipping, and the 
 manufactures of this country. Eor my 
 own part I do not know any measure more 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 221 
 
 calculated to give a great stimulus to the 
 commerce and shipping of the country than 
 a measure dealing largely and extensively 
 with the tea duties.” 
 
 These reductions were of course recom¬ 
 mended on the principle that the revenue 
 of the country mainly depended upon the 
 consuming power of the people. Of late 
 alarmists had rumoured about, with con¬ 
 siderable vehemence, that the consuming 
 power of the people was rapidly diminish¬ 
 ing. As chancellor of the exchequer it 
 had become his duty to investigate that 
 report. He met with no evidence to justify 
 such a fear. It was true that emigration 
 was actively going on; yet while 100,000 
 persons a year were quitting the country, 
 the birth-rate proved that 200,000 were 
 coming into it. Nor did he consider that 
 emigration tended to diminish the con¬ 
 suming power. “ Every emigrant from 
 England,” said Mr. Disraeli, “ generally 
 becomes an English colonist, and an Eng¬ 
 lish colonist becomes an English customer, 
 and our markets are stimulated, our people 
 are employed, and their wages are improved 
 by the very circumstance which some regard 
 as tending to our decay and desolation.” 
 The consuming power of a people did not 
 depend upon their numbers, but upon their 
 condition. It had also been apprehended 
 that the rate of wages had increased so 
 rapidly as to almost destroy the rate of 
 profit. But they must also remember that, 
 if wages had risen, the rate of interest was 
 low, and the increase of gold had estab¬ 
 lished credit in a manner which no political 
 economist had ever imagined. He believed 
 that if they only acted with tolerable 
 prudence, with such advantages as they 
 derived from a low rate of interest arising 
 from natural causes, the country had before 
 it an opportunity of material progress such 
 as never occurred before to the vision of 
 any statesman. 
 
 From the proposed remission of duty 
 upon malt, hops, and tea, Mr. Disraeli 
 calculated that there would be a loss to 
 the revenue of between £3,000,000 and 
 
 £4,000,000. In addition to that loss the 
 income tax, which yielded more than 
 £5,000,000, was about to expire. It would 
 become the duty of the House to consider 
 what they would do with the income and 
 property tax. His own views, which he 
 had fully expressed upon a former occasion, 
 he still maintained. He considered that 
 direct taxation should be as general as 
 indirect taxation, and that a measure of 
 direct taxation founded upon a large 
 scheme of exemption ought not to be 
 tolerated. He proposed to continue the 
 income tax, and to extend it to Ireland, but 
 to acknowledge a difference between per¬ 
 manent and precarious incomes. Ireland 
 had been treated as an exceptional case. 
 Sir Bobert Peel had exempted Ireland 
 from the income tax on the ground that 
 she contributed an equivalent in the form 
 of other taxes—since repealed. It was 
 impossible to be insensible of what Ireland 
 had gone through; but she was not now 
 without a ray of hope. Her poor-law ex¬ 
 penditure had diminished from £1,320,000 
 in 1850 to £855,000 in 1852. Still he did 
 not think it wise to treat the landed pro¬ 
 prietors of Ireland with harshness, and 
 say, “ You shall pay your quota; ” he did 
 not think it expedient to throw any 
 obstacle in the way of Ireland’s regenera¬ 
 tion : but he thought it his duty to extend 
 the income tax to funded property and 
 salaries in Ireland. There was another 
 principle with regard to that tax to which 
 ministers were prepared to assent, namely, 
 the distinction between permanent and 
 precarious incomes. It was not their in¬ 
 tention to propose any increase in any of 
 the schedules. They recommended that 
 on all industrial incomes the point of 
 exemption should be limited to £100 a 
 year, and on incomes arising from property 
 to £50 a year. They took the estimate of 
 the profits of farmers not at one-half the 
 rent, as heretofore, but at one-third; and 
 the consequence would be, that with the 
 reduction of duty the farmers would pay 
 exactly one-half of what they paid under 
 
222 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the present rate. The total amount, includ¬ 
 ing the modest sum of £60,000 for Ireland, 
 he calculated at £5,421,000. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli next referred to the naval 
 estimates, and in the remarks he made on 
 this occasion we see how little sympathy 
 he had with those niggardly economists and 
 short-sighted manufacturers who objected to 
 every farthing spent upon the defences of 
 the country. He proposed to increase the 
 naval estimates, not, however, with any 
 reference to the question of peace or war. 
 “ It matters not,” he said, “ what may be 
 the original cause; it matters not what 
 dynasty may be upon the throne upon the 
 other side of the channel; it does not turn 
 upon what may have been said or done 
 elsewhere—that the attention of the nation 
 has been drawn to the state of the national 
 defences. That attention was drawn origin¬ 
 ally by the highest military authority of 
 the land. The effect of being so long in 
 peace was brought to the consideration of 
 the most industrious people in the world ; 
 it was drawn to their consideration while 
 all the tendencies of the age seemed to 
 secure tranquillity and happy repose. I 
 say, that there was no panic or precipita¬ 
 tion, but, on the contrary, a prejudice 
 against what the people of this country 
 supposed to be disturbing the dreams of 
 repose and prosperity in which they in¬ 
 dulged. But sooner or later the idea seized 
 the public mind. It was taken more and 
 more into consideration; and totally irre¬ 
 spective of external circumstances, the 
 nation arrived at the conclusion that this 
 country was not in that state of defence 
 that is necessary and desirable. They 
 arrived at the conviction that it was of 
 primary importance that the shores of this 
 country should be protected, and that its 
 defences should be complete. If I were 
 asked on the part of Her Majesty’s govern¬ 
 ment—in no other way would I presume 
 to give an opinion—what I thought was 
 the tendency of the present age and what 
 the general course which present circum¬ 
 stances indicated, I should say, without 
 
 reserve and speaking from the bottom of 
 my heart and in all sincerity, that I believe 
 the predominant feeling of the present day 
 is peace. But I believe the measures Her 
 Majesty’s government intend to recommend 
 to parliament will tend to the preservation 
 of peace. 
 
 “ On considering the subject after the 
 general election, we felt it to be our duty 
 to lose no time in recommending the 
 necessary measures. If it be a fact—and 
 I assume that it is a fact—that this country 
 is not properly defended, and that it wants 
 to be properly defended; let due prepara¬ 
 tions, we say, be made for its defence. On 
 considering the question we thought the 
 best thing was to do it completely. We 
 thought the best thing to do would be to 
 put the navy of this country in the position 
 in which we believe all Englishmen wish 
 to see it; and the plans we have matured, 
 and which, if the House will support our 
 proposition, will be carried into complete 
 effect, will be plans which will settle this 
 question of our national defences for ever; 
 that is to say, you will have all your 
 arsenals and strong points in the kingdom 
 defended, and you will have a real channel 
 fleet, which can assemble from its different 
 rendezvous at the moment necessary, and 
 which is the proper garrison and protection 
 of the country. It would have been more 
 convenient for Her Majesty’s government 
 to defer the question—as they would have 
 done if they had not felt it to be their 
 paramount duty to bring it at once before 
 the House of Commons. They were busied 
 with measures the tendency of which, they 
 believe, will be in due time to reduce 
 the expenditure and the establishment of 
 the country. But they felt it was totally 
 impossible to mix up a question of this 
 importance, and from its nature of this 
 urgency, with questions of administrative 
 reform. They felt that if the country were 
 not properly defended, and if the people 
 wished it to be properly defended, the 
 question was one which ought at once to 
 be completely and definitely settled. Sir, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 223 
 
 we have taken those steps which we believe 
 will insure the complete defence of this 
 country. It will be necessary for me to 
 ask for a supplementary estimate, so far as 
 this year is concerned. I hope there will 
 not be any difficulty raised on the part of 
 the House. The state of the finances of the 
 country as I shall show in a few minutes, 
 will perfectly authorize me in asking a 
 supplementary grant for the current year, 
 to be supplied from the ways and means; 
 and next year we shall ask your approval 
 of an estimate which will increase our 
 general estimate about £600,000.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to give an 
 account of the actual state of the finances, 
 in order to show what would be the pro¬ 
 bable surplus at the end of the current 
 financial year. After striking a balance 
 between loss and profit, he said that he 
 thought their surplus for the current year, 
 taking the most prudent and the coldest 
 calculation, would,instead of being£460,000, 
 as estimated when he made his financial 
 statement, be something between £1,300,000 
 or £1,400,000. 
 
 In these days, when retrenchment is so 
 warmly advocated by a certain school in 
 the House of Commons, and when com¬ 
 missions are being frequently organized to 
 inquire into the condition of the permanent 
 civil service of the country, Mr. Disraeli’s 
 observations upon administrative reform 
 may be read with profit:— 
 
 “ Sir, I mentioned that it was the hope 
 and intention of Her Majesty’s government, 
 if they were permitted to follow the course 
 they had chalked out for themselves, ulti¬ 
 mately, but not precipitately, to effect no 
 inconsiderable reduction in the expenditure 
 of the country. This, I think, is a subject 
 which has hardly yet been fairly dealt with. 
 Hitherto we have considered that retrench¬ 
 ment, and not efficiency, was the parent of 
 economy. A government has reduced esti¬ 
 mates from the necessity of the moment, 
 and there has been an apparent reduction 
 in expenditure; but it has always been 
 followed by a collapse, and generally the 
 
 unfortunate office of supplying the defici¬ 
 ency of an administration has fallen to 
 their successors. One administration cuts 
 down, another is obliged to increase; and 
 so long as it is made a mere question of 
 pounds, shillings, and pence, I am certain 
 that no permanent and substantial reduc¬ 
 tion in the expenditure of the country can 
 be obtained. I think it is the duty of an 
 administration to look to the efficiency of 
 the establishments of the country, and not 
 to the rate at which they may be main¬ 
 tained. If you only make your establish¬ 
 ments efficient, you will find almost, as a 
 natural consequence, that you will save 
 money; and, therefore, I take it to be effi¬ 
 ciency, and not retrenchment, which is the 
 true parent of economy. 
 
 “To effect reductions in the establish¬ 
 ments of this country is about the most 
 ungracious task in which an administra¬ 
 tion can embark. There is nothing easier 
 in opposition than to call for retrench¬ 
 ment; there is nothing more difficult in 
 administration than to comply with that 
 demand. So long as you have your exist¬ 
 ing establishments founded on the same 
 principles, and carried on in the same 
 spirit, you will arrive at the same result. 
 I do not mean to make any observation 
 which shall seem at all to cast censure 
 on those by whom the permanent civil ser¬ 
 vice of this country is carried on, and to 
 whom those engaged in the administration 
 of affairs have been so much indebted; on 
 the contrary, the other night I had occasion 
 to offer my tribute to their invaluable ser¬ 
 vices* What they do they do in the best 
 manner, but they are not responsible for 
 the establishments of the country. It is 
 our opinion that the system of administra¬ 
 tion is not as advanced as other great 
 operations are in this country. Whether 
 we look to our commerce, whether we look 
 
 * 11 1 am the last man to refrain from doing justice to the 
 permanent civil servants of this country. Their devotion to 
 the public service is, I think, one of the most beautiful 
 features of our social system. They have not public fame, 
 but they have the appreciation of those whom they support 
 and assist .”—House of Commons Free-trade debate , Mr. 
 Disraeli , Nov. 23, 1852. 
 
224 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 to the other occupations of man, these have 
 undergone more change with reference to 
 the circumstances of the age, than the 
 establishments by which the administration 
 of the country is conducted. How are w^e 
 to deal with these immense difficulties ? 
 If you attempt reform, you have to meet 
 the two most formidable obstacles in the 
 world—prejudice and skill. The person 
 who presides over a great department does 
 not like your interfering, and he has more 
 knowledge than you have. What can be 
 more difficult than to effect a reform under 
 such circumstances ? I have a great respect 
 for the House of Commons, to which I owe 
 everything; and there is no one who more 
 highly esteems the labours of the commit¬ 
 tees than I do. If I wanted a committee 
 on the state of India, for example, I do not 
 know that I could find anywhere a body 
 of men who could conduct such an investi¬ 
 gation in a manner so satisfactory. You 
 bring a large body of men round the table 
 —skilled statesmen, eminently qualified for 
 investigating political and financial subjects.- 
 You bring to bear on public questions the 
 knowledge and experience of those best 
 qualified to arrive at just conclusions, and 
 of men of the world. But if the House of 
 Commons, by means of a committee, were 
 to examine into a great public department, 
 you would not arrive at a similar satisfac¬ 
 tory conclusion, as if the same men were 
 investigating the affairs of India, or the 
 operation of the Factory Act, or any subject 
 of general interest, on which the informa¬ 
 tion, intelligence, and temper of men of the 
 world may be brought to bear. You have 
 too many men, you have men of different 
 political opinions; and the results have 
 been always, that the inquiry has been 
 fruitless. You have had committees of 
 inquiry with respect to the army, navy, and 
 ordnance. What have you done ? Nothing. 
 But I say this, if you want administrative 
 reform, why not apply to your great offices 
 the same principles as those which you 
 apply to your revenue departments ? Issue 
 commissions, and make the government 
 
 responsible for the information they acquire, 
 and make them act upon it. I assure the 
 House that the government are sincere in 
 their attempts to effect administrative re¬ 
 form. There is a question of great import¬ 
 ance with reference to these reforms which 
 has long been recommended to the attention 
 of the House of Commons—that is, the 
 bringing of the whole revenue of the country 
 under the control of parliament. Well, we 
 are prepared to recommend such a course; 
 and when these financial measures are 
 passed, I will take an opportunity of bring¬ 
 ing the subject of administrative reform 
 before the House, and of explaining the 
 measures which Her Majesty’s government 
 are prepared to propose.” 
 
 Mr. Disraeli now proceeded to explain 
 to the House the ways and means by 
 which he proposed to carry out the policy 
 contemplated by the government. He 
 intended to terminate ’the operations of 
 the public works loan*Tund commission, 
 and to carry the repayments of the ad¬ 
 vances to the revenue as part of the ways 
 and means. He estimated the loss on 
 malt for the year 1853-54 at £1,000,000 ; 
 the loss on tea at £400,000; the extra 
 estimates would be £600,000; and the 
 light dues £100,000—thus making a total 
 of £2,100,000. “ And now,” he said, “ for 
 
 the ways and means. First, as to the 
 surplus revenue for the year 1853-54. 
 I have shown to the House that we might 
 take our surplus for this year probably at 
 £1,300,000. I hope I shall never have 
 to move another vote for the Caffre war. 
 That came into our budget last year to the 
 amount of £460,000. I think, however, 
 it would be imprudent to take credit for 
 the whole of that £460,000 in our future 
 calculations, although our recent accounts 
 from that quarter are of an extremely 
 favourable character, and although, as far 
 as the financial question is concerned in 
 reference to the commissariat, I am very 
 sanguine on the subject. Still it is not at 
 all impossible that we may have to propose 
 a financial vote for extras on account of 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 225 
 
 the Caffire war; I should therefore say we 
 ought to take off £200,000 on account of 
 that charge. I take, therefore, the surplus 
 for the year 1853-54 at about £1,600,000 ; 
 I take the payments, if the House accedes 
 to my proposition with regard to the public 
 works fund being paid into the public 
 treasury, at £400,000; that together will 
 make about £2,000,000.” 
 
 It then became his duty to propose to 
 the House the means by which they were 
 to increase the revenue of the country. 
 He would not propose any addition to the 
 customs duties—the repeal of those duties 
 was a part of the system which they had 
 recently adopted, and which he would not 
 disturb ; nor would he propose any measure 
 of indirect taxation. He was going to ask 
 the House to consider the principles on 
 which the existing house tax was con¬ 
 structed. Deprecating the hostility which 
 had in former times been exhibited to that 
 tax by the inhabitants of the metropolis, 
 he proceeded to show that there had been 
 reasons for the discontent formerly excited 
 against the impost which now no longer 
 existed. 
 
 “ Remember,” he said, “ the inhabitants 
 of the metropolis were subjected then to 
 an enormous system of direct and indirect 
 taxation. They were subject to direct 
 taxation connected with their houses, to 
 the extent of double the amount of the 
 house tax—namely, the window tax; and, 
 in addition to all this, they were subject 
 to that which they have subsequently told 
 us was infinitely more grievous, infinitely 
 more vexatious, and infinitely more in¬ 
 jurious than all taxes—namely, the corn 
 laws. Now, just let me remind the House 
 of the real state of affairs as regards the 
 house tax. Since that time—viz., in 1834 
 —the duty on houses was repealed. It 
 amounted, as a revenue, to £1,198,000. 
 Since that time the duty on windows has 
 been repealed, amounting to £1,950,000, 
 making together £3,148,000; and since 
 that time the duty on glass has been 
 repealed, amounting to £800,000, £400,000 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 of which, according to the official return, 
 was paid by houses for windows of crown 
 glass. Since then, the duty on bricks, 
 amounting to £465,000, and the duty on 
 timber, amounting to more than £1,500,000, 
 have been taken off; and certainly I may 
 say that one-fourth of the duty on timber 
 was contributed by houses. Besides all 
 this, nearly £15,000,000 of indirect taxation 
 have been taken off, and besides all this, 
 too, the corn laws have been repealed, 
 which so many believed to have been a 
 more grievous kind of taxation than all 
 the other indirect taxation from which 
 they had been relieved. Well, then, I 
 need not say anything, at least to-night, 
 with respect to the justice of the house 
 tax. The greatest writers are agreed that 
 no tax is more free from objection than 
 the house tax. I need not say to-night to 
 my predecessor (Sir Charles Wood), who 
 is exhausted as well as myself—I need not 
 say anything to him in favour of a house 
 tax, for he has introduced one himself. 
 But what I would venture to say is this, 
 that I cannot believe that when I make 
 a proposition which is only to reconstruct 
 on juster principles—principles which have 
 always been eulogised in this House—an 
 imperfect law, as it at present exists, and 
 that when I ask to be permitted to do 
 that in order to carry measures which will 
 advance the interests of the country, and 
 animate in the most conspicuous manner 
 all the great branches of industry in this 
 country, I cannot think that I shall hear 
 in the year 1854 those objections to a 
 house tax which were heard in 1834. 
 The house tax is a direct tax, and yet it 
 is accompanied with exceptions which are 
 quite indefensible. Who can justify a 
 house tax of which the operation is limited 
 to houses of £20 value ?” He proposed, 
 therefore, that the basis of the tax should 
 be extended to houses rated at not less 
 than £10 a year. He would also increase 
 the rate of the assessment. His proposal 
 was that private houses should be rated 
 at Is. 6d. and shops at Is. in the pound; 
 
 29 
 
226 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 the whole produce from which would be 
 £1,723,000. 
 
 Having made that statement, Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli completed his estimate for 1853-54, 
 which he had been obliged to interrupt 
 for the purpose of introducing these details. 
 He calculated the ways and means at 
 £3,510,000, which would have to meet an 
 expenditure of £3,087,000—thus leaving a 
 balance of something less than £500,000; 
 and that, he thought, represented a not 
 unfavourable condition of finance. 
 
 “I have now endeavoured to place before 
 the committee those measures of financial 
 and administrative reform which the govern¬ 
 ment are prepared at once to bring forward. 
 The hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) 
 seemed surprised that no provision was 
 announced with regard to the stamps on 
 marine insurance and charter-parties. I 
 would point out to my hon. friend that this 
 is one of those financial matters which 
 could not be considered as coming within 
 the scope of this preliminary statement. 
 The government has contented itself, on 
 this occasion, with propounding those 
 measures which it is prepared, by the 
 sanction of the House, to bring into im¬ 
 mediate operation. We have studiously 
 abstained from offering any opinion on any 
 branch of the system of taxation on which 
 w T e are not prepared immediately to act. 
 The measures which we have thus an¬ 
 nounced are essentially practical measures. 
 If the House sanctions them, they will, in 
 our opinion, lay down certain principles of 
 finance which will lead to results highly 
 beneficial to the people of this country, 
 and be the foundation of other measures, 
 which, we believe, will prove still more 
 beneficial It does not become us, accord¬ 
 ing to our sense of duty, to offer anything 
 to the House which is not of a practical 
 nature, or to make any proposition which 
 we are not prepared, with the sanction of 
 the House, to carry immediately into effect. 
 At the same time, we have not neglected 
 carefully to examine the question of the 
 stamp duties and the probate duties, and 
 
 we think it not impossible to bring for¬ 
 ward, on the right occasion, a duty on 
 succession that will reconcile contending 
 interests, and will terminate the system of 
 injustice now so much complained of. At 
 present, however, we are not prepared with 
 a measure of that kind, and we consider it, 
 as I have said, altogether injudicious to 
 propound any project to the House which 
 we are not ready at once to act upon. I 
 admit that what I have now proposed is 
 only a first step, but I trust the committee 
 will admit it to be a step in the right 
 direction. We have met this great question 
 in a large and comprehensive spirit, fully 
 prepared, if the House will support us, 
 to carry out the policy which I have to¬ 
 night, most inadequately, I am aware, indi¬ 
 cated to the committee—a policy which, 
 we believe, will be for the welfare of the 
 country, because it is a policy founded on 
 sound principles of finance, and because it 
 has no other object than to govern the 
 country in the manner that shall most 
 conduce to the happiness of the greatest 
 number.” 
 
 The speech occupied five hours in deliv¬ 
 ery, and numerous of its passages were 
 loudly cheered. Mr. Disraeli’s powers of 
 lucid exposition, his grasp of the subject, and 
 the practical character of the suggestions he 
 raised, had now fully convinced the House 
 that the chancellor of the exchequer was 
 not only a wit, a genius, and an orator, but 
 a sound business man. “It was well done,” 
 wrote 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 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.” 
 “ Without committing ourselves,” com¬ 
 mented the Times (December 4, 1852), “ at 
 once to every item in the long and weighty 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 catalogue of financial reforms now before 
 us, we must say that the chancellor of the 
 exchequer not only takes advantage of his 
 position with the dexterity of a master, but 
 has really succeeded in showing that a new 
 jjosition, new resources, and new capabi¬ 
 lities are before us. He has done much to 
 remove that almost oppressive feeling which 
 for the last two or three years has been 
 creeping over the energies of the country, 
 that we had pretty well got to the end of 
 our tether, and, like the Arctic discoverers, 
 had carried our political inquiries to the 
 last limits of utility and discretion.” 
 
 At first the details of the budget, before 
 reflection had developed into criticism, were 
 cordially approved of. The recognition of 
 the principle that a distinction existed for 
 fiscal purposes between income derived 
 from transitory sources and income which 
 issued from real property was regarded as 
 just and sound. The suggestion to place 
 the customs and excise establishments 
 under the control of parliament was looked 
 upon as wise and beneficial. The reduction 
 of the taxes on malt, hops, and tea, appeared 
 a boon for which thousands would be grate¬ 
 ful. The house duty, one of the fairest and 
 least injurious of taxes, did not seem when 
 proposed to excite any grave opposition. 
 Mr. Disraeli sat down amid loud cheers, 
 and from the temper of the House he was 
 justified in entertaining the hope that his 
 measures would be carried without creating 
 greater hostility than usually attends upon 
 the details of a budget. Shortly afterwards, 
 however, sober second-thoughts began to 
 make their influence felt upon the minds 
 of members. Objections arose, and once 
 set on foot they swelled in volume and 
 force. The tea duties, it was urged, instead 
 of being reduced gradually, should be 
 reduced at once. The malt tax should be 
 entirely repealed: to repeal but half of it 
 was of very little benefit to the agricultural 
 interest, and of none at all to the consuming 
 classes. The exemptions to the payment 
 of the income tax should be more numer¬ 
 ous. Beal property should be compelled to 
 
 0^7 
 
 Ld mJ 4 
 
 pay probate and legacy duties. The exten¬ 
 sion of the house tax to benefit the farmer 
 was warmly disapproved of. Such were a 
 few of the hostile criticisms passed upon 
 the recent financial statement, and it soon 
 became evident that the chancellor of the 
 exchequer would have to do battle to carry 
 out his measure. 
 
 The first to open fire was the member 
 for the University of Oxford Already Mr. 
 Gladstone had displayed the gifts and faults 
 which have since characterized him — a 
 sound judgment, marred by an impulsive¬ 
 ness which has often caused him to arrive 
 at conclusions he afterwards felt himself 
 bound to abandon; a splendid activity of 
 temperament, marred by a feverish energy 
 which has made him give the same con¬ 
 sideration to petty details as to important 
 matters, consequently much to the dimi¬ 
 nution of the force of his supervision; a 
 magnificent eloquence, often marred by 
 a verbosity which overwhelms his ideas 
 in a flood of words; he possesses a great 
 knowledge derived from books, but has 
 no knowledge derived from men; he is a 
 statesman with the prejudices of the theo¬ 
 logian and the views of the bookworm; a 
 man so wholly under the influences of the 
 moment as to defeat all calculations as to 
 what his next policy or his future opinions 
 will be. Mr. Gladstone had entered par¬ 
 liament some few years before Mr. Disraeli. 
 He had attached himself first to the Tory 
 interest, and had subsequently thrown in 
 his fortunes with Sir Bobert Peel. After 
 having served as a junior lord of the 
 treasury, and an under-secretary for the 
 colonies, he had accepted office in 1841 as 
 vice-president of the board of trade and 
 master of the mint. In this position it was 
 his duty to defend the commercial policy of 
 Sir Bobert Peel; and the revision of the 
 tariff in 1842 was almost entirely due to 
 his industry and grasp of the principles of 
 finance. He had presided over the board 
 of trade, and had afterwards held the seals 
 as secretary of state for the colonies. On 
 Lord Derby succeeding to power, Mr. Glad- 
 
228 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 stone refused to take office in the new 
 administration, and contented himself with 
 posing as one of the most trenchant critics 
 of the government the Peelite party pos¬ 
 sessed. He had entered parliament through 
 the Newcastle interest as representative for 
 Newark; hut in 1847 he had been returned 
 as one of the members for tire University 
 of Oxford. Already there could be detected 
 in his speeches, we will not say the male¬ 
 volence, but that imperfect sympathy with 
 which he has appeared throughout his life to 
 be animated in all his political relations with 
 Mr. Disraeli. The member for Bucks was 
 always “ the right hon. gentleman,” never 
 once, or on any occasion, “my right hon. 
 friend, if he will permit me so to call him.” 
 
 A few nights after the budget had been 
 laid before the House, Mr. Gladstone rose 
 to make his objection to the reconstruc¬ 
 tion of the income tax, as applied to 
 Irish fund-holders. They had not, he said, 
 been asked to decide upon a simple con¬ 
 tinuance of the income tax, but upon 
 its reconstruction. And one of the chief 
 features of this reconstruction was, that 
 holders of the public funds were to pay 
 income tax, contrary to the teaching of Mr. 
 Pitt and to the Act of 1801. Mr. Pitt had 
 declared that no distinct tax should be laid 
 on the stockholder, although in levying a 
 tax upon all income the stockholder was 
 necessarily to pay his share. Mr. Pitt took 
 no cognizance of the quality of income; his 
 was a personal tax on individuals in respect 
 to their income ; whilst Mr. Disraeli’s plan 
 went direct to quality—to the source of 
 the income, to its nature and permanence. 
 It was no answer to say that Mr. Pitt’s 
 income tax had already broken faith with 
 the public creditor; it had not done so. 
 Those who lent the money perfectly under¬ 
 stood that they were to be exempt from 
 special taxes only. Mr. Disraeli easily 
 refuted these illogical objections. He as¬ 
 serted that there would be no breach what¬ 
 ever of the agreement with the public 
 creditor in the proposed reconstruction. 
 Mr. Pitt, in his speech, December 3, 1798, 
 
 had said, “ I shall have no hesitation in 
 submitting to the committee, that when a 
 general assessment upon income is to take 
 place, no distinction ought to be made as to 
 the sources from which that income may 
 arise. . . . Whenever an idea has been 
 started of imposing upon the stockholders 
 separately and distinctly any sort of tax, 
 I have reprobated the attempt as utterly 
 inconsistent with the good faith of public 
 engagement. But the matter is materially 
 reversed when a tax is to be levied on the 
 income of every description of persons in 
 the realm, when it is no longer in the 
 power of the stockholder to say, ‘ I could 
 avoid this tax by removing my property 
 from the funds to landed security or to 
 trade.’ I should say to the stockholder, as 
 one of the public, ‘ If you expect from the 
 state the protection which is common to us 
 all, you ought also to make the sacrifice 
 which we are called upon to make. It is 
 not peculiar to you; it does not belong to 
 the quality of your income; but it is made 
 general, and required from all.’ ” Had not 
 Mr. Disraeli acted upon these suggestions? 
 Stockholders had not been taxed ‘ sepa¬ 
 rately and distinctly;’ their property had 
 only been taxed in the same ratio as other 
 properties of a similar nature. An income 
 from the funds was permanent and realized 
 property; and when all permanent and 
 realized property was taxed, why should 
 the stockholder plead exemption? It was 
 absurd to argue that he was entitled to any 
 preferential claims. Admit his exemption, 
 and what was to prevent the country gen¬ 
 tleman selling out of land to avoid taxation, 
 and investing in the funds ? Mr. Disraeli 
 concluded by saying that he did not wish 
 his budget to be criticised piecemeal, but 
 to obtain the verdict of the House upon the 
 whole of his financial scheme. By that 
 scheme as a whole the government were 
 prepared to stand or fall. 
 
 On the 10th of December the conflict 
 began in downright earnest. No one had 
 enjoyed a greater experience in the art 
 of tinkering up budgets than Sir Charles 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 229 
 
 Wood. Most of his budgets had been 
 thrown upon his hands by committees, and 
 he had passed the session in manipulating 
 them according to the fancy of the House 
 of Commons. It was therefore with no 
 unpractised hand that he began to overhaul 
 a financial statement which was not his 
 own, and to expose all its flaws and weak¬ 
 nesses. He would, he said, comply with 
 the invitation of the chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer and discuss the budget as a whole; 
 for although some portions of it might well 
 be separated from others, yet most of it 
 so hung together as to render it impossible 
 to discuss one part without taking the rest 
 into consideration. He was somewhat sur¬ 
 prised to find the agricultural interest 
 satisfied with the compensations offered 
 them. “ What benefit,” he asked, “ is it to 
 them to have a repeal of half the malt tax, 
 accompanied with an extension and increase 
 of the house tax ? What is the description 
 of farms which is now most easily let at 
 the best rents? Those on which barley is 
 grown. What is the crop which pays best 
 at this moment? Barley. What stock 
 pays best now ? That which is principally 
 fed on barley-growing land, namely, sheep. 
 If there be a description of land to which 
 no boon is required, and for the burdens 
 upon which no compensation can possibly 
 be wanted, it is that land to which, if to 
 any, a boon is given by the remission of a 
 portion of the malt tax.” He did not 
 believe that a repeal of half the malt tax 
 would benefit the agricultural interest at 
 all. The importation of foreign malt would 
 keep down the price of home-grown barley, 
 and prevent that rise which those who 
 advocated the repeal of the malt tax have 
 always expected. He therefore considered 
 that the reduction of the malt tax would 
 give absolutely nothing to the agriculturist, 
 whilst it would sacrifice an enormous amount 
 of revenue. And he was of the same opinion 
 as to the benefit supposed to accrue from 
 taking off half the duty on hops. The 
 county of Sussex and a small part of Kent, 
 no doubt, desired the removal of the whole 
 
 duty; but even if such a measure as that 
 were adopted, the advantage to the English 
 hop-grower would by no means be assured. 
 Was it worth while dealing with the hop 
 duty as the chancellor of the exchequer 
 proposed to deal with it ? There might be 
 reason in taking off half the malt tax, since 
 the half that remained was worth preserv¬ 
 ing; but was half the hop duty worth 
 retaining? They would have all the excise 
 restrictions and all the inconveniences, 
 whilst the whole duty was but a trifle. 
 Now, if there were a sound principle with 
 regard to an excise duty it was this—do 
 not maintain an excise duty unless it brings 
 a considerable accession to the revenue. 
 Therefore, suggested Sir Charles, either leave 
 the duty alone or repeal it altogether. 
 
 He considered that there were other 
 duties which might be far more advantage¬ 
 ously repealed than those on malt and hops. 
 It would no doubt, he said, be a remarkably 
 agreeable thing to chancellors of the ex¬ 
 chequer if they could do without revenue 
 at all; but since that was impossible, all 
 that they could do was to retain those taxes 
 which were the least objectionable and the 
 least expensive in their collection. Now it 
 was admitted on all sides that the malt tax 
 was the least objectionable of all taxes; the 
 paying of it was less felt and less obnoxious 
 than the paying of any other; whilst no 
 tax was collected at so small an expense in 
 proportion to the revenue derived. Why 
 then reduce so innocent a tax, especially 
 when such reduction would neither benefit 
 the agricultural interest nor the consumer, 
 but simply be of service to the maltster and 
 the brewer ? If taxes were to be reduced 
 let the chancellor of the exchequer reduce 
 the protective duty on timber, or the duties 
 on butter and cheese, or the soap duties, or 
 remove some of the inequalities of the 
 assessed taxes. There were various duties 
 which could be taken off with far more 
 beneficial results to the community at large 
 than the malt tax. He, however, approved 
 of the proposition with regard to the tea 
 duty, and of the mode in which it was pro- 
 
230 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 posed to deal with it. Two years ago he 
 himself contemplated a similar arrangement, 
 only he thought the window duty under 
 the then existing circumstances had a prior 
 claim to the tea duty. With regard to the 
 house tax he had never swerved from his 
 opinion that it was a good one. He should 
 not have proposed it, had he not thought so. 
 He did not think there was any peculiar 
 virtue in a limit of £20; he adopted that 
 limit because he was proposing the house 
 tax not for the first time, but as a commuta¬ 
 tion for the window duty, and he did not 
 wish to extend the tax further than would 
 be sufficient to include the houses which 
 already paid the window duty. He did 
 not oppose the extension of the house 
 tax, though he entertained strong objections 
 to extending it to houses of precisely 
 £10. Nor was there, he considered, any 
 occasion at the present moment to alter 
 that tax. 
 
 “ Indeed,” said Sir Charles, “ your increase 
 of the house tax seems to me to be utterly 
 needless and impossible. I am not at all 
 averse to direct taxation within reasonable 
 limits; but with regard to the house tax 
 and all other direct taxes, if you wish to 
 retain them at all, keep them light and 
 popular in times of prosperity and peace, 
 because they are your great resources in 
 times of difficulty. Suppose a war were to 
 arise, you cannot increase your indirect 
 taxation, for that would be to add to the 
 price of imported articles necessarily raised 
 by the increased freight of war, the further 
 burthen of heavier duties; but you must 
 have recourse to direct taxation, and it is 
 quite fair you should. It is fair and proper, 
 for instance, that the housekeepers of this 
 metropolis should be taxed for the defence 
 of their homes; but if you double the tax 
 now, when there is no pressure, I tell you 
 that you will make the house tax so un¬ 
 popular that it cannot be maintained. You 
 are sacrificing one of the great resources of 
 revenue which you ought to reserve for 
 times of pressure; you are imperilling, by 
 a needless and uncalled-for increase, that 
 
 very direct taxation which you are so' 
 anxious to maintain.” 
 
 Sir Charles Wood then proceeded to 
 examine the financial result of the budget. 
 They were told that they were to have some 
 wonderful financial phenomenon. “ It was 
 thought,” continued the speaker, “that the 
 right hon. gentleman, the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, had some scheme by which 
 everybody would be blessed with an abun¬ 
 dance of money, which would put money 
 into everybody’s pocket, and take none 
 from anybody; but now it seems that money 
 will be taken out of many of our pockets, 
 and that nothing will be put into those of 
 other people. Now, I am disposed to bear 
 my willing testimony to the eloquence and 
 ability with which the right hon. gentleman 
 introduced his financial scheme to the 
 House; but what is the wonderfully new 
 principle of finance which distinguishes the 
 budget of the right hon. gentleman ? It 
 may be right, or it may be wrong; but 
 where is the novelty ? It is simply that 
 which has been done before. The right 
 hon. gentleman reduces indirect and in¬ 
 creases direct taxation; but is there any¬ 
 thing wonderfully new in that ? I will not 
 enter into any discussion of their respective 
 merits. I will confine myself to the more 
 practical view of the subject; and I say 
 there is this fault, that with regard to 
 indirect taxes, with one exception (tea), the 
 taxes dealt with are ill-selected and ill- 
 handled, and the right hon. gentleman 
 deals with direct taxation so as to make it 
 needlessly oppressive.” He then criticised 
 at length Mr. Disraeli’s figures, and dis¬ 
 covered that the surplus was really no 
 surplus at all; since it was not income 
 arising from taxation, but was obtained 
 by applying to the ways and means of 
 the year a sum of money, the repay¬ 
 ment of loans for public works, which 
 ought to be applied to the repayment of 
 the debt caused by the creation of the 
 loan. He also contended that Mr. 
 Disraeli had miscalculated several of his 
 receipts, and had consequently much 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 231 
 
 exaggerated the financial estimate for the 
 ensuing year. 
 
 But the bete noire of the whole scheme 
 was, in the eyes of Sir Charles, the new 
 regulations as to the liability of income 
 tax. He warmly objected to bringing 
 the income tax down to £100 on incomes 
 derived from professions, and to £50 on 
 incomes received from property, to ex¬ 
 tending it to the funds and salaries in 
 Ireland, and to making a distinction in 
 the rate on different schedules. “How, 
 how often,” cried the member for Halifax, 
 ‘‘have we heard from those benches op¬ 
 posite that the income tax was justified 
 only by the necessity of the circumstances 
 under which it w T as imposed ? How often 
 have hon. members opposite urged that it 
 ought to be a temporary tax—that it was 
 imposed as a temporary tax—that it ought 
 to be considered as such—and that the 
 first surplus revenue should be devoted to 
 reducing the income tax ? And these are 
 the men who, in a state of prosperity, with 
 no financial difficulties except those which 
 they create themselves, propose to extend 
 to the poorer classes the taxes which they 
 themselves consider so obnoxious!” How 
 could they, he asked, defend the Irish part 
 of their scheme, in which they taxed 
 the fundholder in Ireland while they left 
 the great landed proprietors untaxed ? The 
 Irish fundholder was to be taxed as well 
 as the person who received a salary, while 
 the great landed proprietor was untouched. 
 Yet that was what they called justice ! He 
 deemed it most unwise to extend the income 
 tax to Ireland. Ireland had sufficient 
 burdens in her present state, and it was 
 grievous and unjust to press her down with 
 additional taxation. The imposition of a 
 tax upon the Irish fundholder was a breach 
 of faith. To tax funds paid in Ireland, and 
 not to tax income derived from land in 
 Ireland, were contrary to the provisions of 
 the act as regards the fundholder. 
 
 Sir Charles Wood then concluded with a 
 piece of advice which had often been tendered 
 to him, and which it was now with a truly 
 
 vindictive pleasure he had the opportunity 
 of offering to a rival. “ I think,” said he, 
 addressing Mr. Disraeli in the most marked 
 manner instead of the Speaker, “ that your 
 proposed mode of dealing with the taxation 
 of the country is most visionary and most 
 rash. Ho one in his senses would attempt, 
 in one and the same year, to deal with 
 £6,000,000 of the tea duties and £5,000,000 
 of the malt tax. Ho one would attempt, in 
 one and the same year, to increase two direct 
 taxes—the income tax and the house duty 
 —and to bring under their operation so 
 many persons who have hitherto been 
 altogether exempted. I therefore advise 
 the right hon. gentleman to take back his 
 budget and re-examine it. Give us your 
 reduction of the tea duties: you can do 
 that without increasing our burdens. Give 
 up altogether your house tax and the malt 
 tax. Then you will have a budget which, 
 as far as taxes go, may be supported. You 
 need not,” consolingly remarked Sir Charles, 
 who was certainly an authority on the sub¬ 
 ject of humiliation or the contrary in this 
 matter, “ be ashamed to take back your 
 budget. Mr. Pitt was compelled to do so. 
 You need not be ashamed of doing what 
 he did. Lord Liverpool’s government was 
 reduced to do that, and the right hon. 
 gentleman cannot pretend that his govern¬ 
 ment is as strong as Lord Liverpool’s was. 
 Take till after Christmas to consider what 
 you will do, for I want you to re-construct 
 your own budget. Take the advice of the 
 right hon. gentleman the member for the 
 University of Oxford, for it is obvious you 
 have not considered the details of your 
 budget. Either you know nothing about 
 it, or you have recklessly abused the 
 knowledge which you possess. My hon. 
 friend the member for the Horth Biding 
 (Mr. Cayley) talks of the consequences of 
 rejecting this resolution. For my part I 
 know of no consequences but an amended 
 budget, and not a budget which, as it at 
 present stands, imperils direct taxation, 
 tampers with the credit, and tarnishes the 
 good faith of the country.” 
 
232 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 In the course of the debate on the 
 inhabited house duty, Mr. Gladstone criti¬ 
 cised the conduct of the government in 
 endeavouring to vote awav taxes before the 
 ways and means had been secured. It was 
 contrary, he said, to the custom of the 
 House of Commons. Taxation should not 
 he remitted until the government were sure 
 of the ways and means for the year; it was 
 utterly opposed to parliamentary etiquette 
 and all rule to call upon the House to settle 
 the question of the house tax and to remit 
 duties, until the House had recognized the 
 principle of the property and income tax. 
 This objection brought up Mr. Disraeli. “ I 
 am told,” he said, “that I ought to take the 
 course usually taken by the chancellor of 
 the exchequer under the circumstances of 
 bringing forward a financial statement. I 
 want to know what parallel there is between 
 the circumstances in which the present 
 government is placed and the ordinary 
 position of the chancellor of the exchequer 
 in bringing forward his financial statement. 
 Have we not been taunted from the begin¬ 
 ning that we are avoiding bringing forward 
 our measures ? Have not the most vulgar 
 insinuations—not heard, of course, in this 
 House—been made that we are clinging to 
 office if not to power, and evading that 
 responsibility which attaches to every gov¬ 
 ernment of coming forward and vindicating 
 the policy which we , recommend ? The 
 policy which we recommend is a distinct 
 policy. I said on Friday’last that, with a 
 view to assimilate our financial system to 
 the new commercial system now universally 
 acknowledged and established, I had, on 
 the part of the government, to bring for¬ 
 ward measures for this purpose; and now 
 I am taunted and told I ought to have 
 followed the miserable routine of common¬ 
 place circumstances. I feel persuaded that 
 the course I have taken is right. I feel 
 persuaded that we ought not to avoid a free 
 and frank encounter on the policy we 
 recommend. I have endeavoured to place 
 that policy without reserve before the 
 House. Nothing is farther from our desire 
 
 than to shrink from the decision of the 
 House.” 
 
 A special and peculiar knowledge is 
 appreciated by nobody more than by the 
 House of Commons. A member, no matter 
 how uneducated or how halting and imper¬ 
 fect his delivery, who knows something 
 which other men do not know, is always 
 sure of an attentive hearing when imparting 
 information on his own especial subject. 
 During the debate on Mr. Disraeli’s budget, 
 many erroneous statements were made as 
 to the influence of the reduction of the malt 
 tax upon the brewing trade. It was, how¬ 
 ever, left for Mr. Lowe, who had but 
 recently returned from the colonies with a 
 high reputation for legislative ability, and 
 who then represented Kidderminster, to 
 stultify himself the most by the observations 
 he offered upon a subject of which he 
 not only knew nothing, but upon which 
 he had not even the tact to conceal his 
 ignorance. In the course of his remarks 
 upon the malt tax he asserted that there 
 was no monopoly “ so close, so complete, and 
 so circumscribed as that of the brewers;” 
 that the brewing trade required an enor¬ 
 mous capital to start with; that malt did 
 not want keeping, and the fresher it was 
 the better; that the brewers maintained 
 the price of beer, and therefore any reduc¬ 
 tion in the tax would result in no benefit 
 to the consuming classes; and that it was 
 a mystery to him why the month of October 
 was fixed upon for bringing into operation 
 the half repeal of the malt tax. For these 
 reasons the member for Kidderminster 
 objected to the repeal of the malt tax, since 
 it would “injure our revenue in a most vital 
 point, and all merely for the sake of a few 
 gentlemen for whom he had a deep respect, 
 but who were certainly no great objects of 
 compassion at present.” 
 
 These fallacies were ably exposed by 
 Mr. Bass, the member for Derby. There 
 was, replied the eminent brewer, no mono¬ 
 poly at all in his trade. There was 
 nothing to prevent Mr. Lowe himself 
 from becoming a brewer to-morrow; and 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 233 
 
 as for the “ enormous capital ” spoken 
 of by the member for Kidderminster to 
 commence the brewing trade, he (Mr. 
 Bass) knew of men holding their own 
 successfully as brewers who possessed 
 no capital beyond a thousand or two. 
 ‘The fact was,” said Mr. Bass, “there was 
 no monopoly—all that was wanted were 
 industry and superior skill in the applica¬ 
 tion of large sums of money. Why, they 
 might as well say that the right hon. gentle¬ 
 man opposite, the chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer, had got a monopoly because he 
 had more brains than any of them.” Mr. 
 Lowe, continued his critic, evidently did 
 not understand either malting or brewing; 
 and when that gentleman talked of brewing 
 fresh beer with fresh malt, it was very 
 evident that he w 7 as much better acquainted 
 with other matters than with the brewing 
 business. Mr. Disraeli, said Mr. Bass, had 
 wisely deferred commencing the reduction 
 of the malt duty till October; because if 
 he had reduced it at once, he would have 
 thrown the whole brewing trade into con¬ 
 fusion. The malting season began about 
 the first of October and ended about the first 
 of May; and from the first of May to the 
 first of October there was a general cessation 
 in the process of malting. A brewer was 
 obliged to begin brewing with a stock of 
 malt amounting to very near one-third of 
 his annual consumption; how could he do 
 that unless he was allowed to have a stock 
 of malt on hand ? Therefore, brewing fresh 
 beer with fresh malt, as suggested by Mr. 
 Lowe, was impossible and altogether out of 
 the question. He would advise the mem¬ 
 ber for Kidderminster to get up his facts 
 before he again addressed any audience 
 upon the nature and the profits of the 
 brewing trade. Mr. Bass, though a Liberal, 
 then proceeded to state his opinion why he 
 supported Mr. Disraeli in the reduction 
 of the malt tax. He himself had proposed 
 a similar reduction. He considered that a 
 remission of half the tax upon malt would 
 be most advantageous to the country, of 
 considerable benefit to the producer of bar- 
 VOL. i. 
 
 ley, of much advantage to the consumer of 
 beer, and that it would entail very little 
 loss ultimately to the revenue. It had 
 been said, he remarked, that the reduction 
 of the duty would all go into the pockets 
 of the brewers—that over £2,000,000 would 
 be distributed among them—and yet the 
 brewers were to a man all against it! The 
 reduction of the malt tax signified to 
 the brewers more competition, since it would 
 enable the trade to be carried on with 
 smaller capital. It was absurd to say the 
 consuming classes would not benefit. He 
 estimated that, if half the duty on malt 
 were repealed, there w’ould be a reduction, 
 according to the strength of the beer, of 
 from four to six shillings a barrel. With 
 regard to the bug-bear of foreign malt, Mr. 
 Bass declared that he would undertake to 
 say, that if the British manufacturers only 
 had a fair chance—by that he meant if 
 foreigners would reduce their duty—they 
 would supply the foreign market with malt, 
 instead of the foreign market supplying 
 Great Britain. It was not every sort of 
 malt that would produce a really valuable 
 quality of beer; nor was the foreigner to 
 be trusted to supply an article that would 
 produce a desired quality of beer. He was 
 of opinion that those members who had 
 objected to the reduction of the malt tax 
 
 had not made out their case. 
 
 Of the crowd of critics who rose up in 
 condemnation of the course the chancellor 
 of the exchequer had adopted, the most 
 trenchant was perhaps Sir James Graham. 
 He had one or two old scores to pay off 
 against Mr. Disraeli, and the debate on the 
 financial statement was an opportunity not 
 to be lost. He was delighted, he said, to 
 see that great measure at last brought 
 before the House in a tangible shape, and 
 in a manner which precluded the possibility 
 of any evasion, on the one hand, or any 
 exaggeration on the other. It had been 
 observed that one government was very 
 much like another, and so he must say that 
 all budgets, whoever might be their pro¬ 
 genitors, had a very great family resem- 
 
 30 
 
234 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 blance the one to the other. He failed to 
 see anything in the budget before them 
 which was very remarkable, or which much 
 distinguished it from other propositions of 
 the like nature. Strip it of the repeal of 
 half the malt tax, strip it of the repeal 
 of half the hop duty, and of the question of 
 the house tax, and it would appear to him a 
 very common-place budget, a very accept¬ 
 able budget, and one about which they 
 would have very little dispute. But these 
 matters had not been eliminated from the 
 statement under discussion, and therefore 
 he must deal with the budget as it then 
 stood. He remembered Mr. Disraeli—it 
 was true it was before the right hon. 
 gentleman had assumed the responsibility 
 of office—laying down the canons by which 
 all chancellors of the exchequer should be 
 controlled. The member for Bucks had 
 said, “ That which I would uphold as 
 the golden rule for all chancellors of the 
 exchequer is to beware that no tax what¬ 
 ever, whatever form it may take—whether 
 it be a custom duty, an excise duty, or a 
 direct tax which is imposed—should in its 
 nature be excessive;” and then he had pro¬ 
 ceeded to say, “ complete remission or com¬ 
 plete commutation, these are the two princi¬ 
 ples upon which a finance minister should 
 proceed.” “ Complete remission or complete 
 commutation,” cried Sir James; and now 
 that Mr. Disraeli was a chancellor of the 
 exchequer he began his work by violating 
 his own rules, and remitting half the hop 
 duty and half the malt tax! If they 
 touched the hop duty let them repeal it 
 absolutely; then they would get rid of the 
 entire charge and vexation of collection, 
 whilst the loss to the public revenue would 
 be small. With regard to the malt tax he 
 had invariably opposed its repeal, or any 
 remission of the tax, and he saw no ground 
 now why he should change his opinions. 
 Such remission would not benefit the barley¬ 
 growing districts, and the advantage to the 
 consumer would be so infinitesimal — a 
 farthing a pot—as not to be desirable. 
 “ How,” said Sir James, “ T am satisfied that 
 
 when any reduction in the price of an 
 article by the remission of taxation, as 
 affecting its retail consumption, is limited 
 to an amount less than the coinage in 
 current use, the advantage of that reduction 
 is not appreciable.” 
 
 He was also opposed to the extinction of 
 the public works loan commission. It was 
 a legitimate and inexpensive fund, and of 
 the greatest service to the landed interest. 
 From its treasures money had been advanced 
 to the land for the construction of canals, 
 rivers, drainage, bridges, roads, railways, 
 collieries, and mines. The fund had also 
 assisted in the erection of lunatic asylums, 
 gaols, and other buildings. Stop that fund 
 and still a large proportion of those works 
 would have to be continued, and fresh 
 demands would arise. Those demands, he 
 contended, must be met by great sacrifices 
 on the part of the country gentlemen out of 
 their own means, either immediately or by 
 loans effected on terms not nearly so advan¬ 
 tageous to them. Why should the chan¬ 
 cellor of the exchequer lay violent hands 
 upon that fund, in order to prevent a 
 deficiency solely of his own creation by his 
 tampering simultaneously with two great 
 branches of the taxation of the country— 
 the malt tax and the tea duty—yielding 
 together an income of not less than one- 
 fifth of the whole revenue of the kingdom ? 
 Hor did he approve of the extension of 
 the house tax and the income tax, since it 
 would press most severely upon the poor 
 clerk and the struggling widow. The views 
 of Mr. Disraeli upon the subject of direct 
 taxation were incongruous, for he had laid 
 it down at one time that direct taxation, 
 with large exemptions, was confiscation; 
 and at another, that without large ex¬ 
 emptions it was impossible. Sir James 
 instanced the manner in which the income 
 tax as introduced into Ireland, and the 
 increased house tax in England, conflicted 
 with those maxims, and showed how un¬ 
 equally the proposed scheme of distin¬ 
 guishing between realized and precarious 
 incomes would work in both countries 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 235 
 
 Upon the question of the relative merits 
 of indirect and direct taxation, he held that 
 their admixture was the sound legislative 
 policy; hut that admixture required great 
 caution, and the proportions must he care¬ 
 fully regulated. With reference to that 
 point he cited the opinions of Lord Derby 
 and of Sir R. Peel, the latter of whom had 
 declared that, except for a special and 
 temporary purpose, direct taxation could 
 not, in his opinion, he carried to a much 
 greater extent than it had reached already. 
 In conclusion, he repeated the advice of 
 Sir Charles Wood, and urged the government 
 not to press direct taxation far in a time 
 of peace, hut to have their machinery ready 
 for such a system in case of emergency. 
 
 As the debate proceeded it became very 
 evident that the details of the budget, the 
 more they were criticised in committee, 
 the more were they objected to by the 
 leading members of the Opposition. Mr. 
 Gladstone was especially indignant at the 
 proposal to apply the money borrowed for 
 the purpose of public works to the service 
 of the year. “For the first time within 
 my recollection,” he said, “ I think for the 
 very first time, and perhaps for the first 
 time within the recollection of men much 
 older than myself, a budget has been 
 presented to us on the part of the govern¬ 
 ment, in which I presume to say it is not 
 professed to provide for the service of the 
 year one single farthing beyond what is 
 absolutely necessary to meet that service. 
 The right hon. the chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer it is true, upon the figures he has 
 submitted to the House, purports to show 
 a surplus of £400,000 ; but that £400,000 
 which he will apply I say to the service of 
 the year, it is simply and solely—and I 
 think it is the first time I have known 
 such a proposition to be made—it is simply 
 and solely so much debt which it is pro¬ 
 posed virtually to assign to that purpose. 
 In former years it was found convenient to 
 borrow money for the purpose of lending 
 it out again for useful public works. The 
 right hon. gentleman says it is necessary to 
 
 put an end to that system. The repayment 
 of this money will come in this year at 
 the rate of £400,000. On money borrowed 
 for public works coming in, what ought to 
 be done with it ? It is a question I am 
 ashamed to ask. There is no man in this 
 House who will not say at once, that money 
 borrowed for the purpose of public works 
 ought to be applied to the extinction of the 
 debt by creating which it was obtained. 
 But the right hon. gentleman applies it to 
 the service of the year. By creating debt 
 for the service of the year, he shows a 
 surplus of £400,000.” 
 
 Mr. Lowe, who was more familiar with 
 financial topics than with the secrets of the 
 brewing trade, held the same view as to this 
 appropriation. “ Let them,” he said, “ take a 
 case by way of familiar illustration. Sup¬ 
 pose that to-morrow a gentleman having a 
 large quantity of land, a large family and no 
 ready money—no impossible conjecture— 
 had an opportunity of putting a son to great 
 advantage in business, and in order to raise 
 the necessary sum mortgaged a part of his 
 estate for £5000, and that the son becoming 
 prosperous sent continually instalments to 
 his father of the money he had borrowed; 
 would the right hon. gentleman say that 
 the owner of the land was acting as the 
 father of a family, or as a man of common 
 sense, if he took those instalments and 
 spent them as he received them as part 
 of his income, instead of doing his duty 
 and carrying them to the current account 
 against the mortgage on his land? Well, 
 that was the case of the exchequer loan 
 commission/ 
 
 Mr. Cobden took a somewhat anti-licensed 
 victualler view of the repeal of the malt 
 tax. Provided the necessary revenue could 
 be produced without the malt tax he would 
 advocate its total remission, but he would 
 never be a party to imposing a substitute 
 for the malt tax. He also objected to the 
 manner in which the chancellor of the ex¬ 
 chequer had put his case. Mr. Disraeli had 
 said that beer, like bread, was a primary 
 necessary of life and that it was indis- 
 
236 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 pensable to the health and strength of the 
 labourer. That statement was open to 
 dispute. There was a large and influential 
 body in the country, supported by some of 
 the most eminent medical authorities of the 
 day, who held, that beer was not only not 
 a necessary of life, but a very pernicious 
 beverage to the individual. Therefore, 
 whether an increase in the consumption 
 of beer would increase the health and 
 strength of the people of the country was 
 at least an open question. The reduction 
 on the malt tax was to be compensated by 
 an extension of the house tax—an arrange¬ 
 ment which was especially hard upon the 
 abstainers from alcoholic drinks. “ The 
 teetotalers among my constituents would 
 naturally say,” added Mr. Cobden, “ we 
 don’t want to be relieved from the malt 
 tax; we have already repealed it so far 
 as we are concerned; we are trying by 
 tracts and lectures to induce our fellow- 
 citizens to imitate us; and we think your 
 budget unjust, and we won’t have it.” 
 Had the chancellor of the exchequer put 
 his proposition on any other ground—on 
 the scientific ground that the malt tax 
 was a nuisance to the trader and that it 
 prevented the farmer giving desirable food 
 to cattle—all the principles of political 
 economy would have come to his aid, and 
 they would be compelled to acquiesce in 
 his project. Then the great apostle of free 
 trade went on to protest against any attempt 
 to infuse compensatory ingredients into the 
 budget, and deprecated the revival of an 
 antagonism between town and country. 
 He denounced the addition to the house 
 tax as unjust and partial, since it increased 
 the existing disproportion of taxation upon 
 houses and upon land. That tax, moreover, 
 fell upon owners as well as occupiers. As 
 to the modification of the income tax, he 
 was bound to give the government credit 
 for what they had done in that way; but 
 here again an undue favour had been shown 
 to the land. He then took a rapid glance 
 at some of the vices of their system of col¬ 
 lecting the indirect taxes, many of which, 
 
 he said, must be repealed, and the country 
 make up its mind to a fair system of direct 
 taxation. “In short,” summed up Mr. Cob¬ 
 den, “the budget does not at all correspond 
 to the magniloquent phrases in which it 
 was introduced by the chancellor of the 
 exchequer. It was not at all worthy of a 
 five hours’ speech. Indeed, I humbly con¬ 
 ceive that I could have discharged the duty 
 in about an hour and twenty-five minutes.” 
 
 To the purely agricultural interest, the 
 financial statement of the chancellor of the 
 exchequer was to a certain extent disap¬ 
 pointing. They had expected relief would 
 be afforded them in the highway, county, 
 and poor rates; but all they obtained was 
 a reduction of the duties on malt and 
 hops. Yet Mr. Disraeli, without creating 
 invidious distinctions, could scarcely have 
 benefited them more than he did. Whether, 
 owing to free trade, or to the produce of 
 the mines in California or Australia, or 
 to the absence of competition from the 
 extensive emigration then taking place, the 
 misery and depression which had once 
 hung over the fortunes of the agricultural 
 interest had been removed. “You were 
 formerly in a wretched condition,” said Mr. 
 Disraeli, “ and I promised you relief; but 
 you are now thriving, with cheap provisions 
 and plenty of work—why then should you 
 be specially benefited when you have no 
 cause for complaint ? ” The representa¬ 
 tive of that class, the member for Cambridge¬ 
 shire put their case very fairly before the 
 House. “ The chancellor of the exchequer,” 
 said Mr. Ball, “with equal justice and 
 great fairness, had so framed his budget, 
 that it bestowed upon all classes greater 
 benefit than inconvenience; he should, 
 therefore, most willingly give his vote to 
 the passing of the whole scheme. He was 
 prepared to take it as a whole, and as the 
 best which, under the circumstances, he 
 could get. He granted that he expected 
 more; he granted, too, that he wished for 
 more. He had come into that House as an 
 advocate of Protection; but he soon saw he 
 could not obtain that, and he was prepared, 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 237 
 
 therefore, to abide by the decision of the 
 majority. If the population of the country 
 were to turn round, perceive the errors into 
 which they were led, and demand the res¬ 
 toration of Protection, he should be very 
 glad to see the House once more revert to 
 that principle; but so long as the opinion 
 of the country remained what it was, he 
 considered the question of Protection was 
 terminated. And now, what did he ask 
 them to do ? They had annihilated Protec¬ 
 tion ; now let the country have entire free 
 trade. Let them abolish the duties on all 
 manufactured articles—from metal, which 
 now paid an import duty of ten per cent; 
 let the duty on soap be struck off, and let 
 entire free trade prevail. He had given over 
 Protection; he meant now to be an honest 
 free trader.” 
 
 On the side of the government the speech 
 of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton was among 
 the best, and well deserved the encomium 
 passed upon it by the chancellor of the 
 exchequer, as one of the most masterly 
 speeches he had ever listened to. Sir 
 Edward asserted that if any philanthropist 
 desired to confer some special boon upon 
 the industrious classes, the reduction of the 
 duties on malt and tea was precisely that 
 which he would select; for the first articles 
 to be chosen for reduction should be those 
 affecting the physical sustenance of the 
 people. The question was one which affec¬ 
 ted the whole population. They had cheap 
 meat and cheap bread, then why not cheap 
 tea and cheap beer ? The reduction of the 
 tea duties would augment English trade 
 with China, and promote the interchange 
 of goods. The reduction of the malt tax 
 was a bold step in the right direction; for a 
 diminution in that tax so far lessened the 
 great financial difficulty of getting rid of it 
 altogether. But because the question of 
 the reduction of the malt tax was accom¬ 
 panied indirectly with benefit to the farmer, 
 arnd was accompanied by a double house tax, 
 they were told that it was a question of town 
 against country. It was no such thing. It 
 was a question of free trade against restriction. 
 
 “ It is a question,” said Sir Edward, 
 “whether you will attempt to lower the 
 price of an article of popular subsistence 
 —whether you will remove a check which 
 operates directly against an important 
 branch of the industry of the country; 
 and it is accompanied with a direct tax 
 which would be fair and just, and as such 
 is recommended by all political economists, 
 even if it were not accompanied with any 
 reduction of the malt tax at all. But I 
 suspect that what deprives this reduction 
 in the duty on malt of all merit in the eyes 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite, is the very 
 reason that should induce them to support 
 it, namely, because it removes some weight 
 from that class which has the most cause to 
 dread competition. I fear that if the meas¬ 
 ure proposed inflicted some new hardships 
 on the agriculturists, and gave to hon. 
 gentlemen opposite a new triumph of class 
 and party; and if all the agriculturists were, 
 therefore, combined against them—we should 
 hear of nothing but the selfishness of squires 
 and farmers, who refused to cheapen the 
 price of beer for the benefit of their poor 
 countrymen.” The Opposition objected, he 
 continued, to the house tax being doubled 
 for the benefit of the farmers; but that was 
 simply to say that they objected to the 
 further extension of free trade, when it 
 operated against the other classes whom 
 they represented. They could not object 
 to the tax itself, because it was universally 
 acknowledged, that of all possible taxes a 
 house tax was one of the fairest, because it 
 fell upon a man in proportion to his expen¬ 
 diture. The objection must, therefore, be 
 either to the extension of the area, or to 
 the duplication of the tax; and these objec¬ 
 tions he briefly discussed. Sir Edward then 
 concluded by explaining the reasons which 
 had prevailed upon him to detach himself 
 from the Whig party and to give his sup¬ 
 port to Lord Derby, who, he observed, was 
 not an advocate of any single class, but 
 whose object was to mitigate the sufferings 
 of all classes. 
 
 After an exhaustive and somewhat acri- 
 
238 
 
 THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 monious debate, which lasted four nights, 
 the chancellor of the exchequer rose up to 
 reply to the strictures of his opponents. 
 Mr. Disraeli was never so happy, both in 
 his tactics and his eloquence, as when fight¬ 
 ing a losing cause. Like most men of his 
 temperament, the certainty of success made 
 him often careless and indifferent, and he 
 was seldom seen at his best when command¬ 
 ing large majorities and mildly thwarted 
 by a cowed Opposition. But to be hotly 
 attacked, to be environed by foes, to feel 
 his measures in jeopardy, to have arrayed 
 against him a vast and venomous following 
 —such a position roused all his energies, 
 developed his resources, and gave a keener 
 point to his satire. He was not combative; 
 but when war was made upon him he never 
 sued for peace, and was always prepared to 
 meet hostilities fully in the spirit in which 
 they were offered. On the occasion of this, 
 his second budget, he had been lectured in 
 the scolding tones of lofty superiority; not 
 a little personal abuse had been introduced 
 in the reproofs administered to him; and 
 throughout the advice and the criticisms 
 of the Opposition, spite and jealousy were 
 plainly apparent. 
 
 “ I must ask,” said Mr. Walpole, in 
 his elaborate defence of the financial 
 policy of the government, “ I must ask 
 —and I would not have gone into the 
 subject at all unless it had been for 
 the disparaging tone which I think was 
 somewhat improperly made use of—I must 
 ask. Whence is it that these extraordinary 
 attacks are made against my right hon. 
 friend ? What is the reason, what is the 
 cause, that he is to be assailed at every 
 point, when he has made two financial 
 statements in one year, which have both 
 met with the approbation of this House, 
 and, I believe, also with the approbation of 
 the country ? Is it that you are jealous of 
 his success ? Is it because he has laboured 
 hard and long, contending with genius 
 against rank and power and the ablest 
 statesmen, until he has attained the highest 
 eminence which an honourable ambition 
 
 may ever aspire to — the leadership and 
 guidance of the Commons of England ? Is 
 it because he has verified in himself the 
 dignified description of a great phiosophical 
 poet of antiquity, portraying equally his 
 past career and his present position— 
 
 “ Certare ingenio; contendere nobilitate; 
 
 Noctei^ atque dies niti prsestante labore 
 
 Ad summas emergere opes, rerumque potiri? ” 
 
 My right hon. friend has attained that posi¬ 
 tion, and who will grudge it him ? I will 
 not speak disparagingly—God forbid I 
 should !—of the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for Halifax; his power and ability 
 are admitted. But without disparaging him, 
 I think I may say the budget of my right 
 hon. friend may bear comparison with any 
 of his. The best judges in all the country 
 will declare, as I believe they have de¬ 
 clared, that by his budget he has put 
 himself on a level with the boldest and, 
 at the same time, with the most prudent 
 financiers whom the country has ever seen. 
 They will tell you, at any rate, that in the 
 greatest emporium of commerce in the globe 
 these plans of his have reflected on him, 
 in the judgment of those best capable of 
 judging on the subject, the highest credit. 
 They will tell you, as you have been re¬ 
 minded to-night, that he has disproved by his 
 propositions the common fallacy which the 
 world runs away with, that a man of genius 
 cannot be essentially and practically a man 
 of business. And whatever may be the 
 result of this debate—whatever may be the 
 fate of the present government—whatever 
 may be the effect of that ill-assorted alli¬ 
 ance which I see before me—the country 
 will see, I firmly believe, that my right hon. 
 friend has earned for himself a reputation as 
 extensive as the empire for which he is so 
 greatly legislating, and a gratitude as perma¬ 
 nent as the honest generosity of a thankful, 
 enlightened, and reflecting community. 
 
 Air. Disraeli was, however, perfectly cap¬ 
 able of taking care of himself. “ Sir,” he 
 began, “ after four nights of criticism, con¬ 
 ducted by some of the most considerable 
 reputations in this house, on the financial 
 
AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 239 
 
 propositions that I have laid on the table 
 of the committee, I now rise to vindicate 
 those propositions. If, in the observations 
 which I will endeavour to condense as 
 much as I can, I omit noticing any of the 
 objections which have been urged against 
 those propositions, I hope the committee 
 will ascribe that negligence to inadvertence, 
 and not to design. Having listened with 
 the respect and attention naturally due to 
 such -words from such lips, I can conscien¬ 
 tiously say that I have heard nothing that, 
 in my opinion, has successfully impugned 
 the policy which, as the organ of the gov¬ 
 ernment, I have recommended; and I am 
 prepared to meet the objections which have 
 been urged, and to show to the committee 
 that they are unfounded and illusory.” 
 And first he would address himself to that 
 sum of £400,000, which had so moved the 
 ire of the Opposition, and which, under the 
 name of repayments, he had recommended 
 the committee to sanction and adopt as part 
 of the ways and means of the impending 
 year. That proposed course had been assailed 
 in language and in a tone somewhat un¬ 
 usual—certainly not very parliamentary— 
 by Sir Charles Wood, “for instead of address¬ 
 ing his observations to you, sir, he addressed 
 throughout his speech his observations to 
 myself.” 
 
 There were two points, continued Mr. 
 Disraeli, in this subject; .first, Was he 
 justified in recommending that the public 
 works loan commission should be abol¬ 
 ished ? secondly, if he was justified in 
 that recommendation, was he also justified 
 in recommending that the repayments 
 should take their place in the ways 
 and means ? Now what was this depart¬ 
 ment ? At the peace of 1815, owing 
 to a surplus population, deficient capital, 
 and numerous seamen and soldiers being 
 disbanded, the labour market throughout 
 the country was much disturbed. It became 
 necessary for the government of the day to 
 take some artificial means of employing that 
 surplus labour, in a state of society where 
 capital was deficient. A department was 
 
 therefore established which, by the credit 
 of exchequer bills issued by the state, raised 
 money, and employed that money in what 
 was called “public works.” That system 
 continued for fifteen years, and then it was 
 found necessary to terminate the issue. In 
 1842 an account was taken of the fund, 
 when it appeared that about £3,000,000 
 had been raised by exchequer bills thus 
 issued; that of that sum £2,000,000 had 
 been paid off, and that about £1,000,000 
 remained unsettled. To close the transaction 
 that £1,000,000 was funded. Since that 
 date of 1842, it had been arranged that 
 instead of exchequer bills, the public works 
 commissioners should receive for the same 
 purpose a sum of money to the amount of 
 £360,000 a year from the consolidated fund. 
 At the present moment the amount they 
 had actually to deal with was £300,000; 
 for, by a subsequent arrangement, £60,000 
 were transferred to the use of public works 
 in Ireland. 
 
 They had heard, proceeded Mr. Dis¬ 
 raeli, how advantageous was that fund 
 to the landed interest for the erection 
 of wmrkliouses, bridges, prisons, and the 
 like ; but as a matter of fact it was not so, 
 for the commission charged four or five 
 per cent, on all loans, and country gentle¬ 
 men found they could borrow money cheaper 
 elsewhere. Therefore, in revising the public 
 accounts as chancellor of the exchequer, 
 he saw a department of no great mark and 
 possessing a large balance sheet, which was 
 lying perfectly idle; for the causes which 
 had called the commission into existence 
 now no longer operated. What was he to 
 do with that unproductive balance of the 
 public money ? Sir Charles Wood had 
 said, “We all know how convenient it may 
 be to the minister to have at a particular 
 moment such a fund at his command.” It 
 had certainly been convenient; and though 
 he, Mr. Disraeli, had been too short a time 
 at the exchequer to experience any of its 
 advantages, he would show how his prede¬ 
 cessors had availed themselves of such 
 opportunities—how the minister of the day 
 
240 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 had possessed himself of this public fund, 
 virtually without the cognizance of parlia¬ 
 ment, and how sums had been squandered 
 which had escaped the vigilance of even 
 Mr. Hume. A sum of nearly £300,000 
 had been lent to those ingenious persons 
 who resolved to make a tunnel under the 
 Thames, of which not a shilling had been 
 repaid. Battersea Park, one of the most 
 absurd speculations that man had ever 
 engaged in, had received an advance of 
 £150,000. He had before him a list of par¬ 
 allel profitless advances; between the years 
 1824 and 1850 nearly £700,000 had been 
 lent—not, as Sir James Graham had alleged, 
 to country gentlemen—every shilling of 
 which had been lost to the nation. And 
 these sums were advanced without the 
 House being taken into the confidence of 
 the loan fund—without a single member 
 being cognizant of the fact! “ I think the 
 
 committee will agree,” said Mr. Disraeli, 
 “ whatever they may think of the further 
 merit of the question, that in stopping a 
 system so iniquitous, I was only doing my 
 duty as a guardian of the public purse,” 
 
 The question now arose, what were the 
 government to do with the repayments to 
 that fund, which would every year come in 
 when the issue was stayed, and which re¬ 
 payments he had estimated at £400,000 ? 
 Were they to carry these repayments to 
 the balance of the exchequer ? “ It is 
 
 no doubt,” said Mr. Disraeli, “ of the 
 utmost importance that the balance in 
 the exchequer should be high. That is a 
 very great principle. But after all, the 
 balances in the exchequer are nothing more 
 than the balances of the nation with its 
 banker; and the same rule must apply to 
 a nation with its banker as to a private 
 individual with his banker. Whether you 
 bank with Messrs. Drummond or with the 
 Bank of England, neither would allow 
 you any interest on your balances. It is 
 necessary, therefore, for the nation, as for 
 a private individual, to have a good, ample, 
 and sufficient balance; but it is inexpedient, 
 it is unwise, to have an excessive balance.” 
 
 To pay these repayments into the balances 
 of the exchequer would have been the 
 same as locking them up in an iron chest 
 —it would have been unprofitable. He 
 hoped the House would not consider him 
 presumptuous in instructing them in these 
 matters. His own knowledge on the sub¬ 
 ject was of course recent. “I was not,” 
 he laughed, “bora and bred a chancellor 
 of the exchequer. I am one of the parlia¬ 
 mentary rabble; but I trust, after all the 
 observations that have been made, I may 
 be permitted to show that I have not 
 neglected to render myself acquainted with 
 these affairs.” He then explained how he 
 intended to devote these repayments to the 
 payment of the debt created in 1842 by 
 funding loan exchequer bills. He ex¬ 
 pounded the manner in which he had 
 made the £400,000 act upon the reduction 
 of the public debt, contending that the 
 course he pursued had been in conformity 
 with the obligations of the law, as well as 
 with the recommendations of parliamentary 
 committees. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to justify 
 his estimate as to the result of repealing 
 half the malt tax, which had been called 
 in question, and his having deferred the 
 actual repeal of the duty until October. 
 This last point gave him an opportunity 
 of alluding to Mr. Lowe. “ But why fix 
 October?” cried Mr. Lowe; “here is a plot: 
 if we can only find out why the government 
 fix upon October we shall be able at once 
 to penetrate these financial mystifications.” 
 “ The hon. and learned member for Kidder¬ 
 minster,” said Mr. Disraeli, “ is an accession 
 to our debates. He has shown, on the rare 
 occasions on which he has addressed the 
 House, considerable information ; but there 
 certainly is one subject on which his know¬ 
 ledge has been most conspicuous, and that 
 is—brewing. I am surprised that an hon. 
 gentleman who seemed so complete a 
 master of that art, and who made so 
 eloquent a defence of the system of credit 
 to maltsters, should of all men be the person 
 to ask why we fixed upon October for