^>^i
¦?>=¦!

v>.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
DEPOSITED BY THE
LINONIA AND BROTHERS LIBRARY

THE PUBLIC LIFE
OF
THE BIGHT HONOUKABLE THE
EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G.

THE PUBLIC LIFE

THE EIGHT HONOUEABLE THE
EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, E.G.
ETC., ETC.

FEANCIS HITCHMAN.

" But as for Lycurgus, they thought of him thus : that he was a man borne
to rule, to commaunde and to geue order, as bauing in him a certaine naturall
grace and power to drawe men willingly to obeye him."
Plutarch (North's Translation, 1579).

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

LONDON :
CHAPMAN & HALL, 193, PICCADILLY.
1879.
[All riglils reserved.]

LONDON :
BUADBDRY, AONEW, & CO., PRINTEliS, WHITEFBTAKS.

^ci)'uiili0n.

SIE JOHN HOLKEE, Q.C., M.P.,
ETC., ETC.,
her majesty's attoenby-general.
My deab Sir John,
I gratefully avail myself of your permission to associate
your name with this attempt to trace the political career of our
common leader.
You without doubt are aware of every circumstance of the
illustrious life I have striven to portray, but there are unfor
tunately many who are not so well informed, and it is for them
that I have written. When, however, the whole truth shall
have been told — as I fear is not the case even now — concerning
the great chief whom we are proud to follow, there can be but
one opinion with regard to Lord Beaconsfield and to his multitu
dinous critics.
With every sentiment of regard and of gratitude for tho
many kindnesses I have received at your hands.
Believe me, my dear Sir John,
Yours very faithfully,
FEANCIS HITCHMAN.
13, St. 6bokgb'.s Sqtjaue,
Regekt's Pakk, N.W.
Wlh Octoier, 1878.

PEEFACE.
Lord Beaconsfield, the course of whose public life I have
here attempted to trace, is the gi-eatest living exemplification
of the truth of that saying of Byron, " he who surpasses or
subdues mankind must look to garner up a pretty fair share of
hatred." For forty years he was the best abused public man in
England. Every scribbler who could obtain publicity for his
lucubrations lifted up his heel against him. Reviewers —
" iiTesponsible, ignorant reviewers " — from Edinburgh and other
places made capital for themselves by attacking him. The vilest
motives were attributed to him ; the most infamous stories
were fabricated about him. Those whom he had embalmed
for posterity in an epigram, or impaled upon an epithet, have
wriggled out the last drops of their venom in attacks upon his
honour, his character, his consistency. " Adventurer " has been
the most respectable title accorded to him. Generally the
colours have been more glaring ; the brush more fully loaded.
Thus the world has heard him called a " renegade," a " turn
coat," a " trickster," a " shuffler," and has been taught to believe

viii Preface.
that the one man ef commanding political genius whom this
century has produced was the incarnation of all that was mean
and despicable. Even as I write I find the weekly organ of
culture and of Liberalism describing the statesman who saved
the honour of England at Berlin as "a bizarre and flashy
novelist," "a quaint ideologue," a "charlatan," an "Israelite
magician," and " a great mountebank " — all in the compass of a
single newspaper article.
Nor have attacks of this kind been invariably the work of
Lord Beaconsfield's opponents. They, it is true, have never
treated him with common fairness or the most ordinary
courtesy, and the leaders have followed the rank and file.
That the orators of Trafalgar Square and of Clerkenwell
Green should hate Lord Beaconsfield is natural enough, and
would probably be considered an honour by the object of their
detestation. That Mr. Gladstone and his immediate colleagues
should emulate Mr. Bradlaugh in resentment of Lord Beacons-
field's genius and in begrudging his elevation, is less intelligible.
Least admirable of all is, however, the treatment he has re
ceived from his own party. His worst foes have been they of
his own household. The great body of the Conservative party
— that party which he re-created, reconstructed, lifted out of the
mire of failure and defeat, educated and placed on the pinnacle
of power— have never known how to appreciate him. They
have dared even to school and to lecture the chief whose

Preface. ix
genius compelled them to follow him ; and more than once, iu
time of storm and stress, when fidelity amongst his colleagues
was an element of success for the party, he has been deserted by
those who were most bound to support him. It has been said
of the Great Commoner, Mr. Pitt, that, " constructing his policy
on wise and liberal principles, he incorporated with a worn-out
creed a new and vital element of strength and imparted to a
powerless and unimaginative party the force and refinement of
genius." No words could better describe the career of Lord
Beaconsfield. He entered public life when Catholic Emanci
pation had just been carried and when Reform was the question
of the hour. He found the great national party in — to quote his
own words — " a state of ignorant stupefaction," and the Whigs,
who had caught that party " napping," at the commencement
of a period of domination which, begun by force and continued
by fraud, lasted for well-nigh a dozen years. He began at once
the work of reconstructing his party. Whilst still young in
years and in public life, he was called to its leadership, and
from that day forward he led it with unconquerable courage
through difficulties all but overwhelming, to eventual triumph.
He has completed his work. He has re-established the
patriotic principles for which, during well-nigh half a century,
he contended with tongue and pen, and during all this long
and weary struggle he has been alone — alone in spite of his
great qualities. His tact, his courage, his readiness, his adroit-

X Preface.
ness, his wit, his marvellous command of temper, his reticence,
his patience and his cheerfulness in adversity, have passed all
but unrecognised.
In the midst of all this detraction, calumny and misapprecia-
tion, however, there have been some who held to their faith in
the leader of the Tories ; some who recognized his genius; some
who were fascinated alike by his public and personal qualities.
His want of success did not frighten them. They remembered
how the Great Commoner himself had been more often out of
office than in, and how on many subjects he had been hope
lessly at variance with both his sovereign and the people.
They remembered also the reason for Lord Beaconsfield's long
exile from office and that had he been more subservient he
might from one point of view have been more successful. He
had, they remembered, proudly refused to be a " Minister on
sufferance," though by so accepting the situation he might
have remained in place for an indefinite period. A Sir Charles
Wood might alter his Budget four times in a Session and still
remain Chancellor of the Exchequer with the full consent of
the great united Liberal party. But when Mr. Disraeli pre
sented to the House of Commons a well considered financial
scheme — at once the boldest and most statesmanlike Budget
since the days of Peel — and found the House unwilling to
accept it, he 'took a different course. He was told in so many
words to take back his Budget and to reduce it to proportions

Preface. xi
intelligible to Whig financiers. Ho was assured that theru
would be nothing humiliating in the operation, but he refused
— he ''could not submit to the degradation of other Chan
cellors." Like Pitt he "knew how to retire." That in re
tiring he best consulted his own honour cannot be denied, but
the consequences to the country were deplorable. For the bold,
large and far-seeing scheme of finance which the Whigs had
confessed to be too much for them, was substituted the timid
and petty monetary policy of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and
for the cautious and conciliatory yet decided foreign policy of
the late Lord Derby, the mingled bullying and cringing of Lord
Palmerston. England had a heavy price to pay for both. The
one involved the country in the Crimean War : the other
speedUy gave her a doubled Income Tax.
High-mindedness such as this is, however, an indubitable
title to esteem. Unprejudiced and candid men admire with
equal sincerity Macaulay accepting defeat at Edinburgh rather
than belie his conscience on some one or other of those inter
minable theologico-political questions in which the Scottish
mind delights ; Mr. Forster at Bradford asserting his indepen
dence in the face of the serried hosts of political dissent, and
Mr. Disraeli as leader of the forlorn hope of Toryism resigning
place and power, rather than mutilate his well-considered
programme. High-mindedness is not, however, the only claim
of Lord Beaconsfield to the admiration of his followers. He

xii Preface.
possesses every quality which can fascinate the rising genera
tion of public men. He was the apostle of Young England—
the leader of that generous, helpful, hopeful, kindly and
sympathetic party whose very existence was a protest against
what Mr. Caiiyle was wont to call " Whig laissez-faire, and
Benthamee utility." And he was something more. He was
not one of those dilettante philanthropists who content them
selves with amiable platitudes and sweet sounding sentiments,
nor was his name at any time conspicuous on lists of charitable
committees or amongst those who find their greatest gratifica
tion in showing themselves at public meetings. But for all
that, he was the active and practical friend of the poor, the
warm and tender sympathizer with the wrongs and sufferings
of the labouring class. When demagogues were shouting
upon platforms and Whig Ministers were crowding the gaols
with political martyrs. Lord Beaconsfield was doing brave and
masculine work for the suffering and the oppressed. At a
time when to show sympathy with Chartists was equivalent
to incuning all the penalties of social ostracism, he pleaded
their cause both in and out of the House, and chose for the
heroine of the most touching and powerful of his novels a
daughter of the people. Altogether apart from its dominant
humanity, " Sybil " would be immortal — its grace, its tender
ness, and its truth would place it very high in the ranks of
English fiction — but " Sybil " is something more than a novel.

Preface.

xiu

It is an appeal to the great sentiment of human brotherhood,
a vindication of the rights of the poor, and as such it has a
double title to the reverence of posterity.
The claims of Lord Beaconsfield to the admiration of his
fellows on literary grounds alone, are unimpeachable. A poet
of no mean order, a wit whose delicate small-sword is more
than a match for the heavy cutlasses and bludgeons of his
opponents, a novelist of no ordinary powers, he turns from
the work of statesmanship to give to the world a " Henrietta
Temple," — most exquisite of love stories ; and he adorns the
dry discussion of political details with all the graces of anti
thesis and epigram. Lady Blessington plagues him for a copy
of verses for one of those ' Annuals ' which she manufactures,
and he gives her hues which would make the fortune of a
poetaster, but which, with that lofty indifference to the public
verdict which has always been characteristic of him, he leaves
unnoticed in their original obscurity.
There is, however, one quality of Lord Beaconsfield, con
cerning which too little is heard, even amongst his professed
admirers, and that is his remarkable and undeviating con
sistency. During the three years which preceded his entrance
into public life, he thought out the principles which were to
guide him in the future, and to those principles he has adhered
with unswerving fidelity. Those who adopt the partizan and
prejudiced view, will probably scoff at this idea. In the eyes

xiv Preface.
of his rivals and opponents he is, we all know, a man wholly
devoid of political principle, and anxious only for his own
personal advantage and personal aggrandisement. Beside his
time-serving, the spotless consistency of his great rival stands
out in bold and striking relief. It is true that at the outset of
his political career, Mr. Gladstone was the " rising hope of the
stern and unbending Tories ; " that he turned Peelite ; that he
joined the Coalition ; that he became an ultra-Liberal, and is
now suspected of hankering after something even yet more
advanced ; that being, in theory, a High Churchman and a
State Churchman of the most marked type, he has for political
ends destroyed the Church of Ireland ; and finally, that for the
sake of a little cheap applause from the illiterate, he does not
hesitate to fraternize with the lowest forms of Dissent and even
to quote from the manuals of Atheism. These things are but
spots on the sun of Liberal perfection — we have even been told
that they are" evidences of that " higher consistency which dares
to be inconsistent." But it is simply intolerable that Lord
Beaconsfield's followers should claim for him the merit of con
sistency. Did not the Edinburgh Review brand him as a
charlatan and a renegade ? and who shall gainsay the blue
and yellow organ of Whiggery ? For those who do not pin
their faith to this Quarterly oracle there is, however, something
eminently agreeable in the fact that when eight and forty
years ago, ' Disraeli the Younger ' first presented himself to

Preface.

XV

the electors of High Wycombe, ho appeared as a Tory and as a
Tory was defeated. To the principles of Toryism he has ever
since adhered, through evil .and through good report alike. It
is true that in his youth he dreamed of the formation of a
party which should be neither Tory nor Whig and that in the
evening of his days he sees some part of his ideal realized.
Mr. Cowen's support of his Eastern policy, and Mr. Roebuck's
elevation to the Privy Council, are significant facts. Nor is
it to be denied that on one occasion, at the very outset of
his career, he sought the aid of two Radical leaders in his
campaign against the domination of the Whig oligarchy. But
however mistaken the step may have been — and that it was
a mistake from the tactical point of view probably Lord
Beaconsfield would himself be the first to admit — no one was
deceived by it at any time. Armed with the letters of Hume
and O'Connell, he contested High Wycombe as a Tory. As
a Tory he was reviled in the local newspaper, and as a Tory
he was ultimately defeated. Had he been aught but a Tory,
the scurrilous organ of Aylesbury Liberalism would possibly
have found something good to say of him. As he was an
open and avowed enemy of Whiggism, that miserable print,
which is even now accepted in some quarters as an authority,
persistently reviled hin;i. Finally, it is not less true, that, at
one period of his life, Lord Beaconsfield thought it might be
desirable to revert to the ancient constitutional custom of

xvi Preface.
triennial Parliaments, and that, in view of the coiTuption and
pressure consistently exercised upon voters in those Whig
nornination boroughs which the Reform Bill had spared, he for
a while leaned to the Ballot. He even dared to support the
repeal of the taxes on knowledge, though as the Liberal party
voted for that measure, he was obviously poaching on their
manor in doing so. Yet when eveiy charge against him is
admitted, his principles remain unimpeached — he is a Tory
from the beginning to the end of the chapter. "I have always
striven," said he, in 1859, "to distinguish that which was
eternal from that which was accidental." His opponents have
failed to make the same distinction and to see that acceptance
of or acquiescence in a few matters of detail does not neces
sarily imply a sacrifice of principle.
That popular mistrust of Lord Beaconsfield's sincerity which
lasted for so long is easily accounted for. At the outset of his
career, he came into collision with O'Connell, and that impu
dent and unscrupulous demagogue threw all his wit and vulgar
eloquence into assaults upon him — assaults which to the shame
of English party warfare, have lately been reprinted as though
they had never been answered. When he rose to make his
first speech in the House of Commons, the O'Connell faction in
obedience to their leader, set themselves to hoot him down, and
having' succeeded in drowning the latter part of his speech with
their clamour, impudently gave out that he had broken down

Preface. xvii
ignominiously. Very shortly afterwards, O'Connell himself
made a gross and malignant attack on the youthful member,
flinging as was his wont, an abundance of mud. O'Connell's
attacks were eagerly seized upon and seconded by the Whig
press, which as Mr. Thackeray was wont to say, " was largely
officered by gentlemen from the Sister Isle." The Globe and
the Morning Chronicle never ceased their vituperation and
when Fwnch was started. Leech's unrivalled genius was placed
at the service of Lord Beaconsfield's assailants. With it, Toryism
had nothing sufficiently amusing to cope, and so for more than
thirty years, the attacks on Lord Beaconsfield were incessant
and unreturned. His friends in the world of journalism were
few ; his enemies many ; his own leading characteristic was,
and is, a certain proud and lofty Stoicism,- which, however
deeply he may have been wounded, never allows his assailant
to see the effect of his blow.
When in the not distant future the Plutarch of the twentieth
century comes to deal with the great men of the nineteenth,
the names of Lord Beaconsfield and of his great rival, Mr.
Gladstone, will inevitably suggest themselves for comparison
and contrast. To perform adequately such a task at the present
moment is obviously impossible, yet, in considering the great
career of the Premier, it is impossible to avoid some reference
to his illustrious competitor. As my accomplished friend, Mr.
Alfred Austin, has remarked, "the one, like Pollux, maybe
VOL. I. b

xviii Preface.
more famed than his twin for skill in boxing, while the other,
like Castor, may be more renowned for his power of taming and
managing wild horses, but both have together left the impress
of their triumphant hoofs upon the Capitol " — and it will be
for the historian to say why the career of one has been a career
of gradual and growing success until a climax of power and
dignity has been attained, such as has been the lot of no
English statesman since the glorious days of the Earl of
Chatham ; while the other has disappointed all the hopes
excited by a brilliant youth and a much belauded middle age
and sees the end approaching in the midst of neglect, obscmity
and almost contempt. At first sight it would seem almost
impossible that such a state of things could exist. Both are
scholars, both men of letters, of taste, of no mean position in
the world of literature ; both rejoice in an immense popularity ;
both have the power of infecting their followers with an enthu
siasm as rare as it is gratifying. Why then should the career
and the fate of the two differ so remarkably ?
The question is a large one, and yet its solution will I think
be found to lie in a comparatively small compass. As a matter
of fact. Lord Beaconsfield is in almost every respect the opposite
of Mr. Gladstone. The former is a statesman : the latter a
philosopher. If Mr. Gladstone has to argue a point or to
defend a policy, he will strengthen his position by an appeal to
the immutable principles of right and wrong, or by a quotation

Preface. xix
from some author in whose mind English political warfare had
no place. In the whole of his speeches it may be doubted if
there are as many as a dozen references to the history of the
country of which he has been Prime Minister, or quotations
from Hansard of more than a session or two back. If on the
other hand Lord Beaconsfield has to encounter criticism or to
expound a line of action, he is ready enough it is true with
those references to classical and other literature which bespeak
the man of culture, but his main reliance is upon the constitu
tional history of his country. An apt quotation from the
speeches of Grenville or Shelbume, of Mr. Pitt or Mr. Canning,
has given weight to arguments which at the first failed to
strike his audience. More than one instance of this quality
will be found in the following pages, but there is one so
remarkable that it may be well to call attention to it. When
the French Commercial Treaty as negotiated by Mr. Cobden
had been settled, it was not laid before the House of Commons
in the usual way, but was actually made a part of the Budget,
which was introduced two months earlier than usual to allow
of this being done. Mr. Gladstone's defence on the occasion
was wholly based upon general principles : Mr. Disraeli's
criticism consisted mainly of a recapitulation of what had been
done when the Great Commoner negotiated the treaty which
established our Commercial relations with France for well nigh
half a century. \) 2

XX Preface.
Again :— Mr. Gladstone belongs to that school of Liberals
which prides itself on its Cosmopolitanism. In the eyes of this
party England is to a philosopher no more than any other
country, and the interests of England no more important than
the interests of France or Germany or Russia. Their sym
pathies are so large as to embrace the whole world, and to
leave but very little room for the country to which they have
the misfortune to belong. They would cut the colonies adrift
at the earliest possible moment ; give Canada to the Canadians
— or to the United States, if that Power chose to annex it ;
Australia to the Australians ; India to her native princes ;
Malta to Italy; Gibraltar to Spain and Hehgoland to Germany.
It may be that Mr. Gladstone would not go quite so far as
these extremely cosmopolitan liberals; but the cession of
the Ionian Islands at his instance, and the dealings of the
Ministry of 1868 with the Colonies, point to- a willingness on
his part to see England reduced to the level of Holland, or
Genoa, or Venice, which can hardly be misunderstood. Lord
Beaconsfield is in every way the reverse of this character,
Mr. Gladstone is an Englishman of ancient family : the Premier
comes of an alien race ; but, as with the Geraldines in Ireland,
he is almost "more English than the English themselves."
His aspirations are, and always have been, purely national
and patriotic. His aim in life has been the extension and
the consolidation of the national power. In his eyes British

Preface.

XX 1

interests are the first interests to be studied ; British posses
sions tho.se which need to be most carefully guarded and mo.st
lovingly developed. Whilst Free Traders, pushing their
political faith almost to the point of a religion, were busily
sacrificing the interests of the Colonies to those of the slave-
owning states with whom we had relations, he was the staunch
defender of our Colonial interests, and in the great Protectionist
struggle of the forties he stood by the British farmer and the
landed interest for the simple reason that he considered that
the fu-st duty of an English statesman was to the English
people. In personal qualities no less than in political opinions Lord
Beaconsfield offers the strongest possible contrast to his great
opponent. No one who has watched the course of public
affairs with attention during the last twenty years can fail to
have been struck with this fact. Mr. Gladstone, for example,
habitually speaks of his opponents as though they were not
merely mistaken but wilfully wrong and open to the gravest
moral censure on account of their erroneous opinions. It may
be doubted whether on a single occasion, from the time of his
first coming into office until the present, he has spoken one
word of recognition of the merits and qualifications of his great
rival. Lord Beaconsfield, on the other hand, has always been
generous to his opponents. Daniel O'Connell reviled him after
his accustomed outrageous fashion, and when the quarrel was

xxii Preface.
past he was one of the first to recognise the unquestionable
abilities of the man. Lord John Russell attacked him on a
score of occasions with all the acerbity which might have been
expected from a man of his peculiar temper, and Lord Beacons
field though he opposed his policy habitually spoke of him with
deference and courtesy. Of Mr. Cobden's policy he entertained
the profoundest distrust, but of Mr. Cobden himself he spoke
with unvarying respect, did his utmost to provide him with a
permanent seat for the West Riding and on his death delivered
himself of a very touching elegiac address. And so with every
opponent, not excepting Mr. Gladstone himself. Lord Beacons
field has invariably given credit to those who assailed him or
his policy for purity of motive, no matter how strongly he may
have condemned their public acts, and more than this he has
always kept his temper. When on one occasion Mr. Gladstone
gesticulated at him with immense vehemence whilst delivering a
furious denunciation of some of his acts, the only notice which
he took was in the course of his reply to hint in a bantering
tone that he had been grateful for the protection of the
Speaker's table.
In his dealings with his colleagues. Lord Beaconsfield has
had the advantage, not merely of Mr. Gladstone, but of all the
Whig-Radical leaders for the last generation. He has known
how to pick out the right men for the work that was to be
done, and having found his men, he has trusted and supported

Preface. xxiii
them right loyally. When Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet was formed
in 1868, many observers found matter for wonder in the prin
ciple upon which the various appointments had been made.
No such wonder was expressed when the corresponding list
appeared in 1874. Every place was, it was universally felt,
filled judiciously, and the event has justified the popular
opinion. Nor since Lord Beaconsfield has been a Minister has
he on any occasion sought to evade responsibility for an un
popular act, or to cast any imputations of weakness or unfair
ness upon his colleagues. In part this fact may be due to his
wonderful reticence. No matter what the attack may have
been he has been silent. The House of Commons, and in
later days, the House of Lords, have been the only places in
which his voice has been heard, save on the rare occasions of
his addressing his Buckinghamshire friends or his hosts in
Manchester or Glasgow. Letters and memorials have failed to
draw from him more than the most formal of secretarial replies,
and nothing like an expression of opinion can be gleaned from
any of them. The flood of reckless oratory, of still more
reckless magazine articles, of letters, pamphlets and post-cards
on every subject, from egg-flip to Papal decrees, with which
Mr. Gladstone has treated the world, has been impossible for
Lord Beaconsfield. In the phrase of the apostle he has
" studied to be quiet and to do his own business."
Such a man needs no apologist. What is attempted in the

xxiv Preface.
following pages, is to trace the public career of the greatest
statesman England has possessed since Mr. Pitt was carried to
his grave. I have had access to no private or special informa
tion. Nothing appears here that may not be found in
" Hansard," or in contemporary newspapers and memoirs. The
so called "lives," and "biographies," of the noble Earl have
been carefully eschewed. Most of them are grossly inaccurate,
and disfigured by a narrow-minded and bigoted party spirit,
which makes the task of reading them anything but agreeable.
No living statesman has in fact suffered so much from mis
representation, or has had attributed to him so frequently
words which he never uttered, and sentiments which he never
entertained ; none has so much to gain by the promulgation
of the exact truth. Even while these sheets are passing through
the press I find one leading journal attributing to him the
leadership of the opposition to the Bill for the removal of
Jewish disabilities ; and on the same day another newspaper,
which would doubtless be very indignant if not also described
as " leading," asserting that Lord John Russell and the Tory
chief led their followers side by side in support of the Ecclesias
tical Titles Bill. Wherever it has been possible, therefore. Lord
Beaconsfield's own words have been used, and where his longer
and more important speeches have been sumniarized, no pains
have been spared to produce an accurate epitome, still in the
speaker's own phraseology as far as possible. Over the period

Preface.

XXV

of his life, which ended with the death of Lord Goorire
Bentinck, I have passed somewhat lightly. I have, however,
endeavoured to show how Lord Beaconsfield thought on all prin
cipal topics, and how he acted upon all critical occasions ; and
to afford the necessary materials for forming an accurate judg
ment of his career. The earlier portion of his life is tolerably
familiar, and Lord Beaconsfield has himself told the story of the
great Free Trade struggle in a work so perfect in its way, that
it would be sheer presumption on my part to attempt to retell
it. The literary side of his career, I have taken some pains
to illustrate, and I hope that I have succeeded in bringing out
some obscure but interesting facts.
How far my book falls short of that ideally perfect biography
which the world may some day hope to see, no one is more
painfully conscious than myself, but I put it forth in the hope
that it may help to clear away some misapprehensions, and
some few of the miserable misrepresentations which have re
sulted from them. Half a century of untiring devotion to the
interests of the English people demands some recognition, and
such recognition can hardly fail to be accorded when the truth
is known. That truth I have endeavoured to tell — it is for the
reader to say with what effect.
As regards myself, I need only say that this work has been
with me a labour of love : that the illustrious subject of my
book has been in no way consulted or concerned in its pre-

xxvi Preface.
paration, and that my personal relations with him have been
confined to a foraial presentation some six years ago. For the
benefit of the critics, I may perhaps be allowed to add that
whatever the faults of the book may be, they are not those
which arise from haste. It was begun rather more than two
years ago, and it has occupied every spare hour since that
time. I cannot allow these sheets to leave my hands without
grateful mention of my deep obligations to the officials of the
British Museum and especially to the accomplished superin
tendent of the Reading Room — Mr. Richard Gamett — a gentle
man whose encyclopsedic knowledge is. only equalled by the
generous courtesy with which he places it at the disposal of
every applicant for information.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
FAMILY HISTOEY AND EARLY YEARS.
PAOE
By descent a Jew — The Sephardim — The Inquisition — The exodus from
Spain — The settlement in England — The Disraeli family never poor —
Benjamin Disraeli at Enfield — Isaac Disraeli — The "Curiosities of
Literature " — Brunet's opinion of them — Controversy with Bolton Comey
— The "Genius of Judaism" — Never a Jew — "Withdraws finally from
the Synagogue — Baptism of Benjamin Disraeli — Education — The "cele
brated Dr. Cogan " — In the ofiice of a firm of solicitors — The Representa
tive — Lord Beaconsfield never connected with it — Mr. Macknight's attack
—"nieStar Chamier— The " Dunciad of To-day"— " Vivian Grey"—
Keys to the novel — Brougham upon it — Disraeli a personage in society
— Lady Blessington — "Captain Popanilla " — Eastern Tour — "The
Revolutionary Epick" — Analysis of the Poem — Reviews — "The Young
Duke," "Contarini Fleming," and "Alroy."' .... 1

CHAPTER II.
POLITICAL LIFE.
Abandons literature for politics— Stands for High "Wycombe in opposition to
Colonel Grey — Is attacked for his Toryism — Nominated by a Tory and
seconded by a Radical — The Reform Bill passes — Dissolution of Parlia
ment — Mr. Disraeli's address — Attacks on the "Whigs — The "new
National Party '' — Again defeated — Asked to stand for the county — >
Again defeated at High "Wycombe — Irish Coercion Bill — Dissolution of

xxviii Contents. FAOB
the Melbourne Ministry— " The Crisis Examined "—The agricultural
interest — Election at Taunton— O'Connell and his compact with the
Whigs— Attack upon Mr. Disraeli— Calls upon Morgan O'Connell for the
"satisfaction of a gentleman "—Is refused— Writes to O'Connell and
sends a copy of his letter to the Times — Controversy with the Oldbe —
Intimacy with Lyndhurst— The "Vindication of the Constitution" —
Analysis of the book — Runnymede Letters — Admiration for Peel —
"Henrietta Temple "—"Venetia"— Death of "William IV.— General
election — Stands for Maidstone — Address to the electors — The New
Poor Law — Member for Maidstone  60

CHAPTER III.
MEMBER FOR MAIDSTONE.
Meeting of the New Parliament — An Irish debate — Mr. Disraeli's maiden
speech — Not a failure — "Watches his opportunities — Session of 1839 — ¦
Supports removal of restrictions on theatres in Lent — Household Suffrage
— Education — Popular discontent — The "Condition of England" — The
old and the new Poor Law — Malthus — The Poor I,aw Commission —
Cholesbury, the "frightful example" — The Bill — "Working of the new
Poor Law—Workhouse plans — Popular discontent — "Wages lower rather
than higher after the introduction of the new system — Sufferings of the
Peasantry — The state of the Black Country — Retirement of Lord
Melbourne — The Bed-Chamber Plot — Unpopularity of the Queen —
Chartism — ^Attwood's speech in the House — Popular dissatisfaction with
the contempt of the House for the great Chartist petition — Mr. Disraeli
supports the petition and retorts on Lord John Russell — The country
"on the verge of civil war'' — Riots at Birmingham — At Hyde — At
Newport — Trial of the rioters — Opening of Parliament — Queen's Speech
— Lord Melbourne and Robert 0*en — Mr. Disraeli speaks on the
Address — Peel winds up the debate — Lord Melbourne still in oflSce 
Government defeats — Mr. Disraeli on the New Police Bill — Chartist
prisoners — Mr. Disraeli on the side of mercy — Chartist petitions— The
Chartists oppose the repeal of the Corn Laws — Vote of want of confidence
in the Ministry — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Prorogation and dissolution-
Mr. Disraeli breaks with Maidstone— Mr. Austin's privileged libel 
Declines t6,stand for "Wycombe — Elected for Slu-ewsbury. . . , 132

Contents. xxix
CHAPTER IV.
MEMBER OR SHREWSBURY.— PROTECTIONISM.
I'AOH
The Conservative Majority — Loi-d Melbourne's retirement — Peel is sent for —
State of the country — Issue of half farthings — Misery of the working-
classes — Mr. Disraeli speaks on commercial policy — State of Ireland —
O'Connell's agitation — His trial, sentence, and liberation — Approaching
famine — Unscrupulousness of O'Connell — Wi-etchedness of his tenants —
Mr. Disraeli on Irish questions — Session of 1844 — Speech on Lord John
Russell's Irish motion — On Maynooth — On Coercion — Becomes lieutenant
to Lord George Bentinck — The Whig treatment of Irish distress— Lord
George Bentinck on Irish railways — "Warmly supported by Mr. Disraeli
— Anti-Corn Law agitation — The Leaguers not always wise — Ireland joins
them — Peel's wavering — Import duties abolished in Ireland by a Cabinet
memorandum — Peel resigns — Lord John sent for — Fails to form a
government — Peel retm-ns to office a Free Trader — Disgust of Ms party
^Session of 1846 — Queen's Speech — Intrigues concerning the Coercion
Bill — Resignation of Peel — Lord John again sent for — Prorogation of
Parliament and general election — Mr. Disraeli throughout the lieutenant
of Lord George Bentinck — Has himself related the history of this
struggle — "Why he quarrelled with Peel — His powers of invective —
Assaults on the ex-leader of the Tories — Peel's reply — The Sugar-duties
. — The Session of 1847 — Mr. Disraeli's speeches — Close of the Session —
Mr. Disraeli retires from Shrewsbury — Buys Hughenden Manor —
Addresses the electors of Buckinghamshire — Is opposed by Dr. Lee, but
returned without even the formality of a show of hands — Busy with
literature — "Coniugsby" — "Young England" — The Duke of Rutland
and Lord Strangford — "What the reviews said — Personalities — "Sybil"
and " Taucred " — Thomas Cooper the Chartist — " Tancred " an anticipa
tion of modern religious criticism — Great speech at the Manchester
AthenaBum  184
CHAPTER V.
LEADER OF THE TORIES.
Mr. Disraeli speaks on the Address (Nov. 1847)— Jewish disabilities — Speech
of Mr. Disraeli — Lord George Bentinck retires from the Protectionist
leadership — Mr. Disraeli succeeds him — Chartist disturb.inces— Irisli
disaffection — Mitchel's case — State of the Continent — Sir Henry Bulwer

XXX Contents.
PAGE
expelled from Madrid — Mr. Disraeli on the subject — Speech on intrigues
in Italy — Reviews the conduct and policy of the Government — Attacks
on Lord John Russell — Death of Lord George Bentinck — The Queen's
Speech — Mr. Disraeli on the Address — Moves resolutions on the burdens
on land — Hume's amendment — Protectionist agitation — Mr. Disraeli
returns to the charge — The aristocratic principle — Declares war against
the Ministry — his Motion "not a flash in the pan" — Advocates
reciprocity as the principle of foreign commercial relations — Mr. Cobden
recommends "a little agitation" — Mr. Disraeli at Castle Hedingham —
Mr. Cobden at Aylesbury — Protectionist meetings — Session of 1850 —
Speech from the throne — Mr. Disraeli on agricultural distress — Returns
to the subject — Criticises the budget — Agricultural interests — Papal
aggression — The Durham letter — Mr. Disraeli's remarks upon it —
Opening of Parliament — Ecclesiastical Titles Bill — The Government
saved by the Exhibition — Agricultural distress— Government defeated
on Mr. Locke King's county franchise motion — Retires — Lord Derby
sent for — Refusal to form an administration unless he may appeal to the
country — Negotiations with the Peelites — Interregnum — Lord John
returns to office — The amended Budget — Mr. Disraeli on the Income and
Property Tax — Has long abandoned the idea of re-imposing a duty on
corn — Beginning of the end — Address to Buckinghamshire farmers —
Lord John Russell expels Palmerston from the Cabinet — Interference of
the Queen in the matter — Lord Granville sworn in — Lord John explains
— Mr. Disraeli's criticism on his speech— The New Reform BUI — The
Militia Bill — Palmerston's amendment — Defeat of the Government 
Lord Derby is sent for— Mr. Disraeli chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer
--Address on re-election— Lord Derby's Protectionism—" The Rupert of
Parliamentary Discussion."  261

CHAPTER VI.
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Questioned by Mr. Villiers— Declines to pledge himself on his policy for the
next year— The constitution of the Opposition— The New Militia Bill—
Factious opposition of Lord John Russell and the "Whigs— Budget-
Renewal of Income and Property Tax- General satisfaction with the
finance of the Government— Lord Derby at the Mansion House— Alarm
of the Free Traders— The St. Albans and Sudbury Bills— Defeat of the
Government— Close of the Session— Great measures carried for which the
"Whigs claim credit— Attacks of Lord John RusseU— Mr. Disraeli's reply

Contents. xxxi

PAGE

— Import duty on Corn no longer possible — General Election— Address
to the electors— Result of tho elections — Convocation restored — The New
Parliament— Queen's Speech— Debate on the Address — Mr. Villiers's
attempt to hamper the Goveruineut — The resolutions — Mr. Disraeli's
amendment — Speech thereon — Mr. Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel— Their
position defined — Attacks upon the former — Lord Palmerston's amend
ment — Accepted by the Government— Defeat of the "Whigs — Mr.
Disraeli's second budget — Analysis of its details — "Ways and Means—
"Whig misrepresentations — General characteristics of the scheme — The
debate — Mr. Disraeli's reply — The division — Not a minister on sufferance
—Out of oflice  345

CHAPTER VII.
AGAIN IN OPPOSITION.
The Coahtion Government — A strong administration — Clouds in the East —
At home — Ministerial indiscretions — The French alliance — Attacks on
foreign powers — Analysis of the situation — The Budget — Conceived in a
spirit of hostility to the land — Anti-Russian feeling in England — A new
Reform BUI — Palmerston's resignation — Absurd reports about the Prince
Consort— Opening of the Session — Ministerial explanations — Speech on
the Address — Lord John's Reform BiU — Drifting into war — Speech on
the Government policy — Preparations for war — The Supplemental Budget
— Criticisms of the chief of the Opposition — Government war policy —
Prorogation of Parliament — Landing of the Allies in the Crimea —
VaoiUation of Lord Aberdeen — Speech on the conduct of the war — The
Prince Consort's Proposals — Lord John Russell "upsets the coach" —
Re-assembUng of Parliament, January, 1855 — The Crimean Inquiiy —
CoUapse of the Government— The Interregnum — Palmerston Prime
Minister — Speech of Mr. Disraeli — Retirement of the Peelites — Minis
terial explanations — Sir G. C. Lewis's Budget— Failure of the Vienna
Conference — "Ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of the
Government " — Resolution— Aggressive war and protective diplomacy —
Amendments — Lord John Russell at Vienna — Retirement of Lord John
Russell — Cabinet sympathy with the Peace party — Prorogation and the
Queen's Speech 

THE PUBLIC LIFE
OP
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G.

CHAPTER I.
FAMILY HTSTORy AND EARLY YEARS.
By descent a Jew — The Sephardim — The Inquisition — The exodus from Spain —
The settlement in England — The Disraeli family never poor — Benjamin
Disraeli at Enfield-^Isaac Disraeli — The "Curiosities of Literature" —
Brunet's opinion of them — Controversy with Bolton Cornej' — The " Genius
of Judaism" — Never a Jew — "Withdraws finally from the Synagogue —
Baptism of Benjamin Disraeli — Education — The "celebrated Dr. Cogan" —
In the office of a firm of solicitors — The Mepresentative — Lord Beaconsfield
never connected with it — Mr. Macknight's attack — The Star Clmmhet — The
"Dunciad of To-day" — " Vivian Grey" — Keys to the novel — Brougham upon
it — Disraeli a personage in society— Lady Blessington — ' ' Captain PopaniUa "
— Eastern Tour — "The Revolutionary Epick "—Analysis of the Poem — ¦
Reviews — "The Young Duke,'' " Contarini Fleming," and "Alroy."
Lord Beaconsfield, as all the world knows, is by descent
a Jew. Unlike the majority of Hebrews, however, he has at no
time been ashamed of the race from which he springs, but has
always manifested a certain amount of pride in the fact that he
belongs to the most ancient nation on earth. And well may he
do so. In the graceful and touching memoir which lie prefixed
to the edition of his father's wofks published in 1849, he tells
voij. I. 5

2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
the tale of his family history, and it is one which has in it
nothing for which the most sensitive need blush. The stock
from which he springs is that of the Sephardim, " children of
Israel who had never quitted the shores of the Midland
Ocean until Torquemada had driven them from their pleasant
residences and rich estates in Aragon 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." When the family of Disraeli migrated to Spain is
not known, or, at all events, has never been told to the world ;
but they left the sunny Peninsula in the midst of the " ages of
faith," somewhere about the year 1500. From Spain they
went to Venice, driven out by the terrors of the Inquisition
which, as Lord Beaconsfield has told us in "Coningsby," had
been " established in the Spanish kingdoms against the protests
of the Cortes and amidst the terror of the populace." The
crime against which the followers of St. Dominic directed their
most vehement efibrts was Judaism. The Moors of Spain
had always treated their suffering kinsmen with as much
gentleness and charity as could be expected by the sons of
Jacob from the children of Ishmael. The Goths who suc
ceeded them were at first as tender and consideiate, but as
they grew stronger they began to persecute. Such privileges
as the Jews enjoyed were taken from them, and they were
forced to conform outwardly to Christianity, receiving as their
reward the title of Nuevos Christianos, and being universally
understood to be Christians only in name.
The Inquisition, which had first been established in Seville,
soon spread throughout Spain, and the fell institution which, as
Lord Beaconsfield' has said, "had externiiuated the Albigenses

The Inquisition. %
and desolated Languedoc," obtained the supreme power in every
Spanish kingdom. "The Cortes of Aragon appealed to the
king and to the pope ; they organised an extensive conspiracy ;
the Chief Inquisitor was assassinated in tho Cathedral of
Saragossa." But the spiritual power was too strong. " Those
who were convicted of secret Judaism . . . were dragged to
the stake ; the sons of the noblest houses in whose veins the
Hebrew taint could be traced, had to walk in solemn pro
cession, singing psalms and confessing their faith in the fell
religion of Torquemada." * Before such a persecution it was
impossible to stand. Sir Arthur Helps has somewhere re
marked, in reply to the commonplace about the inutility of
persecution, that if you will but persecute relentlessly enough
you are certain to gain your end. This truth the Jews of

* " On the ca2rture of Malaga in 1485, Ferdinand had twelve of the Jews
whom he found there put to death with pointed reeds, a refinement of lingering
cruelty only employed by the Moors upon criminals convicted of treason against
the person of the monarch. The other Jews he had burned. . . . Against the
introduction of these tyrannical Courts (the Courts of the Inquisition) the Jews
used entreaties, and lavished their money and other influence. The Queen, with
the Cortes of CastUe, protested ; and tho nobles of Ai'agon, re.sisting so gross an
innovation on the ancient privileges of their country, shut tho gates of Teruel
against their king and the inquisitors, and denounced death to any of these who
should enter the city. The royal force prevailed, but the flrst inquisitor entering
was put to death. ... Its tribunal being opened at Seville in 1483, that city in
a short time numbered more prisoners than other inhabitants. In one year
above 2000 persons were put to death for relapse to Judaism, and 17,000 were
subjected to corporal punishment. At length the mound near the city, known
by the name of the Tablada, was paved with stone and enclosed. This formed
the Quemadero, or burning-place, and on that spot more than 4000 Jews were
committed to the flames in thirty-seven years. . . . From the year 1483 to 1520,
in the Archbishopric of Seville alone, between the imprisoned, the banished, and
the dead, above 100,000 Judaizing heretics received their several sentences." —
"Sephardim; or the History of the Jews in Spain and Portugal," by James
Finn, p. 379, et sec^, :h 3

4 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Spain speedily discovered. The gloomy fanatic Ferdinand,
under tbe inspiration of his Dominican advisers, had deter
mined that Judaism should be stamped out. The Hebrew
race must either cease to be Hebrew or must go into exile.
Here, however, the Jews outwitted the Inquisition. They
conformed outwardly in many cases ; but they were no sooner
free than they resumed the profession of their ancient faith, like
the brethren of Sidonia, " who were as good Catholics in Spain
as Ferdinand and Isabella could have possibly desired, but who
made an offering in the synagogue, in gratitude for their safe
voyage, on their arrival in England." All were not quite so
worldly wise. Some six hundred 'thousand — some authorities
say more — would not abandon the faith of their fathers. " For
this they gave up the delightful land where they had lived for
centuries, the beautiful cities they had raised, the universities
from which Christendom drew for ages its most precious lore,
the tombs of their ancestors, the temples where they had
worshipped the God for whom they made this sacrifice.'' The
new exodus went on for the greater part of two centuries. It
was, of course, impossible wholly to exterminate a race which
had struck its roots so deeply into the soil as the Hebrews had
into the Peninsula. The proudest nobles of Spain have Jewish
blood in their veins, and the first persons summoned before the
Inquisition in Seville were no less important than the Duke of
Medina Sidonia, the Marquess of Cadiz, and the Count of
Arcos. Many generations later it was intended to re-establish
the Inquisition in Portugal, and the king had been talked
into sanctioning the use of the yellow hat for the purpose
of distinguishing the "new Christians," i.e., the baptised
Jews. The astute minister, Pombal, presented himself on

In cxitu Israel de Hi span id. 5
the following day wearing a yellow hat and carrying with
him two others— one for the king and the other for the Grand
Inquisitor. Early in the sixteenth century, however, the exodus was at
its height, and amongst the first of those who went out were
the ancestors of Lord Beaconsfield's family, who flourished
undisturbed and unmolested under the mild and tolerant rule
of the Venetian Republic, for more than two hundred years.
Towards the middle of the eighteenth century, the altered
state of affairs in Venice, and the attractions held out by
the English Government, induced many Jews to settle in
this country. Amongst them was the grandfather of Lord
Beaconsfield — Benjamin Disraeli the first. With his set
tlement in England began the gradual but steady and con
tinued alienation of the family from the Hebrew faith.
Always proud of their race, the Disraelis were never very
scrupulous about the observances of the religion to which
they nominally adhered, and for more than a hundred years
they have been drifting ever farther from the old lines of
Jewish tradition.
Benjamin- Disraeli settled in England in 1748, he being then^
eighteen years of age. He was naturalized almost immediately,
and at once entered upon the mercantile pursuits which his
fathers had carried on in Venice. With a sufficient command
of capital, with great natural capacity, and as great industry,
he throve wonderfully, and when, at the age of five-and-thirty,
he married, he was already a man of fortune — of how great a
fortune will probably never be known. That it must have
been considerable may be judged from the fact that when in
1815 Russia wished to raise an enormous loan, the coutract

6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
for it was offered to him. He refused, and the offer was trans
ferred to the house of Rothschild, who accepted it and laid
the foundation of their European reputation— a fact to which
Lord Beaconsfield alludes somewhat obscurely in one of his
prefaces. Interesting in itself, this fact effectually disposes of
the foolish tales with which successive writers have regaled
their readers of Lord Beaconsfield's youthful poverty. The man
Avhose gi'andfather was a rival of the Rothschilds in 1815, and
who was, as appears from a recent letter in the Tirnies, one of the
founders of the Stock Exchange, could never have been " poor."
His marriage was not wholly happy, though his wife was both
beautiful and interesting. She, however, hated the name of
Jew and everything of which it reminded her — a fact which is
hardly surprising when the extent of her family's sufferings is
taken into consideration. Retired from business, Benjamin
Disraeli settled near Enfield, where, in the words of his illus
trious grandson, " 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, ate macaroni which was dressed by the Venetian
Consul, sang canzonettes, and, notwithstanding a wife who
never pardoned him for his name, and a son who disappointed
his plans, and who, to the last hour of his life, was an enigma
to him, lived till he was nearly ninety, and then died in 1817
in the full enjoyment of prolonged existence." During this
period of retirement Benjamin Disraeli's Judaism seems to
have sat very lightly on his shoulders. When he first came to
London, he of course attached himself to the Spanish synagogue
in Bevis Marks, and, from the books of that community which
have been ransacked by Mr. Picciotto for hia "Anglo- Jewish

Isaac Disraeli. 7
History," it appears that his jinta or synagogue tax rose
gradually from 10s. per annum to £22 13s. 4(/.. in 1813,
at which figure it remained until his death. Euyond this
the only share which he took in the public business of the
Hebrew community was to accept in 1782 the office of
Inspector of the Beth Haim or Charity School, but this he
resigned at the end of the year. He was never appointed to
another office — apparently because he so negligently discharged
the duties of this. In short, as Mr. Picciotto tells us, he seems
to have been a very lax Jew, though liberal in his charities.
The son above referred to was Isaac Disraeli, well known in
the world of letters as a writer of respectable though curiously
over-rated abilities. He was born in 1766, twelve months after
his father's marriage, and was educated in a desultory fashion ;
first, at a private school near London, then by a private tutor.
After a while he was sent to Holland, where his father's friends
were asked to see that he was properly taught. Whatever
their pains may have been, they were singularly unsuccessful.
Isaac Disraeli was put under the care of a private tutor, whom
in after life he was wont to describe as a shallow impostor. He
was wholly unfit to guide a lively lad through the severer
studies which form the discipline of life, and preferred to turn
his pupil adrift in his library to browse at will, whilst he occu
pied himself with the composition of bad verses. In their
leisure hours he talked what he was pleased to consider
philosophy, and the result was that his pupil returned to
England at eighteen, saturated with Rousseauism, and full of
those impracticable ideas which were then agitating Europe,
and which found their ultimate expression in the tragedy of the
French Revolution, Lord Beaconsfield has told how his father

8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
occupied himself, during his voyage home, in idealising his
interview with his mother, " which was to be conducted on both
sides with sublime pathos." The boy's absurd dress, gaunt
figure, long hair, and " Batavian gi-aces," were too much for his
mother. She broke into derisive laughter, and could scarcely
be induced to acknowledge her son. He, on his part, like
another Emile, "went into heroics, wept, sobbed, and finally,
shut up in his chamber, composed an impassioned epistle."
His father attempted to soothe his wounded spirit, and finally
offered him an introduction to a friend in Bordeaux. The
reply of the young enthusiast was that he had written a poem
in contempt of commerce as the corrupter of mankind. This
poem was carried by its ardent author to the house of Dr.
Johnson in Bolt Court, where it was received by Francis
Barber, the Doctor's well-known black servant, who promised
an answer in a week. When Isaac Disraeli called for his reply,
he was told that the Doctor was too ill to read anything, and
accepted the reply as a formal excuse. A few weeks later,
however, its validity was but too certain. Dr. Johnson died on
the 13th of December, 1784.
Isaac Disraeli must at this time have been anything but an
agreeable inmate of his home. Even his son, who entertains
for him an astonishing amount of respect and affection, is con
strained to speak in terms of reproach of his " spirit of self-
confidence," the " eccentricity of his course," the " violation of
all prudential considerations in which he daily indulged." As
a matter of course, he was again sent to travel. He went to
France, stayed in Paris until 1788, and returned to London in
time to escape theconvulsion of 1789, "with some little knowledge
of life and a considerable quantity of books." Here he commenced

Isaac Disraeli. 9
the career of a man of letters, making his first appearance as —
it is said — an assailant of that redoubtable literary gladiator,
Peter Pindar * — a circumstance which led to an acquaintance
with Pye, afterwards Poet Laureate, and with Mr. James Pettit
Andrews. Both were natives of Berkshire, and through his
acquaintance with them commenced that connection with the
county of Bucks which has been so signally illustrated of late
years. His literary life went on. For a while he essayed
poetry, but not with conspicuovis success, though Sir Walter
* I take leave, however, to doubt this assertion, since I find it stated upon
good authority that in the year 1795 Isaac Disraeli, being in bad health, con
sulted Dr. John "Wolcot (Peter Pindar), who recommended him to try Devonshire
air. He went to Exeter, and was received into the family of Mr. Baring, M. P.
for that city, and occasionally consulted Dr. Downman, a brother litterateur.
During his stay he wrote the following verses : —
HuGoiN Downman, M.D.
Bright as the chaplets on the brow of Spring,
Soft as the breath which stirs its downy wing,
So bright thy fancy, so thy numbers breathe.
And give eternal bloom to Thespia's wreath.
But ah ! too strong thy tones of natm'C speak,
And the tear steals o'er memory's faded cheek ;
Mine was the season thou hast called thy own,
My flowers, alas ! decayed ere fully blown.
Thou opest the immedicable wound of love,
And bid'st again the spectre pas.sion move.
For thee encircled by domestic powers
"With Thespia, arbitress of festal hom-s —
Her who enchants us with that magic face,
"Warm with the smile of peace, the air of grace
"Whose heartfelt sounds the train of friendship call,
"Whom all aspire to please, she pleasing all —
For thee thus blest shall taste not slowly twine
Laurel and myi'tle, many a leaf divine ;
Nor wait with tardy hand and fruitless tear
To scatter roses on the poet's bier,
QeioUr \st, 1792. I. D'Isbaeli,

10 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Scott is reported to have committed some of his verses to
memory, and to have-declared that if their writer " had gone
on, he would have been an English poet." The bent of his
inclinations lay elsewhere. As early as 1796 he had published
a small volume of literary anecdotes, which laid the foundation
for his well-kno-wn "Curiosities of Literature ;" and from that
time until 1822 he was continually occupied in work of this
kind ; his severer labours being relieved by the publication in
1806 of a " Literary Romance."
It is quite right and natural that Lord Beaconsfield should -
speak in somewhat exalted terms of his father's genius and
powers of application. He tells us, indeed, that "he was a
complete literary character, a man who really passed his life in
his library. Even marriage produced no change in those
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 Avails. He disliked business, and he never required
relaxation ; he was absorbed in his pursuits. In London
his only amusement was to ramble among -booksellers ; 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 on 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." Unfortunately, the impression which these
words convey is hardly an accurate one. Isaac Disraeli was, in
truth, far from being the man of letters pure and simple which
his son imagines, and his popular works are remarkably slight

Controversy with Bolton Corncy. \ i
and superficial in their character. His "Literary Romance " bore
for title " FHm Flams, or the Life and Errors of ray Uncle and his
Friends, with illustrations and obscurities by Messrs. Tag, Rag,
and Bobtail. A Literary Romance in three volumes, with 11
plates. London, INIurray, 1806." It went into two editions,
and then faded into obscurity. The title gives a very fair idea
of the book. It is flippant, dull, and rather vulgar ; many of
the jests are grossly indecent, and as the principal object of the
author's somewhat lumbering satire is scientific research — of
which he knew nothing — it may readily be imagined that he
has succeeded rather in exposing his own ignorance than in
pro"ving his opponents in the wrong. Of the famous " Curiosi
ties " and their kindred, Brunet in the " Manuel de Libraire ''
expresses a rather contemptuous opinion. " They are," he says,
"amusing, but as superficial as those of Gabriel Peignot."
They are, in fact, something worse. They are literally crammed
with inaccuracies of every kind ; they pompously herald every
trumpery fact as a " discovery," and their author is sometimes
guilty of copying printed works of antiquarian writers, and of
pretending that he has been at work upon original MSS. Mr.
Bolton Corney exposed a choice collection of these blunders,
and showed moreover that the basis of the work was nothing
more recondite than the volumes of " ana " Avhich poured
in abundance from the French press of the eighteenth
century.. The pamphlet in which Isaac Disraeli replied to his
critic affords a sufficient answer to the assertion of his son, that
he " had not a single passion or prejudice," and that he had " a
great sympathy with his order." Mr. Bolton Corney had pre
sumed to criticise him, whereupon Isaac Disraeli cries out
about the "malice of his critic," and the "baseness of his

1 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
vulgarity," scolds at him as a "blockhead," a "fellow," a
" ribald," a " carle," a " pig in a drawing-room," and a " literary
Yahoo," — amenities of literature of a kind which it may be
hoped is out of fashion for ever.
Whilst engaged upon the series of books with which his name
is chiefly associated, Isaac Disraeli published his "Life and
Times of Charles I.," and some minor works, the best of which
was without doubt a rather bulky pamphlet, which appeared in
1833, and which bore for title " The Genius of Judaism." It
does not, indeed, appear that Isaac Disraeli ever acknowledged
this work, though it is classed in some of the booksellers' lists
under his name, and is so catalogued in the library of the British
Museum. It has never been reprinted, and is not included in
the collected editions of the assumed author's works — a fact for
which it is not altogether easy to account, seeing that it is, as
a whole, infinitely better in style than anything which he ac
knowledged. Apart from its literary merits, however, the work
has a special interest, inasmuch as it throws no inconsiderable
light on the religious position which its author had assumed.
Undaunted by his father's unhappy matrimonial relations,
Isaac Disraeli married early in 1802 a sister of George (other
wise Joshua) Basevi, the well known Hebrew architect, to whom
England is indebted for — amongst other considerable works —
the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge.* Mrs. Disraeli at no
time filled a conspicuous place in the family history, and does
not appear to have been especially remarkable in any way.
She bore her husband four children. Sarah, the eldest, was
born on the 6th of December, 1802 ; Benjamin, the present
* Basevi survived until 1845, when he was killed by a fall from the lantern of
Ely Cathedral, which he was engaged in restoring,

Secession from the Synagogue. 1 3
Eai-1 of Beaconsfield, on the 21st of December, 1804 ; Ralph in
1809, and James in 1813. The year of Lord Beaconsfield's birth
is generally given as 1805 or 1806, and with that careless
ness about personal details which has always been eminently
characteristic of him, he has never condescended to correct it.
As, however, these dates are given on the authority of Mr.
Picciotto, who copied them from the registers of the Spanish
(Sephardim) synagogue in Bevis Marks, it will probably be
safe to assume that they are correct. Although the births of
his children are registered in the synagogue books, Isaac Disraeli
was only technically a Jew. When he returned from his visit
to Holland, he was, as we have seen, saturated with the theories
of Voltaire and Rousseau, and he found his mother utterly
ashamed of her Hebrew extraction, and loathing her connection
with the, race, whilst his father lived in the country, and scarcely
entered the Synagogue once in a year. He followed his father's
example. He was assessed to the Synagogue at £10 a year, and
he paid that sum, adding a few guineas for charities ; but with
those payments his Judaic character ended. In the year 1813
his co-religionists elected him to the ofiice of Parnass, or
Warden of the Synagogue, which he naturally refused to fill.
The letter embodying his refusal is dated from the King's Road,
Bedford Row, and is a piece of cool and contemptuous reasoning
with those whose obstinate adherence to obsolete tradition had
made it impossible for men of education and refinement to join
in their worship. A passage from the " Genius of Judaism,"
though of later date, may be taken as the best explanation of
Isaac Disraeli's refusal to associate with his fellow Hebrews in
their religious services. After pointing out that even by their
own account tbe miraculous element had faded from Hebraism

14 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
with the building of the Second Temple, he goes on t^ say : —
" It is evident to all men but Hebrews who still cling to the
ignorant pride of a semi-civilised race that a considerable
portion of the Mosaic code could not be designed for perpetuity,
but was accommodated 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 pecuhar to the East because 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 centuries."
It will be seen from this quotation that the form of relioion
which Isaac Disraeli had adopted was an enlightened and culti
vated Deism, free from virulence and animosity on one side as
on the other, but still with a certain amount of intelligible pride
in the ancient traditions of the race to which he belonged. To
the latter sentiment may be ascribed the fact that his sons were
" admitted into the covenant of Abraham ; " to the former his

Final rupture ivith Jtidaism. 1 5
quarrel with the Mahamad (Wardens) of the Synagogue. As
regards the initiatory rite, all that is known is that it was per
formed by one Daniel Abarbanel Lindo, a connection of the
Disraeli family, and a Portuguese merchant of high standing.
The quarrel with the Wardens of the Synagogue was a more
serious matter. On his refusal to accept the office of Parnass,
Isaac Disraeli was ordered to pay a fine of £40, with which
order he flatly refused to comply. The Wardens called a
meeting and summoned him to appear before it, and in a
forcible and pointed letter he refused obedience. Four years
later some pressure was put upon him with reference to this
matter, whereupon he wrote again, stating that he was " under
the painful necessity of insisting that his name be erased from
the list of members as Yehedim (contributing members) of the
Synagogue." This letter, written in 1817, marks the final
rupture of the Disraeli family with the Hebrew community.
For the sake of securing the , certificates of his marriage and
of the births of his children, he paid up his fintco to this
year, though he positively refused to recognize the validity of
the fine which had been levied upon him, and with that
payment the last trace of his connection with the Synagogue
ceased. On the 31st of July in this year Benjamin Disraeli
was baptised in the parish church of St. Andrew, Hoiborn —
it is said, on exceedingly doubtful authority, at the instigation
of Samuel Rogers, the banker poet — the register recording his
abode as "King's Road," and stating him to be "said to be
about 12 years old."
This entry sets at rest one or two disputed questions. It
has been asserted on the authority of a gentleman of anti
quarian predilections that Lord Beaconsfield was baptised at

1 6 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
St. Andrew's in 1806 ; also on the authority of a Unitarian
preacher of the Midland counties that the rite was celebrated
in 1814 at the parish church of Hackney, and lastly that he '
was born in Bloomsbury Square. Of the two former state
ments the entry in the books of St. Andrew, Hoiborn, is a
sufficient disproof : the error in the latter is sufficiently evident
from the fact that Isaac Disraeli removed from the house in
the King's Road to Bloomsbury Square only after the death
of his father and the baptism of his son. The house in the
King's Road — then an almost rural spot and very different
from the frowsy and evil smelling locality it has since become
— was entered upon in 1809, and was taken for the sake of
its proximity to the British Museum, in the library of which
institution Isaac Disraeli was one of the earliest readers.
When by the death of his father his means were sufficiently
increased, he removed to Bloomsbury Square, where he stayed
from 1817 to 1825. The house was that at the corner of Hart
Street, and was for a considerable period of late years in the
occupation of Mr. Creswick the actor. ' Under the influence
of the Pye family and their relations Isaac Disraeli sought a
rural home in the valley of the Thames. What he wanted
was not to be found in Berkshire, but Bradenham House in
Buckinghamshire offering itself he bought it, and removed
thither with his family and library in the latter part of 1825.
With that removal began the connexion never afterwards
severed between Benjamin Disraeli and the county which
he has so aptly called " the county of statesmen." From
Bradenham House the prefaces to his earliest works and
the election addresses of "Disraeli the younger" wei-e
uniformly dated until after his marriage, when the words

Early Days. 1 7
gave way to the now more . familiar address of Hughenden
Manor* — a house formerly the property of John Norris, the
antiquary, and nephew of the first Earl of Conyngham.
Of the early days of Lord Beaconsfield little, if anything, of an
authentic character is known. One of his biographers gi-avely
asserts that he was educated by " that eminent Greek scholar,
the celebrated Dr. Cogan," whose success in training him was
so great that at the age of sixteen he published " an edition
of the Idyll of Theocritus, Adonais." It is hardly necessary to
say that although something is known of Dr. Cogan, the edition
of the Adonais is altogether mythical. According to another
* The following epitaph is in the parish church of Bradenham \-^
TO THE MEMOIUES
OF
ISAAC DISRAELI, Esquire, D.C.L.,
OF
BRADENHAM HOUSE,
Author of " Curiosities of Literature,"
WHO DIED JANUARY 19, 1848, IN HIS 82nD YEAR,
AND
OF HIS WIFE MARIA,
TO WHOM HE WAS UNITED FOE FORTY-FIVE YEARS.
She died April 21st, 1847, in the 72nd year of her age. Their remains lie side
by' side in the vault of the adjoining chancel.
Lady Beaconsfield a few years ago erected a column on an eminence near
Hughenden to the memory of Isaac Disraeli. It bears the following inscription : —
" In memory of Isaac Disraeli, of Bradenham House, in this county, Esq.,
and Honorary D.C.L. of the University of Oxford, who, by his happy genius,
diflfused 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 Rt. Honble. B. Disraeli, Chancellor of
the Exchequer, 1852, 1858-9, Lord of this Manor, and now for the sixth time
Knight of this Shire."
VOL. I. C

1 8 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
authority he was sent to Winchester School— a tradition ap
parently founded on the fact that he was for a short time at
a boarding school at Winchester, which is a very different
thing. The EdinUirgh Review (April, 1853) in a delightfully
malicious article— which from internal evidence appears to be
the work of Brougham— asserts that " he was brought up at
a private school or academy in the classic shades of Hampstead
or Highgate." Another equally authentic record declares that
he was taught after leaving the boarding school at Winchester
by a dissenting minister at Walthamstow. As a matter of
fact, however, very little indeed is known of his early years.
No public school can boast of numbering him amongst her
sons ; no University can claim the honour of being his Alma
Mater. If he were ever at school, the name of his school-
^master has been forgotten ; if he had a private tutor other
than the "celebrated" Dr. Cogan,* his name is utterly
lost. He -seems to have been brought up in his father's
library, and to have been in a great measure left to educate
himself As a rule such an experiment is dangerous, but in
Lord, Beaconsfield's case it succeeded perfectly. He may
never have attained scholarship of the meticulous kind
required for high University honours, but he has manifested
at all times an acquaintance with the spirit of classical authors
which minute verbal scholarship does not always imply, and
he has besides displayed an amount of general information
* It should not be omitted that Mr. Crabb Robinson records the, existence of
this Mr. Cogan, and says of him that he was the only dissenter whose Greek
scholarship Dr. Parr could be persuaded to acknowledge. !Mr. Robinson — or his
editor, it does not appear which— also says that Lord Beaconsfield was at his
school until he was articled to a solicitor, a statement which seems to rest upon
little authority.

In an Attorneys Office. ig
and culture which is rare even amongst the most accomplished
of public school and university men.
In spite of his love of letters and contempt for commerce,
Isaac Disraeli was a man of very practical ideas in many
respect,?, as was evidenced by the skill with which he utilized
his literary labours. When his eldest son had attained the
age of eighteen or nineteen, he considered that it was time
for him to learn a profession, and Benjamin Disraeli accord
ingly entered the office of Messrs. Swain & Co., the attorneys
of Frederick's Place, Old Jewry. With them, however, he
remained for a very short time only. He was never articled,
finding after a brief trial that a life of forms and precedents
was so eminently uncongenial as to be practically impossible to
him. His place was accordingly taken by one of his brothers,
and he abandoned " the desk's dull wood " for ever. One of
the many writers who have gathered fables about Lord Beacons
field, and who have supplied their lack of knowledge by the
fertility of their invention, has assured the world that " young
Disraeli preferred reading novels and romances to filling his
mind with precedents and formulas." Out of this story has
sprung the fable that Lord Beaconsfield's first novel was
written when its author " was a copying clerk in a lawyer's
office." Nothing, however, could be more absurd. That Lord
Beaconsfield has risen from the ranks, and that he has done
so by dint of his genius and statesmanlike qualities, is unques
tionably true. It is, however, childish to make out his position
as having been lower than it really was. From the first, Isaa»
Disraeli was a man of easy fortune. At the death of his father
he obtained a large accession to his income, and when "Disraeli
the younger " went into Messrs. Swain & Co.'s office, his father
c 2

20 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
was a country gentleman of large means, and the constant
associate of persons of high social rank. At no time was the
future Prime Minister a poor man in any sense of the term.
That one fact will suffice to clear away the majority of the
fables which have gathered round his reputation, and which
he has been too proud or too indolent to contradict.
In January, 1826, the world was startled by the appearance
of a new evening paper, which was understood to be the pro
perty of John Murray, the publisher, and to be written by the
leading members of the staff of the Quarterly Review. It bore
the name of the Representative ; it was equally flippant and
dogmatic in tone, and some of its articles were characterized by
a spirit of dull and blind ferocity which is happily almost
extinct in journalism. From the first it failed to hit the
public taste; after a troubled existence of six months, and
after having suffered at the hands of half a dozen editors, it
expired of inanition, having entailed upon its proprietor a loss
of some £20,000 or thereabouts. In its lifetime nobody seems
to have known much about its staff, or indeed to have troubled
himself gi-eatly about what they said. The editor was supposed,
to be John Gibson Lockhart, and it is beUeved, on good authority,
that he held that position for about six weeks, but other hands
were certainly employed, all about equally unskilful. When
the paper was dead, and Lord Beaconsfield had made his repu
tation with " Vivian Grey," it became a commonplace of Whig
party warfare to assert that he had been the editor and founder
of the Representative, that his flippancy and follies had been
the cause of its failure and that the intrigues by which it
had been got up were the origin of his novel. The story has
often been repeated, but its origin is unquestionably to be found

The "Representative " and "Edinburgh Rcvieto.'' 21
in the Edinburgh Review, which had the tale first from Lord
Brougham. That learned and versatile Chancellor notoriously
hated Lord Beaconsfield most cordially, and as notoriously he
was not in the habit of verifying his statements with too much
care. Otherwise he would scarcely have told this particular
story so frequently as he did, when a moment's consideration of
dates would have convinced him of its falsity. The fable has,
however, lasted from about 1828 to the present day, and there
are even now those who pretend to believe it. Twice over has
the Edinburgh given it to the world in a slightly varied form.
On one occasion it asserted that although it was not prepared
to specify the precise shetre he had in getting up the Represen
tative newspaper, in January, 1826, it had " the strongest direct
proof that he was one of the responsible parents of the scheme.
The late John Murray of Albemarle Street, the most enter
prising and liberal minded of bibliopoles, was wont to declare
to his dying day that he was led into hazarding this large
sum by the gorgeous pictures of anticipated profit and influence
drawn by the imaginative genius of the ex-clerk. The paper
never recovered from the effects of an article beginning, ' As
we were sitting in our Opera box.' " Again the same story is
told by implication in an article of a year later, when the
Review, noticing "Vivian Grey," says the plot "was under
stood (by Brougham presumably) to be founded on the getting
up of the Representative, and on the incidental intrigues,
literary, social, and political." As regards this latter chaige,
it can only be taken as a contradiction of the rest, and as in
itself absurd. If " Disraeli the younger '' were really connected
with the Representative, it is hardly likely that he would
expose all the " intrigues, literary, social, and political," which

2 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
attended its birth and progress whilst it was still alive, and that
he must have done so were this tale true is evident from the
fact that the first instalment of " Vivian Grey " made its appear
ance in the season of 1826, before the Representative had ceased
to exist. Furthermore, it is not very easy to believe that a
staunch Tory like John Murray, the proprietor of the Quarterly
Review, would have chosen for his confidant a writer in the
Whig rival to his own organ. All doubt, however, is removed
by the publication of a letter from Lord Beaconsfield himself,
which appeared in the AthencBum some little time ago. In
that letter he distinctly contradicts "the constantly repeated
story of a newspaper called the Representative, in which," he
says, " I never wrote a single line, and never was asked to write
a single line."
In the face of this explicit and deliberate contradiction it is
not a little edifying to read the ingenious attacks of Lord
Beaconsfield's opponents on his presumed connection with the
Representative and with some other periodical organs. It
has been asserted with more or less violence that at this time
"Disraeli the younger" was a constant contributor to the daily
and weekly press. For foundation for this belief it is hope
less to seek. No single article in any newspaper or magazine has
ever been owned by Lord Beaconsfield, and there was certainly
very little in the journalistic profession of 1825-6 to attract men
of culture and ability. Assuming the fact, however, there is
-perhaps a certain amount of justification for the assaults to
which Lord Beaconsfield has been subjected. Had he written
all that he is supposed to have perpetrated, Mr. Macknight
would have been quite right to devote eight large octavo pages
of the leaden pamphlet which he is pleased to call " A Literary

The "Star Chamber.'' 23
and Political Biography," to strictures on his conduct at this
time. But since the greater part of his attack consists of
speculations concerning events which have never happened,
and criticisms of opinions which Lord Beaconsfield notoriously
never entertained, it is impossible to avoid feeling that a great
deal of virtuous indignation has been wasted. The only paper
with which Lord Beaconsfield's name was associated at this
time was an abortive little weekly, which Brougham boldly
asserted to have been started for the purpose of puffing " Vivian
Grey." This was the Star Chamber, a very feeble print, which
was born on the 19th of April, and died on the 7th of June,
1826. The paper has never been acknowledged by Lord
Beaconsfield, but from internal evidence an impartial observer
will probably be disposed to conclude that he is mainly respon
sible for it. It may be assumed, in fact, that it was one of
those youthful follies which men of real power often have to
lament, and from which Lord Beaconsfield himself would pro
bably claim no immunity. Two things about it are, however,
worthy of remark. The sneer in which Brougham indulged is
utterly without foundation and the paper had no sooner stopped
than its author bought up every copy he could lay hands on.
" Vivian Grey " is mentioned but twice in its pages — once in a
review which, after the fashion of half a century back, consisted
mainly of extracts, and once in a semi-satirical article, which
purports, in a confused sort of way, to give a " key " to the
persons satirized in the novel. The rarity of the book may be
estimated from the fact that the copy in the British Museum
contains a manuscript note mentioning that almost every other
had been destroyed, and that that particular one sold in 1827
for £1 15s., nearly eight times the original price.

24 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
It would seem that the Star Chamber was a speculation of
Colburn's — a fact which renders the assumed connexion of
" Disraeli the younger " with the Representative of John
Murray still more incredible, — but it was published by an
obscure printer of Oxford Street, named Marsh. The advertise
ments of the latter fill the last pages of each of the nine
numbers, but those of Colburn's publications take up all the
remaining advertising space. Of the paper itself it can only
be said that it is very juvenile and very full of promise — that
it is clever, but curiously flippant — and that the dogmatism of
its opinions and judgments is far from being the least amusing
feature in it. At the same time it must be confessed that its
judicial sentences have been more than confirmed by posterity,
whilst the almost savage bitterness of its opposition to
Whiggism fully accounts for the tone of the criticism which
it encountered at the hands of Brougham and his allies.
The leading feature of the little paper was a poem in heroic
verse entitled " The Dunciad of To-day." This work was pro
mised in the early numbers, and an advertisement warned the
Whig rhymesters of the time to look out for attack. No. 5
contains the first instalment — a really brilliant if somewhat
unpolished denunciation of Byronism and pseudo-Byronism ;
of the sympathy of the " lower middles " (as Mr. Oliphant would
say) with Greek independence, and a few things of the same
kind. The minor poets, of whom there were almost as many
half a century ago as now, received a smart castigation, which
was continued in the succeeding number. Then after attacking
a set of men who have almost without exception fallen into
well deserved neglect, the satirist calls upon those whom he
considers to be really poets, to vindicate their claim to the

" The Dunciad of To-day." — "Vivian Grey." 25
laurel. He is severe enough upon the rhymesters, and he has
words of genuine appreciation for the poets. It is not a little
interesting to note how completely time has endorsed the judg
ment of the youthful follower of Pope and Dryden. Colman,
Shee, Croly, Haynes, Medwin, Reed, Conder, Horace Twiss,
and " hoarse " Fitzgerald were names to conjure with in the
twenties. It is not too much to say that every one is forgotten
now save, perhaps, the last, who lives embalmed in the
" Rejected Addresses." Crabbe, Campbell, Rogers, Wilson,
Montgomery (Jas.), Cary (of Dante fame), Mitchell (the
translator of Aristophanes), Sheridan Knowles, Keats and
Wolfe, are and will be remembered. It speaks well for
Lord Beacon.sfield's critical acumen that at three-and-twenty
he should have been able to classify the poets and the mere
versifiers with so much accuracy. No. 8 of the Star Chamber
contains a promise that more of " The Dunciad of To-day "
should follow, in which the prose writers should meet with their
deserts, but the promise was unfulfilled. No. 9 was a " half
number," and no more were issued. The poem remains a
fragment of 446 lines, but a fragment of which the writer
has no cause to be ashamed, whatever he may think of its
surroundings. All these ventures were, however, but side issues. The
business of Lord Beaconsfield's life at this time was the pro
duction of his first novel — " Vivian Grey." The writers who
copy from each other, or who, failing facts, rely upon their
imaginations, have been so numerous and so busy with respect
to this work, that it may be well to give the exact facts
relating to its publication. How needful something of the
kind really is, may be judged from a few of the fables which

26 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
have grown up about it. Some of the panegyrists of Lord
Beaconsfield have thought it advisable to rave about the
astonishing genius of the "boy" who produced this work —
one says at the age of eighteen ; another at that of twenty.
Now, as a matter of fact, " Vivian Grey " made its appearance
in two instalments ; the first, of three slim volumes, being
published in 1826 ; the second, of two volumes, in 1827.
Lord Beaconsfield was thus twenty-two when the first part
was given to the world, and twenty-three when the second
appeared — a sufficiently marvellous youth, but a somewhat
different thing from eighteen or twenty. Again, another
writer, whose crude sketch of Lord Beaconsfield's career was
made the peg on which to hang the article in the Edinburgh
Review already quoted, asserts that " Vivian Grey " appeared
in 1828 ; while a third — equally well informed — says that the
book was in its tenth edition in 1827 — the year in which its
second part first saw the light. The often -repeated fable that
it was an idealized account of the rise and progress of the
Representative has already been mentioned, and it would not
be difficult to cite half-a-dozen other stories, all equally authentic
and just as frequently repeated. The point in which the reader
of to-day is most likely to be interested is the fact that " Vivian
Grey " took the town by storm, and more than that, that its
popularity continues even now. Despite all its extravagances,
all its weaknesses, all the faults and failings incidental to a
first work, it took hold upon the reading public of England,
and it has since maintained its position. Lord Beaconsfield
himself, in the full maturity of his genius, has expressed a wish
that it could be altogether suppressed as one of the sins of his
youth, but public opinion has undoubtedly pointed in the oppo-

" Vivian Grey." 2 7
site direction. His own description of it is that it is " as hot
and hurried a sketch as ever was penned, but like its subject,
for what is youth but a sketch, a brief hour of principles un
settled, passions unrestrained, powers undeveloped, and purposes
unexecuted ? "
If, however, "Vivian Grey" be a sketch, it is a sketch instinct
with genius. The faults of the book are precisely those which
might be expected in the first work of a very clever, brilliant,
excitable young man, launched into London society just at the
moment when the puppyisms and dandyisms of the era of the
fourth George were at their culmination. Its merits were
however, peculiarly its own. "Vivian Grey" is infinitely above
the level of mere cleverness. It is full of thought, full of wit,
sparkling in every page with the most astonishing vivacity, and
full of interest, even if it be treated merely as a novel of incident.
So soon as it appeared, society discovered that it was the pro
duction of one of its votaries, and set itself eagerly to "work to
appropriate the characters of the story to living personages.
More than one " Key to Vivian Grey " made its appearance,
and the interest which the book excited may be estimated from
the fact that before the end of 1827 one of these little books
announced itself as being in its tenth edition. The novel
appears now-a-days without any of these aids to popularity,
but it adds not a little to the interest with which it is read to
recall the fact that at the time of its publication everybody
was prepared to identify each of the principal characters with
some leader of political or fashionable society. It may be
useful to recall some of the more striking of these portraits.
The studious father of the hero, Horace Grey, who lives in his
library, and who " hopes the urchin will never scribbk," is un-

2 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
doubtedly sketched from Isaac Disraeli. The hero himself, with
his wit and cleverness, his private education and his unconcealed
contempt for public schools and their offspring, is of course, in
the elements of his character, designed for the author himself.*
It would, however, be unjust in the extreme to imagine that
there is any truth in the charge so frequently brought by Lord
Beaconsfield's critics that it is intended as a literal and absolute
transcript of his character. Had anything of the kind been
intended, " Vivian Grey " would doubtless have been made an
infinitely more agreeable, more highly principled, more virtuous
personage than the hero of this novel, who is intentionally
painted as a mere adventurer, destitute alike of heart and
conscience, and acting always in the spirit of the motto from
" Ancient Pistol " which- figures on the title page, ".Why then
the world's mine oyster, which I with sword will open." It
must, however, be admitted that the notion of the author being
the hero of his own story received a certain amount of counten
ance from himself, indirectly if not directly. Mr. N. P. Willis,
perhaps the most hopelessly vulgar American who ever
squeezed himself into decent society in England, says, in the
impudent book in which he avenged himself upon Englishmen
for their civilities to him, that on his first interview with Lady
Blessington she informed him that "Disraeli the younger is
quite his own character of Vivian Grey, crowded l^sic) with
talent but very soigni (sic) of his curls, and a bit of a coxcomb."
¦* It should be remembered that "¦V"ivian Grey" was written half a century
ago. There had then been no public schools commissions, no Dr. Arnold
no Mr. Thomas Hughes, Q.C., to prove to the world that nobody could
be a gentleman or a Christian without the Rugby imprimatur  or failing
that, the trade mark of some inferior school such as Eton, or Harrow or
"Winchester.

Brougham on " Vivian Grey." 29
This delicious sentence, so characteristic of its author, un
doubtedly represents an opinion very prevalent in London
society, which is moreover, confirmed as well by the " Keys "
to "Vivian Grey" as by the testimony of Mr. R. R. Madden
in his life of Lady Blessington.
There were, however, other persons besides the author and
his family whose counterfeit presentments might be discovered
without much trouble in the novel of the day. Brougham
found himself gibbeted as Mr. Foaming Fudge, and he never
forgave the satirist. Mr. Charles Knight used in those days to
publish a remarkably feeble magazine in the Whig interest,
called the Literary Magnet. " Vivian Grey " was reviewed in
it, and it is not difficult to recognize the fine Roman hand of
the great statesman and orator who — ^by his own account —
founded the Edinburgh Review, carried the Reform Bill, -wrote
one of the best of Voltaire's romances, and guided the Whigs
through their triumphant career in the " thirties." This review
is headed "Nuisances of the Press," and after describing "Vivian
Grey" as " contemptible," goes on to charge the author with
"puppyism, ignorance, impudence and mendacity," with attempt
ing to be always fashionable and .super-refined, with shameless
puffery, and worst of all, with levying black-mail as the price
of his silence about certain persons. In the closing paragraph,
he asserts that the author of " Vivian Grey " having failed in
the Representative determined to become a satirist, "having a
pretty tolerable acquaintance with ladies' maids, footmen, and
under-butlers of several persons of fashion about town." It
says much for Lord Beaconsfield's command of temper that
he declined to take notice of the infamous calumnies of this
review, and that he disdained to enter into an argument with

30 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
one whom his father would undoubtedly, and with very good
reason, have called a " literary Yahoo."
Nearly everybody of position or celebrity figures in these
crowded pages under a pseudonym which is as stinging as an
epigram. Some of the ridicule is of course undeserved, and
would probably be regretted in these days by Lord Beaconsfield
as strongly as by anyone. It may be doubted, fof example,
whether the liveliest of political satirists would wish to be
responsible for nicknaming Mr. Canning " Mr. Charlatan Gas,"
but such blunders are, to say the truth, very few. Most of the
characterizations are simply unsurpassed, and the portraits are
etched with a truth and power of which the epigrammatic names
afford only an indication. One of the heroines of the book is
Mrs. Felix Lorraine — the character is that of the eccentric,
clever, foolish, brilliant, risqu6e woman w^ho was the misery and
the shame of Lord Melbourne's life — Lady Caroline Lamb — of
whom, by the way. Lord Beaconsfield has given to the world
more than one other portrait. Lord Eldon's character, again, is
hit off in the two words which stand for him in " Vivian Grey,"
where he figures as "Lord Past Century." The vulgar and
ostentatious Mrs. Coutts is easily recognizable under the name
of Mrs. Million, and the Miss Berrys, the friends of Horace
Walpole, cannot be mistaken when they are spoken of as the
" Miss Otrantos." The amiable Lord William Lennox, whose
love of the theatre and of theatrical people is almost proverbial,
appears as Lord Prima Donna, and there is no authentic record
of his having objected to the title. The appropriateness of
calling the Marquis of Clanricarde the "Marquis of Carabas,"
Prince Esterhazy " Prince Hungary," Theodore Hook " Stanis
laus Hoax," the Marquis of Hertford the " Marquis of Grand

The Characters in "Vivian Grey." 31
goftt," and Prince Leopold (afterwards King of the Belgians)
" Prince of Little Lilliput," has never been called in question.
These names are veritable epigrams, and they will last as long
as the political history of the early part of this century endures.
It may be convenient to group together the principal person
ages satirized in " Vivian Grey." The list is tolerably long,
but it will repay perusal. Beckendorff, the mysterious minister
whom the hero meets in the course of his travels, is of course
Metternich, and the equally mysterious "Baroness" the Princess
Amelia. Horace Twiss, for whom, in his earlier years at all
events. Lord Beaconsfield entertained a somewhat savage
aversion, is " Vivacity Dull ; " Abernethy figures as " Dr.
Spittergen ; " and John Wilson Croker as " Vivida Vis." The
" Grand Duke of Reisenburg," with his intellectual tastes and
habits, is of course the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar, while
" Madame Carolina," with her circle of second-rate wits and
toadies, stands for Lady Holland. Brummell figures as "Julius
von Aslingen," and the Duke of Wellington as " Count von
Schonspeer." Prince Gortschakoff will be recognized without
difficulty in the thin disguise of the " Prince Xtmnpqrtosklw,"
and Sismondi under the name of "Von Chronicle." Lord
BuTghersh appears as " Lord Amelius Fitzfudge Boroughby,"
Lord Porchester as " Lord Alhambra," Lord Lonsdale as " Lord
Lowersdale," Lady Blessington as " Lady Doubtful," and the
Marquis of Londonderry as " Colonel von Trumpetson."
Amongst the minor characters Nash the architect appears
as " Mr. Stucco ; " MaccuUoch, the political economist, as
" Liberal Snake ; " Robert South ey as the principal writer in
the Attack-all Review, i.e., the Quarterly; Mr. Justice Park as
" Mr. Justice Prose ; " and Lady Caroline Churchill as " Lady

32 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Madeline Trevor." A lively writer of the time has described
with a good deal of pungency how thoroughly these piquant
personalities were appreciated, and how " society " picked out
and appropriated the characters of the novel to their originals.
There must, however, have been something better than mere
personalities to account for the popularity of "Vivian Grey,"
and to explain the wonderful way in which it has maintained
its ground for more than forty years. There is probably no
other novel in existence, especially of the genus fashionable,
of which the same thing can be said. Even the Waverleys
have hardly had a better or more continuous sale. The solution
is that the book is far above the ordinary level, young though
its author was at the time of its production. It is full of wit
and genius, and its wit — to use Johnson's happy phrase — has
" kept it sweet."*
* In the autobiography of "William Jordan, once well known as the editor of
the now defunct Literary Gazette, will be found the following letter (vol. iv.
pp. 78, 79). It would seem that Mr. Colburn, one of the proprietors of the
Gazette, had been trying to extract from the author of " ¦V"ivian Grey " the secret
of his work, but as Mr. Jerdan remarks, "the modern Samson was not to be
taken in." "[Private.]
" I am very much surprised at Mr. Colburn's request. How my knowledge
of the characters in ' "V^ivian Grey ' can be necessary to, or indeed in the slightest
degree assist anyone in understanding the work, is to me a most inexplicable
mystery. Let it be taken for granted that the characters are purely ideal, and
the whole affair is settled. If any collateral information be required in order to
uiiderstand the work, either ' "Vivian Grey ' is unworthy to be read, or, which is
of course an impossible conclusion, the reader is not sagacious enough to penetrate
its meaning.
" Of course I have no intention of denying that these volumes are in a very
great degree founded on my own observation and experience. Possibly in some
instances I may have very accurately depicted existing characters. But 'Vivian
Grey ' is not given to the public as a gallery of portraits, nor have I any wish
that it should be considered as such. It will give me great pleasure if the public

"Vivian Grey" and the Reviezvers. 33
Brougham, as we have seen, roundly asserted that the book
owed its success to the skill of its author in the art of puffery.
Had there been any foundation for the charge, its truth would
have been proved by this time. No reputation of a lasting
kind was ever made by puffery and claptrap, and no book
suddenly forced upon the world by such means has ever kept
its ground for more than a few years. Even the poems of
Robert Montgomery, puffed as they were by those whom the
Laureate calls "irresponsible ignorant reviewers," have ceased
to attract public attention and have passed into the limbo of
all absurdities. It is, however, a mere matter of fact that
" Vivian Grey " owed less to puffery than almost any book of
the time. The Star Chamber, which Brougham declared to
have been started for the mere purpose of puffing it, does
little more than mention the book, and the so-called critical
re"sdews of the time are singularly scant in their notices of
a book which was evidently the sensation of the season. In
these days a review means a careful analysis of the plot, a
psychological dissertation on the motives of the actors, and an
elaborate survey of their surroundings. Forty years ago the
great organs of literature contented themselves with reviews
recognize it as a faithful picture of human nature in general. Whether it be any
thing further rests with the author, and should only interest him. I cannot
prevent surmises ; but I shall always take care that from me they shall receive
neither denial nor confirmation.
" In part of the former volumes a number of names and characters were intro
duced wliich were evident portraits or caricatures. I can understand any reader
of those pages being naturally desirous to comprehend their full meaning, and
seeking auxiliary means to procure the desired knowledge ; but to comprehend
the fuU meaning of the present volumes the public has only to read them ; and
if there be anj-thing obscure or unsatisfaotoiy it is the author's fault — he is a
blunderer. All the notes and keys in the kingdom will not make him more
intelligible. "The Author op V. G."
VOL. I. ' D

34 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of a sort which would hardly be tolerated by the editors of the
most second-rate of country papers. " Cut the leaves and smell
the paper-knife," was the rule with the reviewers of half. a
century back, and the famous Mr. Bludyer in "Pendennis"
was a portrait and not a caricature. The reviews of "Vivian
Grey" were mainly the work of gentlemen of this type, and
their notices the feeblest things imaginable. Jerdan, in the
Literary Gazette, gave "Disraeli the younger" the most
prominent position in the number for the 22nd of April, 1826,
and spun out his article to nine columns and a half, but nearly
nine columns are extracts, and the criticism is utterly valueless.
He says that the book is " singular and original ; " he talks in
a light and tentative way about personalities ; he predicts for
the book a large sale ; he says of the plot that it is " so slight
and artificial that it has evidently been devised only as a
vehicle for conveying the author's views on life, character, and
society ; " also that it is " an experiment on the public taste to
achieve popularity and excite attention." If this be the case,
he goes on to say, the author " has certainly hit on the right
key." The conclusion of the article is characteristic. The
book, says Jerdan, " includes some extremely spirited sketching
both of character and opinion," and by way of peroration he
announces that he cannot guess the author, and that, as the
Literary Gazette is not a quarterly review, he " cannot spare
time to speculate on the -novels of the hour." Dr. Lardner,
in the Literary Chronicle — perhaps the feeblest journal which
ever aspired to lead public taste in England — put forth his
opinion a month later. His notice of " Vivian Grey " fills
eleven columns, ten and three quarters of which are merely
reprinted from the book, whilst the following sentences will

In Society. 35
serve as a specimen of the original matter. " If not a first-rate
production — which we certainly do not think it — this is un
deniably a very clever work, — amusing and interesting, written
in a dashing off-hand style, and imbued with not a little of
literary dandyism. . . . The book itself may be characterized as
a literary luncheon, light and pleasant rather than substantial,
and so far, to make use of a favourite expression of the author's,
we do patronise it." It can hardly be said that there is much
" puffery " in either of these notices, and since the monthly and
quarterly reviews practically ignored the book, it will probably
be held that Brougham's reckless charge falls to the ground.
" Disraeli the younger " was at this time a " lion " in London
society. The best houses were open to him, and he was
courted, caressed and flattered in a way which might have turned
a stronger head. For a while he seems to have been guilty of
some little foppery in dress and manner, but under it there
were e"\nidences of power which could not be mistaken. His
critics have of course after their usual fashion made the utmost
of his weaknesses in this respect, and have catalogued with
malicious minuteness the peculiarities of his attire and personal
habits. It should be remembered, however, that fifty years
ago the studious simpUcity of modern dress was not appreciated.
People wore two or three waistcoats at a time, and the outer
one was frequently embroidered with gold, or was composed of
a fabric known as "cut velvet." Enormous "stocks" or
"cravats," fastened by two huge pins and a chain, and
cascading over an acre of shirt front puffed out with frills and
furbelows, were considered the height of good taste for even
ing dress. Shawl-patterned dressing-gowns lined with richly
coloured silk were .constantly worn by men in their own
D 2

36 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
homes, and when they paid morning calls in winter, frock-coats
elaborately trimmed with costly fur were considered absolutely
necessary. It was the same everywhere,- and those who are
curious on such subjects cannot do better than consult the
caricatures of George Cruikshank. Amongst people who
dressed in this way "Disraeli the younger" would hardly be
conspicuous save for his singular grace of person, which even his
bitterest critics are compelled to admit. Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson,
for example, in his "Novels and Novelists," speaks of his
" ringlets of silken black hair, his flashing eyes, his effeminate
and lisping voice, his dress-coat of black velvet lined with
white satin, his white kid gloves, with his wrist surrounded by
a long hanging fringe of black silk, and his ivory cane, of which
the handle, inlaid with gold, was relieved by more black silk in
the shape of a tassel." Mr. Jeaffreson goes on to say that "every
one laughed at him for being affected, but the women declared
that his was an affectation of the best style, and they felt his
personal vanity was a flattering homage to their most notorious.
weaknesses. . . . Men. held him in light esteem, but
observant women, who as a rule are more discerning judges
of young men than themselves, prophesied that he would live
to be a great man."
He was at this time most assuredly a brilhant one. One
after another the chronicles of society bear testimony to the
extraordinary vivacity and cleverness with which he talked, and
the admiration which he constantly excited. Madden, in that
eminently amusing compilation of gossip which goes by the
name of the "Literary Life of Lady Blessington," mentions
that he was usually silent and reserved in general society, but
that he gave those about him the impression of always being

Conversational Powers. 2)7
closely on the watch. When a subject of more than common
interest was started, his enthusiasm would kindle, and his mar
vellous powers of conversation would be at once displayed.
" When duly excited, 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 mind
that enabled him to seize on 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."* Another witness
* In Madden's "Life and Correspondence of the Countess of Blessington,"
vol. i. p. 383, are 'the following "Lines of B. D'Israeli, Esq."
To a Beautiful Mute, the Eldest Child of Mas. Eairlie.

Tell me the star from which she fell,
Oh ! name the flower
From out whose wild and perfumed bell,
At witching hour,
Sprang forth this fair and fairy maiden.
Like a bee with honey laden.

They say that those sweet lips of thine
Breathe not to speak ;
Thy very ears that seem so fine,
No sound can seek ;
And yet thy face beams with emotion,
Restless as the waves' of ocean.

'Tis well. Thy face and form agree,
And both are fair.
I would not that this child should be
As others are ;
I love to mark her in derision,
Smiling with seraphic vision
4.
At our poor gifts of vulgar sense
That cannot stain,

38 The Pubhc. Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
— the inquisitive Yankee already mentioned — gives an account
of " Disraeli the younger," which is worth quoting, partly as
characteristic of the writer's taste, and partly because it gives
a somewhat striking account of the youthful appearance of the
future Premier. " Disraeli," he says, " has one of the most
remarkable faces I ever saw. He is lividly pale, and but for the
energy of his action, and the strength of his lungs, would seem
a victim to consumption. His eye is as black as Erebus, and
has the most mocking and lying-in-wait sort of expression con
ceivable. His mouth is alive with a kind of working and im
patient nervousness, and when he has burst forth, as he does
constantly, with a particularly successful cataract of expression,
it assumes a curl of triumphant scorn that would be worthy of
a Mephistopheles. His hair is as extraordinary as his taste in
waistcoats. A thick heavy mass of jet-black ringlets falls over
his left cheek almost to his coUarless stock, whilst on the right
temple it is parted and put away with the smooth carefulness
of a girl's. . . He talks like a racehorse approaching the win
ning post, and the utmost energy of expression flung out in
every burst." The last sentence is not particularly intelligible,
but the description of the personal appearance of " Disraeli the

Nor mar her mystic innocence,
Nor cloud her brain
"With all the dreams of worldly folly.
And its creature melancholy.

To thee I dedicate these lines,
Yet read them not.
Cursed be the art that e'er refines
Thy natural lot ;
Read the bright stars and read the flowers,
And hold converse with the bowers.

" Captain Popanilla." 39
younger" is borne out by a portrait of liim by A. E. Chalon,
which is still extant. The fashionable but foi'gotten painter of
prettinesses made a species of Brummagem Don Juan of his
subject, and if not very successful with the face, depicted the
ringlets with an admirable truth to nature. A few years later
another witness bears testimony to the brilliancy of his con
versation. The late Henry Crabb Robinson, in his diary, men
tions the pleasure with which he met " young Disraeli," whose
" conversation interested and pleased him. He talked with
spirit of German literature."
Courted, flattered, petted, caressed, the young Disraeli might
easily have degenerated from the " lion " into the " tiger," — for
the explanation of which distinction see Theodore Hook's novels
passim. He was, happily for himself, wise enough to recognize
the facts of his position, and to remove himself from a place
where his very brilliancy and popularity were a continual snare
to him. He had already travelled, as is evident from the latter
part of " Vivian Grey," but he now designed to embark on a
more extended tour than he had previously undertaken. France,
Germany, and Italy had been thrown open to the youth : the
'' Mystic East " was the goal of the man. Before he left Eng
land, however, he gave to the world a brilliant jeu d'esprit, —
" The Voyage of. Captain Popanilla," — which was unfortunately
never reprinted until very recently, but which is infinitely more
worthy of reproduction than the wretched little American tales
which cover the railway bookstalls. The book is a brilliant
satirical squib on the manners, customs, and politics of Eng
land in 1828. The scene is laid first in the Isle of Fantasie,
and afterwards in the still stranger island of Vraibleusia, whose
capital is the city of Hubbabub. When it is mentioned that

4o The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the first-named island stands for Ireland ; that Vraibleusia is
England ; and that Hubbabub is, of course, London, the nature
of the satire will probably be sufficiently clear. The idea is ad
mirably carried out ; the hits at society, manners, and politics
numerous and most skilfully delivered, and the wit unimpeach
able. In style, " Captain Popanilla " is a worthy mate for Cap
tain Lemuel Gulliver himself, while the work has a special
interest as indicating with tolerable accuracy the bent of its
author's political convictions. The Literary Gazette, in a
notice, palpably from the hand of its editor, William Jerdan,
describes it as " a satirical squib, the gist of which is to show
that the people of England live in too artificial a state. The
framework consists of the adventures among us of Popanilla, a
native" of a natural island, where the good folks rise at sunset,
and dance and sport their (days we were going to say), nights
away. He turns political economist, is banished, and arrives
at Hubbabub (London), where various extraordinary inconsis
tencies and follies are presented to his study. The volume dis
plays so much ingenuity and talent that we may probably yield
it a longer notice ; but at present we must dismiss it as a jeu
dJes'prit of considerable merit, though unequal, and not so racy
as a Swift of 1828 might have made it." The promise of a
further notice was never fulfilled, and for some inscrutable
reason, Captain Popanilla, despite his wit and cleverness, faded
into forgetfulness. The Edinburgh Review once indeed
deigned to admit that the book " deserves to be remembered
as an admirable adaptation of GulHv^r to later circumstances "
yet it has shared the fate of " Erewhon," and of the half dozen
imitations of it which formed the topic of conversation in London
society nearly half a century lafei-.

" The Mystic East." 41
The reason is probably to be found in the fact that before
the ink was well dry upon its pages, its author had departed
upon his Eastern tour. He had for travelling companions
his sister and a gentleman named Meredith, to whom she
was betrothed. Leaving London early in the autumn of
1829, the party went direct to Constantinople, where the
winter was spent — a winter of mingled toil and pleasure,
which was memorable on many accounts. From Constanti
nople they journeyed into Albania, where they spent a part
of the year 1830. In 1831 they were in Syria, and there
they separated. Mr. Meredith and the sister returned to
England, and before they could be married, the former died.
Sarah Disraeh became her father's constant companion and
trusted amanuensis, and will probably be remembered by
posterity chiefly from the verses to her memory preserved
in the " Curiosities of Literature." No direct record of his
various wanderings has been preserved by Lord Beaconsfield,
but the hints and allusions scattered throughout the long
series of his novels, prove that they were as numerous and
erratic as those of Sidonia himself. Syria, the cradle of his
race, he explored with loving care ; and the fruits of his
musings may be read in his later novels. Egypt and the
Upper Nile he traversed at a period when Cook's Excur
sionists were not, when the ancient river of the Pharaohs
had not been polluted by the presence of passenger steam
boats, and when the princes of Cottonopolis had not found
out the convenience of the desert river for the purposes of
a winter holiday. His adventures seem to have been numer
ous. When at Janina, the Albanians broke out into revolt,
and it was with difficulty that he could extricate himself

42 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
from their midst. At Jerusalem he attempted to penetrate
the Mosque of Omar, and was rescued from the infuriated
Moslems under circumstances of extreme danger. Nor were
his wanderings confined to the East. At one time, we hear
of him as on the coast of the Adriatic ; at another, as ex
ploring the ruins of Rome ; at another, as in Spain acquainting
himself with the ruins of the Alhambra, and with the social
life of Granada, and of those other Andalusian cities, which,
in later years, he was proud to remember had been the homes
of the Sephardim, from whom he sprang.*
The principal fruits of this tour, from a literary point of
view, were three-fold, and the first place must be given to
the poem which is more distinctly attributable to Eastern
infiuences — the " Revolutionary Epick." A fragment only, con
sisting of three books, has appeared. It was first published
in 1834, and thirty years later a second edition, dedicated
to Lord Stanley — ^the present Earl of Derby — made its appear
ance. In the preface to this latter. Lord Beaconsfield refers
to the improbability of his ever again publishing a book,
and goes on as follows : — " Thirty years ago, I printed a few
copies of a portion of a poem, with which I did not proceed,
but the nature of which has now unexpectedly become the
subject of pubHc controversy. As only fifty copies of it were
printed at the time, and probably many of these are now
destroyed, there is no reason why the controvei-sy should
not be recurrent and interminable.'' To end all controversy,
* It is commonly believed, but on somewhat insufl5cient grounds, that an
anonymous volume of " Sketches in Greece and Turkey," published by Ridgway
in 1833, is the work of Lord Beaconsfield. The dates are, however, opposed to
this theory, the author speaking of himself as setting out for the Morea on the
1st May, 1832, and returning to England in the autumn of that year.

" The Revolutionary Epick." 43
therefore, Lord Beaconsfield put forth this corrected version
from the one copy of tho original which ho had preserved.
The changes, he is careful to mention, were purely literary
in their character, and were all made in the year 1837. In
that year, however, his political career had fairly begun, and
poetry was put aside for politics.
It was '¦ on the windy plains of Troy," says the author of
the " Revolutionary Epick " in his original preface, that he
firet conceived the idea of this work. " Wandering over the
illustrious scene, surrounded by the tombs of heroes, and by
the confluence of poetic streams, my musing thoughts clustered
round the memory of that immortal song, to which all creeds
and countries alike respond, which has vanquished chance
and defies time. Deeming myself, perchance too rashly in
that excited hour, a poet, I cursed the destiny that placed
me in an age that boasted of being anti-poetical. And while
my fancy thus struggled with my reason, it flashed across
my mind, like the lightning which was then playing over Ida,
that in those great poems which rise, the pyramids of poetic
art amid the fading splendour of less creations, the poet hath
ever embodied the spirit of his time." He goes on to point
out that an Heroic Age produced an Heroic Epic — the "Iliad ;"
the consolidation of the most superb of Empires, a political
epic — the " .^neid ; " the revival of learning and the birth of
national genius, a national epic — the " Divine Comedy ; " the
Reformation and its consequences, a Religious Epic — the
"Paradise Lost" of Milton. The spirit of his own time was
revolution, and " for me," said he, " remains the Revolutionary
Epic." The composition of this majestic fragment occupied its
author during the greater part of his stay in the East, and was

44 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
partially resumed after his return to London. It is so fre
quently, and so ignorantly referred to — the oracles of a certain
section of the press never scrupling to represent its author as
the apostle of chaos and the preacher of revolutionary change
— and it is withal so utterly unknown to readers of the present
generation, that it may be worth while to give a somewhat
¦ minute account of it.
The poem opens before the throne of Demogorgon. To
him enter Magros the genius of Feudalism, and Lyridon
the genius of Federalism. Magros pleads first, and expounds
the state of society in Rome under the Later Empire. The
barbarian nations of the north, at his invocation, invade and
conquer the civilised world. A heavenly chorus tell him in
sacred song, how religion is natural to man, and as it were
a necessity of his being. Christianity descends, but is cor
rupted almost in its birth. Two lovely youths salute Magros.
Their names are Faith and Fealty, and in their company he
descends to earth. They arrive at a place of ruins, and confer
with the spirit of an ancient throne — a mystical figure, under
which is represented the rise of the Papacy to the position
once held by the Roman Empire. The institution of the
feudal Papacy is next described, and stress is laid upon the
fact that that form of religion was founded upon the twin
ideas of religion and loyalty — Faith and Fealty. Then follows
a discourse upon nobility, with a sort of dissertation concerning
power, its nature and origin, its exercise for the few, its
purpose the happiness of the many. The argument in favour
of an aristocracy is brought in, and in one of the finer passages
of the poem, the author tells of what that aristocracy is to
be composed : —

" The Revolutionary Epick.'''' 45
" IIo who is 1 111(1
Within an honoured place, and from the womb
Unto his grave nought sordid views ; but taught
By all the glories of his anco.stora
Them to remember does himself respect ;
Around whose infant image all men's thoughts
Cluster with hope ; who, mixing with the crowd,
Feels like a trophy in the market-place ;
He is their own : who from his lofty state,
As from some tower, the social regions views
Unclouded by the vapour or the veil
Bounding on vulgar vision, but intent
To make the law more loved ; the leisure gives
That law hath given to him ; who chases wisdom
"Within, her treasured coverts : keen his sport.
O'er what he finds deep musing ; or to talk
"With scholar ripe or brainful traveller
May love, and artist in Ms drooping hour.
The man thus honoured, set apart, refined,
Serene and courteous, learned, thoughtful, brave.
As full of charity as noble pomp.
Pledging the tempest of the world, the stream
Of culture shall not ebb, the noble this
Mankind demands and nations love to trust."

This passage, it may be remarked, is taken from the second
edition of the poem, and is a very remarkable illustration of the
line " brevis esse laboro obscurus fio." In its original form it
. was a piece of beautifully pellucid English, but the author,
impressed apparently with the bitter criticism of which he was
the object, has pruned and pared away, until what was clear
and striking at the first has become doubtful and weak by
reason of its very brevity. Thus, for example^ the seventh line
originally stood " Cluster like bees to gather sweetest hopes,''

46 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfietd.
a poetical image entirely lost in the new version. Again, after
line eighth, " Feels like a trophy in the market place,"
the first edition gives the line
" The public property and public pride,"
a line not perhaps particularly poetical, but one not to be
dropped from the context without injury to the poem, and to
the chain of reasoning of which it forms a part. Lines 11,
12, and 13, again, are not an improvement on the direct
words " Who gives the leisure Law hath given to him
To make that law more loved."
Nor is the passage four lines lower down an improvement on
the original, " . . . or in his dull and drooping hour
The artist cheer and whisper tidings sweet
Of the all-piercing beam of rising Taste
That on his dark neglectful night shall fall,
And gild his shrouded genius."
The original may possibly be a little diffuse, but it is certainly
clearer and as certainly not less poetical.
The poet then proceeds to argue that under the Feudal
system Agriculture, Commerce, the Arts, Architecture, Poetry
and Painting alike flourished, and that the same benevolent
protection was extended to Science. The system was, in short,
great, and productive of great results, because being founded on
a knowledge of the nature of man, it has elevated him and deve
loped his character amply and securely. To Chivalry, in itself
distinctly the outcome of the Feudal system, is due the elevated

" The Revolutionary Epick!' 47
position of women amongst Christian nations. Then follows a
very fine passage descriptive of the French Revolution, and of the
fatal effects of its plea of equality as exlnbited in the murder of
the unhappy Marie Antoinette. Of the demand for equality
the poet takes but little heed. He asks what constitutes a
people, and points out that at no period of history were men
ever equal. He asks next what is an aristocracy, and proves to
demonstration the seeming paradox that an artificial society
secures the naturalness of its individual members. Art, he
urges, is man's nature, and Society is by no means composed of
philosophers, whilst a national character cannot be manufac
tured, but must be formed by slow and steady growth, of which
inequality is the natural and inevitable result. For in truth,
the argument goes on, man is governed less by reason than by
imagination. At this point Faith and Fealty, horror-stricken
by the deeds of the Monster Change as witnessed in France,
quit the earth in despair, and recount to Magros what they
have seen. Magros replies by demonstrating that the State is
sacred, that its very faults must be treated with respect, and
that forms of government are of trivial importance if the spirit
of order and subordination be present. Then descending to
earth to subdue the monster, he encounters Lyridon, with whom
he agrees to appear before Demogorgon to solicit his decree.
Book the Second is entitled "Lyridon," the name given by
the author to the genius of Federalism. At the opening he
describes at some length the original state of man, how it was
con-upted by Tyranny and Superstition — the great twin sources
of human misery. - He asserts the antiquity of the Federal
principle, describes the Federal Republics of Asia Minor and
of Greece, and tells how Grecian freedom was extinguished.

48 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
From Greece he turns to Rome, and describes the corruption of
that empire by Asiatic influences. When Nero had gained an
ascendancy Lyridon quitted earth in despair, nor was he wooed
back by the Italian and Swiss Republics. The world had,
however, awakened to the fact that Knowledge is power, and
with the introduction of the art of Printing Lyridon returns.
On the banks of the Rhine he meets with a beautiful maiden,
and the offspring of his union with her is Opinion. She is
educated by Lyridon, and in course of time approves herself by
prophesying. She goes with Lyridon to the Netherlands,
stimulates the revolt against Spain, and the growth of the
Dutch Republics. Summojied to England, Opinion creates a
revolution there, to be followed by the restoration of Royalty,
under which Opinion falls into a trance. Transported to
America by Lyridon, she becomes the denizen of a solitary
retreat, where she is found by her father Lyridon, who assumes
the form of Washington, and fairly rouses her. The American
Revolution, and with it the triumph of the Federal principle,
being accomplished, Lyridon returns to Europe in fulfilment of
his pledge, and appeals with Magros to Demogorgon, whose
oracular decree is so very oracular as to be almost meaningless
The Third Book treats of the conquest of Italy, and opens
with a fine description of the field of Montenotte after the
battle. One passage of this description is perhaps the most
poetical in the whole of this fragment of an epic, but it is to be
regretted that the author did not leave it as it originally stood.
The following is the original version : —
" Deep is the slumber of the sleeping babe,
LTpon the undrawn curtain of whose brain
No phantoms flit ; deep is the huntsman's dream ;

" The Revolutionary Epick." 49
The sailor in his giddy hammock slung,
Rocked by the ocean, revels in reposo
The couch of kings may onvy ; and the star.
The trembling stiu-, that from the sunset springs.
And bid,s the homewanl wain its course retrace.
The peasant for his honest toil rewards
With rest that Chanticleer alone shall rouse.
But sleeping babe, and huntsman with his dreams.
The careless sailor, and tho wetu-ied hind.
Know not the trance of slumber that descends
Upon the soldier's brain, when like a ball
In battle spent, or steed whose course is run,
The sanguine struggle and the fierce suspense
AU past and wearied by the hot pursuit
Wiose scent is human blood, upon the sod
His sabre and himself he wildly flings."
The battle being over. Napoleon pledges his faith to Lyridon,
and utters a long soliloquy. His adhesion to the principles of
Federalism produces consternation in Turin and Milan, and
causes Magros to arouse the King of Sardinia, which brings
about the battle of Moudovi, where the French are repulsed by
the Sardinian cavalry. Murat is introduced as reviewing the
fight ; the story of the conquest of Piedmont is told, and an
account given of the battle of Areola. Milan is presented as in
a state of fierce agitation, and Lyridon, in the form of young
Visconti, curses the Germans. The city rises in insurrection ;
the Austrians are driven out, and the book ends with a descrip
tion of Napoleon's triumphant entry into Milan, and of the
planting of a tree of liberty by the youth of the city.
The " Revolutionary Epick " was never resumed. The qritics
received" it very coldly, and the public were so little stimulated
by it, that there was no necessity for printing more than the fifty
copies, which formed the first edition. It is possible that the
YOL. I. 15

50 The Piiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
critics were not altogether wrong, and that the poem is rather
rhetorical than strictly poetic in its character. At the same
time it must not be forgotten that, by general consent. Lord
Beaconsfield was at this time extremely unpopular in the world
of journaUsm. "The men who had failed in literature and art " —
the critics — attacked everything he wrote for some time after the
publication of " Vivian Grey," reserving their admiration for a
remarkably foolish story called "De Vavasour," which made its
appearance about the same time, and has long been handed
over to the trunk-makers. There is, therefore, nothing sur
prising in the fact that the reviews of the " Revolutionary Epic "
were studiously depreciatory. The Literary Gazette thought
it might perhaps be worth while for the author to go on with
his work, though it was "very faulty and unequal." The
Athenoium, then just rising into power and influence, gave two
notices of the' poem ; and in the second, remarked that " the
poet certainly grows stronger in his song as he proceeds, but
Ave have our fears that it will be all in vain." And, finally, the
Gentleman's Magazine, in a very slip-shod notice, patronisingly
says of the author that, he is " occasionally eloquent, but too
much addicted to garrulity." Criticism of this kind naturally
disgusted the young poet. His preface had implied that the
work was tentative. " Whatever may be their (the public's)
decision," he had said, " I shall bow to it without a murmur ;
for I am not one who finds consolation for the neglect of my
contemporaries in the imaginary plaudits of a more sympathetic
posterity. The public will then decide whether this work is to
be continued and completed ; and if it pass in the negative, I
shall, without a pang, hurl my lyre to limbo." The public
verdict was not favourable, and the'poet kept his word. Truth

"The Young Duke." 51
to say, it was as well that he should do so. His genius has
never been distinctly poetical, and the fragment of the Epic
which has been given to the world, though full of splendid and
most eloquent passages, wants something of that divine affluius,
which alone can make a poem immortal. The subject, more
over, is hai-dly adapted for poetical treatment. Modern politics
do not fit in with sounding blank verse, and denunciations of
the theory of EquaUty or of the Radicalism of 1830, however
well deserved, read much better in prose than in poetry.
Besides the "Revolutionary Epick," Lord Beaconsfield's Eastern
tour produced three works which, unlike the poem, have sur
vived till to-day. These were the " Young Duke," " Contarini
Fleming," and " Alroy." The first of these novels was some
what in the style of " Vivian Grey," and was not a little marred
by the repeated obtrusion of the author's personality. It was
decidedly "fashionable" in tone, very readable and amusing,
and it was comparatively free from that trick of reproducing
actual characters and events which had given so much piquancy
to "Vivian Grey." The reviewers treated the author with a
fair amount of tenderness. The Athenceum, indeed, complained
of the space which was occupied by the digressions, which it ex
plained as consisting of " various essays, accounts of the author's
palace at Rome, his hopes, his dreams, his ability or inability to
write a novel, his former reviewers, his weekly expenditure."
Other critics complained that the story was wanting in the point
of central interest, and that the plot was too thin and threadbare.
On the whole, however, the book was favourably received. It
has the essential merit of entertaining the reader, and the
digressions, if not essential to the story, are good and amusing
of their kind, whilst some scenes of the novel proper are
E g

52 The PtMic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
powerfully conceived, and forcibly executed. The author's own
account of the story, as given in 1853, is that it. was written
when George the Fourth was king, and that " it is an attempt
to pourtray the fleeting manners of a somewhat frivolous age."
He claims for it the indulgence due to a very juvenile work,
and pleads guilty to the charge of affectation. " Young authors,"
he says, " are apt to fall into affectation and conceit ; and the
writer of this work sinned very much in these respects ; but
the affectation of youth should be viewed leniently, and every
man has a right to be conceited until he is successful."
"Contarini Fleming" has for its second title "The Psycho
logical Romance," which the author assures his readers, in the
later editions, "is of bibliopolic origin and means nothing."
His own account of the work is interesting. " I published
' Contarini Fleming ' anonymously," he says, " and in the
midst of a revolution. It was almost still-born, .and, having
written it with deep thought and feeling, I was naturally dis
couraged from further effort  Gradually 'Contarini
Fleming' found sympathising readers: Goethe and Beckford
were impelled to communicate their unsolicited opinions of
this work to its anonymous author, and I have seen a criticism
on it by Heine, of which any writer might be justly proud.
Yet all this does not prevent me from being conscious that it
would have been better if a subject so essentially psychological
had been treated at a more mature period of life." The book,
which was published anonymously, was not, as Lord Beacons
field says, very successful at first, though it has since taken a
definite position, and, I believe, enjoys a steady, if not large,
sale. The general opinion of it seems to have been that it was
somewhat strained and artificial : that the, style was spasmodic

"Contarini Fleming." 53
and restless, and that, although it contained pa.isages of great
beauty, the general offoL-t was the reverse of pleasing. The
Athencemn, in May, 1832, gave a long and careful review of
a type very different from the feeble and fiatulent prefaces to
a sheaf of extracts which passed for reviews in the columns
of the Literary Gazette. The writer of that article com
plained of the style adopted by the author, but he did not
refuse him a due meed of praise. Of the style he says that
it is "feverish," and that it "offends twice while it pleases
once. There is no repose, all is convulsed and agitated."
'Later on he says of the hero: "We have heard and read of
sundry wild youths, all impulse, imagination, and fire — but
none like Contarini. He is madly in love at seven with one
eight years older than himself — a poet at ten — a painter at
twelve — captain of a band of dandy robbers at sixteen — author
of a romance embodying his own acts at seventeen — a secretary
of state at eighteen — a count and minister at nineteen — a
husband at twenty, a widower at twenty-one — and a hare
brained creature always." This description of the hero is not
altogether unjust, and it certainly says not a little for Lord
Beaconsfield's genius that he should have been able to invest
such a personage with sufficient vitality to have survived near
upon half a century of literary life. What follows is equally
true. The book, the reviewer tells us, is wild and extravagant,
yet " abounding in fine passages, in noble sentiments, in high
speculation, knowledge of the human heart, and much that is
truly eloquent. The impulses which the hero obeys are the
impulses of heaven ; but he carries them too fai'— he never
stops at the winning-post— his aim is virtue and his end folly,
he is as restless as a feather in an eddy, and whirls and

54 The PtMic Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
dances about embracing all opinions and abiding by none. . . .
In short," concludes the reviewer, " a work so wild and so wise,
so gi-otesque and so beautiful, so natural and so unnatural,
it has not been our luck lately to encounter." With such a
verdict it is probable that few readers of " Contarini Fleming "
will be disposed to quarrel : its author, in the calm of advancing
years, perhaps least of all.
"Alroy " — the Wondrous Tale of Alroy — was the last of the
three novels, for which the world is indebted to Lord Beacons
field's Eastern tour, and was given to the world in the spring of
1833. It was more thoroughly imbued with the Eastern
spirit than any other of his works — " Tancred " itself not
excepted — and if it stood alone it would probably suffice to
place its author on a very high level. Beckford's " Vathek "
and Hope's "Anastatius" have given their authors a certain
sort of immortality—" Alroy " would have done more for Lord
Beaconsfield but for the fact that he has since eclipsed it so
marvellously. The book is written in a style of its own, a sort
of rhythmical prose which from time to time becomes absolute
verse, and what is more, rhymed verse, which has an almost
burlesque aspect when printed as prose. It is, however, a work
of genius, and as such it was recognised from the first, though
it found also not a few hostile and some malignant critics.
Maginn bantered the young author in the- pages of Eraser's
Magazine, and the northern critics seem to have been puzzled
what to say about the book. The Athenceum, as usual, spoke
with fairness and good sense. " Those who read to the fortieth
page of this tale," says that journal in its issue of the 9th of
March, 1833, " then close the work for ever and call the author
a wild enthusiast, who deals in extravagant legends and super-

"The Wondrous Talc of ..llroy." 55
natural fictions will do him tho greatest injustice. Wild his
work is assuredly — extravagant sometimes to an utmost wish,
and supernatural even to the very limits of poetic belief; but
then genius is stamped on every page ; feelings such as the
Muse delights in abound, nay, overflow : while a true heroic
loftiness of soul, such as influenced devout men of old when
they warred for their country, glows and flashes through the
whole narrative. Nor is this all — there is a deep infusion of
the spirit of Judah in it — not the fallen and money-changing
spirit of these our latter days, but of that martial and devout
spirit which kindled in the Hebrew bosoms of old when their
daughters sang ' Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his
tens of thousands.' We have been nursed as we were in our
youth when, with the Bible on our knees, we went wondering
over the heroes of Israel. Carmel is again before us and
Jerasalem with all her banners." Such a criticism must have
been grateful to the young author, inasmuch as it exhibits that
rarest of all emotions — sympathy between the critic and his
subject. With such a subject, however, it would have been
strange if sympathy had not been aroused. The story of
Alroy is a stirring one. He is a young prince of the House of
Judah. Roused by a sense of oppression to the highest point
of heroism he raises the banner of his people, and, for a time,
restores the fallen fortunes of his nation. The fortune of war
is, however, against him, and at last he dies overwhelmed by
his adversaries, but preserving to the last his double character
of poet and hero. To the tale of " Alroy " the author — not
perhaps altogether wisely — added, "Iskander" — the history of
a Christian. placed in a somewhat sin^ilar position, but achieving
a happier end, In later editions this work is usually omitted,

56 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Though never very popular in England "Alroy" was from the
first successful in Germany, and at least two translations of it
are known to exist.
It may be convenient in this place to mention that for
several years after his return from the East. "the author of
'Vivian Grey'" was a contributor to Lady Blessington's
Annuals. In the " Book of Beauty " for 1835, he has a story
called " The Carrier Pigeon," obviously written to illustrate a
sentimental engraving from a drawing by Daniel Maclise, then
a rising young artist. The hero of. the story, oddly enough, is
Lothair : the " pretty page " Theodore. In the volume for the
succeeding year he has a story, " The Consul's Daughter," of
greater length and greater pretension, but not really remark
able. The volume for 1837 contains some verses " to a maiden
sleeping after her first ball," written to illustrate, perhaps, the
weakest of Maclise's drawings. The lines, however, are worthy
of reproduction :
Dreams come from Jove, the poet says ;
But as I watch the smile
That on thy lips now softly plays,
I can but deem the while,
Venus may also send a shade
To whisper to a slumbering maid.
What dark-eyed youth now culls the flower
That radiant brow to grace.
Or whispers in the starry hour
Words fairer than thy face ?
Or singles thee from out the throng
To thee to breathe his minstrel song
The ardent vow that ne'er can fail,
The sigh that is not sad,

Lady Blessington' s ^Innuals. 57
The glance that tells a secret tale.
The spirit hushed yet glad ;
These weave the dream that maidens prove
The fluttering dream of vii'gin love.
Sleep on, sweet maid, nor sigh to break
The spell that binds thy brain
Nor struggle from thy trance to wake
To life's impending pain ;
Who wakes to love awake but knows
Love is a dream without repose.

The volume in which these verses were published contains
also a fragment "by the author of 'Vivian Grey'" with the title
" Calantha." It is supposed to expound the meaning of a senti
mental plate from a drawing by Mrs. Sayfforth, but it is so
indifferent a production, that no one need be surprised by the
author's refusal to reproduce it. Much the same verdict will
probably be delivered with regard to a Syrian sketch in the
volume for 1838 ; the last of the fugitive pieces, with the two
follo"wing exceptions, from the hand of " Disraeli the Younger,"
which I have been able to trace.
The following lines, with a statuette in silver of the late
Duke of Wellington, "ft'ere long preserved at Stowe. Their
date is not given, but they were probably written about this
year :— " Not only that thy puissant arm could bind
The tyrant of a world and, conquering Fate,
Enfranchise Europe, do I deem thee great ;
But that in all thy actions I do find
Exact propriety ; no gusts of mind
Fitful and wild, but that ^continuous state
Of ordered impulse mariners await,
In some benignant and enriching wind, —

5B The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
The breath ordained of Nature. Thy calm mien
Recalls old Eome as much as thy high deed ;
Duty thy only idol, and serene '
When all are troubled ; in the utmost need
Prescient thy country's servant ever seen,
Yet sovereign of thyself whate'er may speed."
The following sonnet — a worthy companion — was printed in
the " Book of Beauty," for 1839 :—
"ON THE POETEAIT OF LADY MAHON
(now Countess Stanhope).
" Fair Lady ! thee the pencil of Vandyke
Might well have painted : thine the English air,
Graceful yet earnest, that his portraits bear,
In that far troubled time, when sword and pike
Gleamed round the ancient halls and castles fair
That shrouded Albion's beauty ; though when need.
They too, though soft withal, would boldly dare.
Defend the leaguered breach, or charging steed.
Mount in their trampled parks. Far different scene
The bowers present before thee ; yet serene
Though now our days, if coming time impart
Our ancient troubles, well I ween thy life
Would not reproach thy lot and what thou art —
A warrior's daughter and a statesman's wife."

NOTE.
The " London Catalogue " gives, under the lialne of Mr. Disraeli, a
work entitled " England and France, or a Cure for Ministerial Gallomania,
London, John Murray, 1832." This book was published anonymously, and
so far as I can discover has never been acknowledged by its assumed
author, nor can I in any of the contemporary memoirs find any reference
to it. Tliere is, however, considerable reason for believing that it may have
been his work. The preface is dated "April 14, 1832, Saturday Morning,
8 A.JI.," and we know that Lord Beaconsfield returned from his tour about

"England and France," 59
that time ; while the first chapter of tho book opens with the words, " After
an absence of two years I find myself once more in my native country,'' a
period which corresponds pretty accurately with Mr. Disraeli's ab.sencc.
The style is, moreover, very similar to that of the " Runnymede Letters,''
to be noticed farther on. Such a sentence as the ^ollo^^'ing from the dedi
cation to Earl Grey is, one would say, unniistakeable : — " Algier.s and
Greece, you will deUght to hear, are flourishing under the benign influence
of that tricolour flag, whose immaculate glory your colleague, Lord Althorp,
vindicated with that easy eloquence, and curious felicity of diction, for
which he is so remarkable." Another passage from near the end of the
book is in the same vein. " When a man will not fight he must be content
to be kicked. Our minister has announced to the world that nothing will
induce him to resent an insult or defend an interest ; and the Lord Chan
cellor has made a Doctrinaire speech upon peace full of soimd and fury.
Russia has destroyed Poland, Austria has invaded Italy, France sends her
flying expeditions, or plants her permanent colonies, at her will, but prin
cipally against our old allies, or in the neighbourhood of our old pos
sessions ; and England, or Lord Grey, is quiet, and compensated or consoled
for all these agreeable adventures by the proud recollection that the Prince
of Saxe Coburg is King of the Belgians." Against this internal evidence,
however, must be set the fact that the book displays a minute acquaint
ance with English politics in their remotest ramifications which could
hardly be expected in a young man, Iiowever brilliant, who had been absent
from home for two years. My own theory on the subject is that the book
was written by Lord Beaconsfield in conjunction with a second person.
Many pages are in style whoUy unlike his, and of one or two we may say
what cannot be said of any of his acknowledged works, that they are abso
lutely duU. The book, as its title implies, is a protest against the affection
of the Whigs for France and things French, and is especially interesting as
embodying a trustworthy account of the Revolution of 1830.

CHAPTER 11.
POLITICAL LIFE.
Abandons literature for politics —Stands for High Wycombe in opposition to
Colonel Grey — Is . attacked for his Toryism — Nominated by a Tory and
seconded by a Radical — The Reform BiU passes — Dissolution of Parliament
— Mr. Disraeli's address — Attacks on the Whigs — The "new National Party"
— Again defeated — Asked to stand for the county — Again defeated at High
Wycombe — Irish Coercioii Bill — Dissolution of the Melbourne Ministry —
"The Crisis Examined" — The agricultural interest — Election at Taunton —
O'Connell and his compact with the Whigs — Attack upon Mr. Disraeli —
Calls upon Morgan O'Connell for the "satisfaction of a gentleman" — Is
refused — Writes to O'Connell and sends a copy of his letter to the Tinier —
Controversy with the Globe — Intimacy with Lyndhurst — The ' ' Vindication
of the Constitution " — Analysis of the book— Runnymede Letters — Admi
ration for Peel—" Henrietta Temple "— " "Venetia "—Death of William IV.
— General election— Stands for Maidstone— Address to the electors — The
New Poor Law — Member for Maidstone.
In the preface to a later edition of " Contarini Fleming,"
Lord Beaconsfield speaks, as we have seen, of a certain " dis
couragement from farther effort," caused by the comparative
failure of that work. These words must, however, be taken
with a qualification. That he was discouraged from making
farther literary efforts for the time being is unquestionably
true, but a mind' so active and so versatile could not waste
itself in repose. Politics afforded a field for his energies, and
to politics accordingly he turned himself with his accustomed
vigour. During the exciting period of the struggle for Catholic
Emancipation and for Reform, he had been absent on those

Stands for High Wycombe. 6 1
travels which served so remarkably to mature his intellectual
powers, and to convert him from the curled darling of fashion
able drawing-rooms into tho cool, steady, and earnest statesman
he so early became. Ho returned to England in the spring of
1832, when the great struggle for reform was practically over,
and when the eventual triumph of the Whig Reform Bill was
a mere question of weeks. Just before it passed, however, an
opportunity for entering public life presented itself, of which
'' Disraeli the Younger " was not slow to take advantage.
Bradenham House, to which his father had retired at the
instigation of his friends the Pyes, was very near to High
Wycombe, and when a seat for that not very important con
stituency became vacant, there was perhaps nothing more
natural than that the son of its owner should solicit the
sufirages of his neighbours. He did so accordingly upon
independent grounds, allying himself neither with Radicals nor
with Tories, and professing little by way of political creed
beyond a tolerably fervent hatred of the Whigs, coupled with
an equally sincere distrust of them. He hoped in fact to
secure the support of the two extreme parties in his opposition
to the middle class Whigs, and the local organ of the latter
party fell foul of him from the first. His political creed was
declared to be unintelligible ; his political friends and sup
porters an anomalous faction united in nothing save their
opposition to the beneficent party which was bestowing upon
the country the blessing of a £10 franchise. The Bucks
Gazette stigmatised him from the first, however, as a Tory.
It was true that he enjoyed Radical support, but he was also
patronised by the Tories, and that fact was quite enough for
the Whig organ— which, by the way, might have served the

62. The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
author of " Pickwick " as the model of the Eatanswill Gazette.
In its columns the young candidate is described with scathing
sarcasm, as a person of "no political character, but very
vaguely pledged. . . . whose first act, when all was open to
him, was to place his interests into {sic) the hands of a
notorious Tory agent, the representative in Wycombe of all
that is politically detestable in Bucks."
It might have been thought that there could be little
mistake about the political convictions of a candidate who took
such a step as this, but those who have persistently misrepre
sented every act of Lord Beaconsfield since the commencement
of his political career in the year of the Reform Bill, have not
hesitated to describe him as having begun life as a Radical,
and as having " ratted " from interested motives. To listen to
some of these purists it might be imagined, indeed, that no
public man of consequence had ever modified his views, though
it is notorious that the statesman, who, in 1838, was described
by Macaulay as " the rising hope of the stern and unbending
Tories," was in 1868 the most advanced of Liberals, and the
leader of the factious movement which stripped Ireland of her
Church Establishment without benefiting a soul save a few
ofiicials. Lord Beaconsfield, as we, shall see, has played an
infinitely more consistent part. He began his career nominally
as an independent candidate, but his best friends were Tories ;
his associates belonged to the same party, and if he sought
Radical support, it was not because he had any faith in Radical
nostrums, but because from the very outset of his political
career, he recognised the thoroughly democratic character of
the English constitution, and invariably opposed the preten
sions of those "great families" whose ambition it was, as h^

opposed by Colonel Grey. 6

0

iCHn

has said a hundred times to reduce tlio sovereign of tl
realms to the position of a Venetian doge, and to substitute
a tyrannical oligarchy for the traditional estates of the
realm. Nomination day was fixed for the 30th of June, and Colonel
Grey — a son of the Prime Minister, and afterwards the General
Grey to whom the world is indebted for the first volume of the
" Life of the Prince Consort," — having been duly nominated and
seconded, Mr. Disraeli's turn came. He was proposed by a Tory
— a Mr. Treacher, and seconded by a Radical, a Mr. King. It
would be difficult to imagine a more unequal contest. On the
one side was a very young man of whose political opinions the
electors knew as much as he chose to tell them and no more ;
who had a certain reputation in London society as the author
of one or two fashionable novels, which had been very cordially
abused by the hirelings of the press, and who appeared as
the representative of certain principles which at that moment
were in the lowest depth of unpopularity. He had no family
influence to back him, and his earnest devotion to the cause
of the people was sufficient to ruin him for ever with the
"respectable" middle class. On the other hand, the Whig
candidate was a gentleman of unimpeachable character, known
to the electors personally, of fascinating manners and address,
and supported by all the prestige which could be given by the
facts that he was a son of the Prime Minister, who was carrying
through Parhament one of the most popular measures ever
passed, and that he enjoyed the countenance and support of
the "great families" of the county. In such a case the end
may readily be predicted, but that end was not reached without
a gallant fight. Called upon for his speech, Mr. Disraeh, in

64 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
spite of intei-ruptions and rudenesses which would have daunted
a man of less nerve and resolution, delivered himself of a
worthy address. He told the electors that he came before
them as an independent man, and that he wore the badge of
no party. Reform had come, but he did not consider the
alteration of the franchise by any means a final step. It was
" a means to a great end." He hoped to see arising from it,
financial, ecclesiastical, and legal reforms. For these he was
ready and even anxious to work. Far before such things,
however, he placed the amelioration of the condition of the
poor. He wanted to see the labourer better fed, better clothed,
better housed, better taught, and he was alive to the fact that
unless the condition of this class were improved, a social
convulsion was impending, which might end in the actual
destruction of our national life. "His principle was that the
happiness of the many must be preferred to the happiness of
'the few, and he did not think it necessary, not belonging
to the tail of a faction, but being sprung from the people
and having none of the blood of the Plantagenets or of the
Tudors in his veins, to be more specific." It had been alleged
against him that he was supported by the Tories. He was,
and he rejoiced in the fact. " He was glad to find the Tories
for once on the side of the people, and he hoped the alliance
would be lasting." Referring to the candidature of his oppo
nent, he spoke with the utmost courtesy of Colonel Grey
personally, but he protested against the notion of electing him a
member of Parliament out of " gratitude," or because his father
was at the head of a popular administration. As soon as the
nomination was concluded, the polling commenced, and in so
small a constituency it naturally lasted but a very short time.

The General Election. 65
When at 5 o'clock it became evident that the victory was on
the side of the Whigs, Mr. Disraeh withdrew from the contest,
the numbers being Grey, 23; Disraeli, 12 ; — Majority 11. JIad
all promises been fulfilled, however, and had the out-voters
came up to time, it is said to have been quite possible that a
different result would have been recorded.
This was the last election at High Wycombe under the old
system. The general election in the autumn was the first
under the Reform Bill, and in preparation for it Mr. Disraeli
busied himself with an active canvass of the electors. It will,
perhaps, be a sufficient vindication of his consistency to note
that during this canvass he was the object of the unceasing
hostility of the local organ of the Whigs, and that that hostility
was uniformly directed against his Toryism. That he had. at
any time professed principles of the kind conveniently included
under the elastic title of " Liberal " seems never to have been
thought of for a moment. It was always as a Tory that the
Bucks Gazette reviled him, unless, indeed, the perpetually
renewed snfeers at his Hebrew descent can be taken into
account. Anything more utterly and insufferably mean and
vulgar than these attacks can hardly be imagined. Severe
things have often been said of Lord Beaconsfield's undisguised
contempt for newspapers and their writers, but few will wonder
at it when they remember that for many years he was the
constant butt of the small wits of the daily and weekly press,
who thought it funny (save the mark !) to talk of him as an
" old clothes man," to hint at his presumed antipathy to pork,
to tell preposterous stories of his supping with local dealers in
bacon, and if last, not least, to publish caricatures of him with
the traditional "three hats" on his head. Of all offenders in
, VOL. I. r

66 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
this way the Bucks Gazette was one of the most loathsome, and
in turning over its files, the reader's chief wonder is how its
editor contrived in the 'thirties to escape the cudgel or the
horsewhip. One or two of his paragraphs are indeed so utterly
outrageous and indecent, that to have passed them over in
silence as Lord Beaconsfield did affords the strongest imaginable
proof of his statesmanlike qualities and wonderful command of
temper. With the autumn came the long expected dissolution, and at
the first opportunity — October 1st, 1832 — Mr. Disraeli's address
was issued. Like the " Revolutionary Epick," it is dated from
Bradenham House. It is of more than common length, and
more than common interest, but a brief summary will serve to
indicate its more salient points. It begins with a protest
against the system of nomination, which was being. used by the
great families and by the Whig officials in a peculiarly scandalous
and unblushing manner. Colonel Grey had been returned-for
Wycombe notoriously as the nominee of the Prime Minister.
The Lord Chancellor (Brougham) had uublushingly tried to force
his private secretary, Mr. Le Marchant, upon the neighbouring
borough of Aylesbury, and had only withdrawn him at the last
moment to make room for the son of another minister. For
High Wycombe Mr. Disraeli offered himself under different
conditions. " I come forward," he says, " wearing the badge of
no party, and the livery of no faction. . . . But while I am
desirous of entering parliament as an independent man, I have
never availed myself of that much abused epithet to escape an
explicit avowal of my opinions.'' Those opinions he then goes
on to detail. He recognises the magnitude of the constitutional
change which the country has just witnessed, and he wishes to

Mr. Disraeli's Address. 67
complete the work which the Reform Bill has begun. Ho sees
that the enlarged franchise has opened the door to terrorism,
and so as the ballot promises to afford a bulwark against it, ho
will support that proposal. He is anxious that the new parlia
ments shall be brought as frequently as possible under the
revising power of the constituencies — he will therefore vote for
triennial parliaments, "of which," he says, "the Whigs originally
deprived us." * In many things he is in thorough accord with
the most advanced Liberals. He wishes to see a repeal of the
taxes on knowledge ; he will support every reasonable measure
of economy, and especially he will do his utmost to root out
useless places, and to get rid of undeserved pensions — of which,
by the way, the Whigs had a practical monopoly. The "con
dition of England " once more forces itself to the front, and he
announces that he will withhold his support from any admini
stration which will not do something to ameliorate the con
dition of the poor, rouse the energies of the country, restore
trade, and re-animate credit. Romilly was at this time labour
ing to bring about a more humane administration of our criminal
law, and Mr. Disraeli announces himself as thoroughly in accord
with the great lawyer. He would like too to see slavery in our
* "The Bfll substituting Septennial for Triennial Parliaments was, it is true,
a Whig measure, and it is .also true that the Tories in the early Hanoverian period
were, in conjunction with a large body of discontented Whigs, energetic Parlia
mentary reformers, advocating triennial or even annual Parliaments, and in
veighing bitterly against pensions and places. . . . The Whigs earned the
Septennial Act because they believed that a dissolution immediately after the
accession of George I. and the revolution of 1715, would be of the utmost danger
to the dynasty which it was their great object to defend. . . . The WhigSJ,
irhen in office under Walpole, maintained and multiplied places and pensions
because they were at their disposal and were powerful instruments in maintaining
their majority."— Lecky. A History of England in the EigTiteenth Cewtwy (1878),
vol. i., pp, 5—6. F 2

68 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
West Indian possessions abolished— the only difficulty is as to
the means, but even here he thinks he sees his way. On the
question of the Corn Laws he is perhaps less explicit. He is
very anxious to relieve the consumer, but at the same time he
cannot consent to measures the result of which must assuredly
be the permanent injury of the agricultural class. In the
same spirit he will vote for a large measure of tithe commu
tation, desiring only to protect the clergy without injuring the
farmers. The point of the address lies, however, in the rapid and lively
onslaught on the Whigs, with which it concludes : " 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 which no one regardeth, comes one day we know not
whence, and goes the next we know not whither — to support
me in this struggle against that rapacious, tyrannical, and
incapable faction, who, having knavishly obtained power by false
pretences, sillily suppose that they will be permitted to retain
it by half measures, and who, in the course of their brief but
disastrous career, have contrived to shake every great interest
of the empire to its centre." The address concludes by an
appeal to the electors of Wycombe as citizens of a great nation.
"Englishmen," says 'Disraeli the Younger,' "behold this un
paralleled Empire raised by the heroic energies of your fathers,
rouse 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

The "National Party" 69
unite in forming a great national party which can alone save tho
country from impending destruction."
In connexion with this new party which Lord Beaconsfield
aspired to lead in the early years of the " thirties," it may be
mentioned that a pamphlet "by the author of 'Vivian Grey,' "
and healing the title, " What is He \ " was published by
Ridgway in 1833. This pamphlet is now extremely scarce.
Until lately there was no copy of it even in the Library of the
British Museum. The fact of its having vanished into space
having, however, been made public, a gentleman recently
presented a volume of pamphlets with which it is bound up,
and my attention having been directed to it by Mr. Garnett,
I am able to give a summary of its contents. The title iS
explained by a quotation from "a letter of an eminent per
sonage " on the title page : — " I hear that * * * * "* * * * is
again in the field ; I hardly know whether we ought to wish
him success. What is he ? " The pamphlet is an answer to
this question. It is not, however, a personal explanation in^
any sense of the term. There is nothing about " Disraeli the
younger" from beginning to end. Beginning with the remark
that "the Tories have announced that they could not carry
on the government of this country with, the present state
machinery," and that "every day the nation is more sensible
that the Whigs cannot," the writer announces a third party,
" who propose certain additions and alterations in this state
machinery by the aid of which they believe the government of
this country may be conducted." The government of England
had formerly been based upon the aristocratic principle. The
Reform Bill abandoned that principle, but put nothing in its
place, with the result of making the government weak where

7o The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
it should be strong. The question thus is how to obtain a
strong government? "We must either revert to the aristo
cratic principle or we must advance to the democratic." The
former course being impossible, it is absolutely necessary to
adopt the latter. In the House of Commons neither principle
predominates, yet the aristocratic element is decidedly the
strongest. It is, however, split into two sections which find
it impossible to coalesce, and the Reform Bill has increased the
difficulty. That, bill was a measure devised essentially in the
interest of the Whig aristocracy, but " the aristocratic principle
has been destroyed in this country, not by the Reform Act, but
by the means by which the Reform Act was passed." That act
" completely abrogated and extinguished " the House of Lords,
and from that moment " it became the duty of every person of
property, talents, and education, unconnected with the unhappy
party at present in power, to use his' utmost exertions to
advance the democratic principle in order that the country
should not fall into that situation in which, if I mistake not,
it will speedily find itself — absolutely without any government
whatever. A Tory and a Radical," he goes on, " I can under
stand ; a Whig — a democratic aristocrat — I cannot comprehend.
If the Tories indeed despair of restoring the aristocratic
principle, and are sincere in their avowal that the state cannot
be governed with the present machinery, it is their duty to
coalesce with the Radicals and permit both political nicknames
to merge in the common, the intelligible, and the dignified
title of a National party." The restoration of the aristocratic
principle whether by force or by a coalition between the two
aristocratic parties, being admittedly impossible, and some
principle of action, being essential for the government, the

The ^'National Party i' 71
question arises, "What are the easiest and most obvious
methods by which the democratic principle may be made
predominant?" To these the writer answers, "Tho instant
repeal of the Septennial Act, and the institution of Election by
Ballot, and the immediate dissolution of Parliament." The
effect of these changes would, he thinks, be the election of a
House of Commons the great majority of which would be
influenced by the same wishes, and consequently the machine
of the state would be able to proceed." The situation is one in
which quiescence is impossible, and as the present state of
affairs can hardly last six months, " it becomes all men who are
sincere wellwishers to their country, and who are really inde
pendent, that is to say who are not pledged to the unhappy
party in power, to combine together for the institution of a
strong government." " This pamphlet has been so frequently
referred to — especially by critics who have not read it — as a
proof of Lord Beaconsfield's gross inconsistency and tergiversa
tion, that I have been tempted to summarize it at some length.
To most unprejudiced men it will probably appear that so far
from being a proof of dishonesty and inconsistency, it is really
the strongest testimony that could be offered to Lord Beacons
field's uprightness and consistency. It would, indeed, be no
disgrace had he changed his opinions, but as a mere matter of
fact, he advocated on the hustings of High Wycombe in 1831
opinions which found their ultimate expression in the Reform
Bill of 1867.
This "new national party" was one of the generous ambitions
of youth. It has hardly been formed as yet, and though the
signs of the times are hopeful, it may be many years before
party spirit shall have so far faded out as to allow of its creation.

72 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
In 1832 the idea was hopeless and chimerical. The Whigs
were the destined saviours of society in Buckinghamshire as
elsewhere, and the organ of their party, when Mr. Disraeli's
address came out, could find nothing better to say of it than
" Good Mr. Disraeli, this will never do ! " He was assured that
he was a Tory at heart, and on that ground, and that only, he
was assaulted in the most violent manner in the columns of the
Whig organ. Throughout the interval between the dissolution
and the election the most bitter and scurrilous attacks were
rained incessantly upon his head, and the whole arsenal of
Whig vulgarities was employed for his especial benefit. The
pretext invariably was his Toryism. Two days before the nomi
nation (8th Dec), the Bucks Gazette printed a leading article
of the bad old vituperative kind, in which may still be found
by the curious these words : — " If by ' we ' Mr. Disraeh means
his o-WTi party the Tories. . . ." When the actual election
came on, 10th Dec, 1882, Mr. Disraeli was nominated by a
certain Mr. Carter, who was best known to the electors as a
great ally of the Marquis of Chandos, and who nevertheless
astonished the electors and disgusted the Whigs by reaffirming
in a very forcible way the ancient constitutional doctrine that
taxation should go hand in hand with representation. This the
Bucks Gazette, Whig organ though it was, considered an ultra-
Radical theory. Mr. Treacher seconded the nomination, and
-the candidate made a speech of a somewhat non-committal
character, in the course of which he said, " it has been stated
that I come here under the influence of the Tory party. That
I deny. It is they who have joined me, and if the Tories will
aid the cause of the people I am too sensible of the value of
their assistance to refuse it." Later on in the speech he said

Nei'cr a Radical. 73
" I will never lend myself to support those rapacious Whigs."
The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Smith — a member of a
very influential local family — and Mr. Disraeli, but the polling
reversed this verdict. Mr. Smith was first with 179 votes;
Col. Grey second with 140 ; and, Mr. Disraeli last with 119.
It has been necessary to dwell on the circumstances of these
contests for the simple reason that the assailants of Lord
Beaconsfield — whose numbers have been equalled only by their
ferocity — have chosen to represent him as having begun life as
a Radical, and as having turned his coat so soon as he found
Toryism likely to pay better. As a matter of fact no charge
coidd have had less foundation. That he was always a Demo
crat may at once be admitted. From the earliest days of his
political career he espoused the cause of the people against the
Whig aristocracy, but that he was at any time a Liberal in
politics may most emphatically and truthfully be denied. His
sympathies were eminently national, and given to no sect or
class or party. As will be seen in the succeeding pages of
this work he had from the first the deepest and warmest
sympathy "with the sorrows and sufferings of the poor, extending
even to the dangerous work of lending a helping hand to the
misguided men who, under the delusion that political machinery
was everything and personal sympathy nothing, fell under the
heavy hand of the Whigs, and expiated in prison and at the
hulks their mistaken belief in the Charter. From what has
already been said it will be seen, however, that at the time of the
Reform Bill Mr. Disraeli was a Democratic Tory of precisely
the same type as when in 1867 he " dished the Whigs " by
carrying household suffrage.
After his second defeat at High Wycombe the gates of public

74 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
life seemed to be closed against Mr. Disraeli. With that per
sistency which is one of his most striking characteristics, he
waited and watched for an opportunity. He kept up his con
nexion with High Wycombe and the people of the place ; spoke
occasionally, and always in one sense, as the friend of the
agricultural classes, the opponent of the Malt Tax, and the
inveterate enemy of the Whigs. His popularity grew very
rapidly, and a requisition signed by 500 freeholders to stand for
the county was got up. That costly honour he declined, ex
plaining his reasons in a speech which began amidst hisses and
tumult, and ended amidst vehement and long continued
cheering. In that speech he distinctly avowed himself a Pro
tectionist, and professed his devotion to the country party — a
step which is probably quite sufficient to vindicate the con
sistency of the remainder of his career.
Early in 1835 High Wycombe once more afforded him an
opportunity of contesting the seat. Lord Grey's government
formed in November, 1830, went to pieces. in July, 1834. It
had carried the Reform Bill, and as soon as the new Parliament
under that measure had been got into harness, it tried its hand
upon a variety of drastic measures — Municipal Corporation
Acts, Irish Church Bills, Tithe Acts, and the like — all of which
seemed to prove the utter unfitness of the Whigs for the work of
government. Their blunders culminated in an Irish Coercion
Bill. They had begun by making lavish promises to Ireland,
and by yielding everything to her, with the effect of stimulating
disaffection and discontent to a dangerous degree, and then they
had found it necessary to apply for extraordinary powers for the
suppression of those evils. The Bill was worked through the
Jjords with the greatest difficulty, and probably but for the

The Reform Ministry. 75
personal influence of Earl Grey it would have foundered there
as soon as it was launched. When it got down to the Commons
it was received with something more than coldness. Tho pro
visions of the Bill savoured indeed rather of 1798 than of 18.'54.
Total prohibitions of public meetings, refusals to permit the use
of arms, the institution of courts-martial for the trial of persons
accused of civil offences, were not precisely matters to commend
themselves to a House of Commons which prided itself upon
its humanity and civilization. Nor were the government by
any means unanimous as to the merits of the measure. There
was, in short, a " split in the cabinet." All the disagreements
which had been accumulating in three years and a half found
vent on this occasion, and by July, 1834, the end came. Lord
Grey and his immediate friends were most anxious to carry the
Bill : Lord Althorp saw that it was impracticable, and had,
moreover, no taste for the task before him. On the 7th of July
he therefore resigned his office as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and two days later Earl Grey — who felt that without his leader
ship in the Commons the task of governing would be an impos
sibility — followed his example. There were indeed plausible
reasons for the course which he took. He had already passed
his seventieth year ; his health was more than indifferent, and
it was notorious that he had long been weary of the troubles of
official life, and of the annoyances inseparable from the task of
driving an unruly team. At the end of the preceding session
he had expressed a wish to retire, but it was so distinctly felt
that he was the only man who could be relied upon to pilot the
Whigs in times of storm and stress, that great pressure was put
upon him to remain in office. He complied with the wishes of
his colleagues for the time, but when Lord Althorp retired nq

76 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
persuasion would induce him to continue to hold office, and he
gave way to Lord Melbourne ; having held the premiership for
three years, seven months, and twenty-two days. Lord Mel
bourne was " sent for," and undertook the task of reconstructing
the Ministry. He had but little to do. Most of those who had
served under Earl Grey retained their places. Lord Althorp
went back to the Exchequer. Lord Durham had given place to
Lord Goderich in the spring of 1833, and was now replaced by
Lord Mulgrave. Vicount Duncannon took the Home Office,
vacant by the promotion of Lord Melbourne ; Mr. Stanley
(afterwards Lord Derby) was replaced at'the Colonial Office by
Mr. Spring Rice ; the Duke of Richmond at the Post Office by
the Marquis of Conyngham — an Irish Whig absentee landlord
of the truest Whig type — and Sir John Hobhouse, who in the
spring of 1833 had succeeded Mr. Stanley as Chief Secretary for
Ireland, gave place to Mr. Littleton. The other offices remained
as they were. Brougham was still Lord Chancellor; Mr. Grant
at the India Board, Lord Palmerston Foreign Secretary, and
Sir James Graham at the Admiralty.*
So matters went on for three months. Everybody, felt that
they were in a very unsettled and unsatisfactory state, that the
King was discontented and the people not less so. The Whigs
had in short come to the end of their tether, and the only
question was as to how soon they could be got rid of. The

* It has not been thought necessary in this place to enter into the details of
the disgraceful intrigue between the Whigs and O'Connell ¦which brought about
the fall of Lord Grey's government. Those who are curious on the subject will
find the whole story told with admirable clearness and candour in Sir Denis lo
Marchant's "Memoir of "Viscount Althorp, Earl Spencer,"— a book which is
indispensable to all who wish to obtain a correct knowledge of the political
history of the period which it covers.

Lord Melbourne goes out. 77
answer was not long in coming. Lord Althorp went to the
Upper House on the 15th of October, 1884, and Lord Melbourne
at once posted down to Brighton to take the orders of the
King as to filling the vacancy at the Exchequer. He was
coldly received. AVilliam IV. liked Lord Melbourne, in fact,
as little as Lord Melbourne liked him, and he took remarkably
little trouble to disguise his feelings. It was probably without
surprise, therefore, that Lord Melbourne heard from the King
that he considered the change caused by Lord Althorp's trans
lation equivalent to a dissolution of the Ministry. The truth
was, the King was exceedingly glad to find an opportunity of
expressing his distaste for the Melbourne administration.
Brougham had made himself especially obnoxious, and he had
determined that Brougham should be Chancellor no longer — a
determination which is hardly surprising when it is considered
how Brougham had dragged the royal name through the dust
in his stump oratory. Then again the King disapproved
altogether of the Irish Church Bill, and he was not contented
with the men engaged upon it. The conversation between
the King and Lord Melbourne was long and anxious, but before
it was over the Minister had received bis dismissal and had
been entrusted by his Majesty with a letter for the Duke of
Wellington. That letter was duly delivered, and as its result
the duke went down to Brighton, and on Sunday the 16th of
October was admitted to an audience. It is understood that
his Majesty pressed him to undertake, the formation of a
government, but that he refused to do so and advised the King
to send for Peel. It happened that at this moment Peel was
in Rome. The King's messenger who was despatched on the
search succeeded in finding him after a good deal of difficulty,

78 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and in the end Sir Robert reached London on the 9th of
December.* During the interregnum the Duke had held office
provisionally, and had appointed his cabinet — also provisionally.
When, however. Sir Robert Peel entered upon his duties, he was
so well satisfied with what had been done tha,t he thought it
unnecessary to do more than confirm the "acting orders."
Matters were in this state when the end of the year brought
about another election for Wycombe. Once more Mr. Disraeli
came to the front, standing on precisely the same grounds as
those on which he had before based his claims to the support
of the electors. It seems almost a matter of course to say that>
he was defeated at the poll. He obtained only 128 votes as
against 288 given to Mr. Smith and 147 to Colonel Grey.
But he was not humiliated by his defeat, nor did it prevent
him from pressing on in the race. This election indeed marks
an era in his political career. Hitherto he had been known
rather as a smart public speaker and an unsuccessful candidate
for parliamentary honours. Henceforward he was to be known
as one of the most brilliant orators of his time. The speech
which he delivered from the hustings he justly thought worthy
of preservation. He accordingly published it in the form of a
pamphlet with the title of " The Crisis Examined." Here- the
trumpet gives no uncertain sound. It is the voice of a Tory —
of a Reformer if you will, but of a Reformer who works on the
old lines of the Constitution and who accepts the Whigs only
as a necessary evil. He is willing to repeal the Malt Tax,
because that impost weighs heavily on one interest of the
• The story of the King's messenger's journey to Eome in pursuit of Peel is
told at length by Mr. MoCiiUagh Torrens in his "Life of Lord Melbourne,"
vol.. ii., pp. 48 — 9.

" The Crisis Examined.'" 79
country and leaves others untouched. He is disposed not so
much to "reform" as to "improve" the Church of England
by abolishing the evils of plurality and non-residence. With
regai'd to the Irish Church he declares his willingness to reform,
but his determination to maintain her because, as he says,
experience has taught him that churches are despoiled only
for the benefit of the aristocracy. " I remember Woburn," he
says, " and I tremble." He will, he goes on, concede the
claims of dissenters so far as Marriage and Registration are
concerned, and he will meet them half way in the matter of
Church-rates. At that point, however, he stops. He must
maintain the integrity of the Church ; he is pledged to do so
and he will. The point of the speech — the one thing by which
it deserves to be remembered — is however its peroration, which
may be safely said to be one of the finest things of the kind
in existence. All the men who had made the first Cabinet
under the Reform Bill illustrious had gone, and " Disraeli the
Younger" turns the whole thing into ridicule of a kind so
forcible and so delicate as to place his speech at the very
highest point amongst the addresses of political candidates.
" The Reform Ministry I Where is it ? Let us calmly trace
the history of this ' united Cabinet.' Very soon after its
formation. Lord Durham withdrew from the Royal Councils ;
the only m.an 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

8o The Pttblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
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 respect, 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 discovered
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 disgraced individuals in private life and violated
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
* Lord Campbell, in his " Lives of the Chancellors,'' vol. viii., pp. 446 et seq.,
gives a very amusing, if somewhat spiteful, account of Brougham's "Progress"
through Scotland in 1834. It seems that his taking the Great Seal out of the
kingdgm gave deep offence to the King, who had a strong opinion that no
English Judge, and a fortiori no Lord Chancellor, could lawfully go beyond the
realm of England, without the express personal permission of the Sovereign,
"It was even said," writes Lord Campbell, "that his Majesty had declared to
others with whom he conversed more freely, that, ' he could not account for the
Chancellor clandestinely running away with the Great Seal beyond the jurisdic
tion of the Court of Chancery, except upon the supposition that he was out of his
mind, of which there had for some time been strong symptoms.' " Three pages
enrlicr in the volume is a story which partly explains the King's indignation.

" The Crisis Examined" 8i
exchanged menacing 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 Rt. 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 Listen 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,'
"When Brougham was at Eothiemurohus, then the residence of the Dowager
Duchess of Bedford, he found a large party of English ladies, with whom he
romped so familiarly, that, to be revenged on him, they stole the Great Seal and
hid it. This was a serious matter, but the ladies were obdurate until melted by
Brougham's evident distress, they allowed him to search for it blindfolded, and
to the sound of what ohildi'en call "Magic Music." That Brougham's vanity
made him "write to the King by every post," is indubitable. In particular he
promised to do so on receiving the freedom of the City of Inverness, and fulfilled
his promise in the presence of a certain Mr. MaoPherson over " tumbler of
whisky punch. When, on the death of Earl Spencer, Lord Althorp was removed
from the House of Commons, and the King took the somewhat unusual step of
dismissing the Ministry, it was generally admitted, said the Times, "that the
downfall of the government was referable, in a great measure, to the unbecoming
conduct of Lord Brougham as Chancellor." The belief in Brougham's insanity
at this period seems to have been very general. Thus in the " Greville Memoirs,"
vol. iii., p. 120, I find, "Wynfordtold me that Brougham is undoubtedly mad,
and so I really believe he is." Mr. Greville more than confirms Lord Campbell's
accounts of Brougham's "mountebank exhibitions" in Scotland, as well as his
assertion that it was Brougham, who, without authority, sent to the Times the
account of the fall of Lord Melbourne's ministry, with the well-known addition,
that "the Queen had done it all,"
VOL, I. «

82 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and that Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Spring Rice, 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 Reform' 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, in
formed his Majesty that the remains of the ' united Cabinet,'
Sir John Hobhouse and Lord John Russell, were still as united
as ever, and he ended by proposing that the House of Commons
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 politician. And then Lord
Melbourne says that the King turned them out. Turned them
out, gentlemen 1 why his Majesty laughed them out! The truth
is that this famous Reform Ministry had degenerated into a
grotesque and Hudibrastic faction, the very lees of ministerial
existence, the offal of official life. They were a ragged regi
ment, compared with which Falstaff's crew was a band of
regulars. The King would not march through Coventry with
them — that was flat. The Reform Ministry, indeed ! Why,
scarcely an original member of that celebrated Cabinet re
mained. 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

0)icc more defeated. 83
worsted. The Reform Ministry ! I daresay now some of you
have heard of Mr. Ducrow, that celebrated gentleman who rides
upon six horses. What a prodigious achievement ! It seems
impossible, but you ha\'o confidence in Ducrow. You fly to
witness it. Unfortunately one of the horses is ill, and a donkey
is substituted in his place. But Ducrow is still admirable ;
there he is bounding along in a spangled jacket and cork
slipper.?. 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 staggers, 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 amphi
theatre, 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
Reform Ministry ! 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 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."
No one will deny that this is about as good of its kind as
anything could be, but Wycombe was not to be weaned from
its Whiggery by wit, and the heir of Bradenham was once more
left in the cold. The numbers were. Smith, 288 ; Grey, 147 ;
and Disraeli, 128. This was the last occasion on which he
Q a

84 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
sought the suffrages of what may almost be called his native
borough. He shook off the dust of his feet against it, and had
practically nothing more to do with the place until he became
in future years member for the county. Amongst the Tory
section of the constituency, however, he had lost none of his
popularity. They gave him a dinner, and a very striking
entertainment it seems to have been. Had he been the
winning instead of the defeated candidate they could hardly
have been more enthusiastic, and when he rose to return
thanks for the way in which his health had been received, he
was for a long time unable to go on for the cheering. His
speech was remarkable mainly because it displayed him as
very definitely assuming the championship of the agricultural
interest. He pointed out that when all had been said agri
cultural distress meant the distress of nineteen-twentieths of
the people of England. He urged that great distress of that
kind existed at the time at which he spoke, and to alleviate it
he advocated the repeal of the Malt Tax as the only practical
measure. That impost he declared to be extremely costly in
its collection and deleterious in its effects. The money which
it produced he considered to be abstracted from the pockets of
the poor, and the effect of the tax he believed to drive the
peasant from the farm-house to the beer-shop. He gave vent ta
much the same sentiments when he went down to Taunton
three months later.
The election for Taunton may in a sense be regarded as the
turning-point of Lord Beaconsfield's political career. At all
events, he came to the front more conspicuously than he had
ever done before, and became far more generally .known in
political circles. The prime minister— Lord Melbourne— had, for

The "Lichfield House Compact!' 85
reasons of his own, made Mr. Labouchere Master of the Mint.
Why the office should have been conferred upon him was a
mystery, but Whig statesmen sometimes do rather curious
things when places are to be given away. As a matter of
course, Mr. Labouchere vacated his seat by accepting this
appointment, but he presented himself to his constituents for
re-election. Mr. Disraeli, as he had a perfect right to do, came
forward as his opponent, and the contest between them was
rather a warm one. A good many shrewd buffets were given
and taken on both sides, but the Whig place-holder, and his
Tory opponent might have come out of the struggle unharmed
had it not been for the intrusion of the Irish element. The
time was that of the notorious "Lichfield House compact."
For many years the Whigs had treated Irish complaints
¦with contempt, and Irish " patriots " as almost beyond the
pale of civilization. Their bitterest contempt had been un
sparingly poured out upon O'Connell, and in return O'Connell
had vented some of his choicest invectives on the Whigs. The
Irish party was in short what its leaders have since tried with
more or less success to make it, a third party in the state, ready
to support either the government of the day, or the opposition,
if its own terms were granted to it. When, therefore, the Whigs
were looking out for allies, they found O'Connell quite willing
to meet them half way, and the result of the negotiation was
that a meeting was arranged at Lichfield House, at which
O'Connell and his tail promised to support the general policy
of the Whigs in return for a share of the Government patronage
and for the support which they were willing to give to the
measures for the benefit of Ireland to which O'Connell was
pledged. The existence of the compact was notorious, but it

86 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
was made in such a way that Lord Melbourne was able to say
in reply to a question put by Lord Alvanley: "I am asked
how far I coincide in the opinions of Mr. O'Connell about the
Union with Ireland ? I answer not at all. I am asked if I
am to have the aid of Mr. O'Connell \ I answer, I cannot tell.
And lastly, on what terms ? I answer, / have made no terms
with hinn whatever!'
Most people will have their own opinions as to the moraUty
of such a compact, and few will dispute the right of a Tory
candidate to comment upon it. This Mr. Disraeh did, and in
no veiy gentle terms. He was fighting against the Whigs, and
he naturally attacked their new and not too reputable ally.
" I look upon the Whigs," said he, " 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 — and on what authority ? On
the authority of that very body (the Whigs) a distinguished
member of whom is my honourable opponent."
Mr. Labouchere apparently did not think it worth his while
to enter upon an elaborate vindication of the strange ally
whom the Whigs had enlisted in their struggle for power.
Some of the prints of his party were less prudent, and
eagerly availed themselves of the opening afforded by Mr.
Disraeli's use of the letters of Hume and O'Connell at the
Wycombe election. O'Connell himself came to the front, and,
with characteristic insolence and mendacity, gave his account of
the affair — .an account which may be read at length in the
Globe of the 28th of December, 1835. The only passage it

The Whigs and the Reform Act. 87
is necessary to quote is the following : — "In the year 1831 or
1832 this Disraeli had been candidate for the borough of
Wycombe, which was then vacant. It appears that he or
someone of his name, had written two or three novels dignified
with the title of ' Curiosities of Literature.' He then pro
fessed Radical principles, and wrote to me as a Radical reformer,
requesting my support, and entreating me to give him a recom
mendatory letter to the electors of that borough, whom he
represented as Liberals attached to my principles. This was
my first introduction to Disraeh. Well, I believed the fellow
oil his word, and composed an epistle in his favour. The latter
Disraeli took with him as a guarantee for his Radical principles
to the electors. He had it actually lithographed, printed, and
distributed through the streets. Disraeli, however, was better
known to the constituency of Wycombe than to me, and was
accordingly defeated. That was not my fault. He owed me at
least an act of civility, which ought not to be repaid by the
foulest calumny.''
No sooner had this frantic and furious speech been given to
the world than the Whigs adopted it. Their favourite organ,
the Globe, seized eagerly upon it, and- used it to point its argu
ments in favour of the settlement of 1832, and its denunciations
of those who were dissatisfied with that neat arrangement for
destroying the ancient franchises of England for the benefit of
the £10 householder. As Lord Beaconsfield then, and on many
later occasions, pointed out, the great Reform Act was really
a measure of disfranchisement. The old principle of household
suffrage was broken down. No words were too bitter to use
^ith regard to the old and historical voters in the organs of
Whiggism. They were " paupers and pot-wallopers," while the

88 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
ten-pounder was the incarnation of wisdom, common sense, and
political virtue, the " heart of the nation," its " brains," and its
"head." As a matter of course, the Tories protested agamst
this line of argument, and, whilst defending t\&\x protiges, had
very possibly said some things not too respectful concerning
those of whom the Whigs were so eagerly making pets.
Amongst the organs of Whiggism, the Globe was perhaps the
most conspicuous. It was conducted with a good deal of
ability, and a still larger amount of personal rancour. Its
principles were somewhat elastic, but of its devotion to the
Whig party there could be no doubt. Mr. Disraeli, being a
Tory of Tories, naturally fell under the displeasure of the
evening organ of the Liberals, and this speech of O'Connell's
afforded a text for some wonderful vituperation. The words of
O'Connell were adopted ; his charges — random as they were —
were taken as proved; the stale and unfounded scandal of
bribery and corruption was repeated once more, " with a circum
stance," and words were attributed to Mr. Disraeli which he
had never uttered. Called upon by him to retract and apolo
gise, the Globe printed a part of his letter embedded in the
heart of a leading article, but carefully suppressed the most
important passage. Upon this, the victim of Whig misrepre
sentation wrote to the Times in explanation, declaring the
Whig organ to be "accused of falsehood and convicted of
forgery." This letter, which is dated 28th of December, 1835, sets out
with the announcement that so many false reports have been
circulated concerning the writer, that he is determined to set
the matter as between O'Connell and himself at rest at once
and for ever. As regards O'Connell personally, he had thought

The Quarrel with O'Coimell. 89
that his answer had been sufficiently notorious. " I believe,"
he say.s, " it is universally acknowledged among all honest folks
that Mr. O'Connell, as is his custom, had the baseness, first to
libel me, and then to skulk from the consequences of his calumny."
How true this version of the matter is may be judged from what
follows. In one of his speeches to the Dublin Franchise Asso
ciation — an oration which excites the liveliest enthusiasm in
the breast of one of O'Connell's biographers — the "Liberator"
had delivered himself of the following piece of vituperation.
" In the annals of political turpitude there is not anything
deserving the appellation of ' blackguardism ' to equal that
attack on me. ... At Taunton the 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 that is, that he is a liar. He is a liar
in action and in words. His life is a living lie. He is a dis
grace to his species. What state of society must that be that
could tolerate such a creature, having the audacity to come
forward with one set of principles at one time and obtain poli
tical assistance by reason of those principles, and at another
to profess diametrically the reverse. His life I say is a living
lie. He is the most degi-aded of his species and kind, and
England is degraded in tolerating or having upon the face of
her society a miscreant of his abominable, foul, and atrocious
nature. My language is harsh, and I owe an apology for it, but
I will tell you why I owe that apology. It is for this reason
that, if there be harsher terms in the British language, I should
use them ; because it is the harshest of all terms that would be
descriptive of a wretch of his species. . . . He has falsehood

90 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
enough, depravity enough, and selfishness enough to become the
fitting leader of the Conservatives. He is Conservatism per
sonified. His name shows that he is by descent a Jew. His
father became a convert. He is better for that in this worid,
and I hope of course that he will be the better for it in the
next. ... I have the happiness to be acquainted with some
Jewish families in London, and amongst them more accom
plished ladies or more humane, cordial, or high-minded, or
better educated gentlemen I never met {siS). It will not
be supposed, therefore, that when I speak of Disraeli as the
descendant of a Jew I mean to tarnish him on that account.
They were once the chosen people of God. There were mis
creants among them, however, also, and it must certainly
have 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 believe 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." There is no denying the energy of this invective or the
wit, from 0' Connell's point of view, of its peroration. It was,
however, uttered under circumstances which impart to it a
character of peculiar baseness. One does not use insulting
language to a clergyman, since his cloth prevents him from
avenging the insult. In the same way, it is not expected
that clergymen will assail their opponents in the dialect of
Billingsgate, under cover of their sacred office. This, how
ever, is a parallel case to O'Connell's. Some time before,
he had fought a duel, in which he had been fortunate or

Demand for "Satisfaction." 91
unfortunate enough to " kill his man " — a circumstance which
he carefully turned to account in the future. In Mrs. O'Con
nell's rather dreary memoirs of Bianconi, the Italian-Irish car
proprietor, she tells a story of her hero meeting O'Connell
at mass. Bianconi noticed that O'Connell wore a white glove
on his right hand. "Liberator,'' said he, "what makes you
wear a white glove at communion ? " O'ConneU turned round,
and raising his hat said, "That hand once took a fellow
creature's life : I never bare it in the presence of my Re
deemer." Nor was he contented with talking blasphemous
cant about his guilty hand. He caused it to be everywhere
understood, that under no circumstances would he ever again
either give or accept a challenge. To any man possessed of
the faintest spark of honourable feeling, such a state of things
would have been the most cogent of all conceivable reasons
for maintaining the most studied moderation of tone in all
future controversies. With O'Connell the effect was very
different. As he advanced in life, his attacks upon his adver
saries grow more "vii'ulent, and his gross and brutal jokes
more frequent. To all appearance, the impunity which he
enjoyed, served but to stimulate his audacious coarseness.
At last, only a short time before this onslaught was delivered.
Lord Alvanley, stung by one of O'Connell's accustomed pieces
of insolence, caUed him "a bloated buffoon." It is not necessary
to defend the propriety of the epithet or to plead the provo
cation. Probably a good many people in these days will not
require the one, and will not contest the other. The end of
the matter was, that Morgan John O'Connell, the son of the
"Liberator," thought himself compelled after the fashion of
those days to call upon Lord .Alvanley to give him " the

92 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
satisfaction of a gentleman" for the insult to his father. The
pair met and exchanged shots twice, Morgan O'Connell being
unfortunate enough to fire too soon the first time, and the
matter ended without bloodshed.
When the news of this outrageous and unpardonable attack
reached London, Lord Beaconsfield— or, as it may be more con
venient to call him, Mr. Disraeli— felt himself bound by the
laws of honour, as they obtained in 1835, to call upon Morgan
O'Connell for satisfaction. His letter was couched in the
following terms : — " Had Mr. O'Connell, according to the prac
tice observed among gentleman, appealed to me respecting
the accuracy of the reputed expressions before he indulged
in offensive comments upon them, he would, if he can be
influenced by a sense of justice, have felt that such comments
were unnecessary. He has not thought fit to do so, and he
leaves me no alternative but to request that you his son
will resume your vicarious duties of yielding satisfaction for
the insults which your father has so long lavished with im
punity upon his political opponents." Morgan 0' Connell had
apparently had enough of fighting, and but little stomach
for more. He consequently wrote back a rather abject letter
to Mr. Disraeli, protesting that there was no likeness between
his case and that of Lord Alvanley ; that the latter had in
sulted his father, whilst in the former, it was only his father
who had insulted Mr. Disraeli ; that he was called upon to
defend his father against insult, but by no means to give
satisfaction to every one who might conceive himself injured
by Mr. O'Connell's words. He winds up by asking Mr. Disraeli
to withdraw his letter, unless he wishes to quarrel with him
(Morgan O'Connell) personally.

Letter to O'Connell 93
The letter was carried by Mr. Ffrench, who took back a
note in reply to the effect that the challenger had no intention
of picking a personal quarrel with Morgan O'Connell, but
that he had also no intention of withdrawing his letter. On
the following day (6th May, 1835,), Mr. Disraeli sent a further
letter to Morgan O'Connell, in which he said : — " I deduce
from your communication delivered by Mr. Ffrench, that you
do not consider yourself responsible for any insults offered by
your father, but only bound to resent the insults which he
may receive. Now, Sir, it is my hope that I have insulted
him ; assuredly, it was my intention to do so. I wished to
express the utter scorn in which I hold his character, and
the disgust with which his conduct inspires me. If I failed
in conveying this expression of my feelings to him, let me more
successfully express them now to you. I shall take every
opportunity of holding your father's name up to public con
tempt, and I fervently pray, that you or some of his blood
may attempt to avenge the unextinguishable hatred with
which I shall pursue his existence." This was tolerably strong,
but the actual " insult " referred to in the letter just quoted,
was ^stronger still, and in duelling days might have been
thought sufficient to stir even a Morgan O'Connell to wrath.
Immediately after his interview with Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Disraeli
wrote a letter to O'Connell himself, and sent a copy of it to
the Times. The following are the principal passages : —
"London, May 5, 1835.
"Me. 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

94 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
same journals, your virulent attack upon myself, and that your
son was at the same moment paying the penalty of similar viru
lence to another individual on whom you had dropped your
filth, I thought that {he consciousness that your opponents had
at length discovered a source of satisfaction might have ani
mated 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 de
clines the further exercise of the pleasing duty of enduring the
consequences of your libertine harangues. I have no other
means, therefore, of noticing your effusion but this pubhc
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 emanated
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."
The letter goes on to show, with much force, hoAV, if the word
" apostate " could be used with propriety, of any hving man,
O'Connell was the person to whom it most accurately applied.
In 1831 he had anathematized the Whigs "with all the pecu
liar graces of a tongue practised in scurrility." In 1835 — after
the Lichfield House compact— O'Connell was "devoted" to
them. Then after alluding to O'Connell's declaration that the
Whigs must be got rid of at any price, the letter concludes with
a well known and certainly very striking passage. Referring to
O'Connell's sneers at his rival's nationality, Mr. Disraeli says;—

O'Connell, the " Globe^' and the " Times." 95
" I admire your scurrilous allusions to my origin. It is quite clear
that the 'hereditary bondsman' has already forgotten the clank
of his fetter. 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 banner.
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 the possessor of
a princely revenue pouring from a starving race of fanatical
slaves. ... I expect to be a representative of the people be
fore the Repeal of the Union. We shall meet at Phihppi, and
rest assured that, confident in a good cause, and in some energies
which have been not altogether unimproved, I shall seize the
first opportunity of inflicting upon you a castigation which will
make you at the same time remember and repent the insults
you have lavished upon Benjamin Diseaeli."
Here matters remained until O'Connell was pleased in
December of this year to deliver himself of the mendacious
" explanation " of the transaction. That speech, and the
Globe's comments upon it, drew from Lord Beaconsfield a reply
in the Times, which is too characteristic to be lost. " To put
the Globe out of court on this head," he wrote, " I declare that
every letter of every syllable of the paragraph quoted in its
columns from Mr, O'Connell's speech is an unadulterated false-

96 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
hood, from my novels, which the de facto member for Dublin
learnedly informs us are styled ' The Curiosities of Literature,'
to his letter to me, which was never written, and which he as
sures us was lithographed throughout Wycombe. I asserted in
the Globe that I professed at this moment precisely the same
political principles as I professed when I commenced my pohti-
cal career on the hustings of Wycombe. I am prepared to prove
this assertion. I was absent from England during the discus
sions on the Reform Bill. The Bill was virtually though not
formally passed when I returned to my country in the spring
of 1832. ... I found the nation in terror of a rampant de
mocracy. I saw only an impending oligarchy. I found the
House of Commons packed, and the independence of the House
of Lords announced as terminated. I recognized a repetition
of the same oligarchical coups d'4tat from which we had es
caped by a miracle little more than a century before ; there
fore 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 intelli
gible idea as to their position and their duties, or the character
of their party. They were haunted with a nervous apprehen
sion 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 anarchy : what they
had to apprehend was a rigid tyranny. They fancied them-

O'Connell, the " Globe" and the " Times." 97
selves 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.
" I did not require Mr. O'Connell's recommendation or that
of any one else for the borough the suffrages of whose electors
I had the honour to solicit. My family resided in the neigh
bourhood. I stood alike on local influence and distinctly avowed
principles, and I opposed the son of the Prime Minister."
The letter goes on to say that the principles which Lord
Beaconsfield had maintained on the hustings at Wycombe were
identical with those which he had professed at Marylebone, and
to which he was at that moment pledged — the principles, in
short, enunciated and enforced in that "Vindication of the
Constitution " which he had so recently given to the world.
"And now. Sir," he continues, "for Mr. O'Connell. Mr.
O'Connell in 1832 was in a very different situation to Mr.
O'Connell in 1838. 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 previous to the first general election after the Reform
Act. Mr. O'Connell was not then an advocate for the dismem
berment 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 Estab
lishment, with almost English admiration for the Constitution,
Our contest at Wycombe was a very Avarm one, every vote
YOIi. Ii H

98 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
was an object. A friend of mine, interested in my success
knowing that I was supported by that portion of the con
stituency 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 exercise it in my favour. They had none, and they
expressed their regret in letters to this gentleman, who for
warded them to me at Wycombe, and my committee, consist
ing of as many Tories as Radicals, printed them."
These letters, he continues, he held to be by no means of
such a character as to fetter his action. They were given
by Hume and O'Connell, not because they loved Disraeli, but
because they hated the Whigs, the very type and incarnation
of whom was to be found in the Whig candidate — Colonel
Grey. The letter goes on — " It has been asserted that I stood
on Radical principles. Why then did the Whigs oppose me as
a Tory?" — as they certainly did. He challenges them to pro
duce a single proof of his Radicalism from any line of his
speeches or writings. He admits that at Wycombe he had
supported Triennial Parliaments and Vote by Ballot, and he
accounts for his having done so by reason of his hostility to the
Whigs, whose power could, he believed, be shaken only by
frequent appeals to the country, and who had enfranchised a
number of paltry little towns with the object of making them
nomination boroughs " by exercising a usurious influence over
the petty tradesmen who are their slaves and their victims."
His change of front on these points we may accept as a prac
tical confession that he had not appreciated the singular in
capacity of the Whigs for power, and the skill which they
invariably display in " going to pieces " after they have been

Attacks on Lord Beaconsfield. 99
in office a short time. "More than three years after," the
letter goes on, "came my contest at Taunton against the
Master of the Mint, to which the Editor of the Globe has
alluded. I came forward on that occasion on precisely the
same principles on which I had offered myself at Wycombe,
but my situation was different. I was no longer an indepen
dent 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
recognised 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 recognised
the most pure, and the profoundest sources of political and
constitutional "wisdom ; under the guidance of an jeloquent and
able leader the principles of primitive Toryism had again
developed themselves, and the obsolete associations which
form no portion of that great patriotic scheme had been effec
tually discarded." Under such circumstances. Lord Beacons
field felt that he could ally himself cordially with the Tory party,
to which, indeed, all his instincts had pointed from the first,
and since he was not fanatically wedded to either Triennial
Parliaments or Vote by Ballot he was perfectly willing to drop
them now that the necessity for those nostrums had passed
away. With this letter the controversy ought to have closed, but
the Globe carried it on for some time longer, if indeed, that
could be called a controversy which was all on one side. Lord

loo The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Beaconsfield himself contemptuously disposed of it, indeed.
"An anonymous writer," said he, "should at least display
power. When Jupiter hurls a thunderbolt it may be mercy
in the god to veil his glory "with a cloud, but we can only
view with contemptuous lenity the mischievous varlet who
pelts us with mud as we are riding along, and then hides
behind a dusthole." It is true that in the course of the attacks
on Lord Beaconsfield, one or two little facts came out not alto
gether confirmatory of his version of the case. They were,
however, of the minutest kind, and by no means affect the
main position. It appears that the introduction to Joseph
Hume was effected through Bulwer, who was at that time an
ardent Radical, and who himself believing in Triennial Parha-
ments. Vote by Ballot, and the Repeal of the Taxes on Know
ledge, appears to have jumped to the conclusion [that because
Mr. Disraeli supported the same things he was therefore an
ardent Radical also. As such he seems to have described him
to Hume, whose letter was addressed to him in person, and
not to any common friend or to any member of his election
committee. As regards O'Connell, however, the absolute false
hood of the " Liberator's " statement, and the utter truthfulness
of that of his opponent, are fully established in spite of the
vehement onslaughts of the Whig organ.
Reverting to the Taunton election — which has been over
shadowed by the importance of this controversy — it is only
necessary to say that Lord Beaconsfield once more suffered on
this occasion the humiliation of defeat. The fact may be ac
counted for partly by the lateness with which he came into
the field, and partly also, no doubt, by the slanders of which
he was the victim. Not merely was this stale and stupid

Fresh political effort. loi
business about O'Connell brought in to his disadvantage, but
his opponents industriously spread a report that he had come
down from the Conservative Club (not the Carlton, it may be
remarked) "well provided with the sinews of wai-." Another
rumour very industriously circulated on this as on a future
occasion, was to the effect that he was a member of the West
minster Reform Club — a story susceptible of a very easy and
intelligible explanation. The club was got up mainly by the
exertions of Mr. E. L. Bulwer (afterwards Lord Lytton) who was
in the thirties a very vehement Liberal. As a brother man
of letters he asked Lord Beaconsfield to join, which it would
seem that he did — if it be correct to say that he "joined"
the club when his only connexion with it consisted in paying
his entrance fee and subscription, and asking that his name
might be taken off the books forthwith. The ostensible plea
was the multiphcity of his engagements : the real reason was
presumably his unwiUingness to associate himself even for
social and convivial purposes with a society bearing so ominous
a name. This, and the O'Connell slander, produced their effect,
however, and local prejudices did the rest. Mr. Disraeli found
himself at the bottom of the poll, with 282 votes against 452
given to Mr. Labouchere. As usual the defeated party con
soled him and themselves with a dinner, at which he made a
brilliant speech, defending his conduct in coming down to
oppose the Whig nominee, protesting against the nomination
system by which the Whigs were getting the borough represen
tation entirely into their own hands, and saying that the Tory
is the only democratic party, inasmuch as it surrounds the
people with the power of the throne, and protects them against
a tyrannical aristocracy.

102 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Prevented in this way from taking an active part in politics,
as he wished to do. Lord Beaconsfield retired to his study not
to sulk over his defeats, but to prepare himself for fresh efforts.
At this time he appears to have been constantly in communica
tion with Lord Lyndhurst, for whom he always entertained a
warm affection and regard — a fact which is evident from a few
words in that repertory of libels, hints, slanders and insinua
tions, the "Greville Memoirs." Under date 6th of December,
1834i, the worthy ex-clerk of the council writes: "The Chancellor
called on me yesterday about getting young Disraeli into
parliament (through the means of George Bentinck) for
Lynn. I had told him that George wanted a good man to
assist in turning out William Lennox, and he suggested the
above-named gentleman, whom he called a friend of Chandos.
His political principles must, however, be in abeyance, for he
said that Durham was doing all he could to get him by the
offer of a seat and so forth ; if, therefore, he is undecided and
wavering between Chandos and Durham he must be a mighty
impartial personage. I don't think such a man "wiU do, though
just such a person as Lyndhurst would be connected with."
The stupid malignity of Greville needs no comment — his tale
is as dull as his reflections are trite ; but it is worth while
to quote him as exemplifying the slanders with which Lord
Beaconsfield has had to contend all through his life.
The intimacy with Lyndhurst was, however, destined to
produce a very valuable fruit from the literary point of view.
In the year 1835 Messrs. Saunders and Otley published for
" Disraeli the Younger " a pamphlet of 210 octavo pages under
the title of « A Vindication of the Enghsh Constitution, in a
Letter to a Noble and Learned Lord." The noble and learned

The "Vindication of the Constitution!' 103
lord was of course Lyndhurst,* to whose "political courage, versa
tile abihty, and masculine eloquence" as well as to his "tenderness
of disposition, sweetness of temper, and ripe scholarship " Lord
Beaconsfield has elsewhere paid worthy tribute. The pamphlet
has never been reprinted, though why it should have fallen into
such neglect it is not easy to see. It is a most masterly per
formance — ^brilliant in style, full of wit, full too of something
better than wit in the form of sound and statesmanlike insight.
When in the course of time a complete edition of Lord Beacons
field's works is called for, this pamphlet must assuredly be
reproduced, not so much for the interest of its subject as for the
proof which it affords of the author's uudeviating political
rectitude and consistency.
The argument of the book may be given in a comparatively
small space. It is in its elements a confutation of that utili
tarian school of political writers who, in the earlier years of this
century, were wonderfully noisy if not equally influential.
Against their theories " Disraeli the Younger '' argues first on
the ground that they have not yet succeeded in defining what
they mean by the principle of seff-interest on which they base
all their revolutionary proposals, and next because even if we
assume the goodness of the theory all the teaching of history
and of common sense goes to prove that political systems can
not be manufactured, but must, to be successfully worked, grow
out of the necessities of the time and the nature of the people.
The English Constitution, he points out, is emphatically the
creature of precedent, prescription, and antiquity. The barons
* A contemporary writer describes how he frequently saw " Young Disraeli "
walking at night about Waterloo Place and the Opera, Colonnade at this time,
arm in arm with Lord Lyndiurst, to whom he expounded his political theories
with infinite energy of expression,

104 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
who wrested Magna Charta from an unwilUng sovereign
claimed their rights not upon abstract principles, but as a
matter of inheritance. Coke and Selden, though they lived in
times of revolution, claimed nothing on a priori grounds.
" Knowing that society is neither more nor less than a compact,
and that no right can be long relied on that cannot boast a
conventional origin, they were most jealous of our title to our
liberties. They lavished all their learning in proving its per
fection and completeness. They never condescended to argue ;
they offered evidence. They were ever ready with their
abstract of title, and with very slight alterations the language
of the famous Petition of Right itseff might be transformed into
a humble request to a sovereign for the restoration of some
real estate ; some patrimony long withheld from a defrauded
posterity. In short, aU our struggles for freedom smack of
law." These words strike the key-note of the book. The rest
is an eloquent and most able defence of the principles they
enunciate. The failure of the French people to form a free
government is used as a primary illustration of the argument.
It had been the work of the first Napoleon to organise anarchy)
and that he had done by creating a despotism. He too, how
ever, had felt the necessity for institutions. Accordingly " he
re-established the tribunals, he revived chivalry, he conjured
up the vision of a nobility ; he created the shadow of a church."
When he fell, Louis XVIII. found himself called upon to
establish a constitution without being furnished with even the
elements to form one. In despair he presented his subjects
with a free constitution drawn up in a morning. He had fancied
that the English constitution was formed of " ' two rooms full of
gentlemen,' who discuss public questions and make laws in the

The " Vindication of the Constitution!' 105
metropolis at a stated season of the year." Ho had forgotten,
our author goes on, '' that the Parliament of England was only
the last though loftiest gradation in a long flight and series of
ascending establishments ; that not a man was entrusted with
the exercise of a political suffrage in England who was not
already invested Avith the most precious office in the realm, the
duty of deciding upon the fortunes and the lives of his fellow
citizens, and was thus long, early and accurately practised in
the habits of judgment and examination ; that nearly every
member of the Houses of Parliament was an active magistrate
of the realm, and in taking his legislative seat, bore his quota
of local respect to the great aggregate of national reverence ;
that the vast institution of the Poor Laws alone connected the
thoughts and feelings of the unrepresented peasants and
populace of England with the parhament in which the local
executors of those statutes, as magistrates, took their seats as
members. Louis XVIII. ...... had no suspicion that it is
not in the power of any legislator that ever lived, or that ever
wUl hve, to frame a political assembly a priori that shall
represent all or even a majority of the interests of a com
plicated society." So with other states, the Peninsula, the two
Sicihes, and so "with France again after 1830. The United
States of America may seem to be an exception to the rule ;
but their constitution was, like that of the mother country, a
matter of growth, not of creation, and aU attempts to reproduce
their constitution, as in Mexico, Chili, and Peru, have failed, as
the attempts to reproduce English institutions in Europe have
failed and will fail. It may be noted, by the way, as an
additional illustration of the truth of the views embodied in
the pamphlet of " Disraeli the Younger," that since its publica-

io6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
tion the colonies of England herself, in the Southern Hemi
sphere, have fully proved the impossibility of transplanting
institutions and successfully creating paper constitutions.
Passing from the general principle of the growth of the
Constitution, the author proceeds to consider the nature of
the representative system of this country, laying especial stress
upon the fact that the House of Commons is an estate of the
realm and not a mere body of delegates of the people — a
sound constitutional doctrine which has been put aside to
some extent of late years. Yet Lord Beaconsfield had reason
— and something more — on liis side when he wrote, " there was
a time when our kings affected to rule by divine right. It
cost our fathers dear to root out that fatal superstition. But
all their heroic labours will prove worse than fruitless if the
divine right of kings is to be succeeded by the divine right of
the House of Commons." Such a legislative body he con
sidered a " vulgar and ignoble ohgarchy," and he proceeds in
the succeeding pages of his work to demolish its pretensions.
In his view the Commons are essentially an equestrian
chaniber — an historical point which is incontrovertible but to
which probably few students of constitutional history will
refuse assent. Passing then in rapid review the history of the
country from the time of Henry IV. onwards, the writer goes
on to show how liberty flourished under the Plantagenets,
declined under the Tudors, was imperilled in the days of the
Protestant Reformation, and how, finally. Protestantism is
essentially a republican religion. This last fact being per
ceived by the aristocracy of this country caused the great
convulsion of 1640-60, and brought about incidentally the
Restoration which Lord Beaconsfield here very aptly and very

" The People!' 107
truthfully describes as the Nation taking refuge from the
People. For in very truth it was through the tyranny of the
people that the counter revolution which placed the second
Charles on the throne came about. " The House of Commons
having fii-st declared 'that the people are the origin of all
just power,' an axiom to which any person may annex any
meaning of his fancy, next enunciated that the House of
Commons being chosen by the people and representing them,
are the supreme authority of the nation, and that consequently
whatever is declared to be law by the House of Commons
hath the force of law without the consent of the king or the
House of Peers .... We still remember in this country,"
Lord Beaconsfield goes on, " the tender and happy conse
quences of being governed by 'the People.' We have not
forgotten that ' the People ' established courts more infamous
than the Star Chamber in every county of England, with the
power of fining, sequestrating, imprisoning, and corporally
punishing all who opposed or even murmured against their
decrees ; that under the plea of malignancy ' the People '
avenged their private hatreds and seized for their private gain
and gratification any estates or property to which they took a
fancy ; that ' the People ' consigned to bastilles and perpetual
imprisonment all those who refused to answer their illegal
inquiries and bored red-hot irons through the tongues of the
contumacious ; that not an appearance of law or liberty
remained in the land ; that ' the People ' enlarged the laws of
high treason so that they comprehended verbal offences and
even intentions ; that ' the People ' practised decimation ; that
' the People ' voted trial by jury a breach of Parliamentary
privilege ; that ' the People ' deprived of authority all persons

io8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of family and distinction who had originally adhered to their
party because men of blood and breeding would not submit to
be their disgraceful and ignoble tools, and filled every office
under them with the scum of the nation ; that the very
individuals who had suffered and struggled under the Star
Chamber were visited by ' the People ' with punishments and
imprisonments infinitely more bloody and more grievous ; that
' the People ' sequestrated nearly one half of the goods and
chattels of the nation and at least one half of its rents and
revenues ; that in seven years ' the People ' raised the taxation
of the country from eight hundred thousand pounds per annum
to seven millions per annum ; that ' the People ' invented the
Excise, and applied that odious impost even to pro"visions and
the common necessaries of life ; that ' the People ' became so
barefaced in their vile extortions that one morning they
openly divided three hundred thousand pounds amongst
themselves and settled an annuity of four pounds a day upon
each of their number ; that ' the People ' committed all these
enormities in the teeth of outraged England by the aid of an
anti-national compact with the Scottish Covenanters, and that
finally the nation, the insulted and exhausted nation, sought
refuge from the government of ' the People ' in the arms of a
military despot."
Leaving the domain of history, the author of the " Vindica
tion " returns to that of politics, and denounces the attempts of
the Whigs to reduce the sovereign of these realms to the
character of a Venetian Doge by placing him entirely in the
hands of the Upper House; to whose ranks he was to be for
bidden to make any addition whatever. That monstrous
proposal was, as he points out, rejected by the Tory House of

Hereditary Legislators. 109
Commons. Since then the ranks of the Upper House have
been hberally strengthened by the infusion of new blood, and it
has in consequence retained its prestige and influence. For the
hereditary chai'acter and irresponsibihty of the Upper House he
has a word of defence, and for Brougham — his persistent oppo
nent — "Disraeli the Younger" has something more than a
rebuke. "The authorized agitator of the Administration
himself," he says, " is sent upon a provincial tour of treason to
open the minds of the King's lieges on this urgent point of
constitutional revelation — the vagabond and overrated rebel —
vomiting his infamous insolence in language as mean as his
own soul." As to the alleged irresponsibility of the Lords,
his argument is that they are not in reahty less responsible
than the Commons, but that the responsibility takes a different
form. In the case of the Lords we have an hereditary Legis
lature; in that of the Commons we have a chamber chosen
by hereditary electors. The one is not^ more or less absurd
than the other, and the hereditary principle is certainly
in harmony with the Constitution. All political institutions
must be judged by their results, and the hereditary peerage of
England can well stand this test. It contributes largely to the
stabihty of the State ; its members are, and always have been,
quite equal in ability to the members of the House of
Commons, and since the Reform Bill far superior. This, it
must be remembered, was written in 1835 after the Whig
Reform Bill of 1832 : Lord Beaconsfield's own Bill in 1867 pro
duced not dissimilar effects.
As regards the question of heredity this treatise then goes on
to show that the Constitution of England, unlike the manufac
tured constitutions of other countries, is impregnated throughout

I IO The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
with it. Nominally the only hereditary legislators are those of
the Upper House, but in practice it is found that the House of
Commons contains a large number of hereditary legislators.
" The representative of a county is selected from one of the first
families in the shire, and ten years after the son of this
member, a candidate for the same honour, adduces the very
circumstance of his succession to his father as an increased
claim upon the confidence of the constituency  Such
elections prove that, far from holding the principle of hereditary
legislation absurd, public opinion has decided that the duties of
au English legislator are such as, on an average of human
capacity, may descend from sire to son ; and that while there is
nothing to shock their reason in the circumstance, there is
much at the same time to satisfy the feelings, and please the
associations, of an ancient people who have made inheritance
the pervading principle of their social polity, who are proud of
their old families, and fond of their old laws." It is, in short,
the acceptance of this hereditary principle which makes all the
difference between English and French Constitutionalism —
which makes the House of Lords a power in the State, and
which left the Chamber of Peers in France after the restoration
of the Bourbons utterly insignificant, though it might have been
as the author says, " selected by a Westminster reviewer him
self" The reason is that a Senate is not a collection of clever
men appointed by the Sovereign to meet in a room and register
decrees, but because it is an estate of the realm, " a class of
individuals, who, from their property and personal influence
alone, form nn important section of the whole nation." The
result is a remarkable harmony throughout many centuries
between the Upper and the Lower Houses of the English Par*

An Historical Retrospect. 1 1 1
liament — a harmony which even the Reform Act of 1832,
factious though it was in essence, failed wholly to destroy.
The argument up to this point is then summarized as
follows : — " Viewed in reference to the complete scheme of our
Legislature, the hereditary principle of the House of Lords, far
from being 'anomalous,' is in perfect harmony with the consti
tution of the other estate of the realm; that if it were as
anomalous as it is regulai' and consistent, far from being absurd,
the application of the principle is extremely rational ; and that,
inasmuch as it is not either constitutionally ' anomalous ' or
abstractedly 'absurd,' its practical results have been such as
might have been anticipated from an institution suited to the
genius of the country, in harmony with all its political estab
lishments, and founded, not only on an intimate acquaintance
¦with the national character, but a profound knowledge of human
nature in general."
Turning now from the constitution of the parliament of this
country to the consideration of the kingly office, the author
sketches with brilhancy and picturesqueness the changes which
have come over that office since the Revolution of 1688. He
shows how the English people, if not wholly unanimous in
desiring the accession of William III., were perfectly so in their
determination to expel James II. The Whigs who brought in
the Prince of Orange fancied that they could reduce the King
of England to the position of a Venetian Doge, but they found
that they had reckoned without their host. William determined
to be his own minister, and succeeded in keeping the Whigs in
check by his adroit management of parties. Then followed the
reign of Anne, "which proved that the reign of a Stuart mi'dit
at the same time be glorious, Protestant, and prosperou.s," and

1 1 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
thus created a longing in the . minds of ^ Englishmen for the
restoration of the lost dynasty — a longing which would have
been gratified had not the son of James II. been hopelessly
incompetent. The death of Anne was followed, as all the world
knows, by a great Whig triumph. The Dukes of Somerset and
Argyll having practically forced the queen upon her deathbed
to appoint the Duke of Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer, the acces
sion of the Elector of Hanover wa^ assured. But George I.
"ascended the throne of England by the sufferance rather than
the consent of the nation." The Whig peers thus became
paramount, and had it not been for the patriotism of the Tory
country gentlemen in the House of Commons, they would have
converted the government of this realm into an oligarchy by the
Peerage BUI already mentioned. " The Whigs in 1718 sought
to govern the country by ' swamping' the House of Commons ;
in 1835 it is the House of Lords that is to be ' swamped.' In
1718 the coup d'4tat was to prevent any further increase of the
Lords ; in 1835 the Lords are to be outnumbered. Different
tactics to obtain the same purpose ; and the variance to be
accounted for by the simple circumstance that the party which
has recourse to these desperate expedients is not a national
party, influenced by any great and avowed principles of public
policy and conduct, but a small knot of great families who have
no other object but their own aggi'andisement, and who seek to
gratify it by all possible means."
For half a century — not, it may be remarked, the most
glorious half century in our annals — the Whigs remained in
power. George III., however — a far abler man in every respect
than his grandfather — with the help of the gi-eat democratic
minister, Mr. Pitt, restored the Tory or national party, " under

The National Party. j j ,
whose comprehensive and consistent, vigorous and strictly
democratic system this island has become the metropolis of a
mighty empire, its sovereign at the same time the most power
ful, and its people the most free, and second to no existing nation
in arts or arms, in internal prosperity or exterior splendour."
The argument then proceeds to show first that the Whigs were
in 1835 what they had been in 1718, an anti-national and oli
garchical party, and next that the Tory party is, and must of
necessity be the national and democratic party, protesting
practically as well as in words against the attempts of their
opponents to subdue the ancient constitution of this country to
the ambition of the great families. Parties change their names
and their cries : Tories become Conservatives, and Whigs
Liberal.s, and it needs a great organising mind to reduce the
chaos to order once more. Such a mind was that of Henry St.
John, Viscount Bohngbroke, to whom the author of this " Vindi
cation of the Constitution " renders a tribute of well deserved
praise. The following passage is interesting, not merely, perhaps,
as illustrating the character of Bolingbroke : — "No one was better
qualified to be the minister of a free and powerful nation than
Henry St. John, and destiny at first appeared to combine with
nature in the elevation of his fortunes. 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 principles contradictoiy of their
conduct, he maintained that vigilant and meditative inde
pendence which is the privilege of an original and determined

114 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
spirit. In the eariier 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 Enghsh 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
democracy. From the moment that Lord Bolingbroke, in
becoming a Tory, embraced the national cause, he devoted him
self 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 unequaUed in our literature for their
spirited patriotismj 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 adventitiously 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-organisation 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

The English Constitution. 1 1 5
by the spirit of our free and ancient institutions." It is possible
that there are some who may recognise in this picture of a
statesman at first misrepresented as "insincere and inconsistent,"
and afterwards maintaining a " vigilant and meditative inde
pendence," a likeness to Lord Beaconsfield himself, nor wiU the
impression be destroyed by the succeeding sentence which refers
to the possibility of a " new party " in the state. The whole
passage is, however, as true and remarkable a picture of the
career of its aiithor as could well have been desired. By it
Lord Beaconsfield will probably be content to be judged, and it
wiU be for posterity to say whether or not he is entitled to the
appellation of the Bolingbroke of the Nineteenth Century.
The remainder of the treatise is occupied with a fuller de
monstration of the thoroughly democratic character of Toryism
as understood by the "writer ; with a vindication of his party
from the charges of corruption, bigotry and hostility to improve
ment ; and, lastly, with a general view of the English Constitu
tion, which is shown to be a pure and complete democracy,
differing, however, from that of France, since in England the
ruhng principle is that every one is privileged. The equality of
our neighbours across the Channel is founded upon the assump
tion, "base, terrestrial, GaUic, and grovelling," that no one
"should be privileged. The peroration is as brilliant as anything
its author ever produced. " If neither ancient ages, nor the more
recent experience of our newer time, can supply us with a
parallel instance of a free government, founded on the broadest
basis of popular rights, yet combining with democratic liberty
aristocratic security and monarchical convenience ; if the refined
spirit of Greece, if the great Roman soul, if the briUiant genius
of feudal Italy, aHke failed in realising this great result, let us

1 1 6 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
chng with increased devotion to the matchless creation of our
ancestors, and honour, with stUl deeper feelings of gratitude
and veneration, the English Constitution. That Constitution,
my lord, established civil equality in a rude age, and anticipated
by centuries in its beneficent practice the sublime theories of
modern philosophy ; having made us equal, it has kept us free.
If it have 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 adventure of Carthage.
It has, at the same time, secured us the most skilful agricul
ture, the most extended commerce, the most ingenious manu
factures, victorious armies, and invincible fleets. Nor has the
intellectual 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 tbe breathing impression of their
genius on the vigorous character of a new world. Under that
Constitution the administration of justice has become so pure,
that its exercise has realised the dreams of some Utopian
romance. That Constitution has struggled successfully with
the Papacy, and finally, and for the first time, proved the com
patibility 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 EngUsh
Constitution has survived the moral earthquake and outlived
the mental hurricane, 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

Tfie " Vindication of the Constitution." 1 1 7
adapted, and the reward to which he is entitled ; it has sum
moned 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."
These words, it should be remembered, were written and
published in 1834 — 5. In 1870, a generation later. Lord
Beaconsfield commenced, through Messrs. Longman and Co., a
complete re-issue of his novels and tales. The first volume was
"Lothair," the latest of his works, to which he prefixed a
" general preface " explanatory of his political and intellectual
position. Some parts of that preface will be found worthy of
particular notice and of singular interest in view of the pas
sages cited above, from the " Vindication of the Constitution,"
and of the innumerable and endless charges of political
hypocrisy, tergiversation, and shameless ratting in which his
opponents have indulged. In that preface he tells his readers
that he had been " born in a library, and trained from early
childhood by learned men, who did not share the passions and
the prejudices of our political and social life," and that conse
quently he learned very early to reflect upon the strange chances
by which " an oligarchy had been substituted for a kingdom, and
a narrow-minded and bigoted fanaticism flourished in the name
of religious liberty." Meditating on these things, he arrived at
the conclusion that the mischief arose through the habitual
carelessness of Englishmen, " in not distinguishing between the

II 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
exceUence of a principle and its injurious or obsolete applica
tion. The feudal system," he goes on, "may have worn out,-
but its main principle, that the tenure of property should be
the fulfilment of duty, is the essence of good government. The
divine right of kings may have been a plea for feeble tyrants,
but the divine right of government is the keystone of human
progress, and without it governments sink into police, and a
nation is degraded into a mob."
Then follows a splendid plea for the solidarity of the nation,
identical in spirit with that which has already been quoted from
the " Vindication," and following it an explanation of the policy
by which, and by "which alone, that' solidarity could in the
writer's view be obtained. " 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 since done in the shape of a priestly section ; to estab
lish a commercial code on the principles successfully negotiated
by Lord Bolingbroke at Utrecht, and which, though baffled at
the time by a Whig .Parliament, were subsequently and triumph
antly vindicated by his political pupil and heir, Mr. Pitt ; to
govern Ireland according to the policy of Charles I., and not of
Oliver Cromwell ; to emancipate the political constituency of
1832 from its sectarian bondage and contracted sympathies ;
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 fornas and
the restoration of the past than by political revolutions founded
on abstract ideas, appeared to be the course which the circum
stances of this country required, and which, practically speaking,

The " Rtmnymede Letters." 119
could only, with all their faults and backslidings, be undertaken
and accomplished by a reconstructed Tory party."
The " Vindication of the Constitution " was not the only
literary fruit of this date. A few years before. Lord Beacons
field had written to Lady Blessington expressing his " horror of
journalizing of all descriptions," but when opportunity offered
he stUl communicated occasionally with the daily press, though
always, of course, in his own character, and never as a hireling.
It was in this manner, though under a pseudonym, that he
produced a series of letters which have been made the subject
of more misrepresentation and the peg upon which to hang the
greatest amount of scandal and evil speaking that has ever
attached to a work of such comparatively trifling bulk. The
famous " Runnymede Letters " appeared in the Times in 1836
and were after"wards reprinted in a volume and published
anonymously by John Macrone of St. James's Square. It
does not appear that a second edition of them was at any time
issued, or that they were ever owned by Lord Beaconsfield.
There is however, no possibility of mistaking the authorship of
these brUliant papers. They are full of wit and epigram. They
sparkle with genius from the first page to the last, and though
probably not one politician in ten thousand of those who speak
and write to-day has ever read a line of them in their original
form, there are passages in them which have practically become
a part of the language. Thus, for example, the first of these
letters is addressed to Viscount Melbourne, and it opens with a
quotation from the Marquis of Halifax, who was wont to say that
" after aU his favourite Sultana Queen was sauntering." The
quotation was most happy as applied to Lord Melbourne, who
notoriously, in the phrase of Runnymede, " sauntered away the

I20 The PtMic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
destinies of a nation, and lounged away the glory of an empire."
It may be doubted, however, whether of aU the multitudes who
have used this quotation and applied this character to the
Whig statesman who carried to its extremest development the
Whig theory of Za^sses: /aire one single person could be found
in these days who could give the original of his quotation.
The series is not very long. The letters are nineteen in
number, and they fill about 170 loosely printed pages in small
octavo. .Winged as they were with wit and sarcasm, however,
they played a very important part in the politics of the day.
Lord Melbourne, of course, comes in for some of the heaviest
hitting. Three of the letters are addressed to him. The first
of the series gravely banters him on his talent for prologue
writing, by which he was chiefly distinguished prior to the
famous Act of 1832, and assures him that his Cabinet appears
to have been constructed from the materials of his old dramatic
company. The irony is delightful, but without quoting the
whole it would be impossible to give an idea of it. The in
vective at the end of the letter is, however, more readily
separable. Speaking of the Cabinet, Runnymede says, " Scarron
or Butler should celebrate its political freaks and the shifting
expedients of its ignoble statecraft. But while I watch you in
your ludicrous councils an awful shade rises from behind the
chair of my lord President. Slaves, it is your master ! it is
Eblis with Captain Rock's bloody cap shadowing his atrocious
countenance. In one hand he waves a torch, and in the other
clutches a skull. He gazes on his victims with a leer of fiendish
triumph. Contemptible as you are, it is this dark connexion
that involves your fate with even an epic dignity, and makes
the impending story of your retributive fortunes assume an

The "Runnymede Letters." 121
almost Dantesque sublimity," The second letter is as bantering
in tone as the first. Lord Melbourne is congratulated on his
even and easy temper, and is told that if things are not quite
so pleasant as he could wish the fault is not his, but that it lies
with the " heterogeneous and Hudibrastic elements of that party
which fate in a freak of fun had called upon his Lordship to
regulate," Runnymede then goes on to say that "we are
aU going into the country," and he therefore recommends the
Cabinet to " take to cricket," wherein " with their pecuharly
patriotic temperaments and highly national feelings they might
venture to play against ' all England.' Lord Palmerston and
Lord Glenelg with theh talent for keeping in would assuredly
secure a good score. Lord John indeed with all his flourishing
will probably end in knocking down his own wicket; and as
for Sir Cam (Hobhouse) the chances are that he will be 'caught
out,' experiencing the same fate in play as in politics. If you
could only engage Lord Durham to fling sticks at the seals of
the Foreign Offlce, and the agile Mr. Ellice to climb a greasy
pole for the Colonial portfolio, I think you wiU have provided a
very entertaining programme of Easter sports." There is a
caustic review of the blunders of the Session, and the letter
winds up with a proposal to condemn Lord Melbourne " to no
severer solitude than the gardens of Hampton Court, where he
might saunter away the remaining years of his now ludicrous
existence, sipping the last novel of Paul de Kock whilst lounging
over a sun dial." The last letter of the series is in the same
strain of exquisite banter. " Why was your Lordship not con
tent to remain agreeable ? why did you aspire to be great ? " is
the text, and that is played upon with the most delightful wit
and at the same time the most terrible earnestness. "My

122 The Public Life of the Eart of Beaconsfield,
Lord," says Runnymede, "the reign of delusion is about to
close. The man who obtains property by false pretences is sent
to Botany Bay. Is the party that obtains power by the same
means to be saved harmless? You have estabhshed a new
colony in Australia : it wants settlers. Let the Cabinet emi
grate. . . there your Lordship may hide your pubHc discom
fiture and your private mortification, . . The land where
the rivers are salt ; where the quadrupeds have fins, and the
fish feet; where everything is confused, discordant, and irre
gular, is indicated by Providence as the fitting scene of Whig
government." The letter by which the series will be mainly remembered
is, however, the fifth — addressed to Sir Robert Peel — ^who is
described as " the only hope of a suffering island," like the
Knight of Rhodes in Schiller's heroic ballad. "In your
chivalry alone,'' says Runnymede, " is our hope. Clad in the
panoply of your splendid talents and your spotless character,
we fee] assured that you will subdue this unnatural and un-
national 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," The contrast between Peel's
noble resignation of office and the ignoble clinging of the
Whigs to place and power is very powerfuUy drawn, and due
weight is given to the unblemished purity of his public and
private character, while the essentially national and united
character of the Tories as opposed to the jealousies and divided
interests of the Whigs, Radicals, and Repealers allied against
them is very forcibly insisted on. The letter concludes with
an appeal to Sir Robert to go on. " At the head of the most
powerful and the most united opposition that ever mustered

The "Runnymede Letters." 123
on the benches opposite a trembling minister, conscious that by
returning you to your constituents he can only increase and
consolidate your strength, what have you to apprehend ? We
look to you, therefore, with hope and with 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 Chiurch, which your opponents
hate — our venerable Constitution, at which they scoff; but above
all, rescue that mighty body of which all these gi-eat classes
and institutions are but some of "the constituent and essential
parts — rescue The Nation."
In happiness of epigram the " Runnymede Letters," are un
rivalled. Thus, for example, -"Lord John Russell was born with
a feeble inteUect and a strong ambition." In another place we
read that he was " busied with the battle of valets ; " in another
that he is " a feeble Cataline ; " in another that he " had a
propensity to degrade everything to his own mean level, and to
measure everything by his own malignant standard," and
finally that he " had written the feeblest tragedy in the
language." For Palmerston, " Runnymede " had as great a
contempt — which, by the way, was found to be not altogether
without justification ten years later. And so we find him
described as " a great Apollo of aspiring understrappers ; " it is
said of him that he " has the smartness of an attorney's clerk
and the intrigues of a Greek of the. Lower Empire ; " that he is
"a crimping lordship with a career as insignificant as his
intellect;" that he "reminds one of a favourite footman on easy
terms with his mistress," and finally, that he " is the Sporus of

124 'Bhe Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield:
politics, cajoling France with an airy comphment, and menacing
Russia with a perfumed cane." Sayings like these do not die,
and in the case of " Runnymede " they certainly survive.
Two novels also belong to this period. " Henrietta Temple "
was first published in 1836 ; was dedicated to Count D'Orsay,
and contains a flattering poiirait of that amiable curled
darling of London society. It is purely a love ^tory, and is
in many respects one of its author's most delightful, works.
Mr. J. Cordy Jeaffreson, who is not by any means an admirer
of Lord Beaconsfield, but who is a candid critic of no ordinaiy
ability, describes it as an " exquisite fiction " and he is more
than justified in doing so. The splendour of the author's
later career has eclipsed the reputation which he won in
youth as a novelist, but had he written "nothing else than
this novel he would have won for himself an imperiishable
reputation. It is not a little amusing to remember the
manner in which this book was received by the critics.
Mr. Jerdan, who could hardly write a page without a solecism
of some kind, announces solemnly, in the columns of the
Literary Gazette, that " there is a great mixture of talent a,nd
affectation in these volumes," but that " no one can deny but
that {sic) the writer is clever." " We hazai-d an opinion," he
adds, " that though parts are touching and natural, the whole
is overstrained and exaggerated." Mr. Silk Buckingham was
very smart indeed upon the book in the Athenceum, teUing a
story — with a bit of bad French in it, by the way — of a French
cook " who could hit off a gravy so piquant that you could eat
your grandpapa with it," and accusing the author of " Henrietta
Temple " of " a gravy style." " With it you are to be enabled
to swaUow maudlin love, stale sensibility, cold slices of life, and

"Henrietta Temple." 125
fricassee of ancestors." But even Mr. Buckingham admits that
the novel " is well contrived in its plot, and in parts forcibly
detaUed, and it is odd," he oddly adds, "that the characters
and incidents are well relieved and often forcibly and happily
contrasted." From incoherent twaddle of this kind, which
more than justifies the vehement contempt of Lord Beaconsfield
for the " critics," it is a relief to turn to a notice in the Edin
burgh Review, in which an attempt is made to do justice to the
author. " The general conception," says the writer ....
" is a fine and poetical one. His object is to paint the magic
suddenness, the bewildering, the ovei^powering nature of a
first passion in two beings of strong feelings, both educated
under circumstances calculated to give to these feelings when
developed a headstrong and irresistible energy." The critic —
an unwilling witness, we may be sure — is forced in candour to
admit the naturalness of the story, and to praise its " truth of
feeling and force of expression," the happy touch with which
the subsidiary characters are dra-wn, and the vividness with
which the whole work is executed — qualities, by the way,
which have been recognized by even greater critical authorities
than Edinburgh Reviewers.
"Henrietta Temple" was followed after no long time by
another novel. Lord Beaconsfield's literary activity at this
period, and for some time to come, was indeed something
astonishing. Not contented with the r6le of an active politi
cian, he was an exceptionally industrious writer. Novel after
novel poured from his pen, and though the critics of the day
sometimes complained of the rapidity of his production, it is
worthy of remark that, for all his work, there is stiU an intelli
gent reading public. In the novel which followed " Henrietta

126 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Temple," Lord Beaconsfield broke new ground. "Venetia"
was published in 1837, and was dedicated to Lord Lyndhurst.
In the preface the author says that it had been his intention
whilst inscribing it with Lyndhurst's name, " to have entered
into some detaUs as to the principles which had guided him in
its composition, and the feelings with which he had attempted
to shadow forth, though ' as in a glass, darkly,' two of the most
reno-wned and refined spirits that have adorned these our latter
days." That intention Lord Beaconsfield, never very communi
cative respecting himself or his intentions, early abandoned,
leaving the work to stand or fall by its own merits. It has main
tained its ground, but it cannot be regarded as one of its author's
most successful works. The two " renowned and refined spirits "
were Byron and Shelley, and their lives were too recent and too
celebrated to render them very fitting subjects for the romancer's
art, I find, by the way, in the Countess Guiccioli's " Recollec
tions of Lord Byron," a very curious criticism on this book. The
Countess has obviously read it, but she fails to see the likeness
between the " Mr. Herbert " of the novel and the poet Shelley
" He (the author) has given Byron two individualities. Lord
Cadurcis represents Byron from his infancy to the time of his
marriage, and Mr. Herbert equally represents Lord Byron from
that fatal epoch until his death. The selection of two persons
to represent the same character, and to allow of Byron's simple
yet complex nature being better understood, was a very happy
philosophical notion." In spite of its happiness and' philosophy,
however, it may be doubted whether the notion ever really
entered Lord Beaconsfield's head — it certainly never entered the
heads of his critics. The Athenaeum, in a fierce article, at once
identified the hero. Lord Cadurcis, with Byron, and Mr. Herbert

" Venetia." i 72
with Shelley; and the Literary Guzelte, in its issue of the
same day, did the same thing. There was, however, a marked
contrast in the way in which the two journals dealt with, what
some people may call, the personality of the story. Said the
Athenceum, "Lady Monteagle is intended to represent Lady
 Somebody Something, who did not disguise her criminal
passion for the poet lord." Mr. Jerdan is less reticent, and
talks about "Lady Monteagles apparently drawn for Lady
Caroline Lamb, with a Toiy fling at her easy, good-natured
husband,now Lord Melbourne." Now that all the actors in
the melancholy drama of Byron's broken life have passed away,
it may not be uninteresting to recall the fact of this portrait,
and to recommend Mr. Mac Cullagh Ton-ens's " Life of Lord
Melbourne " as the best commentary on Lord Beaconsfield's
youthful indiscretion, " Venetia." No better proof of the extra
ordinary accuracy of the portraits could be desired by the most
fastidious critic ; — though he might, like Mr. Jeaffreson, complain
that in this novel he " found the grand tragedies of his contem
plations converted into a melodrama scarcely fit for the Surrey
Theatre ; " a criticism Philistine enough to have been uttered
in a Peckham omnibus, but such as might not unreasonably
have been expected from a writer of well-known Liberal predi
lections. Mr. Jeaffreson, in fact, does but condense into a few
lines the diffused bitterness of the article on " Venetia " and
"Henrietta Temple," which appeared in the Edinburgh Review
at the time of their publication.
Peel's tenure of office had not been prolonged, and when on
the 20th of June, 1837, William IV., in the words of his chap
lain, " exchanged an earthly for a heavenly crown," Melbo'urne
was once more in office, though assuredly not in power. His

128 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
government was about as weak as an administration could be,
and it was kept together rather by reason of the prehensUe
tenacity with which the Whigs habitually cling to office, than
because of any hold which it had on the affection or respect of
the nation. Its true position was speedily defined. As usual,
the accession of the new sovereign was followed by a general
election, and although that election did not result in a "notice
to quit" to the Whig ministry, it afforded a very clear proof of
the feeling of the country, and of the unpopularity of the
administration. On such an occasion, an ambitious man like
" Disraeli the Younger " naturally came to the front. He did
not, however, again tempt fortune at Wycombe or at Taunton,
Maidstone seemed to offer a more eligible opportunity, and to
Maidstone he accordingly went. Mr. Wyndham Lewis, the
senior member for the borough, was perfectly secure in his
place, but Mr. Robarts was notoriously unpopular, and being of
the opposite side in politics, was by no means likely to retain
his seat. The electors who had seated Mr. Lewis were hardly
disposed again to bestow upon a Whig the power of nullifying
his vote in the. House. A requisition was accordingly presented
to Mr. Disraeli, and on the 4th of July his address appeared.
The placard gave no uncertain sound. Mr. Disraeli announced
himself as "an uncompromising adherent to the ancient Consti
tution which was once the boast of our fathers, and is still the
blessing of their children." He declared himself prepared on
all occasions to maintain the prerogative of the Crown, the
privileges of both Houses of Parliament, and the liberties of the
people. He further announced his readiness to support the
Church, and his anxiety to watch over the threatened interests
of the British farmer. His election speeches filled up the out-

The Maidstone Election. 129
lines of his address. He was entertained at dinner; and aflcr
dinner he told his friends, in a brilliant and most able speech,
that he had a very distinct and intelligible policy on Church
matters ; that he was quite willing to abolish Church Rates,
but that in doing so, he must see his way to some substitute,
as for example, Peel's proposal to create in their stead a charge
on the Consolidated Fund. Turning from the Church to the
Poor Laws, he declared himself the uncompromising opponent
of the Whig measure — the cruellest and most heartless which
even the apostles of Icdssez faire had at that time produced.
That law, it should be remarked, was at no time a popular
enactment, and when it was first put into force, it was worked
with great har.shness. Complaints were universal, not merely
from the poor, who were the principal sufferers, but from magis
trates, agriculturists, and the middle classes. Crime had greatly
increased, especially in the rural districts ; and the offences of
rick-burning and machinery-breaking were in many instances
traced to the exceptional harshness with which the Poor Law
was administered. Lord Beaconsfield had taken a prominent
part in the agitation against this enactment. As he reminded
his audience on this occasion, he was the first county magistrate
in England to sign a petition against it, and it was his hand
which drew up the first petition of the kind ever presented
to Parliament, The ground of his opposition was that the
measure was based upon an erroneous conception of the rights
of the people. The framers of this act had gone upon the
assumption that poor relief was of the nature of charity : Lord
Beaconsfield and the Democratic Tory party contended that
such relief is a matter of right. The lands of the monasteries
Yrere, in fact, if not in name, the propertjr of the poor, and if
vol;, I, K

130 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
they were aUenated for the aggrandisement of the "great
famUies," the duty of maintaining the poor feU upon those
famiUes. How this view was afterwards enforced in his literary
work, and how it infiuenced his political action, wUl speedily be
seen. The rest of the speech was a bold and vigorous defence
of his own consistency, and a reply to the attacks based upon
the famous O'ConneU correspondence by the Maidstone Whigs.
The only point calling for notice is, however, the stress which
the speaker laid upon the fact that he had from the first been
consistent ; and that that fact was evidenced by the circum
stances of the contest of 1832, " when there was not a Conser
vative gentleman in the neighbourhood but was my supporter,
not a clergyman but wished me success, not a farmer of respecta
bility but was found in my procession."
The election was carried on with great enthusiasm, and tho
partizans of Colonel Perronet Thompson left no stone unturned
to ensure his success. The trick of representing the Queen as
personally interested in the success of the Whigs, which has
been so often and so unscrupulously adopted in later years, was
put in practice on this occasion to an extent which created a
good deal of indignation among those to whom election tricks
are not familiar. It was said also that intimidation was prac
tised on a very large scale, the Liberal employers of labour
putting stringent pressure on their work-people' to support
their own candidate. Had Colonel Thompson been elected
there were, according to one of the local papers, at least thirty
persons whose votes could be proved to have been extorted
under pressure. Another little device was also resorted to
— that of putting up a sham candidate, in the person of Mr.
Erskine Perry, at three o'clock on the day of the polling. The

Member for Maidstone. 131
popular feeling was too strong, however, and the event proved
that Mr, Robarts, who had represented Maidstone in the liberal
interest in seven successive parliaments, had estimated the
situation correctly when he retired before the nomination day.
Colonel Tliompson was, perhaps, as good a candidate as could
be obtained. He was a Kentish man, and an unquestionably
able one. His personal character was unblemished, and his
weight and influence as editor of the 'Westminster Review
would have insured him a respectful hearing in the House
whenever he chose to speak. But the country was weary of
Whig domination and Whig mismanagement, disgusted with
the incompetence of the Melbodrne ministry, and anxious for a
change of some kind, Maidstone represented the all but
universal feeling by returning two Tories, instead of allowing
the representation to be divided. The poll closed at four
o'clock, and the numbers were then seen to be conclusive.
Mr, Wyndham Lewis, as was natural — he having represented
the borough for a considerable time — was at the head of the
poll with 782 votes, Mr, Disraeli followed with 668, and then
came Colonel Thompson with 529, and the " bogus " candidate,
Mr. Erskine Perry, with 25. The victory was complete. No
attempt was made to impeach the return, and, in due course.
Lord Beaconsfield commenced his long career in the House of
Commons as Member for Maidstone.

K2

CHAPTEK III.
MEMBER FOR MAIDSTONE,
Meeting of the New Parliament— An Irish debate — Mr, Disraeli's maiden speech
— Not a failure — Watches his opportunities — Session of 1839 — Supports re
moval of restrictions on theatres in Lent — Household Suffrage — Education —
Popular discontent — The "Condition of England" — The old and the new
Poor Law — Malthus — The Poor Law Commission — Cholesbury, the "fright
ful example " — The Bill — Working of the new Poor Law— Workhouse plans
— Popular discontent — Wages lower rather than higher after the inti'oduction
of the new system — Sufferings of the Peasantry — The state of the Black
Country — Eetirement of Lord Melbourne— The Bed-Chamber Plot— Un
popularity of the Queen — Chartism— Attwood's speech in the House —
Popular dissatisfaction with the contempt of the House for the gi'eat
Chartist petition — Mr, Disraeli supports the petition and retorts on Lord John
Ku.ssell — The country "on the verge of civil war" — Riots at Birmingham
— At Hyde — At Newport— Trial of the rioters— Opening of Pai'liament —
Queen's speech — Lord Melbourne and Robert Owen— Mr. Disraeli speaks
on the Address— Peels winds up the debate — Lord Melbourne still in office
— Government defeats — Mr. Disraeli on the New Police Bill — Chartist
prisoners — Mr. Disraeli on the side of mercy — Chartist petitions — The Chai--
tists oppose the repeal of the Corn Laws — Vote of want of coniidenoe in the
Ministry — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Prorogation and dissolution — Mr. Disraeli
breaks with Maidstone — Mr. Austin's privileged Ubel — Declines to stand for
Wycombe — Elected for Shrewsbury.
'' We shall meet at Philippi," had been the parting challenge
of " Disraeli the Younger " to the big beggarman O'Connell,
And meet they did. The first parliament of the present reign
assembled on the 15th of November, and was opened by com
mission in the usual way. Mr. Abercromby was re-elected
Speaker, and on the 20th the Queen made the accustomed

An Irish Debate. 133
declaration, and delivered the usual .spuoch. Debates on
the Address followed, but no opportunity was afforded for
an encounter with O'ConneU until the 7tli of December,
when an Irish debate was raised on the motion of Mr. Smith
O'Brien, He had been returned for the county of Limerick,
but his seat had been made the subject of a petition. In
order that this petition might not fail for want of means,
a subscription was got up by its promoters, and amongst
the subscribers were certain English members of Parliament,
Sir Francis Burdett in particular distinguished himself by
a contribution of £20, and the Protestants generally had con
tributed somewhat largely. Smith O'Brien was naturally
extremely indignant, and presented a petition of his own on
the subject. After a somewhat excited speech, he moved " that
a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allega
tions contained in the petition presented by William Smith
O'Brien, complaining of the subscriptions which had been
raised to encourage the presentation of petitions against Irish
members, and of, the conduct of a member of the House in
having contributed to such subscription." The debate was a
very lively one, Mr. Bulwer delivered himself of an able
speech in support of the petition, in which he pointed out that
Burdett had himself denounced such subscriptions as a breach
of privilege. He was followed by FoUett, who defended the
subscription on the ground that Smith O'Brien was " as
much a representative of the people of England as of
the electors of Limerick,"— a plain constitutional doctrine
which it would seem to be impossible to induce the Irish
mind to appreciate. Then followed O'Connell, who, having
soldered up bis feud with the Whigs, turned hia kindly atten*

134 The PzMic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
tion to the Tories, whom he accused, with much vehemence, of
insulting the people of Ireland by this subscription.
This tirade, the report of which occupies ten columns and a
half of Hansard, brought Mr, Disraeli to his feet. He had
pledged himSelf to take the first opportunity of attacking the
Liberator, and he kept his word. Amongst the Ues which have
clustered around the reputation of the Premier, none is more
commonly accepted than the statement that his maiden speech
¦ft'as a failure. It was nothing of the kind. It is, however, per
fectly true that O'Connell and his satellites did their best to
make it one, and that they succeeded in creating such a noise
that at times he was inaudible. An eye-witness of the scene
has described to the present writer the astonishing uproar
which the Irish brigade kept up almost from the moment of his
beginning to speak. Hisses, groans, hoots, catcalls, drumming
with the feet, loud conversation and imitations of animals went
on throughout the speech, and it was with the greatest difficulty
that the reporters could do their duty. But because a gang of
disorderly Irishmen chose to behave in a more unmannerly
fashion than a " Boxing Night " audience at a Transpontine
Theatre, it does not follow that the maiden speech of the
member for Maidstone was a failure. It was, indeed, in one
sense a very hopeful business, inasmuch as the reports prove
that the preliminary training of the hustings had not been
thrown away, and that the speaker was quite capable of hold
ing his own amidst extraordinary interruptions. The reports
furthermore disprove the charge of his having utterly broken
down. A speaker who breaks down is not usually honoured
with a report in the newspapers more than a column in length,
or with five and a half columns of Hansard. The report of the

Mr. Disraeli's Maiden Speech. lyj
speech, too, is full of points. The first part was a protest
against the terrorism exercised by the Roman Catholic clergy,
and a vindication of the right of Protestants to subscribe for
the purpose of putting an end to the system of denouncing
from the altar persons who had made themselves politically
obnoxious to the priests. Turning then to the question more
immediately at issue, Mr. Disraeli pointed out that this much-
vilified subscription list contained the names of a great number
of sober middle-class Englishmen, who ought not to be made
the scapegoats of a Parliamentary Committee which it was no
torious was asked for only for the sake of whitewashing certain
particularly disreputable transactions. In the close of his speech,
after a httle banter about " the noble Tityrus of the Treasury
Bench, and the learned Daphne of Liskeard ; " and after an
aUusion to the supposed affection of the Whigs for the Roman
Catholics, which was received with tremendous clamour, Mr.
Disraeli wound up ia these words. " Now, Mr. Speaker, we see
the phUosophical prejudices of man. [Laughter and cheers.] I
respect cheers, even when they come from the mouth of a poli
tical opponent. [Renewed laughter.] I think, sir, [Hear ! Hear!
and repeated' cries of Question 1] I am not at all surprised, sir,
at the reception I have met with. [Continued laughter.] I
have begun several times many things [laughter], and I have
often succeeded at last. [Question.] Ay, sir, and though I sit
down now, the time will come when you will hear me." Han
sard adds the following note. " The impatience of the House
would not allow the hon. member to finish his speech, and
during the greater part of the time the hon. member was on
his legs, he was so much interrupted that it was impossible to
hear what the hon. member said." The Morning ChromcU

136 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
gives the additional information that "the hon. member re
sumed his seat amidst cheers from the Opposition, and much
laughter from the Ministerial benches,"— a spiteful commen
tary which it is not difficult to understand when the strength
of the Irish element in the gaUery of the House of Commons
is considered. Temper has been said to be the half of religion : it is assuredly
considerably more than the half of statesmanship, and Lord
Beaconsfield's temper has always been his strong point. But
there must be something more and better than even an exquisite
temper in the man who, fifteen years after outrages such as
those perpetrated by O'Connell upon Lord Beaconsfield, could
write as he did in his " Life of Lord George Bentinck," Chapter
IX., of the Irish agitator's last speech in the House of Commons.
"His appearance was of great debility, and the tones of his voice
were very stiU. His words, indeed, only reached those who
were immediately around him, and the Ministers sitting on the
other side of the green table, and listening with that interest
and respectful attention which became the occasion. It was a
strange and touching spectacle to those who remembered the
form of colossal energy, and the clear and thrilling tones that
had once startled, disturbed, and controlled Senates."
O'Connell and his fellow " Yahoos " had succeeded. They
were beaten on a division by an immense majority. The very
Government refused to support them, and only ninety-one
members were found to go into the lobby with them. But they
had been successful in shouting down a new member, to whom;
by immemorial- tradition, it is customary to extend a specia;!
amount of courtesy and consideration, thus affording the means
of testing pretty accurately the claims of the Irish Brigade to

Copyright and the Corn Lazvs. 137
the character of gentlemen. Although, however, they had
so far succeeded, they had not silenced the new member for
Maidstone. A week later Mr. Disraeli spoke again, this time
in support of Serjeant Talfourd's bill to amend the law of copy
right. On the second reading of the bill on the 25th of April
he again spoke, urging the claims of the literary class to
protection, and answering the arguments of those who con
sidered that copyright meant monopoly, by the contention that
it was rather the substitution of reasonable safeguards to the
producing class as against the monopoly already enjoyed by the
distributing class — the bookseUers. That monopoly he urged
was injurious, not merely to authors but to the public at large,
and he illustrated his case by reference to the well-known
instances of Gibbon and Southey, After this time he spoke
only when Mr. Villiers made his annual motion on the Corn
Laws on the loth of March, His speech was very short,
and was directed mainly to enforcing the point that there was
no proof whatever that English manufactures were exposed to
unfair competition because of the existence of the Corn Laws —
a matter on which the opponents of that impost had laid much
stress. Later on in the same session, when the House was
going into committee on the Irish Municipal Corporations BiU
(June 1st), he asked for information as to the principle on
which the Government and the Opposition had entered into a
compromise on this measure, and delivered a protest against the
tendency to centralization by which it was disfigured. When
that bill collapsed, and it was determined to bring in another,
Mr, Disraeli offered an eager and almost angry protest, and
plainly accused the Government of the day of having adopted
a course which was best described as " a most profligate one,"

138 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Thus ended the first session 'of the first parhament of Queen
Victoria. The second was like unto it — a period of trouble and
transition, in which the Whigs found power rapidly slipping
from their hands, partly by reason of their own incompetency
for the position which they held, but mainly, after all, because
of the growing power, importance and ability of the much
abused Tories,
Lord Beaconsfield's course during this period is chiefly
interesting as testifying, first to his conspicuous consistency
with the declarations which he had made at the outset of his
career, next as proving the real liberality of sentiment which
lies at the root of that genuine Tory policy of which he has
always been the most illustrious exponent of our times, and
thirdly, as offering the first proof of his desire to found a truly
national party in the country — a party which he may be proud
to remember exists even now, though it has ceased to be known
by a foolish nick-name.
The session opened on the 5th of February, 1839, and on
the last day of the month Mr. Duncombe brought in a motion
to the effect that; in the opinion of the House, it was desir
able that during Lent no greater restrictions should be placed
upon theatrical entertainments in the city of Westminster
than are placed upon the like amusements at the same period
in every other part of the metropolis. Mr. Duncombe was
no believer in that vicarious piety which compounded for its
own sins by putting actors and actresses on short allowance,
and in a speech of great humour and force he bantered the
Bishops on their inconsistency in giving and going to dinner
parties on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, whilst resolutely
insisting on depriving actors of their salaries and the general

Irish JMunicipal Corporations. 139
public of their amusements on those days. Lord Russell
followed with one of those acrid, forcible-feeble orations with
which his name is indissolubly associated, and Mr, Disraeli
made a short, but very liberal and sensible, speech in support
of Mr, Duncombe. The result was sufficiently satisfactory.
The resolution was carried by a majority of twenty, and thus a
death-blow was given to that piece of mediaeval religionism,
which doomed so many meritorious and hardworking people to
fast against their wUl. On the 8th of March Mr, Disraeli spoke
again — very shortly but much to the purpose — on the Irish
Municipal Corporations Bill. This was another of the attempts
of the Whigs to secure a long tenure of ascendancy in the
councils of the nation. It was built upon the lines of the
English Corporations Bill, which, by wiping out the classes of
freemen and " pot-waUopers," had thro^vn local, as well as
imperial, government into the exclusive keeping of the £10
householder. Against this kind of thing Mr, Disraeli protested
in the House with as much energy as he had displayed on the
hustings of High Wycombe, or in the meetings of his supporters
at Taunton, Of the Bill itself he made complaint that its
main principle was not local government but centralization, and
he argued that under a system so managed the real rights and
liberties of Ireland — her true measure of ci"9il and religious
liberty — could never be assured, O'Connell for the first time
in his life cheered him, conquered, it is to be supposed, by the
indomitable temper of his opponent and the good humour with
which he took his rebuff on the occasion of his maiden speech,
A fortnight later — on the 21st of March — Joseph Hume
brought forward his motion for Household Suffrage, On this
occasion Mr. Disraeli reiterated the opinion which, as has

I40 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
already been shown, he had uniformly entertained. He was
assuredly not satisfied with the settlement of 1832, He com
plained that its effect was practically to destroy the historical
constitution of this country, and to substitute for it something
which was not historical, and which probably never would
attain that character. At the same time he was not prepared
to support the motion as brought in by Mr. Hume. He
pointed out that " the people," of whom the supporters of the
proposal made so much, was a phrase not precisely identical
with "the nation;" that the commons of England are "an
estate of the realm '' and not a mere aggregation of individuals,
and that " the people " have a right to no such title ; that the
whole theory of the English constitution rests upon the idea of
representation ; that the cry of Radicalism was — as it always
has been — for delegates and not for representatives ; that taxa
tion and representation ought to go hand-in -hand; and, finally,
that in accordance with this ancient constitutional doctrine the
payers of indirect taxation are as fully entitled to representa
tion (though not necessarily to the franchise) as those who pay
directly. The speech at this distance of time reads perhaps
paradoxically; but taken in the light of the Reform Bills of
1867-8, of the "Vindication of the Constitution," and of the
hustings and other speeches of the pre-Parliamentary period
of Lord Beaconsfield's life, it is imquestionably characteristic
and consistent. It probably helped Mr. Hume ; but the
country was not prepared for another settlement of the Con
stitution, and the motion was lost by thirty-five votes in a thin
House. After this speech, Mr. Disraeli did not again address the
House until the 20th of June, when he spoke on the Education

National v. State Education. 141
question, in protest against the excessive interference of tho
Government, for which, then as now, the zealots of Liberalism
were particularly anxious. In a matter so purely domestic
as this, he pointed out the desirability of the individual
subject being strong and the Government weak. He would
have the Government encourage private effort in every pos
sible way, but he objected to the State taking the place and
assuming the functions of the parent. For paternal govern
ment he professed a strong dislike. Such a system is simply a
system of despotism in disguise, and of its effects China and
Persia offer striking examples. Then, returning to the imme
diate question of education, he declared himself strongly in
favour of " national education," but wholly opposed to " State
education," meaning thereby such an education as the State
must give. For educational purposes, the organization pro-
"vdded by the Church of England was strong enough, with due
support from the State. Her shortcomings had indeed been
cast in her teeth, but if the Church had done little for the
education of the country, what had the State done? This,
however, was the invariable argument. " It was always the
State and never society ; it was always machinery and never
sympathy." Turning then to what has been done for education
in England, the speaker pointed out how her universities, her
cathedrals, her schools, her colleges, had in all cases arisen by
individual effort, and never by State aid. There the .speech
ended, and worthUy. It was a great effort and a brUliant one,
and it was for such tasks that the future leader of the Tories
reserved himself. He was taking his preliminary flights, but
those flights showed him to be strong on the Aving, and
thoroughly fit for 'the great position he was so soon to assume,

142 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
The time was rapidly approaching when the young member
for Maidstone was to make a conspicuous mark on the politics
of his day, and this he did by once more taking the part of
the poor and of the oppressed, his sympathies with whom,
though never ostentatiously displayed, have always been marked
and earnest. And at this time the country was in sore need of
a statesman with a heart as weU as with brains, for discontent
was rife in every quarter; the spirit of rank rebellion was
abroad, and the Government under the fainiant Whigs was
hopelessly incapable alike of governing, and of suggesting a
remedy for the notorious and patent evils which were to be
seen on every hand.*
The "condition of England" question was in truth one of
the most serious that could weU be imagined in a free country,
and its seriousness was due in no small degree to the action of
the Whigs, who had thrown themselves into the arms of the
manufacturing interest, to the exclusion of the classes deriving
their subsistence from the land. One of the first fruits of the
Reform Bill was the New Poor Law — a measure so utterly
revolutionary in its character, so harsh, so cruel to the classes
most affected by it, that on looking back one can only wonder
— not that it produced discontent and rioting, but that it did
not produce a sanguinary revolution. Until the philosophical
Liberals came to the front in political matters, the assumption
* I would recommend everyone who entertains the smallest doubt on this
subject to read the "Latter day Pamphlets" of Mr, Cai'lyle, his "Past and
Present," "Chai-tism," and other works of this period. He wUl find abundant
confirmation of the views expressed in the text, and something more than a
justification of the line adopted by Lord Beaconsfield, The difference between
the two is, that whilst Mr. Carlyle, in the tone of a Hebrew prophet, calls out
for some Jupiter to come down and help the nation, Mr, Disraeli is, without
phrases, doing the work,

The New Poor Law, 143
upon which the laws for the relief of the poor were based
was, that every man born into the world had a right to live,
and that if he found it impossible to sell his labour or to
extract food from the earth, society was bound to prevent him
from starving. It was held furthermore, that inasmuch as a
great part of the land of this country had at one period of its
history been held by the Church in trust for the poor, and that
as that land had been confiscated for the benefit of a number
of individuals not necessarily the wisest or the best of the
nation, it was only right that the burden of supporting the
poor should fall upon the land. Nay more, it was held that
relief given to the poor was a matter not of charity but of right
— that the produce of the rates really belonged to them as a
matter of property ; and since imposts of this description come
ultimately out of the pockets of the landowners, no one not a
landowner was greatly concerned about the matter. At the
same time, it must be confessed that under this system there
was a good deal that was objectionable. The poor were not
very weU or very wisely taught, and they were apt to rely
more than was desirable on the help of the rates. Some fell
into idle habits ; many expected pay from the parish for per
forming the commonest offices of filial duty ; frequently the
rates were 'administered with reckless profusion, and some
gross cases of abuse were known to have occurred. Still the
fact remains that the system was a kindly one, that the rela
tions between class and class were warmer and closer than
they are nowadays, and that the condition of the poor was not
intolerable. This state of things did not suit the ideas of the philo
sophical school. The disciples of those Liberals who had

144 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
applauded the French Revolution even in its excesses, and who
fancied that a brand-new paper constitution was more valuable
than the ancient constitution which had gi-own up in this
country in more than a thousand years, naturally disliked
anything so unsymmetrical, whilst those who paid rates, and
who knew but little of political economy and nothing whatever
of history, fancied that the relief of the poor was not the
acknowledgment of a right, but the performance of an act of
charity. This view especially commended itself to that eminent
philosopher, the late Mr. Malthus, for whose piety, virtue, and
political wisdom that equally great authority on such subjects,
the late Lord Broughain, has been good enough to vouch. What
Mr. Malthus's view of the subject was may be guessed from the
following sentences. They have been quoted before, but they
will bear repetition : " It appears to me," said Malthus, "that
we are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the
right of the poor to support." Later on he says : — " A man
who is born in a world already possessed, if he cannot get sub
sistence from his parents, on whom he has a just demand, and
if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to
the smallest portion, of food, and, in fact, has no business to be
where he is. At Nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover
for him. She tells him to begone, and will quickly execute
her own orders, if he do not work upon the compassion of some
of her guests."
It is hardly necessary to stigmatize these views very harshly
— probably it will suffice to quote them. They have an interest,
however, inasmuch as they were notoriously the "\dews which
animated the Whigs when they proposed the famous commis
sion of inquiry into the working of the Poor Law system, and

The New Poor Latv. 145
sent deputy commissioners all over the country in search of
evidence against it. Before long the Report appeared with the
signatures of the Bishop of London (BlomfieLl), the Bishop of
Chester (Sumner), St urges Bourne, Nassau Senior, Henry
Bishop, Henry Gawlor, W. Coulsou, James Traill, and Edwin
Chadwick. The Report did not give unqualified satisfaction.
Richard. Oastler — one of the idols of the working classes, and a
man who seems to have deserved the confidence which they
reposed in him — relates that on one occasion he called upon
Michael Thomas Sadler and found him sitting with the Report
before him. " Oastler ! " said he, " it is impossible to save the
Church ! She is her own executioner ! See there her death
blow struck by two of her own Bishops 1 I have read this
Report with the most horrible disgust — it is a lie against God
and the poor ! " I am not prepared to say that the Report
deserved to be characterized in quite such strong terms, but it
is certain that it is by no means so impartial a document as it
should be. Mr. Doubleday, in his " Life of Sir Robert Peel,"
roundly asserts that the Commissioners used as much and as
little of the reports of their assistants as suited their purpose,
and sometimes jumped to very large conclusions from very
insignificant premises. An examination of the reports will
show that this charge is by no means without foundation.
Thus, for example, a great deal is said about the case of the
village of Cholesbury, near Great Berkhampstead, where the
land was actually going out of cultivation because of the enor
mity of the rates. The Commissioners made much of it in their
Report, and everj' writer in praise of the New Poor Law has
always pointed to this as a test case. When, however, we turn
up the account of the parish in the appendices the matter wears
VOL. I. . 1.

146 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
a very different aspect. By the testimony of the Vicar, the
Rev. H. P. Jeston, " the parish does not exceed in extent the
size of a moderate farm, and the whole was to be bought for
about £2000,"— rather a small place, one may think, to demand
a social revolution for the redress of its wrongs. Small though
it was, however, the parish contained 101 parishioners, of whom
only 35 were not on the rates ; it had two beershops and a
common containing 44 acres of good land. Surely, it may be
said, a little common sense and practical vigour would have set
matters right in this place, and as a matter of fact they did so.
The publicity given to the case brought philanthropy to the
rescue, and before the New Poor Law was passed, Cholesbury
was relieved from its humiliating position of "frightful example."
It retains its place in the Report of the Commissioners, however,
and is to this day quoted as a specimen of what the old system
led to, and as a proof of the necessity for the change in the law,
though it is worthy of note that there is no similar case in the
Report. The new Bill was brought in by Brougham, and urged in the
Upper House with all that fiery eloquence of which he was
master. He had some wonderful tales to tell the Peers.
Amongst others was one of the "hardy fishermen of Deal," who
were, he declared, so demoralized by the fabulous joys to be
obtained by twelve shillings a week from the parish and com
plete idleness, that they were wont to draw their boats up in
the autumn and to refuse to work until the summer had begun
again. Unfortunately he was believed : the Tories, in what
Lord Beaconsfield had called their "stupefaction," saw the
necessity for reform, fancied themselves powerless, and accepted
the Whig panacea. The New Poor Law became the law of the

The Nciv Poor Law. 147
land. Three Whigs of unimpeachable character and ardent
prepossessions — Messrs. Frankland Lewis, J. G. Shaw-Lefevre,
and George NichoUs — were appointed to carry out its provisions,
and then began a war of classes, the effects of which have lasted
into the present generation and are even yet traceable. Nor
can there be much wonder at what happened. The poor had
been robbed of their birthright by an Act of Parliament. The
duty of " keeping down the rates " was considered the fii,-st to be
performed by the officials of the Poor Law. Parish pay was no
longer a matter of course, but a display of charity, and paupers
to whom barely enough for the maintenance of life was given
were expected to be grateful. The "workhouse test'' was
imposed on all, and the assistant Commissioners chuckle in their
reports over the invincible repugnance of the poor to accept
indoor relief. They appear to have preferred to die by the
roadside, nor is it possible to wonder that they did. Poverty
under this law was punished more cruelly than crime. The
aged couple upon whom misfortune had come were separated
and saw each other only on Sundays from opposite sides of the
hall or chapel, and any attempt at communication was punished
as an offence against discipline; children were taken from
their parents ; the daily routine was one of hard, cold, unremit
ting toil ; its reward the scantiest and poorest food, and im
prisonment so continuous that even on Sundays paupers were
not allowed to leave the house to go to church, but had to put
up with such a substitute for the " communion of saints " as
was afforded by a perfunctory service in the bare bleak dining-
hall. Even Tories seem to have accepted this state of things
as a matter of course, and when Charles Dickens drew attention
to the defects of workhouse administration in the pages of
L 2

1 48 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
" Oliver Twist," the Qua,rterly Revieiv- (June, 1839) actually
wrote thus:— "The besetting sin of white- waistcoated guardians
is profusion, not parsimony, and this always must be the case
where persons have to be charitable out of funds to which
individually they are smaU contributors. After all, the proof
of the pudding is in the eating; one week's poor-house pot-
luck fattens a pauper brat up to such a sucking-pig nicety
that its parent, like Saturn, longs to eat it up with more than
kisses." It is worthy of remark that whilst the sheet containing this
remarkable specimen of polite literature was passing through the
press, Feargus O'Connor had been put on his trial for libelling
the Warminster Guardians. He had accused them of starving
a boy to death, and he made out so good a case that although
he was found guilty he was simply required to enter into his
own recognizances to come up for judgment if called upon.
There is, in fact, no reason whatever for doubting that the Poor
Laws were administered with extreme harshness, and the first
Report of the Commissioners is sufficient proof of the fact. As
an appendix to that document certain workhouse plans are
given. The first is by Sir Francis B. Head, and a few particu
lars of it may not be uninteresting. The buUding is a hollow
square divided by a brick waU. The dwelling and working parts
are two stories high, and are built of 9-inch brickwork. The
dormitories on the ground floor are 15 feet long, 10 feet broad,
and 7 feet high. Those on the upper floor, are 8 feet high; but
2 feet are in the roof. Each of these dens is to accommodate
nine paupers, who thus obtain rather less than 117 cubic feet
of space apiece. In case, however, the inmates should suffer
from want of air, it is kindly provided that a brick shall be

A Model Poorhouse. 149
taken out of the wall of each cell, and its place supplied by an
iron grating. The dining halls and waiting rooms are 8 feet
high, and the cost of the building, if for 500 paupers, is exult-
ingly stated at £4300, while one for 400 would cost £3395.
The principle on which it had been designed is stated by its
author to be " that in the construction of a rural workhouse the
height of the rooms, the thickness of the walls, &c., should not
exceed the dimensions of the cottage of the honest, hard
working, independent labourer, well-built substantial rooms
being a luxury as attractive to the pauper as food and rai
ment." It will hardly be believed, but at least two workhouses
were buUt from these designs, and the system which they repre
sent was at last dropped only because such wretched buildings
were found somewhat expensive in the long run. The same
Report contains also plans by one Sampson Kempthorne, an
architect, which are perhaps even more striking as illustrations
of the kind of thing which the guardians of 1885 thought fitting
for those who were wicked enough to be poor. The plans are
curiously incomplete, but by applying a pair of dividers to them
it will be seen that they are in some respects even worse than
the plans of Sir Francis Head. The wards were to be 9 feet high,
34 feet long, and 17 feet broad, and in this space thirty-eight
men were to sleep — 138 cubic feet or thereabouts per man. In
order to provide bed space for this number the men were to
sleep in tiers as on shipboard. This system could not be
adopted for the women, and they accordingly were put to sleep
two in a bed, thus having about 150 cubic feet per head. It
may be thought, possibly, that there is nothing very terrible in
these figures, but if it is remembered that a box 9 feet by 4J
feet by 4 feet contains 162 cubic feet, it wiU be. seen that the

1 50 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
crowding in those workhouses was something frightful and
scandalous.* The horrors of the New Poor Law were not, however, confined
to the dismal squalor of their sleeping accommodation.' The
workhouse was a veritable prison for the punishment of poverty.
It had its "refractory cells" — places which were and are utterly
illegal — in which recalcitrant paupers could be confined at the
pleasure of the master, and which were seldom without tenants,
and it had its dietary and time-table much after the fashion
of a convict prison. According to the ukase of Somerset House
the paupers were to be aroused at 5 A.M. ; to make beds, clean
wards, wash floors, and breakfast before 7 ; to go to work at 7
o'clock, and stay at work under " taskmasters "_ until noon. At
noon came dinner and a few minutes for rest, and at 1 o'clock
work began once more, to be continued unremittingly until 6,
after which hour the happy pauper was allowed supper and a
brief respite until prayers were said, and bed-time came at 8 p.m.
The only respite from this monotonous round of toil was during
the winter months, when out of consideration for the costliness
of fire and candle, the paupers were graciously permitted to
stay in bed until 7 in the morning. The dietary was designed
in a similar spirit. Coarse bread and oatmeal gruel were
allowed twice a day ; meat, i.e., the " clods and sticking
pieces" of beef, twice a week; bread and cheese twice, and
broth made of cow-heels and ox-heads on other days formed
the dinners of these unhappy people ; and finally, to crown all,
they were compelled to wear a livery which was not merely
* No public building is now erected in which there is a smaller breathing
sparp, than 400 cubic feet for each individual. The general average is much
higher, often amounting to as much as from 1200 to 1600 feet.

Migration and Emigration, \ 5 1
hideous and degrading, but was absolutely insufficient for tho
purpose of warmth.
The object of all these regulations was to make the work
house hateful, and that object was assuredly obtained. The
paupers obstinately preferred dying of starvation to the tender
mercies of the " house," and all efforts seemed vain to alter this
state of things. The guardians of the various unions were
allowed by the Act of Parliament to pay the expenses of
paupers who wished to migrate from the rural districts to the
manufacturing towns. Some hundreds were so removed, and
became "hands" in the Manchester and Bradford mills — a
picture of which places, highly coloured, though not I believe
in any essential particular false, will be found in Mrs, TroUope's
novel, " Michael Armstrong." The guardians were furthermore
allowed and even encouraged to promote emigration to the
United States, There were then no emigration laws, and few
if any steamships carrying steerage passengers. The emigrants
were expected to victual themselves, and the guardians gave
them a few shillings wherewith to buy food in liverpool for
the voyage. It was not until after strong remonstrances had
been made by the American Government, and even until two
ships at least had arrived at New York with their pauper
freight decimated by famine and stricken down by disease,
that any change for the better was made.
In these years the spirit of discontent was reaching dangerous
and even frightful proportions all over the country. The advo
cates of the Reform Bill had promised a social millennium
as the result of the political change which they sought, and
they had given the people, when they came into power, the
New Poor Law. They had promised that when rates were

1-52 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
lowered, farmers would pay higher wages, and it is a simple
matter of fact that wages were lower instead of higher after
the New Poor Law than before. Under the old law it may be
that the sum paid to the peasant under the head of wages was
only 6s. or 7s. a-week, but in every parish the farmers met and
agreed upon a scale of relief which was practically a rough adjust
ment of the rate of wages to the requirements of the peasantry.
Thus a farm labourer would receive say 6s. from his master — a
sum obviously insufficient for his own support, much less for that
of his wife and family. He was therefore entitled to relief, and
the usual scale was about 2s. 6cZ. a-week for the wife, and Is. or
] s. 6d for each child unable to earn its owra living. The system
was rude and unscientific it may be, but at the least it saved
the peasantry from the dreadful alternatives of the hated work
house or starvation without its walls. When the new law came
into operation, it was found not to give unmingled satisfaction,
for the simple reason that though rates were lower rents were
higher, and wages were consequently increased to only a trivial
extent. The peasant had had 6s. a-week with the rates to help ¦
him ; he now had 9s. a-week, with the workhouse as an
alternative. How Lord Beaconsfield viewed the existing state of things
may be judged from the most powerful and pathetic of his
novels, "Sybil, or the Two Nations," a book which will be
noticed in its proper place, but a few lines from which may not
be out of place here. The speaker is Lord Marney, one of the
principal characters of the book, but, as may be guessed, not the
most estimable :— "I wish the people were as weU off in every part
of the country as they are on my estate. They get here their
eight shiUings a week, always at least seven, and every hand is

Growth of Agrarian Crime. 153
at this moment in employ, except a parcel of scoundrels who
prefer wood stealing and poaching, and who would prefer wood
stealing and poaching if you gave them double the wages. The
rate of wages is nothing : certainty is the thing, and every man
at Marney may be sure of his seven shillings a week for at least
nine months of the year, and for the other three they can go to
the house, and a very proper place for them ; it is heated with
hot air and has every comfort  The poor are well
off, at least the agricultural poor, very well off indeed. Their
incomes are certain, that is a great point, and they have no
cares, no anxieties ; they have always a resource ; they always
have the house."
Curiously enough the peasantry did not look at the matter
with quite so much complacency as Lord Marney, or even as
the philosophical gentleman who questioned the right of the
poor to a place at the table of Nature, and who denied that
it was the duty of Society to take care of its weaker members.
They improved upon the lessons of 1880-1, when the Whigs
openly encouraged insurrection for political ends, and agrarian
crime speedily assumed alarming proportions. Rick burning
became terribly common, and the destruction of agricultural
machinery an everyday occurrence. The members of the
manufacturing classes followed the example of the peasantry
from amongst whom they had sprung. Their sufferings, there
can be no doubt, were grievous in the extreme. There was no
Ten Hours' Act ; there was no legislative restriction on the
employment of women and children ; the Truck system was in
full swing, and oppression of the vilest kind weighed down the
great mass of the working classes. It is told of George
Frederick Cooke, the actor, that being hissed as intoxicated on

1 54 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the stage at Liverpool one night, he came down to the foot
lights to tell the "Men of Liverpool" that he despised them.
" There is not," said he, " a brick in your dirty town which is
not cemented with the blood of a negro." The reproach was
not altogether unjust, but with even more justice might it be
said of some of the most princely fortunes of the manufacturing
districts that their foundations were laid in the blood and in
the tears of English women and children. It is no exaggera
tion to say that prior to the passing of Lord Ashley's Bill, the
state of things in the Black Country, and in some of the smaller
manufacturing towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, was simply
horrifying. Atrocities as grievous as any ever perpetrated on
an American cotton plantation were matters of daily occurrence
in these places.
Thanks to this state of things and to the operation of the
New Poor Law, combined with the gross weakness and even
imbecility of the Whig administration, the insurrectionary spirit
assumed proportions which alarmed the most apathetic, and by
the middle of 1839 the crisis was reached. In May of that year
even Lord Melbourne — the " mild, middle-aged, lounging man
. . gifted with no ordinary abiUties, cultivated with no ordinary
care, but the victim of sauntering — his sultana queen " — found
that he could no longer retain office. He retired and, as all
the world knows, returned to office through that most detest
able intrigue, the Bedchamber Plot. Peel was, however, not
wholly without blame in this matter. He had an opportunity,
as Lord Beaconsfield has sagaciously pointed out, of re-assertinc
that Royal prerogative, which, since 1688, had been more or
less oppressed and had waxed fainter and fainter. The people
would have accepted with joy such a proof of the Queen's

The Bedchamber Plot. 155
decision of character as would have been afforded had Sir
Robert bowed gracefully to the Ro)'al will, and consented to
serve Her Majesty, even though she retained about her person
the Whiggish ladies who boasted themselves to be the " friends
of her youth." "The leader of the Tory party," says Lord
Beaconsfield, " should have vindicated his natural position and
availed himself of the great 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 England, retaining
power merely by the favour of the Court."
The event proved how grievous a mistake had been made.
Up to May 1839 Her Majesty's popularity had been unbounded,
but now a period of reaction came, not violent, but sufficiently
marked to be ominous of evil. The Whigs, and especially the
official class — " the twelve hundred a yearers " — were indeed
delighted with their success, but outside those charmed circles
there was by no means the same enthusiasm. An uneasy
suspicion grew up in society that the Queen had been un
worthily made a tool of by Lord Melbourne and his following,
and the unpopularity of the ministers was to some extent
reflected upon the Sovereign, who at Ascot, for the first and
only time in her life, was hissed by the people. Meanwhile the
popular excitement was growing, and the working classes, who
had been taught by the Whigs that political changes were a
panacea for social ills, had formed an association with the title
of the Chartist National Convention, composed of delegates from
the Trades Unions and political associations all over England,
and especially from those in the Black Country and the manu-

156 The Ptiblic Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
facturing districts. This body for a time had held its meetings
at a coffee-house in Palace Yard, but the attention of the police
was attracted, and about the middle of May in this year the
Convention removed its headquarters to Birmingham, The chief
attention of the leaders was given to the preparation of the
so-called "national petition," a document demanding the re
dress of certain alleged grievances and the concession of certain
ancient constitutional rights, of which the petitioners conceived
themselves to have been deprived. By way of emphasizing the
prayer of the petition, Feargus O'Connor, in a newspaper which
he then edited — the Northern Star — recommended that a
memorial "should be presented by a deputation of 500,000
men proceeding in peaceful and orderly procession, each with a
musket over his arm," asking the Queen to dismiss her present
advisers, and to call others to her councils who would make the
Charter a Cabinet question,
"The petition," says Lord Beaconsfield, in "Sybil," "was
ultimately carried down to Westminster on a triumphal car,
accompanied by all the delegates of the convention in solemn
procession. It was necessary to construct a machine in order
to introduce the huge bulk of parchment, signed by a million
and a half of persons, into the House of Commons, and, thus
supported, its vast form remained on the floor of the house
during the discussion." The actual number of signatures, it
may be. noted, was rather under a million and a quarter, and
it was generally understood that a large proportion of them
were fictitious or duplicates. It was, in any case, however,
a striking document, and deserved more attention than it
received, Mr. Attwood — the Radical member for Birmingham
and the "'King Tom" of Cobbett's Register — presented it.

The Chartist Petition. 157
and succeeded in obtaining the 12th of July for its considera
tion. On that night he opened the debate in a sjjocch of groat
moderation and excellent taste. He protested his unwillingness
to do anything that did not become a patriot and a man of
honour. He complained that in the Reform Act the represen
tations of " the people " had been slighted. Still he thought
there must be some virtue left in the House of Commons,
which had passed the Reform Bill, though unfortunately that
Bill had turned out a bitter disappointment to the friends of
the people. Its first fruit had been the Irish Coercion Bill — a
species of measure always popular with the Whigs, who try to
govern Ireland on the principle, not of Strafford and Charles I.
but of Cromwell — and its second the "New Poor Law," which
Mr. Attwood described as "more odious than any measure which
had been passed since the Norman Conquest." The Municipal
Corporations Reform BiU — the ingenious appendix to the Re
form Act tacked on by the Whigs for the sake of securing as
cendancy in the boroughs— had bitterly disappointed the orator,
but he preferred to say nothing more about it. But he had
hoped that after the Reform Bill agitations something would
really have been done for the benefit of the working classes, who
had done so much to insure the success of that measure. Un
happily their claims had been left unconsidered. " He," — Mr.
Attwood — " had never uttered any sentiment derogatory to the
Church, to the privileges of the House, or to the aristocracy.
All he had claimed for the people was the right of living by
their labour , , , but this was denied them," And it was
against this denial that he protested, and that his clients peti
tioned. The petition he presented bore 1,200,000 signatures.
There might be the signatures of a few women, but there were

158 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
those of at least a million of men, the ilite of the working
classes. These men, in the presence of a stagnation of trade,
which was daily making Ufe more bitter for them, begged that
they might be allowed to try the Whig panacea over again, and
apply political remedies for social evils. They asked for Uni
versal Suffrage ; for Annual Parliaments ; for the Ballot ; and
they asked for all these things, not as innovations, but because
they were, as they considered, ancient constitutional rights — a
fact which is very remarkable and instructive — and they wished
for the payment of members so that men of their own order
might go into Parliament. Mr. Attwood wound up a very
interesting and singularly able speech by drawing a parallel
between the condition of England in the "thirties," and the
condition of France before the Revolution, the moral obviously
being that the rulers of the one country should learn wisdom
from the misfortunes of the other. He concluded by moving
for a Committee of the whole House to consider the demands
of the Petition, and his motion was seconded by Mr. Fielden —
one of those Tories whom it pleases writers of a certain type to
represent as enemies and oppressors of the people.
As might be expected, the Whigs had nothing to say in reply
to these demands. Lord John Russell made on their behalf an
angry — almost vicious — speech, beginning by saying that the
petitioners had founded their demands upon a fallacy, inasmuch
as they were contending for the principle that political rights
would secure social happiness. The answer to that argument
was, of course, simple enough. The signataries to the petition
were but practising the lesson taught them by the Whigs in
the last years of the twenties and in 1831 and 1832, when an
orator, afterwards a member of the Cabinet, advised that

Debate on the Chartist Petition. 159
100,000 men should come from Birmingham to London to
" demand Reform." Then Reform was the Whig nostrum,
and the emissaries of the party expounded all over the country
the wonderful benefits which would inevitably follow the reduc
tion of the franchise, and the transfer of political ascendancy
from the freemen and " pot- wallopers," to the frugal and indus
trious £10 householder. So again with the Municipal Corpora
tions Act — the social benefits which were to follow from that
political revolution could not be over-estimated. The change
was made, but the social advantages did not come, and those
who were disappointed naturally profited by the lesson they had
been taught, to clamour for further concessions from the Whig
leaders. Such in substance was the speech of Mr. Disraeli on
this petition. He admitted the fallacy of which Lord John
RusseU had made so much, but he argued that although the
remedy for social wrongs proposed by the Chartists might not
be efficacious, it was the duty of the government to inquire into
those wrongs. Lord John Russell had complained of the leaven
of sedition in the (Chartist movement ; he admitted that there
is such a leaven in all popular commotions, but could not believe
that a movement which numbered a million adherents could
possibly have been brought about by the ordinary means of
sedition. He did not believe, as had been asserted, that the
movement was either strictly economical, or on the other hand
strictly political. At the same time both political and economi
cal influences were at work. Neither did he attribute Chartism
wholly to the New Poor Law, though he considered that law to
be one of the causes of the disaffection. The Reform Act had,
moreover, helped to create discontent, inasmuch as whilst under
the old constitution political power and political responsibilities

i6o The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
went hand in hand ; under the new order of things a great por
tion of power had been transferred to a new class, which had not
been invested with public duties. The result was that the
people found that their civil rights had been invaded. Especi
ally was this the case in relation to the Poor Law, which, as
then administered, was based upon a principle that outraged
the whole social duties of the State. Further, he argued that
the Chartists were by no means in revolt against the aristocracy
or the Com Laws. So far from that being the case the whole
tenour of the speeches of the so-called National Convention was
hostile to those middle classes upon which the government placed
most reliance and who were leading the attack on the lairded
interest. As regarded the petition itself, he "disapproved of
the Charter, but he sympathised with the Chartists," who had
unquestionably great and serious grievances to complain of, and
he rebuked in terms of much dignity and force, the contumely
with which their appeal to the clemency of the House had been
treated. " Perhaps it was in vain," he concluded, " to expect,
whatever might be the state of the country, much attention
from Her Majesty's government. Their time was so absorbed,
so monopolized in trying to make Peers, and promising to make
Baronets, that but little time could now be given by them to
such a subject as this, but probably in the recess, when Cabinet
councils would be held more frequently, they would give it some
consideration." Failing their doing so, he solemnly warned the
government that they would " endanger not only the national
character, but the national throne." After this speech, the de
bate languished. The government treated the petition with
great nonchalance, and the non-official Whigs followed the lead
of the Administration. The discussion- was painfully languid.

The JVrongs of the People. i6i
and the division was taken at as early a period .as possible, the
result being the prompt and immediate ixjection of Mr. Att
wood's motion for taking the complaints of the petitioners into
consideration. The result of the debate was a bitter disappointment to the
working classes. They had hardly hoped, indeed, that tlie
prayer of the Petition could be granted, but they had thought
that a British House of Commons could hardly turn a deaf
ear to the remonstrances and complaints of the toiling millions,
and that it would have discussed the grave questions at issue
with the earnestness which they deserved. They found instead
that their wishes were set at naught, their aspirations derided,
their entreaties mocked. The wrongs that they found so
grievous and so burdensome failed to attract as large a House
as would have been got together on any petty question of
personal quarrel, and were obviously regarded as a matter of
conspicuously smaller interest than the constitution of the
exhausted colony of Jamaica, on which there had very lately
been an animated debate. That debate had lasted for many
nights ; men were brought up from distant places to vote,
and not a single conspicuous member in the House omitted
to say his say upon the matter. When, however, the welfare
of the millions of England's industrious poor was in question one
night was enough for the discussion, and the subject was shelved
very summarily. Yet only a short time afterwards. Lord John
Russell, when advocating his Birmingham Police Bill, solemnly
assured the House that the country was " on the verge of civil
war." What wonder can there be if ilnder such circumstances
the party which from the first had advocated an appeal to
physical force triumphed over their more cautious and more

1 62 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
moderate coUeagues ? From the day of the contemptuous
rejection of the National petition the party of violence was
in the ascendant, and insurrection and incendiarism became
the weapons of the Chartists. Demonstratious were held in all
parts of the country, and the miUtary and poUce were constantly
on the alert. A notion was industriously propagated in some
quarters that a plot was in existence to get rid of the Queen —
whose personal popularity had speedily revived after the success
of the Bedchamber plot — and to place the King of Hanover
(George, Duke of Cumberland) on the throne in her stead. At
a demonstration on Kersal Moor, near Manchester, Feargus
O'Connor roundly asserted that he had good authority for
knowing this to be the case, and this helped perhaps as
much as anything to exasperate the people against their
Whig rulers.
From demonstrations the physical force Chartists proceeded
to action of another sort. Birmingham, as the headquarters
of the body, was naturally the scene of the first great riot.
This took place on the 4th of July, 1839, but was quelled by
police sent down from London. The magistracy sat idly by
for ten days, and then on the 15th a terrific explosion of
popular wrath took place in the same town. The mob mas
sacred the police; beat off the military, set shops on fire and
all but sacked the town. When all was over and the mob
were assured of their triumph, they camped in the Bull Ring.
The scene, the Duke of Wellington declared in the House of
Lords, "was worse' than that of a field of battle, and what made
it worst was that all took place under the eyes of the magis
tracy, a magistracy elected not under the great Seal, but by the
Home Secretary." Five days later there was a riot almost as

The Chartist Riots. 163
fierce at Newcastle-under-Lyme. Early in August four men
named Vincent, Edwards, Townsend, and Dickenson were tried
at Monmouth for their participation in one of the earlier riots,
and were sentenced to periods of imprisonment varying from
six to twelve months. On the day following, five of the men
concerned in the Birmingham riots were tried at Warwick.
Three were sentenced to death and two to transportation ; the
former sentence was, it is true, commuted shortly afterwards)
but the fact of its having been passed served to excite the
passions of the people still more. Before many days were
over a meeting was held at Hyde near Manchester, which as
usual ended in a riot. At this meeting the cry of tbe as
sembled Chartists was for blood. Banners were exhibited
with such mottoes as "Tyrants, believe and tremble;"
" Liberty or death ; " " Ashton demands universal suf
frage OR universal vengeance ; " " For children and
WIFE, we'll war TO THE KNIFE." The crowning feature of
all was, however, a huge transparency bearing in crimson
letters the word "Blood." In the midst of these convulsions
a fear arose that the soldiers could not be trusted. There is
good reason for believing that the report was without founda
tion, but there is abundant evidence that attempts were made
to seduce the men from their allegiance, and one person,
described as " Reverend," was sent to gaol for eighteen months
for having, by his own confession, tampered with them.
Things at last grew unpleasantly serious for the Chartist
leaders, and on the 14th of September, the Cha,rtist " National ,
Convention," shrunk to the ghost of its former self, was formally
dissolved. Six days later Feargus O'Connor, an honest if
violent and mistaken man, was arrested on a charge of sedi-
M 2

i64 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
tious conspiracy This fact did not, however, check the move
ment in the smaUest degree. There was a lull, it is true, for
a few weeks, but a new element was now imported into the
struggle. Hitherto it had been mainly a blind effort of the
OO
poorest classes against those whom they deemed their imme
diate oppressors. Now the rebellion was distinctly pohtical
in its character, and became the revolt of men who had much
to lose against a political system which they abhorred. In
the earlier days of the struggle there had been a wild notion
of suspending all production for a month, in the hope that
such a step might convince the masters of the strength and
importance of those whom they, in bitter mockery, had so
long called " hands." That idea had faded out as all utterly
impracticable proposals must fade, and now the upper section
of the working class came in. On the 4th of November, New
port in Monmouthshire was the scene of a terrible riot.
Matters had been organized beforehand by the leaders with
the skill of experienced generals. A vast mass of men marched
in from the hills in orderl}' fashion and with sufficient arms.
In Newport itself they were joined by a similar body from
Tredegar. The soldiers were compelled in self-defence to fire
— ^their officers could not allow them' to stand still to be made
a target for Chartist bullets. Nine rioters were killed, and the
insurrection was suppressed. On the day following. Frost,
the organizer of the outbreak, was arrested, and a day or two
later, Williams, his lieutenant. For the first time it was
noticed that this insurrectionary crowd was composed mainly
of men in regular employment and at good wages. Amongst
those killed was a gardener, whose character, in every other
particular than that of joining in the riots, was above suspicion.

Lord Melbourne hissed. 165
Others who were known to have taken part iii the outbreak
were in similar case.
Public opinion was naturally a good deal excited by these
events, and there was a very general disposition to cast the
blame of them upon the Ministry, whose notorious weakness
was not atoned for by the violence of their acts. It is a tolerably
significant evidence of the state of public feeling that when, on
Lord Mayor's Day, Lord Melbourne rose to return thanks for
the toast " Her Majesty's Ministers," he was received with a
storm of hissing and groaning which lasted for several minutes,
and which all the efforts of the Lord Mayor failed for a time
to check. The work of the Government went on and the
police, under the direction of the Home Office, arrested as
many as thirty-eight of the Newport rioters, for whose trial
a Special Commission was sent down on the 10th of December.
The trial was, however, adjourned to the 31st, and did not
conclude until the 16th of January, 1840. Frost, Williams, and
Jones were sentenced to death ; the rest of the prisoners to
various periods of transportation. It may not be out of place
to add that on the 28th of the month the judges heard an
appeal against the sentence on the three ringleaders, on the
technical ground that the delivery of the list of witnesses
was not a good delivery in point of law. By a majority of nine
to six the objection was admitted, and the Home Secretary
commuted the sentence to transportation for life.
Before this could be done, Parliament had been opened by
the Queen in person. The royal speech was rather prolix, and
not altogether satisfactory in any direction, but it was especiaUy
unsatisfactory in its references to the condition of the people.
Lord John RusseU had announced, as we have seen, that the

1 66 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
country was " on the verge of civil war," but the only notice of
the matter was in the last paragraph, which congratulated
Pariiament on the fact that "the insurrection had been
suppressed by the firmness and energy of the magistrates, and
by the steadiness and good conduct of the troops." The Queen
was further made to say that she reUed upon the law and upon
the loyalty and good sense of the people for the preservation of
order, and for the future safety of the Empire. And that was
aU. No inquiry into the aUegations of those who complained
was promised ; no redress of admitted grievances seems to have
been thought of; Laissez-faire and the law of supply and
demand were still the main reliance of the Whigs at this
momentous crisis — unless indeed we take into account the
scandalous way in which they sought for support by playing
into the hands of the lowest class of Radicals. In this matter
Lord Melbourne overshot his mark. The Queen was just on
the eve of her marriage, and he selected that time for per
sonally introducing to her no less a personage than Robert
Owen the Socialist, who had openly decried the institution of
marriage itself. There was a chorus of indignation from one
end of England to the other, and even Lord Melbourne ad
mitted that he had been indiscreet. It is impossible to apply
so mild a term to some other acts of his Government. Certain
persons had been elevated to the Bench in the Midland
Counties, not because they were specially qualified for its
duties, but because it seems to have been thought that with
increased dignity of position greater moderation in politics
might be expected from them — an anticipation which was, it
is hardly necessary to say, never fulfilled. The most flagrant
case of all was, however, an appointment which was made at

Sympathy xvith the Chartists. 167
Birmingham. The Dissenters' Marriage Act rendered the
appointment of a chief registrar iiccessary, and with a per-
"versity which it is almost impossible to understand, the
Government chose to confer that office on a person who was
notoriously a Chartist and a Socialist of the most pronounced
type. No long time elapsed before the Government was put upon
its trial. On the 28th of January, Colonel Warde Buller
moved a vote of want of confidence, which was not indeed
carried, but which contributed materially to shake the position
of the administration. Mr. Disraeh spoke on the first night,
very characterLstically. " He was not afraid or ashamed to say
that he wished more sympathy had been shown on both sides
towards the Chartists (Ministerial cheers). He would repeat,
notwithstanding the cheers of the gentlemen opposite, that
he was not ashamed to say that he sympathised with millions
of his feUow subjects, and if those who advocated Liberal
principles, the leaders of the Reform administration, did
not agree with that sentiment, he was perfectly willing to
leave them to public opinion. When they saw large masses
of the population discontented, was it the duty of Parliament
to inquire into the cause, or was it quietly to remain satisfied
with the authority of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the
Colonial department, as to what was the origin of those
discontents." (Lord John Russell had ascribed them to in
flammatory speeches of " the incendiary Oastler," the well-
known opponent of the New Poor Law, to whom reference
has already been made.) Mr. Disraeli then went on to refer
to the lamentable riot at Newport. Other riots, he said in
effect, had been caused by poverty and distress, but this was

1 68 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
not a "knife and fork question," for the insurrection had
broken out in a district where labour was weU paid. " How
then could they place confidence in the present Government?
What opinion could they form of the prescience of the noble
Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Depart
ment? The noble Lord would indeed tell us that the insurrec
tion was in a moment queUed ; he would dUate on the cool
courage of the Mayor, and the presence of a handful of troops,
who put down a popular tumult, but the time would come
when the Chartists -would discover that in a country so
aristocratic as England even treason, to be successful, must
be patrician. They would discover that great truth, and when
they found some desperate noble to lead them they might
perhaps achieve greater results. When Wat Tyler failed,
Henry Bolingbroke changed a dynasty, and although Jack
Straw was hanged, a Lord John Straw might become a
Secretary of State." The House of Commons is an assembly
quick to appreciate a sarcasm of this kind, and recalling the
career of the noble Lord with reference to the question of
reform, it cheered this allusion with heartiness and goodwill.
Then turning to the Government itself, Mr. Disraeli denounced-
its culpable weakness in forcible terms. Partizans of the
administration had claimed for it that it was the Government
of the middle party ; that it avoided all extremes. He did not
like middle parties, which ate the oyster for themselves and
handed the shells to other claimants. It had been said that
the Government could not be weak since it resorted with so
little hesitation to strong measures. That assertion he tra
versed. Strong measures are the sign of a government which
does not enjoy the confidence of the people. It is only a weak

A Weak Government. 169
government, " which finds it necessary to resort to Special
Commissions; which levied troops at the end of the Session
when there were not sixty members in the House ; it was only
a weak government which in haste was obliged to abolish the
constitutional guardians of the peace, and to erect a new police
force in their stead." Finally he turned to the many changes
in the Government as proofs of the weakness of the admini
stration, and showed how nearly every ministerial post had
changed hands during Lord Melbourne's tenure of office, and
how as a matter of fact no one would consent to serve for more
than a year at a time. The latter part of the speech reminds
the reader somewhat of the famous " Ducrow ' speech at
High Wycombe, but as became the gravity of the House of
Commons, it was of course more sober in its tone.
The debate lasted for four nights, on the last of which Peel
delivered himself of a magnificent denunciation of the Govern
ment, which occupied three hours and a half in its delivery.
He attacked the Whigs for the encouragement they had given
to agitation to secure the passage of the Reform Bill and
Municipal Corporations Bill;* he declared that by what they
* "The accounts from the country now poured in and were of the most
alarming description. Parkes . . . told me that it was with extreme difficulty
that people could be kept from coming to extremities (in Birmingham). . . . Very
little work is done. The workmen walk about talking of nothing but the Bill.
The account of the vote of the Lords was received as a, public calamity. The
chm'ches and dissenting chapels tolled their bells the whole night. Well might
the general in command be alarmed. He wrote to Lord Hill that he was wholly
incapable of resistance in case of an insurrection. His whole force consisted of
two troops of Greys within the town and two companies of infantry at Dudley ....
Strickland showed me a letter from some of- his leading constituents at Saddle-
worth. They told him that people were tired of signing petitions and addresses.
They wished to fight it out at once, and the sooner the better. The fight was
believed so near at hand that a manufacturer offered to supply the Birmingham

1 70 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
had then done they had sown the seed of aU the present
troubles; he was eloquent on their shameful pandering to
discontent, and he satirized with force and spirit the folly of
attempting to secure immunity from Chartist agitation by
making magistrates out of Chartist delegates ; then, speaking
of Oastler, he asked indignantly, "what right the Whigs had
to complain of him ; " he had a right to complain of Oastler's
agitation, and he did not approve of it, nor would he counten
ance it ; but the Whigs, who had taught the lesson of agitation,
ought to be the last people in the world to complain of an
agitator ; nor did he censure less stringently the coquetting of
Lord Melbourne with the SociaUsts, as evidenced by the pre
sentation of Owen and by the appointment of Mr. Pare at
Birmingham ; while in conclusion he protested urgently against
the reductions of those ancient constitutional forces, the Militia
and the Yeomanry. Lord John RusseU replied in his accus
tomed acidulated manner, and at twenty minutes to five in
the morning the division took place : Ayes 287, Noes 308 ;
majority for ministers 21. Popular report at the time was
current to the effect that the figures would have been reversed
but for the fact that the royal marriage was impending, and
that a ministerial crisis would have created a very disagreeable
complication on the occasion.
The Melbourne cabinet thus retained its hold upon office.
Union with 10,000 muskets at 15s. apiece."' — Sir Denis Le Marchant's Journal
quoted in Lord A Ithorp's Memoirs, pp. 432, 433.
In Birmingham the Political Union, under the presidency of Mr. Muntz, after
the rejection of the first Reform Bill, issued a notice to organise meetings for the
non-payment of taxes until the BUI was passed and the people were told to come
armed. This elicited only an unofficial communication from the Home Office,
pointing out the folly and the danger of the threatened proceeding. In Bristol
there were great riots. — See Torrens'a Lord Molbourtic, Vol. I., pp. 3S6, 3S7.

Defeats of the Government. 171
though it could not be fairly said to govern the country. From
this time forward its defeats were constant. On the 13th of
February the Ministry found themselves in a minority of 10
on Mr. Herries's motion on public finance. On the 27th
Mr, LiddeU brought forward a distinct vote of censure on
the rather scandalous job by which Mr. Spring-Rice had been
provided for on his accession to the peerage, and though
Ministers made the best defence they could, they were again
defeated by 28 votes in a house of 452. So constant in fact
were these defeats that at the beginning of March the Marquis
of Londonderry was able to state publicly that since 1835 the
Ministry had been defeated in 107 divisions, many of them on
matters of the first consequence. On the 25th of March they
were defeated once more on Lord Stanley's Bill for assimilating
the Irish system of registration to that of England, and by the
6th of June there had been ten divisions, in nine of which the
Government was defeated. Yet during all this time no effort
was spared to prove that the Government was both strong and
capable. At the end of February the Home Office had sent
out a circular calling upon the justices of the peace all over the
country to suppress seditious and immoral publications, while
Feargus O'Connor had been tried in May and sent to prison for
eighteen months, Bronterre O'Brien having received the same
sentence a month before. The attempt of Oxford to shoot the
Queen in May was a godsend to the Whigs, who certainly made
the most of it. In more than one of their organs the assertion
was repeated, which Feargus O'Connor had first made a year
before, that " the Orange-Tory faction " had determined to get
rid of the Queen and to put " Cumberland " on the throne in
her stead ; the inference being that the crazy potman was the

172 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
tool of the Duke of Wellington and the party with which he
acted. Such an infamous accusation is its own best refutation,
and it might safely have been left to take care of itself. The
Tory press certainly did itself no credit by its retort that the
whole matter was a Whig trick to secure the Government in its
position. During the latter part of the session Mr. Disraeh spoke but
seldom, though always to the purpose, and always in the in
terests of those who had suffered most severely from the tender
mercies of the Whig Government. When, in July, Lord John
RusseU hurriedly brought in a bUl for the estabUshment of
district and county constabulary, Mr. Disraeli opposed it in a
brief but pungent speech, accusing the noble Lord of " levying
5,000 troops against his former allies," and of practically
entering upon a civil war without explaining in any way the
necessity for Avhat he proposed to do. It might be necessary
to take those steps, but he thought the House had a right to
expect fuller information^ — a demand which obtained for him
the honour of a violent and abusive attack from Mr. Fox
Maule. When the amended bill was in its later stages he
supported the attempt to limit its operation to two j^ears, and
afterwards protested, in the interests of the poor, against the
extraordinary and inquisitorial powers of the new police. It
was assuredly necessary that someone should raise his voice on
behalf of the peasantry. There was evidence to prove that,
acting under the orders of their superiors, the police habitually
entered cottages at night and ordered lights to be extinguished,
lest they should serve as signals to poachers and marauders,
and that they would enter the same cottages in the day-time to
see if mutton were boiUng on the fire, if it happened that a

Lovctt and Collins. i ']t^
sheep had been killed in the neighbourhood. These things
created a great deal of ill-feeling and heart-burning amongst
the peasantry, and rendered the new constabulary extremely
unpopular, greatly to the injury of law and order. In the
same spirit Mr. Disraeli had spoken a few days before on the
state of the country, and he had furthermore reverted to the
agitation which the Whigs had encouraged, and the fruits of
which were seen in the Chartist movement.
A little later Mr. Disraeli had another opportunity of approv
ing himseff the friend of the oppressed by a speech which he
made on the cases of Lovett and Collins. Under the Whig ad
ministration the discontent of the people had attained to such
a pitch that in 1840 there were not fewer than three hundred
persons in prison in England for political offences. Amongst
those who were so confined were two men named respectively
Lovett and Collins, who had been found guilty of publishing
a " .seditious libel " with respect to the Birmi ogham riots.
One had written and the other had carried to the printer the
MS. of a rather strong Radical article ; but one no whit stronger
than may be read every Sunday in these days. Mr. Duncombe
brought their case before the House on the 10th of July, 1840,
and in the course of his speech he took the opportunity of
reading the libel for which they had been condemned, and of
declaring from his place in Parhament that " in every word of
the libel, for the publication of which Lovett and Collins were
found guilty, he entirely concurred." To tell the truth it is
hard to say on what ground the conviction could be supported.
The two men had said that the Birmingham people had been
attacked in an unconstitutional way by a force from London —
which was quite true ; that the people of Birmingham had a

1 74 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
right to meet in the Bull Ring if they chose — which is equally
undeniable; and that the arbitrary arrest of one of the Chartists
without warrant or authority was a breach of the law. For
this they had been sentenced to imprisonment, and, as a part
of their punishment, they were compelled to herd with the
vilest prisoners in the common gaol, even to the point of being
compelled to sleep in the same bed with them. Collins " had
had four different persons to sleep with him since he had been
in the prison ; the first was convicted of a rape, two others were
imprisoned for assaults, and his present bed-fellow was con
victed of passing bad money." Other persons were in equally
evil case, and when Mr. Duncombe presented these memorials
he adverted in stringent terms to the cases which had been
brought before the House from persons confined at Fisherton
Gaol, Ilchester Gaol, Wakefield Gaol, York Castle, and Oakham
Prison. Mr. Wakley seconded Mr. Duncombe's motion, and
Mr. Disraeli, in a speech of remarkable power, supported the
resolution. He urged that there had obviously been a change
in the punishment for political offences. Formerly it had been
thought sufficient to imprison political offenders so as to ensure
the security of the State, and not for the infliction of punish
ment. Now it was thought necessary to deal with political
offenders in a way infinitely less tolerant than that adopted by
the Star Chamber itself. If all offenders were treated alike,
the feehng of those who objected to the policy of the Govern
ment would be different; but what was called sedition in
England passed unpunished on the other side of the Irish
Channel, under the gentler name of "agitation." "Was it,"
he asked, " because the ministry had the countenance and the
support of those who were engaged in it ? "—a home-thrust at

Sedition, Privy Conspiracy, and Rebellion. 1 75
the monstrous alliance between the Wliigs and 0'C!oiinoll,
which could hardly fail of effect. Finally he begged tlie
Opposition not to refuse to support Mr. Duncombe's motion
because it was brought forward by one with whom they were
not in the habit of acting. They (the Opposition) were the
natural leaders of the people. "Yes," he repeated, "the
aristocracy were the natural leaders of the people, for the
aristocracy and the labouring population formed the nation,
and it was only when gross misconception and factious mis
representation prevailed that a miserable minority, under the
specious designation of popular advocates, was able to prevent
the nation's order."
The year 1841 opened amidst political storms of no common
kind. The whole country was distracted with rumours of
sedition and of insurrection, which the severities of the two
preceding years had in no way contributed to allay. How great
those severities had been, may be guessed from the fact that,
between the 1st of January, 1839, and the 25th of May, 1841, no
fewer than 400 persons had been convicted of political offences,
and sentenced to imprisonment amongst felons of the worst
type. NaturaUy enough the sympathies of the great mass of
the people were with the unfortunate Chartists, and the Govern
ment grew daily more unpopular. Strong in the possession of
a Parliamentary majority, however, it retained its hold upon
office, and defied popular feeling with impunity, _ Meanwhile,
the agitation out of doors attained very grave proportions.
The Radical party took up the Whig panacea, and agitated for
the repeal of the Corn Laws ; the Chartists, suspecting the
motive of the agitation, opposed it ; and at a great meeting on
Hunslet Moor near Leeds, refused to co-operate with the Liberals.

176 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
More than this, believing as they did that the cry for cheap
bread really covered another attempt to lower the wages of
those engaged in manufactures, they opposed the meetings of
the Anti-Corn Law League, and broke up several of them. The
question was, however, ripening, in spite of the Chartists and of
the country party alike. Petitions to Pariiament poured in all
through the Spring of this. year, untU by the 15th of June, as
many as 3,918 had been presented, with 1,144,830 signatures.
The other, side had not been idle, but the 1,758 petitions,
with 110,721 signatures against the repeal of the Corn Laws,
make. but a poor show. Another set of petitions of this Session
is equally significant. On the 25th of May Mr. Duncombe
presented a working-class petition with more than 1,300,000
signatures ; another, from Manchester, with 9,997 signatures ;
one from Newport, with 5,300 signatures, and 37 others from
different places with 48,884 signatures; making in aU 1,348,848
persons asking for mercy for the political prisoners. The prayer
of these petitions was rejected by the casting vote of the Speaker,
in a House of 116 members ; but the Anti-Corn Law petitions
were so far successful that, on the 30th of April, Lord John
Russell astonished the House of Commons by giving notice of
his intention to move that, on the first order day after the
31st of May, the House should resolve itself into a Committee
to consider the Acts relating to the trade in corn. On the
7th of May, in fulfilment of a promise made on a former even
ing, he announced his intention to propose a fixed duty upon
wheat of 8.s. per quarter ; upon rye, 5s. per quarter ; upon
barley, 4s. ^d. per quarter ; and upon oats, Bs. 4a. per quarter.
The motion was never destined to come to anything. On the
24th of May Sir Robert Peel gave notice of his intention to

JMr. Disraeli on the Whigs. ijy
move a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry, and on the
27th the debate began. It was a very animated one, and
lasted until the 4th 0/ June. Peel's indictment of \\\q faineant
Whigs was masterly in the extreme, worthy alike of the subject
and of himself Mr. Disraeli spoke in support of his chief,
whom he complimented as well on his conduct out of office as
on his behaviour in it. He especially commended his avoidance
of factiousness, and his indifference to the sweets of power.
Turning to the Government, he combated the arguments of
those who had sought to prove by reference to the history of
the last century that they ought not to go out of office so long
as they could command even a majority of one in the House of
Commons. He contended for the necessity of the confidence
of the people, and for accord between the Executive and the
Legislature. He censured in terms which few people will be
disposed to think too severe, the presumption of a Minister of
State, who had allowed himself to speak of a vote of the Upper
House as "the whisper of a faction," and he reminded the
House that those who had so treated the Lords were now guilty
of insulting the Commons. He stigmatised the Whig Ministry
as a " haughty and rapacious oligarchy," consistent only in
systematically slighting Parliamentary institutions. He re
proached them with "cringing in the antechambers of the
palace," and with intending " to support themselves in office by
clandestine and back-stairs influences," and he wound up by a
rapid summary in his best manner of the doings of the Whigs
since 1832. " They began by remodelling the House of Com
mons, and insulting the House of Lords ; they then assaulted
the Church; next the Colonial Constitutions ; afterwards they
assailed the municipalities of the kingdom ; attacked the rich

1 78 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and the poor ; and now in their last moments, at one fell swoop,
made war upon the colonial, the commercial, and the agricul
tural interests."
On the night of the 4th of June — the fifth of the debate —
the division was taken, and the Melbourne Ministry found itself
in a minority of one in a house of 623 members. The result
must have been anticipated, but it pleased Lord John Russell to
affect surprise, and to complain without any foundation for the
complaint, that Peel had brought forward fresh charges against
the Administration. On the following Monday he made a state
ment in the House in accordance with precedent, which has
rather a curious effect when taken in conjunction with the
innumerable defeats which the so-called "Reform Ministry "-
had sustained. There were, he argued, eight members whose
votes were not accounted for, and seeing that they might pos
sibly be supporters of the Government, he believed the position
of the Ministry strong enough to warrant a dissolution at an
early period. Peel withdrew a motion of which he had given
notice for stoppiog the supplies ; the remaining business of the
Session was got through with as much haste as possible, and on
the 22nd of June Parliament was prorogued by the Queen in
person, and dissolved by proclamation on the following day.
With this Parliament Mr. Disraeli's connection with the
borough of Maidstone came to an end. There was no unfriendly
feeling on either side, but his local interests were of the slightest,
and when residents in the neighbourhood were prepared to
come forward it was only natural that he should seek a seat
elsewhere. There was, however, another circumstance which
probably contributed in some degree to the severance of the
future premier's connexion with the borough. When he was

Mr. Austin's Privileged Libel. 179
first elected in conjunction with Mr. Wyndham Lewis the latter
gentleman was in exceedingly delicate health and in the spring
of the year 1838 he died. At the election which followed his
death Mr. Fector was returned and' a petition was presented.
When that petition came to be heard by the Committee, Mr.
Austin, the eminent Whig parliamentary counsel, in opening
the case for the petitioners thought proper to make a statement
that "Mr. Disraeh at the general election had entered into
engagements with the electors of Maidstone and- had made
pecuniary promises to them which he had left unfulfilled."
NaturaUy enough Mr. Disraeli construed this as imputing to
him the double infamy of promising bribes and of failing to
cany out his promises. In a letter to the Morning Post of the
5th of May, Mr. Disraeli indignantly repudiated both charges
and stated that he should have noticed them at once but for the
explanation of a friend that Mr. Austin, by the custom of his
profession, was authorised to make any statement from his
brief which he was prepared to substantiate or attempt to
substantiate. After all was over and no such attempt at sub
stantiation had been made, Mr. Disraeli's denial appeared and at
the end of the letter came the following passage : — " Sir, I am
informed that it is quite useless and even unreasonable in me to
expect from Mr. Austin any satisfaction for these impertinent
calumnies, because Mr. Austin is a member of an honourable
profession the first principle of whose practice appears to be
that they may say anything provided they be paid for.it. The,
privUege of circulating falsehoods with impunity is delicately
described as doing your duty towards your client ; which appears
to be a very different process from doing your duty towards
your neighbour. This may be the usage of Mr. Austin's pro-
N 2

i8o The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
fession and it may be the custom of society to submit to it in
practice ; but for my part it appears to be nothing better tha
a disgusting and intolerable tyranny and I for one shaU not
bow to it in sUence. I therefore repeat that the statement of
Mr. Austin was false and inasmuch as he never attempted to
substantiate it I conclude that it was on his side but the
blustering artifice of a rhetorical hureUng, avaihng himself of
the vile license of a loose-tongued lawyer not only to make a
statement which was false but to make it with a consciousness
of its falsehood."
Lord Beaconsfield is not the only person who has complained
of the license of counsel, but he is probably the only one who
has been censured so vehemently for his complaints. Because
Mr. Austin was an eminent and honourable man it appears
to be thought by critics of a certain type that libels such
as those of which Mr. Disraeli had been the victim might be
circulated with impunitj''. The matter was, however, speedily
cleared up. Mr. Austin proceeded by way of criminal informa
tion ; his opponent allowed judgment to go by default, and
when on the 22nd of November he came up for sentence he
offered the handsomest apology in his power, which, it is
hardly necessary to say, was accepted. "As to my offence
against the law," said he, " I throw myself on your lordship's
mercy. As to my offence against the individual, I have made
hini that reparation which a gentleman should under the
circumstances cheerfully proffer, and with which a gentleman
should in my opinion be cheerfully content. I make this, my
lords, not to avoid the consequences of my conduct for, right or
wrong, good or bad, those consequences I am ever prepared to
encounter ; but because I am anxious to soothe the feelings I

State of the Country, 1 8 1
have unjustly injured and evince my respect for the suggestions
of the Bench. But as to my offence against the Bar I do with
the utmost confidence appeal to your lordships — however you
may disapprove of my opinions — however objectionable, however
offensive, however even odious they may appear to you — that
you will not permit me to be arraigned for one offence and
punished for another. In a word, my lords, it is to the Bench
I look "with confidence to shield me from the vengeance of an
irritated and powerful profession."
The return of the Tories to power was very obviously nigh at
hand. The Whigs were unpopular in the extreme with every
class of the community save perhaps the middle class shopkeepers
and the manufacturers. The poor were poorer than ever. The
hated Poor Law crushed them into dust, robbed them of their
birthright, and made th^m .slaves to the employers of labour.
The rich saw their rights and privileges recklessly invaded, and
pohtical power torn from the grasp of those who had a real
stake in the country to be given to the much belauded £10
householder, whilst even the least excitable and enthusiastic
of politicians could appreciate the state of the finances of the
country. The national debt under the ten years of Tory
rule — 1821-1830 — ^had actually been diminished by forty-seven
miUions and three-quarters, but under the ten years of Whig
ascendancy — 1831-1840 — it had increased by five millions ;
whilst the expenditure had increas^ed by two millions, and a
deficit of two and a half millions had been created. Facts like
these, which were expounded to the people on every hustings,
which stared at them from every hoarding and blank wall, and
which were constantly repeated in .the columns of the Tory
press, could not fail to produce their due effect. The general

J 82 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
election was over in time to aUow Parhament to be opened at
the close of August, and it was then seen that the doom of the
Whigs was sealed. Mr. Disraeh had received a requisition
from Wycombe, but decUned to stand. From Shrewsbury,
however, came an invitation to him in conjunction with
Colonel Tomline, signed by 700 electors. To Shrewsbury
accordingly he went, and plunged into all the excitement of
a contested election. As usual, he was viUfied in the columns
of the Whig press in a way which in these days would
be thought something more than scandalous. His Hebrew
descent was made the text for one set of calumniators ; his use
of the recommendation of Hume and O'Connell at Wycombe
laid him open to attack in other quarters. One ingenious
gentleman found out that he was deeply in debt, and had a
number of unsatisfied judgments out against him — a fact which
he found no difficulty in explaining to the satisfaction of every
body save his accusers — whilst another made personal charges
against him which were certainly untrue, but which could hardly
be disproved. All that money could do against him was tried.
One of his opponents — General Sir Love Jones Parry — was said
to have deposited £15,000 in a Shrewsbury Bank for election
purposes, and the rumour was not contradicted. The efforts of
his opponents were, however, wholly vain. Mr. Disraeli pro
fessed himself the champion of popular rights, and he had
an honourable record to refer to in the speeches and votes to
which we have above referred. He protested against the aboli
tion of the Corn Laws, and reminded the electors that something
besides cheap bread was wanted to make a country happy. He
repeated his warning about cheap labour being a not unnatural
concomitant of cheap food, and he pointed with much effect to

Member for Shrewsbury. 183
the tyranny of the manufacturing class even in Shrewsbury,
who, although they would let the Liberal candidates canvass
their hands, absolutely refused to allow the Tories to set foot in
their mills. The result was a triumphant return. From the
first the Tory candidates headed the polling, and when at 4 in
the afternoon the polling books were made up, the numbers
were — Tomline, 793 ; Disraeli, 787 ; General Sir Love Jones
Parry, 604 ; and Mr. C. Temple, 579. There was the usual
chairing, congratulatory banquet, and so forth ; and when all
was over, Mr. Disraeli returned to London "Member for Shrews
bury."

CHAPTER IV.
MEMBEE FOE SHEEWSBURY.— PEOTECTIONISM.
The Conservative Majority — Lord Melbourne's retirement — Peel is sent for —
State of the country — Issue of half farihings — Misery of the working-classes
— Mr. Disraeli speaks on commercial policy — State of Ireland — O'Connell's
agitation — His trial, sentence, and liberation — Approaching famine — Unscru
pulousness of O'Connell — "Wretchedness of his tenants — Mr. Disraeli on Irish
questions — Session of 1844— Speech on Lord John Russell's Irish motion-
On Maynooth — On Coercion— Becomes lieutfnant to Lord George Bentinck
— The "Whig treatment of Irish distress —Lord George Bentinck on Irish
railways — "Warmly supported by Mr. Disraeli — Anti-Corn Law agitation —
The Leaguers not always wise — Ireland joins them — Peel's wavering — Import
duties abolished in Ireland by a Cabinet memorandum — Peel resigns— Lord
John sent for — Fails to form a government— Peel returns to oflice a Free
Trader — Disgust of his party— Session of 1846 — Queen's speech— Intrigues
concerning the Coercion Bill — Resignation of Peel — Lord John again sent for
— Prorogation of Parliament and general. election — Mr. Disraeli throughout
the lieutenant of Lord George Bentinck— Has himself related the history of
this struggle — Why he quan-elled with Peel^His powers of invective —
Assaults on the ex-leader of the Tories — Peel's reply — The sugar duties —
The Session of 1847 — Mr. Disraeli's speeches — Close of the Session — Mr.
Disraeli retires from Shrewsbury— Buys Hughenden Manor— Addresses the
electors of Buckinghamshire — Is opposed by Dr. Lee, but returned without
even the formality of a show of hands— Busy with literature — "Coningsby "
— "Young England "—The Duke of Rutland and Lord Strangford— "What
the reviews said — Personalities-^ "Sybil" and "Tancred" — Thomas Cooper
the Chartist — "Tancred" an anticipation of modern religious criticism —
Great speech at the Manchester Athenseum.
When Mr. Disraeli entered Parliament as member for
Shrewsbury he found, the Conservative party with a splendid
majority. The general election had returned 368 Tories as

Lord Melbourne s Resignation, 185
against 292 Liberals of all shades. There were 181 new
members in Parliament ; 78 Liberals of various types had been
replaced by Tories, and although 38 Tories had had to give
place to as many Liberals, the Conservative party could boast
of a gain of 80 on a division. The petitions were few and
unimportant. Thirteen members lost their seats, but five
elections onl}' were declared void. On the whole, then. Peel
saw a fair prospect before him with the opening of Parliament.
The Whigs, however, died hard. Parliament was opened by
Commission on the 24th of August, the Long Vacation not
having become in the early years of the "forties " quite such an
institution as it has been of late, and an amendment to the
Address was forthwith moved. Some time was wasted over the
discussions on this matter, but on the 28th of the month the
division was at last taken, and Lord Melbourne found himself
in a minority of 91 in a house of 629. Even a Whig Cabinet
could not pretend that it enjoyed the confidence of the country
after such a defeat, and Lord Melbourne placed his resignation
in the hands of the Queen, and retired forthwith from public
life. He retained his seat in Parliament, it is true, and as late
as 1848 voted in the Whig interest, but his infiuence departed
with his resignation of office, and from this moment he practi
cally fades out of the chronicle of English politics.
There was but one thing for the Queen to do, and that she did.
She sent for Sir Robert Peel, and by the end of the month his
ministry was formed. As a matter of course he took his place as
First Lord of the Treasury; Lord Lyndhurst became Chancellor;
Lord Wharncliffe, President of the Council ; Sir James Graham
went to the Home Office ; Lord Aberdeen took the Foreign
Office ; Mr. Gladstone, then a Tory, the Board of Trade ; while

1 86 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the Duke of Wellington consented to accept the leadership in
the Upper House without a portfolio. There was nothing very
striking about the re-elections consequent upon the change of
government, unless, indeed, we except a gratuitous declaration
made by Mr. Gladstone to the electors of Newark. By way of
propitiating the agricultural constituency for which he sat, he
announced that " There were two points on which the British
farmer might rely, the first of which was that adequate pro
tection would be given to him, while the second was that
¦protection would be given to him by means of the sliding scale."
When the Government had fairly settled itself into harness.
Parliament was prorogued, and an interval of comparative quiet
succeeded. The calm was, however, of but very short duration.
Ten years of unbroken Whig ascendancy had left the country in
a painfully inflammable condition. The New Poor Law had
created an amount of exasperation amongst the peasantry which
can hardly be over-estimated, and for which in these later days
it is not difficult to find an excuse. Wages in the agricultural
districts were the same as they had been under the old Poor
Law, and the harshness of the new law was a cruel change for
those accustomed to the careless easiness of the old. In the
manufacturing districts the operatives were ground down by a
miserable tyranny. The hours of labour were outrageously
long ; machinery was cleaned in meal times, and " truck and
tommy " were in full swing. When the Parliament — christened
by the Whigs the " do-nothing Parliament," — adjourned in
October, popular distress was enormous, and popular discontent
was beginning to display itself in very unpleasant ways. The
harvest of 1841 had not been more than an average one, and
scarcely had it been gathered in when incendiarism made itself

The National Distress. 187
felt. All through Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwick, and
Yorkshire the firebrand was carried. Night after night farmers
lay down to sleep uneasily, conscious that before morning
dawned there was something more than a chance that their out
lying ricks would be consumed at the bidding of the emissaries
of " Captain Swing," Nor were the agricultural districts alone
distressed. Manufactures were almost at a standstill. The
distress in the Midlands and in the North was appalling. In
Leeds alone, out of a total number of 19,936, there were 16,136
operatives who were wholly unemployed. The average weekly
income of the unemployed " hands " was reckoned at Hid, In
Paisley 14,000 persons were out of work, and were simply dying
of starvation, Nottingham and Bradford were in quite as evil a
case. The winter was as terrible as the autumn, and when
with the spring the .spirits of the people rose in some small
degree, it is not surprising that they began once more to seek
in political nostrums the remedy for social wrongs. The 2nd of
May, 1842, saw a Chartist demonstration on an unusual scale,
and the presentation of a petition with 3,315,702 signatures,
calling for the earnest consideration of the authorities. The
petition meant nothing and produced nothing. There was a
fa.ncy dress ball at Buckingham Palace ten days later, and the
day before a Royal letter was issued calling for a collection in
all the churches for the benefit of the poor. On the 26th of
May there was a ball at Willis's Rooms " for the benefit of the
Spitalfields Weavers," and on the 30th of the month poor
Francis made a de.spairing attempt to attract attention to the
wrongs of his order by a futile attempt to shoot the Queen on
Constitution Hill.
From this time forward the social histoiy of the country is

1 88 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
but one long record of agitation, rioting, and discontent. The
Ministry made a noble effort to meet the difficulties of the
case, and on the 24th of June a Royal Proclamation formally
authorized the issue of half-farthings. Strange to say, even this
concession did not satisfy the people of England. Food riots in
one district were followed by even more serious disturbances in
others; and Chartist meetings rapidly succeeded each other.
Seditious placards were to be seen everywhere. The Anti-Corn
Law League was busy, and side by side with it were working
political organizations of all kinds, the dangerous character of
which it was impossible to ignore. Before August was out
another attempt had been made upon the Queen's life, the
criminal in this case getting off with eighteen months' imprison
ment. Early in the autumn it became necessary to take extra
ordinary steps for the punishment of the rioters. A hundred
and fifty were brought up in September at York, and at the end
of the month a Special Commission was sent down to Stafford.
Early in October a similar Commission was sent down to Lan
caster. Meanwhile, Feargus O'Connor and fifty-eight of those
who acted with him had been arrested and were brought to trial.
In Wales matters were as bad. " Rebecca and her daughters "
openly set the law at defiance, and from one end of the Princi
pality to the other rioted in the very wantonness of mischief
By the autumn of 1843 Wales was described as "utterly law
less"— a state of things which the Times ascribed to the
prevalence of Dissent, and to the consequent contempt of the
Welsh people for authority. It would probably have been safer
to ascribe the phenonienon to the dearness of food and the
general hardness of the times. Nothing, however, could excuse
the lengths to which the Rebeccaites went, and after the 10th

The National Distress. 189
of September, when they murdered an inoffensive toll-gate
keeper, the Times suems to have abandoned its theory.
In the groat towns and in the capital the misery of the work
ing-classes increased rather than diminished. The "sweating
system " was in full operation, and there was no law to check
it. Readers of " Alton Locke " wiU remember some of its hor
rors. A few more were disclosed by a miserable working tailor,
who appeared before Sir Peter Laurie * at the Mansion House,
on the 8th of December, 1843, and who gave chapter and verse
for his statements — supporting them at the same time by the
evidence of witnesses. Meanwhile, Mr. Attwood, the Chartist
member for Birmingham, was busy with the propagation of
his scheme for a " National Union," or league of all classes, for
holding Ministers of the Crown responsible for the welfare of
the people — a scheme which naturally came to nothing.
Parliament made some feeble efforts to cope with the national
distress, but did not succeed in doing much. On the 1st of July,
1842j a debate was raised by Mr. Wallace on going into Supply.
His speech was an able one, and the details of which it was
made up were simply horrifying. In plain, unvarnished phrase,
he told how in every part of the kingdom wages were falling
and distress was increasing ; how public and private effort alike
failed to meet the difficulties of the time ; and how, though the
* Mr. Charles Dickens, whose political ignorance was only equalled by his
political prejudice — and that is saying very much — has been pleased to laugh at
Sir Peter Laurie, and even to gibbet him in one of his Christmas Books under an
opprobrious pseudonym. That the worthy alderman was the wisest of men few
will contend, but that he had a genuine sympathy with the poor and the oppressed
as' few will deny, while that he was the bigoted and malicious Dogberry of the
story none will maintain. The blunder of the great novelist is of a piece with the
perverse ignorance which led him to ascribe all the evils of the New Poor Law to
the Tories.

] go The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
people were wiUing to work, hundreds of thousands of them
were condemned to idleness. He concluded with a string of
resolutions, the gist of which was to lay the blame of the exist
ing state of things mainly upon Peel's financial policy, which had
interfered with the tariff, had imposed an income tax, and had
crippled industry. Su- John (then Dr.) Bowring followed with
a fuU admission of the popular distress, and a vehement advo
cacy of the repeal of the Corn Laws, which, as he argued, could
not co-exist with the new Poor Law. On behalf of the Govern
ment, Sir James Graham expressed his hope that the modifica
tions in the tariff would speedily effect such an increase in the
foreign trade of this country, that all distress would be removed.
In the meanwhile, the administration were not prepared to add
to the distress by withdrawing protection from the agricultural
interest. Mr. Ward followed with a vehement and not very
statesmanlike speech, in which he declared that " the salvation
of Sheffield (the constituency for which he sat) depended on
the repeal of the Corn Laws." Mr. Disraeli's speech was not a
long one, but it was sufficiently cogent. Pointing out that the
opening of foreign markets, which would give an abundance of
employment to labour in the manufacturing districts, was likely
to do quite as much for their prosperity as the removal of the
restrictions upon the importation of foreign corn ; he sirgued
that the Government, by its negotiation of commercial treaties,
was doing all that could be done for the relief of distress by the
action of the State, The Administration was at that moment
arranging a commercial treaty with France ; under which
there were provisions for the admission of cutlery, hardware,
woollens, locks, and a variety of English manufactures, at low
rates of duty. He, therefore, recommended the members for

W^hi'o Commercial Policy. 191
Sheffield and Leeds, and Birmingham and Wolverhampton, to
remember these things when they went to their constituents,
and to open their eyes to the fact that the Repeal of the Corn
Laws was far from being the only specific for the cure of
national distress. Furthermore, he pointed out that no small
part of the suffering in the manufacturing districts was due to
the disturbance of the Levantine markets, in consequence of
the difficulties which had been created by the foreign policy of
the Whigs in the last year of Lord Melbourne's ascendancy — a
pohcy, which had for the time, at all events, lost to this country
the advantages of the Commercial Treaty with France. It was
not alone, he went on to argue, in the limited and somewhat
exhausted markets of the Levant that the evil effects of that
policy were felt ; there were other markets which had practically
been closed to British enterprise and industry, and it was to
them he looked for the new field from which our exhausted
resources might be recruited. The Repeal of the Corn Laws
was not necessarily a specific, but the extension of our com
merce in India, China, Japan, Siam and the Corea offered a
prospect of permanent improvement. After entering at some
length into statistics he went on : '' yet these are the
countries which the noble lord selects as the scene of his mili
tary achievements. The demand for British goods from Persia,
Tartary, and the countries beyond the Indus has entirely
ceased. So great is the deprecialiion of British goods in the
Indian markets, that Manchester manufactures may be pur
chased at Bombay at a lower rate than in Lancashire itself.
Such are the fruits of their foreign policy, who now denounce
our agricultural system as the sole cause of distress and depres
sion of our trade."

192 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
The chord thus struck vibrated again a few months later.
On the 13th of February, 1843, Viscount Howick (the present
Earl Grey) moved that the House should resolve itself into
Committee to take into consideration those paragraphs of the
Speech from the throne, which referred to the depression of
trade. As a matter of course, the panacea which he offered
was universal free trade — beginning with the repeal of the
Corn Laws. The opposition to Lord Howick's motion was led
by Mr. Gladstone, who expressed himself somewhat strongly in
favour of the sliding scale and in opposition to the consideration
of the matter at issue by a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Disraeli spoke on the second night at considerable length,
and with much force and effect. Confining himself strictly to
the question, " whether it were possible or politic by any
sudden and extraordinary means to extend the commerce of
this country as a remedy for the present distress," he argued
against the notion of applying one remedy to every market.
England trades with three different sets of markets ; those of
Europe, of the East, and of the New World ; and the principles
on which she trades with each differ. Our commerce with
Europe, for obvious reasons, could be maintained and extended
only by Treaties of Commerce, which were really as important as
those political treaties upon which the Whigs were accustomed
to rely. The first country with which it was desirable to make
such a Treaty was France, and it was well-known that the
negotiations for one had reached a very advanced stage. Why
was that Treaty never ratified ? A majority in the French
Chamber were anxious for an alliance with England, why not
gratify their wishes and insure our own prosperity at the same
time ? Ten years ago an English "Ministry had announced to

On Comniereial Treaties. 193
the world its connection with France as the firmest basis of its
power, and the proudest boast of its policy. Why should not
such a confidence be restored ? The country had never hoard
of any discussions in Parliament which could account for the
change in policy between two nations which were foremost in
civilisation, and bound together in reality by every political and
social sympathy. The time had come for disembarrassing this
question from the complications of diplomacy and the misrepre
sentations of the press. It was through the Parliaments of
their respective countries that a frank explanation should take
place between the French and English nations. A Treaty of
Commerce with France would do more for the town of Sheffield
than both the Americas. Turning from France, Mr. Disraeli
urged on the Government the importance of concluding a
similar treaty with the Brazils, with which Empire there were at
that time considerable difficulties — arising mainly out of the
slave trade, and the claim of the English Government to exer
cise the right of search. These difficulties ought not, however,
to have prevented this country from being represented on such
occa.sions as the attainment of his majority bv the Emperor,
and upon his marriage— occasions on which every European
country save England sent special missions. Had such special
missions been sent, there was reason to believe that the Envoy,
if properly instructed, might have returned with a Treaty of
Commerce in his pocket. With Portugal and -with Spain similar
treaties were possible ; why should they not be entered into \
Lord Palmerston had lately told the House that England must
look for no extension of her commerce with Europe. He
(Mr. Disraeli) believed that no assertion could be more un
authorised. In the advance of arts throughout Europe he
VOL. I, o

194 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
saw only a presage of the increase of our trade. The popula
tion of France and of Central Europe was increasing most
rapidly, and in that increase he saw the continued elements of
increasing commerce. Turning to the East, he recognised the
fact that the conditions of trade and of society there were
very different. There we must work on the ancient lines
of Commerce. If we acted in Europe by negotiation, we must
act in the East by enterprise, but nowhere could we expect a
sudden increase to our trade. For the troubles of India there
was but one remedy — the abolition of the existing system of
usury, which paralysed industry and reduced half the country
to barrenness. At home, it was neither the Tariff nor the Corn
Laws which induced or prolonged the present stagnation, but
over-speculation in the capricious markets of the New World.
We must bear the ills we had to endure as patiently as we
could to gain time, and in the meanwhile throw the burden on
property, rather than on labour, as far as possible. The remedy
for the present distress was not to be found in noble Lords
delivering lectures on political economy in the House of Com
mons. What was needed was a stimulus to trade ; and the
first thing in the way of such stimulus, was a commercial
treaty with France. Others would follow, but the proposed
inquiry would occupy the House as long as the trial of Warren
Hastings, and be as infertile of results. Those who claimed for
the Liberal party a monopoly of foresight, must remember
that it was Mr. Pitt who was the inventor of free trade, and
that it was the Whigs who opposed him. He (Mr. Disraeli)
wished that the speech of Mr. Pitt, in 1787, on the Commercial
Treaty with France, could be published and circulated. Since
the days of Mr. Pitt, free trade — unrestricted commercial inter-

The State of Ireland. 195
course — had been the watchword of the Tory party, and had
only given way to the cry for the Reform BiU. The only step
now to be taken was to give a trial to the financi.•^l measures
of the Government, which were based upon the principle of a
fair protection to native industry — a principle by no means in
compatible with a large and liberal commercial intercourse.
He (Mr. Disraeli) would not declare himself prepared to stand
or fall by the details of the present Corn Law, or by those of
the Tariff But he would support the system which gave pre
ponderance to the landed interest, believing it to be essential to
the welfare of the country and to the stability of our institutions.
All difficulties at home faded into nothing, however, by the
side of the disturbed and distressed state of Ireland. O'Connell
was still carrying on his mischievous and incendiary crusade
for the Repeal of the Union, and was extorting vast sums from
the downtrodden and miserable peasantry under the name of
" rent." From £1000 to £3000 a week were absorbed in this
way, yet in the middle of 1842 there were repeated food riots
in various parts of Ireland. O'Connell, "whilst preaching peace
and order, did his utmost to foment discontent, and Repeal
meetings were held with increasing frequency. All classes
were animated by much the same spirit, and even educated
men of rank and station believed in O'ConneU and his nos
trum. Lord Ffrench attended a Repeal meeting, and was
forthwith removed from the Commission of the Peace — a step
which greatly strengthened the hands of O'ConneU and his
allies. A few days later a monster Repeal meeting was held
at Kilkenny, attended by about 300,000 persons. "The
Liberator " made one of his most tremendous orations, and
popular excitement was greatly stimulated. Another meeting
o 2

196 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
was held at Ennis in the following week, at which it was
estimated that a quarter of a million persons were present.
In words O'ConneU exhorted his followers to peace, and depre
cated the employment of any but moral force. It was, how
ever, beyond aU question that the general drift of his argu
ments was in the direction of a moral force simUar to that
invented by the Chartist leaders when they proposed to have
a "peaceful and orderly procession of 500,000 men, each with
a musket over his arm." The result was that a coercive
measure of some kind was found absolutely necessary, and a
BiU to prevent Irishmen from carrying or possessing arms of
any kind without a special licence was brought in by the
Government. O'Connell's answer was a Repeal meeting and an
increase of the "rent" wrung from the half-starved peasantry
to £1690 a week. On the other hand Smith O'Brien brought
forward a motion on Irish affairs, which, after a somewhat pro
tracted debate, was rejected by 243 votes to 164. France,
following the policy which had become traditional under the
younger Bourbons, behaved with no small treachery with regard
to Ireland. Ledru Rollin was in power, and did not scruple
to stimulate disaffection there by every means at his command.
The result was what might have been anticipated. The dis
affected Irish fondly imagined that France would help them
in their insurrection against English ascendancy, and grew more
rebellious with every succeeding day. About the middle of
August matters began to look extremely serious. The largest
Repeal demonstration ever heard of was held on the Hill of
Tara on the 15th, and O'Connell made one of his usual bom-
bastical and incendiary orations to an assemblage which was
computed by SomervUle— "One who has whistled at the plough"

The Trial of O'Connell. 197
— to number 1,200,000 persons. On the first of Octobci- another
and a similar demonstration was held at the Rath of MuUagh-
mast, and it was intended to repeat the performance within a
week at Clontarf The Government, however, grew uneasy,
and not merely prohibited the Clontarf meeting, but arrested
and held to bail Daniel O'Connell and his son John, to answer
any charge of conspiracy and misdemeanour which might be
brought against them.
The "Liberator" was brought up at the autumn assizes, and a
tme bUl was found against him by the Grand Jury. His trial
was, however, postponed, and an appeal was made to the dupes
of his agitation for funds for his defence. In every chapel of the
Roman obedience in Ireland the priests urged upon their flocks
the duty of contributing, and on the 19th of Nov. d£3,490 was
gathered in this way. On the 15th of January 1844, O'Connell,
with eight companions, was brought to trial for conspiracy and
misdemeanour. The evidence against him was the language
which he had used at various Repeal demonstrations, and the
whole affair seems to have been managed about as ill as the
enemies of English ascendancy could have desired. At the out
set the blundering of the officials afforded an excellent excuse
for hostile critics of the Government to declare that the jury
was packed. In the course of the trial the Attorney-General
for Ireland (Mr. Blackburn) chose to consider some expressions
used by Mr. Fitzgibbon, who defended Dr. Gray, as a personal
matter, and to send a challenge in consequence. O'Connell
defended himself, and on the 2oth day of the trial — the 12th of
February — the jury gave in their verdict finding O'Connell guilty
on each of the eleven counts of the indictment. An appeal was
at once entered, and was heard by the Court of Queen's Bench

198 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
on the 24th of May. The decision of the Court below was
confirmed on aU points, and a sentence of considerable severity
was pronounced upon O'ConneU on the 29th. He was to be
imprisoned for a year, to pay a fine of £2,000 to the Crown,
and to enter into recognizances in the sum of £5,000 to be
of good behaviour for seven years. The trial was in itself a
mistake, and the sentence almost a crime. O'ConneU was
rapturously ¦ cheered when he came into court, and when
sentence was pronounced the public could hardly believe their
ears. O'Connell loudly and emphatically declared that justice
had not been done to him, and it is, as a matter of fact,
probable that he was wrongly convicted. He put forth a
placard at once, urging the Irish people to show their regard
for law and order by abstaining from demonstrations and from
rioting — by doing which he won the sympathies of many who
objected utterly to his way of carrying on the Repeal agitation.
As a matter of course he appealed, and as he had the purses
of some million or so of disaffected Irishmen to draw upon,
he was able to carry his ease up to the House of Lords.
Judgment was given upon the 4th of September, and the
Judges were unanimous on nine of the eleven points sub
mitted to them. The gist of their decision was as follows: —
The indictment consisted of a number of counts, some of which
were bad and some good. If the judgment of the Irish Court
had been confined to the counts which were found to be good
it could not have been impeached, but a general judgment
had been given from which it might be assumed that in the
opinion of the Court all the counts were good. The Lord
Chancellor moved that the judgment of the Court below
should be sustained : Lord Campbell that it should be re-

Iris/i Disafieciiou. igg
versed. On a division the Government wt'iv defented, and, iu
the end O'Connell and his fellows were liberated— a result
which afforded Mr. Duncombe an opportunity of assailing the
Government on the last day of the session with no little vivacity
and effect.
This hopeless and inexcusable blunder of the Government
stimulated Irish disaffection in no common degree, and the
political difficulty was complicated by the social distress. The
Irish peasantry were miserably ill-off. Early marriages were
encouraged by the priesthood, and the people were dissuaded
by every means from that enterprising spirit which is the only
social remedy for large famUies. The competition for land was
extravagant, and rents were in consequence enormous. Irish
landlords knew that to live on their properties was attended
with great personal peril, and would besides entail the necessity
for much more alms-giving than was either prudent or desirable.
Absenteeism was consequently the rule, and the people, left to
themselves, fell into habits-of laziness and slovenliness, of which
in these days it is hard to form a conception, but of which
abundant traces may be found by every tourist. Potatoes were
the staple food of the people, and beggary seemed almost their
normal condition. To add to their sufferings the political
agitators, who are the curse of Ireland, drained their pockets
under the pretext of redressing their wrongs, and men like
O'Connell were not ashamed to accept the miserable halfpence
of the poorest and most distressed peasantry in Europe. Early
in 1845 matters began to grow worse than they had ever been
before. England had agricultural distress of no ordinaiy kind
to contend with, but the distress in Ireland was intensified
by the indolence and carelessness of the peasantry. In the

200 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
spring of this year the potato disease first mude its appearance,
and the staple food of the Irish people was thus destroyed
almost at a stroke. The cry from the Sister Isle grew louder
with almost every succeeding day, and public feeling having
been considerably stimulated, the proprietors of the Timzs sent
Mr. CampbeU Fdster on a special mission to investigate the
grievances of Ireland.
The utterly unscrupulous character of Daniel O'ConneU and
of the mischievous agitation by which he made his fortune has
seldom been appreciated in England, and is wholly ignored in
Ireland. To this day the great body of the Irish people believe
that he was a patriot and a hero, and that Ireland owes to
him the great improvement which may be remarked in her
condition during the last thirty years. As a matter of fact,
O'Connell was a rapacious and bullying tyrant ; the greatest
enemy the people ever had, and personally one of the worst
specimens of the class he spent his life in denouncing. His
real name was Connell, the prefix being assumed that he might
claim kindred with a great Irish family. His father was a small
shopkeeper, who combined smuggling with huckstering, and
who by these means contrived to scrape a little fortune together.
Daniel was originally designed for the priesthood, but went to
the bar instead. Of his bar practice nothing need be said here.
Two things only are worthy of note. One is that the greatest
part of the "rent," which by the help of the ignorant and
servile parish priests of Ireland, he extorted for the purpose of
his agitation from the starving peasantry, was spent, after his
demands were satisfied, in foolish processions, of which he was
the central figure, and in " demonstrations " which mainly
served to demonstrate the impulsive credulity of the untaught

Daniel .O'Connell. 20 1
peasantry. The other point is that personally he was one of
the worst landlords in Ireland. Ho owned a very sm;dl portion
of land in fee simple, but he leased a great deal, and by acting
as middleman and letting the leased land to peasant under
tenants, he made in 1845 an income of over £3,000.
Every shilling of this sum was wrung from a peasantry whose
squalor and misery would be incredible were it not avouched
by ]\Ir. CampbeU Foster and Mr. Russell, who were sent by
the Times to report upon it. Mr. Foster says that at Derrynane
Beg — one of O'Connell's estates — "The distress of the people
was horrible. There is not a pane of glass in the parish, nor a
window of any kind in half the cottages. ... In not one in a
dozen is there a chair to sit upon, or anything whatever in the
cottages beyond an iron pot and a rude bedstead with some
straw upon it, and not always that. In many of them the smoke
is coming out of the. doorway, for they have no chimneys, . . .
Unaided, unguided, the poor creatures are in the lowest degi-ee
of squalid poverty I have yet seen, and this within sight of Derry
nane House. . . . On the estate of Daniel O'Connell are to
be found the most wretched tenants that are to be seen in all
Ireland,"* O'Connell of course denied all this, and repeatedly called Mr,
Foster a "liar," but the absolute veracity of his statements was
avouched by Mr. Russell, who was sent out at his request by the
Times. Mr. Russell's report is too long to quote, as is Mr. Foster's
crushing analysis of O'Connell's impudent and mendacious de
fence, but the reader will do well to refer to the book, which is one
of the most valuable contributions to the political history of the
* Letters on the Condition of the People of Ireland, by J. Campbell Foster,
1846, pp. 396-7.

202 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
present reign. The light which it casts upon the nature and
causes of Irish discontent and disaffection is astonishing, and a
reprint of certain portions, if not of the whole work, would be of
great utility even now. The dramatic romances of Mr. Steuart
Trench — ingenious as they undoubtedly are — are of infinitely
smaller value in estimating the " Realities of Irish Life " than
these plain, straightforward, hard-headed statements of the
Times commissioner.
In dealing with Irish questions throughout this Session, as
indeed throughout the whole of his political career, Mr. Disraeli
dwelt steadily and persistently on the duty of treating the
people of Ireland with kindness and forbearance, and of govern
ing them, as he says in the preface to his collected novels, on the
principles of Charles I. rather than on those of Cromwell. In
his speech on the third reading of the Irish Arms Bill (9th
August, 1843), we find him expressing his surprise "that the -
gentlemen of England, those who were the descendants of the
Cavaliers, should in fact always be advocates for governing Ire
land on the principles of the Roundheads," and he went on to
denounce in burning words the dissensions in the Cabinet which
led to the adoption of a policy of doing nothing even at a time
when Ireland was torn by faction and harassed by agitation.
As for the Arms Bill itself, it was one of those measures " which
to introduce was disgraceful, and to oppose was degrading."
He should therefore abstain from voting, but he hoped for the
time " when a party framed on true principles would do justice
to Ireland, not by satisfying agitators, not by adopting in des
pair the first quack remedy that was offered from either side of
the House, but by really penetrating into the mystery of this
great misgovernment, so as to bring about a state of society

Irish Discontent. 203
which would be advantageous both to England and to Irelandi
and which would put an end to a state of things that was tho
bane of England and the opprobrium of Europe."
The Speech from the throne at the opening of the Session of
1844 was mainly devoted to Ireland, and on the 18th of February
(Parhament having been opened on the 1st) Lord John Russell
moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
take the condition of that country into consideration. There was
a very animated debate which lasted over nine nights, and the
motion was finally lost by a majority of 99 in a house of 549.
Mr. Disraeli voted in the majority, and on the fourth night
explained his reasons for so doing in a speech full of historical
learning and illustration. He denied that there was any neces
sary or irresistible connexion between Irish discontent and Pro
testant ascendancy, pointed to the Parliament of Charles I. and
Strafford as an illustration of his theory, and traced the first
real Irish rebeUion to its undoubted cause — the usurpations of
the Long Parliament. It was not, he contended, the Tories who
were responsible for Irish discontent. They had not passed the
Penal Laws or created a factitious aristocracy out of the plunder
of the Church, and they alone he considered capable of settling
the Irish difficulty. Let the two centuries of government
for, which Toryism is not responsible be forgotten; let the
Government revert to " Tory principles, the natural principles
of the democracy of England. . . let them recur to the
benignant policy of Charles I., then they would settle Ireland
with honour to themselves, with kindness to the people, and
with safety to the realm." The social system needed recon
struction, and it was necessary to begin " by organizing a very
comprehensive and pervading executive. When they have done

204 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
this and got the administration of justice into their hands, they
would perhaps find less necessity for legislation for Ireland than
had been considered requisite." He wanted, he declared later
in his speech, to see the Government really strong. The leagues
and associations which were attempting to take the work of
governing out of the hands of the Administration, were merely
the consequence of the people attempting to govern the country
for themselves, because the Government would not do its duty.
" If the Government did not lead the people, the people would
drive the Government." And as for the Irish question — he
wanted to know what that question really was, " One said it
was a physical question, another a spiritual. Now it was the
absence of the aristocracy, then the absence of railways. It was
the Pope one day, potatoes the next. Let them consider Ireland
, as they would any other country similarly situated. Then they
\would see a teeming population, which with reference to the
cultivated soil was denser to the square mile than that of
j China; created solely by agriculture, with none of those sources
(of wealth which are developed by civilization, and sustained
I consequently upon the lowest conceivable diet, so that in case
; of failure they had no other means of subsistence upon which
;they could fall back. That dense population in extreme dis-
i tress inhabited an island where there was an established
Church which was not their Church, and a territorial aristo
cracy the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they
i had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien
Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world.
That was the Irish question." It might be said that it was
to be solved only by a revolution. That, however, he did not
believe. It was the duty of the Minister to achieve by his

Maynooth College Bill. 205
policy that which a revolution would achieve by force. " The
moment they had a strong executive, a just administration,
and ecclesiastical equality, they would have order in Ireland,
and the improvement of the physical condition of the people
would follow — not very rapidly perhaps, and they must not
flatter themselves that it would — but what were fifty years
even in the history of a nation ? "
In the same spirit, when the Maynooth College Bill came
forward for discussion in 1845, Mr. Disraeli made a somewhat
striking speech against it on the second reading. On principle,
he objected to it as being the endowment of a sect out of the
funds of the State. If, he said in effect, you endow the Irish
priesthood in this way, upon what grounds can you refuse to
subsidize the Free Church of Scotland or the English Metho
dists ? He opposed the measure further, because it was brought
forward by men who had all their lives through existed, politi
cally speaking, on theh strenuous profession of Protestant
principles. The point of the speech lay, however, in the
closing paragraphs, in which Mr. Disraeli protested that he
opposed the gi-ant — not because it was a recognition of the
social and political equality of the Roman Catholic population
— but because the Bill was one neither flattering to their pride,
nor solacing to their feelings. " I do not think," said he, " that
it is either a great or a liberal measure." Later on he added,
" I think it is not a great grant : I think it is a mean, a meagre,
and a miserable grant. If the Roman Catholic priesthood are
to be educated by the State, it must be something greater than
the difference between £23 and £28, something higher than
the difference between three in a bed and two." And then
came one of those tremendous attacks on Peel, on account

2o6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of his concession on the question of Catholic Emancipation, of
which more will be found in its proper place.
When, in 1846, the Government, taking a leaf out of the book
of the Whigs, brought forward a Coercion Bill for Ireland, Mr.
Disraeli vehemently opposed it : first, because it was impossible
to deal with Irish disaffection without dealing also with its
causes ; and secondly, because he did not recognize the sincerity
of the Government in the matter. The Bill had been " recom
mended " on the 22nd of January : was ordered to be printed
on the 16th of March ; was read a first time on the 1st of May,
and it was proposed to be read a second time on the 2nd of
June. " If this be the way they deal with a measure which
has been described by the noble lord, the Chief Secretary for
Ireland, as temporary, how would they attempt to pass measures
which they intend to be eternal ?" The truth was, the Govern
ment did not really care about the measure — as was tolerably
evident from the fact that no pains were taken to make a House
on the day set down for the adjourned debate on the first
reading. It was at this time that Mr. Disraeli, as the lieutenant of the
great Protectionist leader whose political life he afterwards wrote
— Lord George Bentinck — seconded the great scheme of his
chief for employing the starving Irish in the work of construct
ing railways. With a self-effacement as rare as it is generous.
Lord Beaconsfield, in his life of Lord George Bentinck, says
nothing — or next to nothing — of himself in this connexion, and
is content to leave the whole credit of this abortive but most
statesmanlike scheme to its projector. The fact is, however,
unquestionable, that in this as in other matters the leader of
the country party and his able lieutenant worked hand in hand.

The Irish Railway Scheme. 207
It is of course impossible to say which of the twain was re
sponsible for any special point, but by comparing the speeches
of Mr. Disraeli in the House with his account ai the matter
in tbe biography of Lord George Bentinck, a tolerably accurate
idea of the truth may be formed. The state of Ireland was, in
1846-7, such as to excite the liveliest alarm and discomfort. In
the autumn of the former year hundreds of thousands of the
peasantry were employed in making roads which, as Peel was
afterwards forced to confess, " were not wanted." In February,
1847, half a million of people were employed on public works
at an expense of between £700,000 and £800,000 per month,
while 11,000 persons were engaged in the work of superin
tendence. Such a state of things obviously could not continue,
and Lord George Bentinck brought forward a scheme' for
employing the victims of the famine in the construction of
railroads — work which would at least keep the money which
was being expended for relief in the country, and which offered
some prospect of making that money reproductive. England
had been, as it were, redeemed from despair by railways —
Ireland might share the advantages of them. In 1841-2, there
were in this country a million and a half of people '' on the
rates," and eighty- three thousand able-bodied men confined in
the workhouses. A great change had taken place, not because
Peel had revised the tariff, wise and necessary though such a
revision unquestionably was, not because cattle were allowed
to come in free of duty, and timber at a nominal charge, but
simply because the railway mania had stimulated industry, and
had sent the accumulations of capital into circulation. As far
back as 1836 a Royal Commission had recommended that by
the help of Government railway enterprise should be stimulated

2o8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
in Ireland. Lord George Bentinck took up the question, and
with that astonishing power of mastering details by which he
was distinguished, made the subject his own, and pushed his
scheme forward with characteristic energy. For this he gave
up the passion of his life, abandoned the turf, and devoted him
self, not to calculations of the odds, but to the more useful and
more complicated problems of public finance.
The year 1847 opened gloomily for Ireland. Three-fourths
of the potato crop, and one-third of the crop of oats had failed,
entailing a loss upon the population of nearly sixteen millions
sterling. And Ireland could not bear such a loss without the
severest suffering. She was over-populated to such an extent
that, as Lord Beaconsfield says (" Lord George Bentinck," p. 252),
" nearly two millions and a half of human beings were out of
work, and in distress thirty weeks in the yea,r." Lord John
Russell had come into office, and in dealing with Ireland he
proceeded from the first upon the assumption that the land
owners of Ireland had availed themselves of the system of
Government relief to an extent far in excess of that to which
they were entitled. They accordingly cut down the relief some
what ruthlessly, and when inquiry came to be made, the name
of Mr. Disraeli was as usual to be found on the side of hu
manity. On the 22nd of March, 1847, Lord George Bentinck
called the attention of the House to the shamefully defective
returns of mortality from Ireland, and in the course of the de
bate which ensued upon the matter, Mr. Disraeli made a brief
but most pungent speech, pointing out, that whereas under the
late Government there had been 93 depots for the supply of food
to the starving people, the new administration had cut the
number down to 24, and had distributed in food 638,982

The Labour Rate Act. 209
pounds of meal in two months as against 23,2,'37,000 pounds
in the two months preceding — a statement of fact which was
by no means met by the Whig explanation that the greater
amount had been given before the harvest, and the less after
that season. " The moral of the story," said Mr. Disraeli, " is
apparent. The Government has trusted to those favourite
principles of political economy which may be very efficient, but
which have only been proved to be efficacious when they have
reduced the population a million."
In case of emergency, however, the Government of Lord John
Russell had passed a Labour Rate Act, the first fruit of which
was, as Lord Beaconsfield has told us, that half a million of
people, representing two miUions and a half of Her Majesty's
subjects, were breaking stones upon the roads. With this state
of things Lord George Bentinck and his lieutenant, were
assuredly by no means content. Neither the one nor the other
could look "with satisfaction upon an arrangement under which
half a million of able-bodied men, commanded by a staff of
11,587 persons, were employed in works "worse than idleness,"
" in public follies," in operations " answering no other purpose
than that of obstructing the public conveyances." The leader
of the Protectionists proposed, therefore, that " for every £100
expended to the satisfaction of the Imperial Government in
railway construction, £200 should be lent by Government at the
very lowest interest at which on the credit of the Government
that amount could be raised, so that if two millions were pro
duced annually for four years by the Irish companies, the
Imperial Government should advance an additional four mil-
Uons, insuring in Ireland for four years the expenditure of
six mUlions a year in works of a useful and reproductive

2IO The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
nature."* A greater, nobler, and more stateismanlike scheme
it would be hard to imagine, and for awhile it seemed as
though the House of Commons must perforce adopt it. Those,
however, who so thought had reckoned without allowing for
Whig inertia. The Ministry threatened to resign if Lord
George Bentinck 's proposition were sanctioned by the House
of Commons, and so much pressure was put upon the various
sections of the Liberal party and their Irish adherents, that
although the Bill had been welcomed at first by all parties, it
was lost on the second reading by a majority of 332 in a House
of 450 members. In public and in private Mr. Disraeli had
energetically supported the measure, but in vain. The extra
ordinary part of the story has, however, to come. Lord George
Bentinck's scheme had been peremptorily rejected in February,
and before April was out Ministers were asking the House to
sanction an expenditure of £620,000 for somewhat simUar
purposes. The difference was this :— The Tory chief had pro
posed to give employment to 110,000 men yearly with
£6,000,000 of reproductive expenditure : the Whig Minister
proposed to employ 15,000 labourers with £620,000 of non-
reproductive capital. The defects of the new scheme were
patent, and it was denounced alike by Radicals like Mr.
Roebuck and by Sir Robert Peel himself, but Lord George
Bentinck haUed it as a proof of returning reason on the part of
his opponents. The Bill was read a second time on the morn
ing of the 29th of June, after a long and elaborate debate, in
the course of which Mr. Disraeli spoke. The substance of his
arguments will be found in his life of Lord George Bentinck.
They were mainly those of his chief, with whom he was from
¦* " Life of Lord George Bentinck," 8th edition, p. 270.

The Anti-Corn Law Movement. 211
the first on terms of the closest and most cordial friendship, and
to whom he was most strongly drawn during the great Anti-
Corn Law struggle, which so strikingly marked the earlier years
of the " forties."
Irish distress had bad a. powerful effect in stimulating the
Anti-Corn Law agitation. For years this legislative change
had been advocated in vehement terms by the Whigs, and as
pei-sistently resisted by the Tories. The landed interest looked
upon the cry with suspicion, and refused to see in it anything
but the expression of a desire for cheaper labour — a view of
the case which was not wholly selfish or wholly without founda
tion. The opponents of the Corn Laws were almost without
exception interested in manufactures, and they were not in the
earlier years of the present century quite so popular as they
have been of late. On the other hand, it was felt very generally
that some steps ought to be taken to reduce the price of bread.
Of course it was desirable that the producing class should not
suffer, but there was no reason to suppose that the farmers
would ultimately be injured by measures with this object.
Bread had indeed become exceptionally scarce. In 1841 wheat
reached the unprecedented price of 86s. per quarter. Peel
attempted to remedy this state of things by the sliding scale of
1842, under which the duty on imported corn was 25s. 8cJ. when
the home price was 61s., and under 62s. per quarter; 16s. 8cZ.
when it was 68s. and under 69s., and Is. when it was at or over
73s. There was a good deal of ingenuity in this compromise,
but Uke most compromises, it faded to satisfy those most con
cerned. The Anti-Corn Law agitators conceived that it afforded
a far smaller measure of relief than that to which they were
entitled, whilst the farmers considered that it affected their
n 2

212 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
interests most injuriously, and the labourers saw in the change
only another exemplification of that poUcy of which they had
had so unpleasant an experience in the matter of the New Poor
Law. The Anti-Corn Law agitation speedily assumed "very serious
proportions. All over the countiy the distress which prevailed
strengthened the hands of Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, and their
associates, and food riots became matters of daily occurrence.
The Anti-Corn Law Leaguers were, too, not always wise. Mr.
Blight's speeches were of the kind known as incendiary ; Mr.
Cobden used language which was at least liable to misconstruc
tion, and on one occasion a " reverend " personage — one Bayley
— said at a Free Trade Conference that he " had heard of a
gentleman who, in a private company, said that if a huiidred
persons cast lots among them, and the lot should fall upon him,
he would take the lot to deprive Sir Robert Peel of life. . . .
He was persuaded of this that when Sir Robert Peel went to his
grave, there would be but few to shed one tear over him." In
spite of the execrable taste which dictated speeches of this kind,
the League went on and prospered. Immense sums of money
were subscribed for the purpose of the agitation. Tracts to the
number of several hundreds of thousands were scattered broad
cast over the country every week. Poetry and the art of cari
cature were dragged into the service. Meeting after meeting
was held, and year after year Mr. Villiers brought the question
before the House of Commons. It occasionally happened, how
ever, that the Free Trade party overshot the mark, and some of
their proceedings were certainly open to question. Thus, for
example, slavery having been abolished at a vast cost to the
people of this country, it was thought only reasonable to extend

Free Trade v. Protection. 2 1 3
some measure of protection (o EngUsh planters in tho West
Indies by imposing a duty on slave-grown sugar. Mr. Cobden,
however, looked at the matter in a free-trade light, and iu June
1843 he brought in a resolution, which was happily rejected, on
a division, by a majority of 81, to the effect that it was unfair
to place protective duties on sugar when that commodity could
be obtained from countries employing slave labour at a lower
rate than it could be produced in the British West Indies.
Acts like these tended to embitter the struggle of Free Trade
V. Protection in no common manner, and the course adopted by
Parliament did not help to moderate the agitation. In March
1844 Mr. Cobden moved for a Select Committee to inquire into
the effect of Import Duties upon the tenant farmers and farm
labourers. Outside the House it was generally felt that such a
committee was eminently desirable, inasmuch as it would cut
away the ground from under the feet of the grievance-mongers
if their complaints were not weU founded, while if they were
real and substantial, it was assuredly the duty of Parliament
to redress them. The committee was, however, refused by a
majority of 224 to 1 33. Twelve months later he renewed his
motion with a similar result. A few days afterwards a motion
was brought forward by Mr. Miles for applying some portion of
the surplus to the relief of agricultural distress, and the Govern
ment having opposed it, the proposal was lost by an even
greater majority. Meanwhile, outside the House-the agitation
made great and rapid progress. A Free Trade Bazaar was held
at Covent Garden, which produced £25,046 for the League, and
by the end of the year the income of that society rose to
£116,687. Peel felt the impossibility of resistance, and his
yielding to pressure on this subject was greatly accelerated by

2 14 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the deplorable condition of Ireland, where the potato disease
had already made its appearance. In October 1843 the begin
ning of the end was visible. On the 13th of that month Peel
wrote to Sir James Graham in the following terms:— "The
accounts of the state of the potato crop in Ireland are becdming
very alarming. ... I foresee the necessity that may be im
pressed upon us at an early period of considering whether there
is not that well-grounded apprehension of actual scarcity that
justifies and compels the adoption of every means of relief
which the exercise of the prerogative or legislation might afford.
I have no confidence in such remedies as the prohibition of
exports or the stoppage of distUleries. The removal of impedi
ments to import is the only effectual remedy."
The Irish caught the hint thus given to them, and at a great
meeting in Dublin a fortnight later gave in their adhesion to-
the Free Trade programme. In view of the situation, it is not
surprising to find that Parliament was hurriedly called together
for an autumn session, or that Peel should think it necessary to
offer some sort of explanation of his course. In a Cabinet
memorandum, dated 1st of November, he wrote : — " The calling
of Parliament at an unusual period on any matter connected
with a scarcity of food is a most important step. It compels an
immediate decision on three questions : ShaU we maintain un
altered % — shall we modify ? — shall we suspend the operation
of the Corn Laws ? The first vote we propose — a vote of credit,
for instance, for £100,000 to be placed at the disposal of the
Lord Lieutenant for the supply of food — opens the whole
question. Can we vote public money for the sustenance of
any considerable portion of the people on account of actual or
apprehended scarcity, and maintain in full operation the exist-

Peel's Change of Viezo. 215
ing restrictions on the free import of grain? 1 am bound to
say my impression is that we cannot." It was hardly likely
that an expression of opinion such as this would pass without
comment at the hands of a Protectionist Cabinet, nor did it.
The memorandum drew from Lord Stanley an urgent letter to
Peel expressive of the writer's regret that the head of the
Government should have so completely changed his views on the
Corn Laws, predicting the coming break-up of the Government,
and announcing the impossibility of any change of opinion on
his_part. The letter closes by saying, " I shall greatly regret,
indeed, if it (the Government) should be broken up, riot in con
sequence of our feeling that we have prepared measures which
it properly belonged to others to carry, but in consequence of
difference of opinion amongst ourselves."
On the 6th of November, a memorandum for an order was
issued for the admission of aU grain at a duty of one shilling
per quarter. The order produced a great split in the Cabinet.
"The Cabinet," wrote Peel at a later period, "by a very con
siderable majority, declined giving its assent to the proposals
which I thus made to them." Lord Aberdeen, Sir James
Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, were indeed Peel's only sup
porters. Outside the walls of Parliament, however, the news
was received with intense gratification, and it was generally felt
that the time had come for the final repeal of the Corn Laws.
An unexpected ally was found in the Duke of Wellington, who
sunk his own views in consideration of the danger of the
Government. He thought, indeed, as he explains in a memo
randum put forth at the end of the month, that " the continu
ance of the Com Laws was essential to the agriculture of the
country in its existing state, and particularly to that of Ireland,

:: 1 6 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and a benefit to the whole community." At the same time he
considered "a good Government for the country more important
than Corn Laws, or any other consideration," and he, therefore,
proposed to support Peel, and recommended the Cabinet to do
the like. Early in December the pressure on the Government
increased. Meetings were held all over the country, and the
League grew more and more enthusiastic. By the 4th of the
month the Times was able to announce that Parliament would
meet early in January, and that the Royal Speech would contain
a reference to the Corn Laws, and a recommendation for their
immediate repeal. The Morning Herald and the Standard —
two newspapers whose hereditary stupidity has done more to
weaken the Tory party than all the attacks of its enemies —
contradicted the report ; but there was more truth in it than
these sapient organs would allow. Lord Stanley and the Duke
of Buccleugh retired from the Cabinet immediately afterwards,
on the ground that they could not support an administration
which was pledged to repeal the Corn Laws, and on the 5th of
December Peel went down to Osborne and placed his resignation
in the hands of the Queen.
Lord John Russell was sent for, and came up from Edinburgh
to form a Cabinet. Peel, in a letter to the Queen, promised a
loyal support to the new administration, provided its policy
were in general accord with Lord John Russell's letter to the
electors of London.^ The state of things was very serious. On
the one hand the Leaguers were denouncing the Tory aristo
cracy in scandalous terms ; on the other the Tories were bitterly
indignant with Peel for abandoning them in their moment of
greatest need. Language was used on both sides which may
possibly be extenuated, though it certainly cannot be wholly

Peel Resumes Office. 2 1 7
excused, and for a time there seemed to bo soinothin"- more
than a probability that the agitation would assume a dangerous
form. Meanwhile Lord John Russell was trying to form an
administration, and as a preliminary he required from Peel a
pledge to support his measure for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
That pledge Peel distinctly refused to give, and the result was
that by the 20th of December Lord John found himseff com
pelled to inform the Queen that he found it impossible to form
a ministry. Macaulay, however, explained to his constituents
that the plans of the Whigs were frustrated by Lord Grey, who
objected to Palmerston being made Foreign Secretary — an
explanation which is apparently adopted by Lord Beaconsfield
in his "Life of Lord George Bentinck." Be this as it may. Peel
was at once sent for, and without delay or hesitation consented
to resume office. On his doing so the Duke of Buccleugh
wrote to express his wilhngness to return to his place in the
Cabinet, though at considerable personal sacrifice. Peel's
position was, nevertheless, an exceedingly unpleasant one. His
own party complained most bitterly that he had betrayed them,
and the reproaches of quondam friends and supporters could
hardly have been more disagreeable than the sneering patronage
of his opponents.
On the 22nd of January, 1846, the Queen opened Parliament.
The Royal Speech was somewhat longer than usual, and con
tained, as well as a reference to Irish affairs, and especially to
the frightful ravages of the potato disease, a carefully veiled
allusion to the Corn Laws. After speaking of the advisability
of continuing in the path of Free Trade, the Queen was made
to say, " I recommend you to take into your early consideration
whether the principles on which you have acted may not with

2i8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
advantage be yet more extensively applied, and whether it may
not be in your power . . to make such further reductions and
remissions as may tend to insure the continuance of the great
benefits to which I have adverted." In the debate on the
address Peel announced his change of view on the Corn Laws,
and five days later he brought forward a statement of his
policy. The duty, according to this scheme, was finally to
cease at the end of three years, up to which time the sliding
scale, subject to very considerable modifications, was to be in
operation. When wheat was under 48s. the maximum duty of
10s. was to be chargeable ; that duty to fall Is. with every
shilling of increase of price until 583. was attained, when the
duty would be 4s., below which it would not go. This proposal
did not satisfy the League, which had just raised another £60,000
for the purpose of agitation, and Mr. Cobden wrote to urge his
fellow Leaguers to demand still more vigorously than ever
total and immediate repeal. Peel, however, contrived to carry
the first reading of his bill after a debate of twelve nights, and
by the 9th of March the Report of the Committee was agreed to.
The second reading was carried on the night of the 27th by a
majority of 88, and on the 15th of May — or rather the morning
of the 16th — the bill passed the House of Commons.
In the Lords it had a stormy career. The opposition to it
was exceedingly vehement, and Lord Stanley and the Duke of
Richmond especially distinguished themselves by urging that
the abolition of the Corn Laws was by no means popular with
the working class, a fact of which the disinclination of the
League to hold a public meeting in Manchester was conclusive
evidence. The Duke of Wellington reluctantly supported the
bill, which was carried on the second reading by a very con-

An Irish Coercion Bill. 219
siderable majority. AVhile this had been going on it was iound
necessary to introduce an Irish coercion bill. The agit.ition
promoted by O'Connell had produced a general spirit of resist
ance to the law, and the utter and abject misery of the people
had done the rest. When Lord St. Germans brought in the Bill
on the 23rd of February, 1846, he had to tell the House that
during the two years 1844-5 there had been 242 cases of firing
at the person ; 1048 cases of aggravated assault ; 710 robberies
of arms ; 79 cases of bands of men appearing in arms ; 282 of
administering unlawful oaths ; 2806 of sending threatening
letters ; 737 of attacking houses, and 205 of firing into them.
The chief seat of these crimes was the centre of the island from
Cavan in the north to Tipperary in the south. It was proposed
to confer exceptional powers upon the Lord Lieutenant to allow
him to " proclaim " any district ; to search all inns and taverns
in such district, to apprehend in case of need persons found
abroad between sunrise and sunset, and to pay out of the rates
compensation to the relatives of any person who might have
been murdered. The Irish members of course endeavoured to
obstruct the Bill, and while they were doing so famine riots of
a serious character broke out in various parts of the country.
By way of further harassing the Government, the Irish mem
bers made an attempt to get rid of the Coercion Bill by offering
their support to the Protectionists if they would in turn unite
with them — an intrigue which happily faUed, though the country
party notoriously objected to exceptional measures. The oppo
sition to the BUl came mainly from the Whigs, who, under the
guidance of Lord John Russell, resolved to oppose the measure
which under Lord Melbourne they had supported, and to sup
port the Liberal proposal for the destruction of English colonies

2 20 The' Ptiblic Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
in the West Indies by admitting slave-grown sugar at the same
rate of duty as the product of free labour. Two days later Lord
George Bentinck made a declaration in the House of Commons
that he would support the Coercion Bill if only the Government
would press it on with vigour and sincerity ; but that he and his
friends could not now believe in Peel's real desire to carry it,
and for that reason he was prepared to oppose it. Peel had said
that " he would not be a Minister on sufferance," but was he
not in that position now, supported sometimes by his own party,
sometimes by the Opposition, but never by the unanimous vote
of either side. The end speedily came. After a debate pro
tracted over six nights, the Coercion Bill was lost by 292 votes
to 219 on the night of the 25th of June, 1846. On the 29th,
Peel informed the House of his resignation, and of the accession
of Lord John Russell
During the succeeding year Irish distress continued, and
even increased in spite of a. liberality in dealing with it,
which was not unfairly described as unprecedented. On
the 23rd of July, 1847, Parliament was prorogued, and a
general election took place in the autumn, to which reference
will be made in the proper place. In the meantime we have
to consider the part taken by Lord Beaconsfield in making
the history which has just been brie"fly summarized. It will
be found that that part was a conspicuous one ; that it
became more important with every succeeding year ; that from
first to last he was always the friend of the poor and the op
pressed ; that he consistently maintained the consritutional
principles to which he had given in his adhesion when he first
made his appearance before the electors of High Wycombe,
and that in spite of opposition, misrepresentation, slander, and

Lord George Bentinck's Lieutenant. 221
calumny, such as have been the lot of few English statesmen,
he was gradually making his way to the front rank. No period
of his life has been more misunderstood than this — it was neces
sary therefore to sketch its public history at some length.
The history of the Anti-Corn Law agitation and of the move
ments of the Protectionist party in opposition to it, has been
told once and for all time by Lord Beaconsfield himself in his
political biography of Lord George Bentinck. I do not, there
fore, propose impertinently to retrace the gi-ound which has
thus been once covered, or to do more than sketch briefly the
share which the future leader of the Tory party took in this
great dispute. From the first he acted as Lord George Ben
tinck's lieutenant — a curious and not altogether satisfactory
position, seeing that Lord George was notoriously a Whig by
descent and by instinct, and had become the leader of the
country gentlemen of England only by the accident of his Pro
tectionist leanings in economical matters. As their leader,
however, he did them yeoman's service, and was ably seconded
by his colleague ; who, although he spoke but seldom, un
questionably exercised an enormous influence on discussion
both in and out of the House. There are influences and
influences, and those which are not gross, open and palpable are
sometimes not the least powerful. Mr. Disraeli's at this period
was of the quiet order. Most of his work was done in associa
tion with his leader, to whose service he brought that marvellous
power of mastering detail, of grouping facts, and of establishing
a principle, of which his career has afforded so many examples.
Outside the House, as well as within its waUs, his influence was
recognised— the result oddly enough being that he was made
the target for an -infinite amount of abuse at the hands of the

22 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Whig and Peelite section of the press. For these attacks there
was, indeed, some sort of excuse. We have seen how in the
famous " Runnymede Letters " he had entreated Peel to come
to the relief of the country, and had declared that in him lay
the only hope of the people of these realms. Soon after the
Pecksniff of politics returned to office Mr. Disraeli's tone changed,
and with sufficient reason. Peel had created a " sound Con
servative Government," which, as was afterwards explained in
" Coningsby," meant " Tory men and Whig measures," and this
course was naturally most distasteful to a man who like Lord
Beaconsfield, has ever prided himself upon his consistency. The
tergiversation of Peel may be explained, but it cannot be ex
plained away — it may be extenuated, but it cannot be excused.
It is impossible to deny that he came into power with a vast
majority at his back, and that he used that majority unscrupu
lously to carry measures diametrically opposed to the principles
upon which he had succeeded at the general election. SmaU
wonder, then, if the feelings of those who had urged him to
return to office were outraged by his policy. Of those who
thus felt. Lord Beaconsfield was one. He had hailed Peel's
return to office as the triumph of Toryism, and as a sign that
that great national party, which it has been the labour of his
life to build up, was about to assume its proper place in the
councils of the Empire. He saw to his infinite disgust, that
the Minister in whom he trusted, cared more for power than
for principle ; and that for the sake of remaining in office, he
was ready to do the work of his opponents. And seeing this,
he turned upon him, and became one of his most eager and
pertinacious assailants. The writers of the biographies of Lord
Beaconsfield, uniformly assert that the motive for this change

Not an Under-Secretary. 223
of front with regard to Peel, was the refusal of the latter to
give him a place in his administration. Of course it ia easy
enough to invent a bad motive for every action, but in this
case it must be confessed that the ingenuity of detraction has
been exercised to but little purpose. If there is one feature in
Lord Beaconsfield's character which deserves remark more than
another, it is his indifference to the emoluments of place. He
has always indeed been an ambitious man, but there is a noble
as well as an ignoble ambition, and his has been of the former
quality. In " Coningsby " he speaks with infinite contempt of
the class of men who think that the object of political life is to
get a place of £1200 a year, and he has certainly shown in the
course of his career that that sort of ambition has never touched
him. There is something more to be said. It must be
remembered that when Peel formed his Cabinet, Lord Beacons
field had been in Parliament but a very few years, and was a
comparatively unknown man. He had, indeed, come to the
front in a rather surprising way, but he was still only one of
the rank and file, and the most that he could expect would be
the post of a non-commissioned officer. And yet we are called
upon by his detractors to assume that the man who has given
to the world a thousand proofs of his high-mindedness and dis
interestedness broke with his chief and turned his back upon
his party because he was not made an Under-Secretary. Surely
this was too absurd, even for what Lord Beaconsfield once
called, " that great lubber — the public." Peel's own conduct
affords a sufficient explanation of Lord Beaconsfield's attacks
upon him. He had been returned to Parliament, and had
assumed the leadership of the Government as a Protectionist,
and he repealed the Com Laws ; he was nominally a Tory,

224 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and he governed the country on the principles of the Manchester
School; he "prayed,to be remembered as one who had brought
a cheap loaf to the cottage of the poor," and he was, in Lord
Beaconsfield's stinging phrase, " the great Parliamentaiy middle
man, who had bamboozled one party and plundered another."
Tergiversation such as this naturally drew down upon the
culprit all those powers of invective and sarcasm which Lord
Beaconsfield possesses in so unrivalled a degree. Night after
night Peel was condemned to sit and listen, with an air of out
ward imperturbability, to attacks which would have made the
most pachydermatous wince, and which must have been in
finitely galling to him with his thin-skinned susceptibility.
Many, if not all of these attacks, have passed into the domain of
history. Thus the famous epigrams with which Lord Beacons
field summed up the situation in February, 1845, have become
common-places of political history — those, that is to say, which
declared that Peel "had caught the Whigs bathing, and had
walked away with their clothes," and that " looked upon the right
honourable gentleman as a man who had tamed the shrew of
Liberalism by her own tactics." The same spirit animated him
when, three weeks later, in referring to the country gentlemen
who supported Peel, he said : " Protection appears to be in
about the same state that Protestantism was 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 hon. member for Stockport (Mr.
Cobden), rather than by one who, by skilful party manoeu"vres,
has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people
and a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the
result. Dissolve if you like the Parliament you have betrayed.

Attacks on Peel. 225
and appeal to the people, who 1 lielieve mistrust yi>n. For me
there remains this at least — the opportunity of expressing thus
publicly my belief that a Conservative government is an orga
nised h3'pocrisy."*
After this, no opportunity of attack was neglected. When
in AprU 1845 the second reading of the BiU for the Endow
ment of Maynooth came on. Lord Beaconsfield, as we have
seen, opposed it on constitutional and political grounds. His
speech is, however, memorable chiefiy on account of the vivacity
of his attack upon Peel in this connexion. " When I recall to
mind," said he, '" aU the speeches, and all the motions, and all
the votes which have emanated from the occupants of the Treasury
Bench on this and analogous questions, — when I remember their
opposition to that system of education which they now seek to
promote, — when I recoUect the procession of prelates going up
to the palace of the Sovereign to protest against analogous
measures with those which the very men who incited that
procession ai'e now urging forward, — when I recall to mind all
the discussions which have taken place here upon the subject
of Irish education, — when the Appropriation Clause presents
itself to my memory, I consider it would be worse than useless
'* " Once on a time an intimate familiarity had subsisted between Lyndhurst
and Disraeli, and it was believed that they used jointly to write articles in the
Times against Lord Melbourne. Lyndhurst thus took a particular interest in
Disraeli's new career, and as 1 went frequently to the House of Commons to hear
him abuse Peel, whjch the Chancellor could not decently do, he curiously inter
rogated me about Disraeli's salient points and the effect which they produced.
"When I told him, according to the truth, that the House seemed very much to
rehsh the jokes upon Peel's hypocrisy, pedanti-y,- and inconsistency, Lyndhurst
could hardly conceal his satisfaction." Campbell's "Lives of the Cliancellors,"
vol. viii. p. 159. The "belief-^' in question has never been confirmed, and has
indeed been implicitly if not explicitly contradicted by Lord Beaconsfield him.
self. ¦\T(\-\ T Q

2 26 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
to dwell at any length upon the circumstances which induce
me to adopt this opinion. And are we to be told that because
these men who took the course to which I have referred have
crossed the floor of this House, and have abandoned with their
former seats their former professions, — are we to be told that
these men's measures and actions are to remain uncriticised
and unopposed because they tell us to look to the merits of the
measures and to forget themselves and their former protesta
tions?" Then in a similarly impetuous strain of eloquence, Mr.
Disraeli protested against the tone which Peel had taken "with
the younger members of the Tory party, and warned the House
in impressive terms of the folly of governing without a Con
stitutional Opposition and on the principle of making "the best
bargain." " Here is a Minister who habitually brings forward
as his own measures those very schemes and proposals to which,
when in opposition, he always avowed himself a bitter and
determined opponent." At the close of his speech he reverted
to the question of a Constitutional Opposition. "Let us in
this House re-echo that which I believe to be the sovereign
sentiment of this country; let us tell persons in high places
that cunning is not caution, and that habitual perfidy is not
high policy of State. On that ground we may all join. Let us
bring back to this House that which for so long a time it has
been without — the legitimate influence and salutary check of
a Constitutional Opposition. That is what the country requires :
that is what the country looks for. Let us do it at once in the
only way in which it can be done, by dethroning this dynasty
of deception, by putting an end to the intolerable yoke of
official despotism and Parliamentary imposture."
These were bitter words, but there were bitterer to come.

Attacks on Peel. 227
At the opening of the Session of l.S4(i, after Peel had gone out
of office only to return to it when Lord John Russell had found
himself incapable of forming a government, there was an angry
debate on the Address. In the course of that debate Mr.
Disraeli delivered himself of the most tremendous invective
which had ever been launched at the head of Peel, " the
eminent statesman, who having served under four sovereigns
. . . . had only during the last three years found it neces
sary to change his convictions on that important topic which
must have presented itself for more than a quarter of a century
to his consideration." This policy the speaker compared to
that of an apocryphal Turkish admiral, who took his fleet into
the enemy's port. Peel had said that he had " put down agita
tion." "Put down agitation?" cried Mr. Disraeli, with con
tempt. " WiU he rise and deny that he is legislating, or about
to legislate, with direct reference to agitation ? " Then refer
ring to Peel's dictum about registration, " We went on register
ing, and the right honourable gentleman went on making pro
tection speeches — a great orator before a green table beating a
red box. Then he showed us the sovereign passion — we were
to register to make him a Minister, The statesman who
opposed CathoUc Emancipation against arguments as cogent
as any which the gentlemen of the League can now offer — in
spite of political expediency a thousand times more urgent
than that which now besets them — always ready with his
arguments and amendments — always ready with his fallacies
ten thousand times exploded— always ready with his VirgiUan
quotations to command a cheer — the moment that an honour
able and learned gentleman was returned for the County of
Clare then immediately we saw this right honourable gentle-
Q 2

228 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
man not ashamed to recaU his arguments — not ashamed to
confess that he was convinced, but teUing us on the contrary
that he should be ashamed if he had not the courage to come
forward and propose a resolution exactly contrary to his previous
policy. And so it always is with the right honourable gentle- ,
man." The crowning onslaught was delivered on the night of the
15th of May, 1846— the third night of the debate on the Corn
Importation Bill. " Sir," said Mr. Disraeli, " the right honour
able 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 having intended to abandon the
opinions by which he rose to power. Sir, I entirely acquit
the right honourable gentleman of any such intention. I do it
for this reason : — That when I examine the career of the Minister
who has now filled a great space in the ParUamentary history
of this country, I find that for between thirty and forty years,
from the days of Mr. Horner to the days of the honourable
member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), that right honourable
gentleman has traded on the ideas and intelligence of others.
His life has been one great Appropriation Clause. He is a
burglar of others' intellects. 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. He . : . is one of whom it may be said, as
Dean Swift said of another Minister, ' that he is a gentleman
who has the perpetual misfortune to be mistaken.' . . . After
the day that the right honourable gentleman made the first
public exposition of his scheme, a gentleman well known in the
House, and learned in all the political secrets behind the scenes,

Attacks on Peel. 229
met me and said : 'Well, what do you think of your Chief's
plan ? ' Not knowing exactly what to say, but taking up n,
phrase which has been much used in this 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 is Popkins's plan.' And is England to be
governed by Popkins's plan ? Will he go to the country with
it ? Will he go to that ancient and famous England, that once
was governed by statesmen — by Burleighs, by Walsinghams, by
Bolingbrokes, and by Walpoles ; by a Chatham and a Canning
— will he go to it with this fantastic scheming of some pre
sumptuous pedant ? I won't believe it. I have that confidence
in the common sense — I wiU say the common spirit of my
countrymen, that I believe they will not long endure this
huckstering tyranny of the Treasury Bench — those political
pedlars that bought their party in tbe cheapest market and
sold it in the dearest."
Peel winced under this attack, as well he might, but he
rephed with calmness to the arguments of the other side, re-
ser-ving his reply to Mr. Disraeli to the last. When it came,
it amounted to an intimation that his opponent's hostility to
him was caused by his having been a disappointed candidate
for office when the Cabinet was first formed. He added a
remark to the effect that at 'that time he was tbe object of
Mr. Disraeli's panegyrics as he was now of his attacks, and
that he cared for one as little as for the other. The slander
brought Mr. Disraeli to his feet with an indignant denial that
he had ever in any way, directly or indirectly, solicited office—
whereupon Peel explained that he had been partly misunder
stood, and that he really had meant only that his assailant had

230 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
been mentioned to him as one who would be willing to serve
under him. As usual, however, the slander has stuck, and
nearly every writer who has taken Lord Beaconsfield for his
theme has complacently repeated it, wholly ignoring the in
dignant and explicit denial which it at once called forth.
Tremendous as was this castigation, no one will say that it
was undeserved, and Peel himself must have trembled as he re
called the truth. To accuse his great opponent of evil motives
was no answer to a charge of political petty larceny, as he and
all save those who worshipped him with blind idolatry must
have felt. There are, indeed, some people to whom even in
this day Peel seems a " heaven-born Minister," as great as Mr.
Pitt, and if possible more exalted in character. He was cer
tainly like Pitt in one respect— in his haughty coldness of
manner — ^but in mental qualities the two statesmen had little
in common. Pitt's genius was eminently original He stood
alone, as Gilray's caricature shows him — a giant amongst a
crowd of pigmies. Peel's mind was essentially imitative. He
accomplished much, but he originated nothing. Nay more,
the greatest of his achievements were merely the carrying out
of proposals which he had begun by strenuously resisting.
Thus it was that in 1819 he appropriated — "convey the wise
it call," — Horner's proposition for the resumption of cash pay
ments. Romilly, the humanest and most enlightened of
modern law reformers, had striven for years to mitigate the
severities, and to clear away the absurdities of our penal code.
To all argument in this direction Peel turned a deaf ear, until
he saw an opportunity of associating his name with a measure
of humanity in 1826, and then he suddenly became a convert.
Of CathoUc Emancipation he spoke with horror, until 1828,

Peel's Vacillations. 231
and then as suddenly he turned round and carried it. And
now, in 1846, after forty years of political life, he suddenly
awoke to the conviction that his policy had been wrong from
the first in the matter of the Corn Laws, and that the only
thing that could " save the country,'' was the adoption of Mr.
Cobden's specific* And so, without having the magnanimity
to allow those who invented the panacea to have the honour
* " 1 1 is thoughtlessly said that Sir Robert Peel is a man of no principles.
As well might it be said that a hoi-se-dealer is a man of no horses. The horse-
dealer, it is true, has no particular attachment to his horses, no desire to retain
them. He takes them only to part with them for a profit ; he buys, sells,
changes, and swaps. And so it is with Sir Robert Peel and principles. He is a
man of all principle, or an all-principled man. He has had all in turn, and
made his profit of changing them as opportunity has offered. "What is the
trader's care for his commodity ? to keep it only till he can part with it advan
tageously ; and such is Sii' Robert Peel's care for principles. He is never with
out them ; he has always some on hand : but it is by the change of them that
his political fortunes have been made." I take this passage from " the Life and
Labours of Albany Fonblanque " — a book which contains some of the most
briUiant political writing in the English language — and it might be supplemented
with a dozen similar passages from the same source. "The Liberals have a
liking for Sir Robert Peel. They like the leader of their enemies because he is
their enemy's enemy. " "Sir Robert Peel's party is the road to his ambition,
and he has macadamised the road so that not one particle of its structure stands
out from the rest ; all is a smooth equal dead level over which the Premier
smoothly tnmdles his wheel of foi-tune." "A piece of orange peel on the pave
ment is not a more shppery footing than reliance on its namesake in public
affairs." "Bentham said that he had great difficulty in deflnimg justice, but at
last he settled that it was ' the disappointment-preventing principle.' If it be so.
Sir Robert Peel must be the incarnation of injustice, for his whole course, where it
has not been deceit, has been the disappointment of those who trusted to him."
These passages will probably suflice to show in what estimation Sir Robert Peel
was held by the Radical party, and with how much force the Tories whom Peel
.had deluded and betrayed could appeal to the country in defence of their assaults
upon him. It will probably be said that before he died, Fonblanque repented
these attacks, and that he made amends for them in the graceful biographical
notice in which he strove to embalm Peel's memory in the columns of the
Examiner, but it does not foUow that a journalist repents his criticisms because
when their object is dead he strives to do him justice.

232 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of administering it, he appropriated the ideas of the Manchester
School, and used a Tory majority to carry them out. What
wonder if the Tories, as Macaulay said, foUowed him "re
luctantly and mutinou.sly," or if, when they could foUow him
no longer, he should become as he did, merely the leader of
a faction which inclining now to one side and now to the other, -
has done more to disturb the balance of parties in the past
quarter of a century than aU other elements of strife combined.
In Lord Beaconsfield, however, the Tories found their true
leader, and it is interesting to find how deep an impression he
made in this capacity. The party which, in the face of un
paralleled difficulties he was laboriously building up again,
hardly recognized his greatness, but his opponents did, and
showed their appreciation of it by cordial abuse and perpetual
detraction. Punch, for example, attacks him incessantly at
this period, and always on the ground of his insignificance.
Had he been an insignificant personage, he would hardly have
attracted so much attention.
On the Corn Law question itself, Mr. Disraeli was content, as
has been said, to act as lieutenant to Lord George Bentinck,
who assumed all the weight of discussion. There were oppor
tunities enough and to spare for assaulting Peel on the ground
of his manifold inconsistencies, but of them Mr. Disraeli availed
himself very sparingly. Once, however, he had his opponent
on the hip, but he dealt with his adversary merci
fully. In 1835 the Master-General of the Ordnance, Sir
George Murray, had lost his seat upon his again standing an
election after taking office, and Peel had inquired with a
somewhat severe air whether he had attended Cabinet
Councils since he had ceased to be a member of the House.

Peel takes Cobden's line. 233
Now Mr. Gladstone had returned to the Cabinet, and as the
Duke of Newcastle had withdrawn his support, he found it
useless to present himself to the electors of Newark, and
accordingly remained without a seat for the rest of the
session. Nevertheless he continued to attend the meetings
of the Cabinet as though nothing had happened. Had Mr.
Disraeli entertained the feeling of personal animosity to Peel
with which he is charged, he would hardly have allowed so
tempting an opportunity for a personal attack to pass with
only a brief question. When, however, he came to speak on the
repeal of the Corn Laws, he did not spare the Minister. Re
plying to one statement of Peel with regard to the corn-
gi-owing districts of England, he said : — " It is not a speech
that I have heard for the first time. I have heard it in
other places — in different localities, and I may be allowed to
add from a master hand. That speech has sounded in Stock
port, it has echoed in Durham. I suspect that there has been
on the stage of the classic theatre a representation of it upon
the highest and finest scale ; and as is usual in such cases the
popular performance is now repeated by an inferior company.
Especially, sir, when I heard the line drawn which marks on
the map the corn-growing districts of England, I thought I
might say as I have sometimes heard upon Railway Committees
upon rival lines, ' That is surely the line of the honourable
member for Stockport.' " The remainder of this speech was
not important, being chiefly occupied with an argument in
favour of reciprocity. Lord Beaconsfield was, in fact, reserving
himself for the third reading, on which occasion he made
that tremendous onslaught on Peel which has just been
mentioned. Apart from the personal question, however, the

2 34 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
speech is both valuable and interesting, as summarizing, in a
comparatively brief space, the whole argument in favour of
protection to the agricultural interest. The cry of cheap
bread had long been given up ; the argument that a Corn
Law produced fluctuations in price was also abandoned. Why,
therefore, urged Mr. Disraeli, ask for the repeal of the duty
on Corn upon "exploded arguments and exhausted faUacies."
Yet on the question of cheap bread so much had been said
as to make it necessary to hark back to it, and this was met
by the argument that dear bread increased by an infinitely
greater ratio the purchasing powers of the community of the
necessaries of life, inasmuch as it added to the wage fund of
the people. The question was in short, "one of displacing
the labour of England that produces corn, in order, on an ex
tensive and even universal scale, to permit the entrance into
this country of foreign corn produced by foreign labour."
Again : — It was argued by the orators of the League that
England was ceasing to be an agricultural country, and was
becoming more and more a manufacturing and commercial
country. That assertion Lord Beaconsfield traversed, pointing
out that though manufactures are more condensed in particular
spots, they were not so great in proportion to the people as
when the manufactures of England were scattered all over
the country. If the Corn Laws were repealed, the industry
of about four millions of the people would be interfered with,
and he doubted whether manufactures could absorb one-tenth
of that number; and as it is tolerably notorious that the
manufacturers who were so eagerly agitating for this repeal
were not the most liberal paymasters in the world, this
argument was not without force — especially as the Tory party

The Suqar Duties. 235
had opened the eyes of the nation to the true character of
the Manchester School by disclosures in connection with the
Ten Hours BUl. The pith of the speech is, however, to be
found in the following passage : — " Believing that this measure
would be fatal to our agricultural interests — believing that
its tendency is to sap the elements and springs of our manu
facturing prosperity — believing that in a merely financial point
of view it will occasion a new distribution of the precious metals,
which must induce the utmost social suffering in every class, I
am obliged to ask myself if the measure is so perilous, why it
is produced ? " Then after describing the line of action taken
by the An ti- Corn Law League, he went on to complain of the
betrayal of the Tory party by its leader, and to deliver himself
of that philippic against Peel which has already been quoted.
The famous dispute over the Sugar Duties in 1844 afforded
an opportunity for a brief but very pregnant speech from Mr,
Disraeli. On the 4th of June the Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed the modifications of the Sugar Duties, to which refer
ence has already been made : Colonial Duties to continue as at
present, 24s. per cwt.; China, Java, Manilla, and other countries,
when not the produce of slave labour, 84s. ; Brazil and slave
labour states, 63s. Lord John Russell, in the interests of Free
Trade, proposed a uniform reduction of duty to" 34s. ; but the
House, by a large majority, refused to undo the Emancipation
Act of 1834, and a bill, founded on the resolutions, was brought
in. Ten days later, the House being in committee on the bill,
Mr. Miles proposed an amendment on the first clause, lowering
the duty on both British and Foreign sugar, not slave grown, in
equal proportion, and succeeded in carrying it by a majority of
20 in a full House. Peel was indignant, and called a Cabinet

236 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
CouncU for Sunday the 16th, at which it was decided that
unless the vote were rescinded the Government would resign.
Under pressure of that threat the House obeyed the orders of
its imperious chief, but not without a protest from Mr. Disraeli.
" It may be," said he, " that the right honourable gentleman
will retain power by subjecting us to this stern process ; but I
should mistake his character if I were to suppose that he would
greatly value a power which is only to be retained by means so
extraordinary — I doubt whether I may not say by means so
unconstitutional. I think the right honourable gentleman
should deign to consult a little more the feelings of his sup
porters. I do not think he ought to drag them unreasonably
through the mire  I really think to rescind one vote
during the session is enough. I don't think in reason we ought
to be called upon to endure this degradation more than once
a year  I remember in 1841, when the right honourable
Baronet supported the motion of the noble Lord, the member
for Liverpool, he used these words : he said, ' I have never
joined in the anti-slavery cry ; and now I will not join in the
cry of cheap sugar.' Two years have elapsed and the right
honourable gentleman has joined in the anti-slavery cry and
has adopted the cry of cheap sugar. But it seems that the
right honourable Baronet's horror of slavery extends to every
place except the benches behind him. There the gang is still
assembled, and there the thong of the whip still sounds,"
The Sugar Question came to the front again immediately
after the retirement of Peel in 1846. A full account of the
whole affair will be found in the 18th Chapter of Lord
Beaconsfield's " Biography of Lord George Bentinck '' ; but the
author has, with characteristic modesty, confined his account of

The Planters and the Agm'culturists. 237
his own share in that discussion to something less than a page
— rather a meagre summary, by the w.ay, of a speech which
as reported by Hansard, fills nearly twenty-four columns.
The lieutenant of the Protectionist party showed himself
worthy on this occasion of the leader he loved so well, and
served so devotedly. Some of that wonderful mastery of detail
for which Lord George Bentinck was so conspicuous, seems to
have fallen to his lot. With great effect he showed by farther
facts than had already been given by Lord George, first, that
this country had legitimate resources for the supply of all the
sugar necessary for its consumption ; secondly, that the calcula
tions of the Government were erroneous, and, thirdly, that the
adoption of these resolutions would inevitably stimulate the slave
trade, which we had spent so much money to put down. The
most striking illustrations adorn every part of this great speech ;
but it was ineffectual to do more than call public attention to
the curious and anomalous condition of the House of Commons,
and to illustrate the way in which retributive justice fell upon
those West Indian planters who had deserted the agricultural
interest. Yet in opposing the Government and supporting the
colonial interest there was no taint of faction. " The members
of the West Indian body," said Mr. Disraeli, " did not stand
by us (the Protectionists) 'in the hour of death and the day
of judgment,' and many gentlemen have said to me, 'Why
should we support them ? ' I believe that they thought that
by not fighting the battle then they might stiU gain time. It
is the policy of the weak, and it seems, by the admission of
the right honourable gentleman, they might have saved per
chance a year. Perhaps it is better that the catastrophe
should be consummated. Perhaps it is better that if the

238 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
system of Protectionism is to be put an end to, that it should
be put an end to under existing circumstances, and by this
Protection Parliament, which was elected virtually by the
success of a motion, which pledged the Commons of England
to support the colonial interests."
" Those who throw their eyes over the debates of the session
of '47, cannot fail to be strack by the variety of important
questions, in the discussion of which Lord George Bentinck
took a leading or prominent part." So writes Lord Beacons
field of his chief, and the same things — with a difference — may
be, said of himself From few, if any, of the great debates of
Peel's administration was he absent, and in most of them he
spoke, and spoke with effect and statesmanlike clearness and
decision. When the opening of letters in the Post Office,
under the orders of Sir James Graham, had reached an in
tolerable pitch, Mr. Disraeli delivered a speech on the whole
question of General Warrants full of historical learning, and
combating the contentions of Ministers in a very striking way.
When the Chartists, Frost, Williams, and Jones, prayed for a
commutation of their sentences, on the ground that they were
political prisoners, and not offenders against the common law,
he supported the Government, though he expressed warm
sympathy with the unhappy men, who had been forced into
rebellion ; and when, at various times throughout this long
and busy session of Parliament, questions relating to home
and foreign trade, to the relations of this country with other
powers, and to the extension of railway enterprise came up, he
was always found supporting an enlightened and patriotic
policy, the chief defects of which, in the eyes of his adverse
critics, seem to have been that it was in the first place con-

Prepares to leave Shrewsbuiy. 239
sistent, being the natural consequence of the principles which
had secured him his seat for Shrewsbury at the general
election ; in the second place patriotic as opposed to that
cosmopolitanism which, even in 1844, was beginning, in the
minds of many Liberals, to take the place of that love of their
country which is the boast of Englishmen ; and in the third
place national, inasmuch as it refused to recognise the principle
for which Mr. Cobden and his allies contended, that the nation
of England was to be found not in the rural districts but in the
towns, in whose interest the country was to be governed.
As the expiration of Parliament approached it became evident
that Mr. Disraeli's connection with Shrewsbury must come to
an end. He was himself not particularly anxious to maintain
it, and he had now established himself in so high a position
in the House that he might reasonably aspire to the honours
of county membership. The old requisition to stand for the
county of Buckingham was revived, and as he had become a
landed proprietor by the purchase of Hughenden Manor, it was
only natural that he should adopt the idea of standing for that
county at the approaching general election. On the 24th of
May, 1847, he accordingly put forth a preliminary address, the
foUowing excerpts from which will prove of interest, " The
temporary high price," he wrote, " that is stimulated by famine
is not the agricultural prosperity which I wish to witness, while
in the full play of unrestricted importation I already recognise
a disturbing cause which may shake our monetary system to
its centre, and which nothing but the happy accident of our
domestic enterprise has prevented, I beUeve, from exercising
an injurious effect on the condition of the working classes of
Great Britain, Notwithstanding this, however, I am not one

240 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of those who would abet or attempt factiously or forcibly to
repeal the measures of 1846, The legislative sanction which
they have obtained requires that they should receive an ample
experiment  In the great struggle between popular
principles and Liberal opinions, which is the characteristic of
our age, I hope ever to be found on the side of the people, and
of the institutions of England. It is our institutions that have
made us free, and can alone keep us so by the bulwark which
they offer to the insidious encroachments of a convenient yet
enervating system of centralisation which, if left unchecked,
will prove fatal to the national character  Amid the
universal crash of parties I advance to claim your confidence
with none of the common-places of faction, I am not the
organ of any section or the nominee of any individual. All
that I can offer you 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 parlia
mentary reputation and our national greatness," A month
later he addressed the farmers at Amersham Market in a
brilliant speech, sparkling with epigram and full of those
historical aUusions of which he has always been so consummate
a master. " The Parliamentary Constitution of England," said
he, " was born in the bosom of the Chiltern Hills, as to this
day our Parliamentary career is terminated amongst its
Hundreds. The Parliamentary Constitution of England was
established when Mr. Hampden rode up to Westminster
surrounded by his neighbours, Buckinghamshire did that for
England. It has done more. It gave us the British Con
stitution in the seventeenth century, and it created the British

Elected for Buckinghamshire. 241
Empire in the eighteenth. All the great statesmen of that
century were born, or bred, or Uved in the county. Throw your
eye over the list— it is a glorious one— from Shelbume to Gran
ville. Travel from Wycombe to Buckingham, from the first
Lord Lansdowne, the most accomplished minister this country
ever produced, to the last of our classic statesmen. Even the
sovereign genius of Chatham was nursed in the groves of
Stowe and the templa 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, faithful to its character and its mission, amid
a great Parliamentary revolution, Buckingham called a new
political class into existence, and enfranchised you and the
farmers of England by the Chandos clause."
Parliament was prorogued by the Queen in person on the
28rd of July, 1847, with a view to its immediate dissolution,
and Lord Beaconsfield bade farewell to the borough of Shrews
bury. The election for Buckinghamshire was contested on
the part of the Liberals by a Mr. Gibbs, of Aylesbury, who
was put forward by a certain Dr. Lee, of Hartwell House
— a local politician whose name constantly crops up in the
history of the county. Mr. Gibbs's candidature was a mere farce,
designed apparently to afford an opportunity for the delivery of
a violent tirade from the hustings against the Church of England,
the Game Laws, standing armies, and the usual subjects- of
Radical vituperation. At the close of his speech he announced
that he did not intend to go to the poll, and Mr. Disraeli was
consequently declared duly elected in company with Mr. Caledon
George Dupre and the Hon. Q. C. Cavendish, without even the

-jl0m^^-'

242 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
formaUty of a show of hands. There was something peculiarly
appropriate in the leader of the Protectionists assuming the
position of a county member, as there had been something
incongruous in his sitting for a manufacturing borough like
Shrewsbury. For years past he had spoken continually in the
sense of a speech which he made at Waltham, in 1846, and
in the course of which 'he said : — " I want to see what foun
dation there is for the doctrine that we should be governed by
towns. I believe that the liberties and rights of Englishmen
spring from the land ; and as soon as the land is removed from
its place our liberties as Englishmen will be endangered."
During all these busy years of political life Lord Beaconsfield's
pen had not been idle. " Genius," said Buffon, " is industry,"
and in that light if in no other, he must be regarded as a man
of the highest genius. A busy and active member of Parliament,
a thoughtful student of political history, and a man of society,
he yet contrived to produce in these years the three novels
which if all that he has written and spoken were blotted out
would yet place him in the first rank amongst Englishmen. M.
Philarfete Chasles indeed thinks him as a romancer far inferior
to Scott, Bulwer, and Theodore Hook (!), but when the flashy
extravagances of "Eugene Aram" and "Ernest Maltravers "
have perished, when "Pelham" is forgotten and "Gilbert
Gurney " has been engulfed in Lethe, " Coningsby," " SU)yl,"
and " Tancred " will be held amongst the greatest ornaments of
English literature. Of the three it will perhaps be fair to say
that "Sybil" is the most powerful; "Coningsby" the most
acute, and " Tancred " the most subtle.
" Coningsby " was the first to make its appearance, and it
fairly took the world by storm, "Vivian Grey" had been

"Young England." 243
popular enough, but " Coningsby " was at once recognised as a
work of the highest and most mature genius. It was more.
It was the manifesto of a political party in whose ranks were
numbered some of the brightest spirits of England and English
political life. This was the party of " Young England," which
is generally represented by the periodical wits of the " forties "
as a clique of "young gentlemen who wore white waistcoats and
wrote spooney poetry." It is hardly necessary to dwell upon
the injustice of thus characterizing them. An unfortunate and
greatly misunderstood line in some verses by Lord John Manners
is perhaiDB at the bottom of much of the contempt with which
the party has been treated. When his Lordship expressed his
hope that " our old nobility " would survive any and every
social change, he was merely uttering a protest against the
hard, cold mechanicalism of Bentham and Malthtis, which had
undermined the old feudal relations, and which had given us a
" New Poor Law " in its stead. Lord John Manners, moreover,
was but one of many. The leader of the party was Mr. Disraeli.
With him was associated George Smythe, afterwards the
seventh Lord Strangford, whom Lord Beaconsfield has himself
described as " a man of brilliant gifts, of dazzling wit, infinite
culture, and fascinating manners" — a character which will not
be thought overstrained by those who read the two volumes in
which the piety of his widow has enshrined his memory. It is
a little amusing, by the way, to note that the party of " Young
England " and the influence of Mr. Disraeli appear to have been
alike distasteful both to Lord Strangford (the sixth) and to the
Duke of Rutland. In Mr. De Fonblanque's memoir of the
Strangford family we find the Duke writing thus to Lord
Strangford under date 6th September, 1844;— "I lament as
B 3

244 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
much as you can do the influence which Mr. Disraeli has
acquired over several young British senators, and over your son
and mine especiaUy. I do not know Mr. Disraeli by sight, but
I have respect only for his talents, which I think he sadly
misuses. It is grievous that two young men such as John and
Mr. Smythe should be led by one of whose integrity of purpose
I have an opinion similar to your own, though I can judge only
by his public career. The admirable character of our sons only
makes them the more assailable by the arts of a designing
person." Yet it might have been thought that the Duke and
his correspondent would have appreciated if not Lord Beacons
field himself, the other associates of their sons. The learned
and accomplished Henry Hope, son of- the author of " Anasta-
sius ; " Monckton Milnes, the poet and the friend of poets ;
Faber, afterwards the Coryphaeus of the Oratorians ; Whyte-
head, the martyred missionary; and Mr. Tennyson were men
whose names would give dignity to any movement, and at least
assure the reader of its disinterestedness.
It was at the house of Henry Hope — Deepdene — that "Con
ingsby " was commenced, and it was to Hope that it was
dedicated. Its author tells us that "the derivation and cha
racter of political parties ; the condition of the people which
had been the consequence of them ; the duties of the Church as
a main remedial agency in our present state were the three
principal topics which I intended to treat, but'I found they were
too vast for the space I had allotted to myself They were
all launched in 'Coningsby,' but the origin and condition of
political parties, the first portion of the theme, was the only one
completely handled in that work." How masterly that handling
is it is now unnecessary to say. The pohtical history of England

'''¦Coningsby." 245
for the ten years or so preceding its publication is given with
the most perfect art, and in the most agreeable fashion. Tho
view of life taken by " Young England " is put forward with
wonderful success, and the picture of English political society
which is presented is the most perfect and unsparing ever given.
Scarcely had the book appeared when, as with " Vivian Grey,"
the pamphleteers fastened upon it, and insisted on ascribing to
every fictitious personage a living original. No fewer than five
of these "Keys" appeared, whilst an elaborate parody in three
volumes, several bulky pamphlets of " Strictures," " Replies,"
and " Remarks," testified to the wide circulation of the book,
and to the mark which its author had made in literature and
in poUtics. It may, of course, be objected that all these works
from Mr. Thackeray's comical burlesque in Punch down to the
ponderous three volumes of malignant dulness published by
Mr. Newby, and the spiteful pamphlet of the " barrister " who
dates from the Inner Temple and who cannot spell are all
hostile. Such is the fact, but seeing that the world in general
does not go out of its way to attack with such hea"vy artillery
works whose fault is their weakness, we can only regard these
many assaults as a favourable sign. The reviews indeed were
generally favourable, but as a rule critics were afraid to say too
much in praise of the book. The best notice appeared in the
Athenceum, which gives it credit for " some eloquent passages
on which no thinker could disdain to exercise himself," and
which admitted that, it " was cleverly timed and cleverly man
aged, though unsatisfactoiy as a novel." The value of this last
criticism may be estimated from the fact that this " unsatisfac
tory novel " has enjoyed a steady and even large sale from tho
time of its publication until the present day, and that toQ\

246 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
amongst a class which is not wont greatly to trouble itself with
politics ; that it has been translated into French (twice), into
German (thrice), into Dutch, Italian, and Polish, and that it
is one of the English novels most frequently to be seen on
Continental bookstalls.*
One great source of the popularity of "Coningsby," was
unquestionably the personality of the book. It has been
admitted even by Lord Beaconsfield's opponents, that "the
continued portraitures of living members of society" are
" always executed with nicety of touch, vivacity of .expression
and keen wit, and almost always with great good-nature," \
but it is objected that these portraits detract from the art of
the novel. The objection is plausible enough, but it is over
strained. The fact simply is that the " portraits " are far fewer
in number than might be imagined from the Keys. I append
in a note the substance of the five to which I have had access,
and a moment's consideration will suffice to show how small is
the pretence for the identification in many instances. Thus
Coningsby meets at an inn an enterprising cotton-spinner, who
tells him that he can hardly pretend to know much of
Lancashire until he has seen Stalybridge. When the chance
acquaintances part — never in the novel to meet again — the
cotton-spinner gives his card, "Me, G. 0. A. Head, Staly
bridge." In three of the five Keys Mr. G. 0. A. Head is
identified with Mr. Roebuck — who was called to the bar in
1831, and who took silk early in the forties ! Again— an
incidental character is introduced — one Jawster Sharpe — who
* Eugtne Forcade was the first Frenchman to appreciate the genius of the
author of " Coning.sby," and his brilliant review of the novel in the ILeme des
deux Mondes at once made it popular,
¦j- Edinhunjh Review, July, 1847.

" Sybil" and " Tancred!' 247
is described as a smart shop-keeper, who has wriggled his way
upwards by force of tongue, and who has provided for his son's
welfare at the cost of the State, whilst ostentatiously main
taining his own purity. This personage the inventors of the
Keys identify with Mr. Bright. These instances might be
supplemented by such as those of identifying Ermengarde and
Clotilda, who appear but for a moment, never to reappear, with
two weU-known but now forgotten celebrities of the Parisian
stage, merely because those ladies appeared in London about
1841 or 1842, and were both beautiful and witty. It is surely
a little hard upon the novelist to accuse him of degrading his
function upon such grounds as these. At the same time it
must be admitted that some of the portraits are unmistakeable,
and that there can be no doubt that they were intended to
be so. *
" Sybil " and " Tancred " which followed escaped this micro
scopical analysis. Lord Beaconsfield's account of the former
work is given in the preface to the collected edition of his novels
which appeared in 1870. The book was devoted to the condition
of the people. " At that time," says the author, " the Chartist
agitation was still fresh in the public memory, and its repetition
was far from improbable. I had mentioned to my friend the
*' "I send you 'Coningsby,' Disraeli's novel, well worth reading and admirably
written. The characters are many of them perfect portraits. You will recognize
Croker in 'Rigby,' Lord Hertford iu 'Monmouth,' Lowther in 'Eskdale,' Irving
in ' Orm.sby,' Madame Zichy in ' Luoretia,' but not Lady Strachan in ' Countess
Colonna,' though the character is evidenily meant to fill her place in the family
party. ' Sidonia ' is, I presume, meant as a sort of type of the author himself,
and ' Henry Sidney ' is Lord John Manners, the Duke of Rutland's second son,
Beaumanoir, being clearly 'Bel voir.'" — Vide Lord Dalling's "Life of Lord
Palmerston." " The extract is fiom a letter begun at'Broadlands, 30th May, 1844,
&yA finished in Lon<loD, 5th cf June, and addressed to the Hon, "\Ym, Temple,

248 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
late Thomas Duncombe " .(with whom. Radical as he was, the
Tory chief was constantly in aUiance, in and out of the House,
especially on social questions), "who was my friend before I
entered the House of Commons, something of what I was
contemplating, and he offered and obtained for my perusal, the
whole of the correspondence of Feargus O'Connor, when con
ductor of the Northern Star, with the leaders and chief actors
of the Chartist movement. I had," he goes on to say, " visited
and observed with care, all the localities introduced, and as an
accurate and never exaggerated picture of a remarkable period
in our domestic history, and of a popular organization, which,
in its extent and completeness, has perhaps never been equalled,
the pages of 'Sybil' may, I venture to believe, be consulted
with confidence." The boast is no unworthy vaunt, and apart
from its completeness, as a record of a most exciting period of
English history, the novel has merits as a work of art of the
highest order. There is not a dull page from beginning to end,
and much of the character-painting is admirable in the extreme.
The character of the heroine is worthy of Scott himself. Its
critics, indeed, complained that the book was too political, but
the public of to-day do not seem to think so, if an opinion may
be formed from the demand for it, which still continues at the
libraries. Of the political part of the book it must be said that
it is full of brightness and suggestiveness. One of the reviews
of the time admits as much, but qualifies the admission by
saying that it is " oftentimes loose in its logic, presumptuous
in its assertions, paradoxical rather than convincing or per
suasive." It is curious to observe how completely time has
answered this criticism, and confirmed the verdict which the
same "writer pronounces on the pictures of political society

"Sybil" and the Chartists. 249
which the book contains : — " We are not sure," he says, " but
that Mr. Disraeli understands more perfectly than either
Peacock or Bulwer, the wondrous mixture of politics and
fashion, of cunning and folly, which is to be met with in the
patriotic parts of ' May Fair.' "
The chief interest of " Sybil " will be found for most readers
in the e-vidence which it affords of the deep sympathy of the
writer with the wrongs and sufferings of the poor — sufferings
of which few of the present generation have any very distinct
idea, but which were very real and very terrible nevertheless.
It is hardly necessary to say that he had no sympathy with
social disorder, or that he earnestly deprecated the resort of
the Chartists to physical force. At the same time, he refused
to close his eyes to the wrongs from which the poor were
suffering, and could not withhold his sympathy from their
attempts to extort consideration from the governing classes.
As we have seen, he had on various occasions in the House of
Commons pleaded for a little more kindness and fellow-feeling
between class and class, and had pointed out that if the
Chartists made the mistake of supposing that social wrongs
could be healed by political remedies, they were but carrying
out the lessons of the Whigs in the days before the Reform
Bill, whilst there was no small injustice in dealing severely with
sedition in this country, when sedition of an even worse kind
was, under the name of " agitation," tolerated under the un
principled pet of the Whigs, O'Connell, in Ireland. These
views were reiterated and enforced in " Sybil ; " and though
it is not easy to trace the growth of a more merciful way
of dealing with the Chartists to the direct influence of the
novel, there can be no doubt that its publication produced a

250 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
real and appreciable effect. It must have required some
courage to take up the r6le of advocate for the Chartists in
1845, but neither courage nor patience has ever been wanting
to Lord Beaconsfield. On this occasion, as on many others, he
braved the peril of social ostracism and political contempt, not
for the sake of popularity, but in defence of that which he
honestly believed to be right. One, at least, of the class whom
he befriended has not been ungrateful. Thomas Cooper, the
Chartist, had suffered two years' imprisonment in Stafford
Gaol. Whilst in confinement he occupied himself with the
composition of a poem, which at some future time may perhaps
obtain as much applause as it deserves —the "Purgatory of
Suicides." On his release, the first care of Cooper was to find
a publisher. The task was not an easy one : but at last, armed
with an introduction from Mr. Duncombe, he waited upon Mr.
Disraeli. In his autobiogi-aphy he has described, in very
striking terms, the singular and generous kindness with which
the future minister received him ; the readiness with which he
devoted valuable time to his service, and the pains which he
took to find him a publisher. It is worthy of remark, as in
dicative of the spirit and temper of Mr. Disraeh at that time,
that it was by his especial advice that Cooper, in spite of the
adverse opinion of Mr. John Forster, refused to cancel the
word " Chartist " on the title page. The anecdote is connected
with " Sybil" by the fact that Cooper mentions a speech of his
host, to the effect that he wished that they had met before the
publication of his last novel, "the heroine of which is a
Chartist," " Tancred " is intended by its author as a formal recognition -
of the position which tbe Church should hold in the develop-

" Tancred." 251
ment of England, "There were few great things left in
England, and the Church was one. Nor do I now doubt that
if, a quarter of a century ago, there had arisen a Churchman
equal to the occasion, the position of ecclesiastical affairs in
this country would have been very different from that which
they now occupy. But these great matters fell into the hands
of monks and schoolmen ; and little more than a year after
the publication of ' Coningsby,' the secession of Dr, Newman
dealt a blow to the Church of England, under which it still
reels. That extraordinary event has been 'apologised' for,
but has never been explained. It was a mistake and a mis
fortune. The tradition of the Anglican church was powerful.
Resting on the Church of Jerusalem, modified by the divine
school of Galilee, it would have found that rock of truth which
Providence, by the instrumentality of the Semitic race, had
promised to St. Peter. Instead of that, the seceders sought
refuge in mediaeval superstitions, which are generally only the
embodiments of Pagan ceremonies and creeds." The ethno
logical theories upon which " Tancred " is based have never
been either popular or well understood in England. It is,
therefore, not surprising that, as compared with its predecessors
in the " Trilogy," it should have been somewhat coolly re
ceived. The critics scoffed at its theories, and either treated
them as beneath contempt, or showed that they failed to under
stand them. The most remarkable thing about " Tancred " is,
however, the way in which its author has contrived, in the
course of the story, to anticipate some of the most remarkable
theological speculations of the present day. The ideas ex
pressed by the author at the spectacle of Apollo, Astarte and
the Olympian Joye in Syria, are absolutely identical iu essence

252- The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
with the theory which underlies Professor Max MiiUer's " Lec
tures on the Science of Religion." Of course, it does not foUow
that the illustrious German scholar was in any way indebted to
the even more illustrious statesman, but if the dates of the two
books had been reversed, it would have been a matter of course
that the latter should be accused of wholesale plagiarism. Yet
even the bitterest of critics and the most prejudiced of oppo
nents were compelled to admit the marvellous literary power of
the work. The Edinburgh, after devoting thirteen pages to
attack, is, in common candour, forced to spealk also of its " great
literary merit," to mention " its charming effects of style and
fine delineations," and to admit that " the descriptions of
Oriental life are only to be compared with those of Anastasius
or Eothen." The Atlienceum, amongst the weeklies, says that,
"treated as an attempt to advocate serious interests by the
aid of the Romancer's art, ' Tancred ' must be at once dis
missed as an extravaganza." But even the Athenceum, hostile
though it has generally been to Lord Beaconsfield, is compelled
to own that it "is a brilliant book, abounding in entertain
ment and adventure, rich, as the French have it, in succulent
descriptions and lively touches of character," adding, by way
of climax, that "it bears the stamp of individuality, lacking
which all other merits are but second-hand ones." These
bygone criticisms mean but little now. "Tancred" has out
lived them, and has passed into the domain of literature,
where, with " SybU " and with " Coningsby," it holds a con
spicuous place by its literary merit alone, and apart from all
questions of its author's celebrity in other fields of exertion.
One more instance of Lord Beaconsfield's versatility and
industry at this period of his Ufe remains to be given before

speech at Manchester. 253
returning to his political career. In the letter to Lord Strang
ford, quoted a few pages back, the Duke of Rutland says : " I
will write to John to-morvow, and 1 shall inquire of him
whether there is any truth in the report of his having engaged
himself to a great dinner at Manchester under the presidency
of Mr, Disraeli," The letter was written, and the Duke appears
to have at first made great objections to his son appearing on
the same platform with the future leader of the Tories, going so
far as even to offer a formal prohibition. Eventually he
yielded, on the understanding that no politics were to be
talked. It was hardly worth while to have said much on this
head. The occasion was the great soirde at the opening of the
Manchester Athenaeum in 1844, when the three leaders of
'' Young England " — Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Manners, and
Mr. George Smythe delivered addresses on the importance of
literature to men of business. AU three were eloquent and
able, but that of Mr, Disraeli is certainly one of the finest, if
not the finest of his occasional speeches. There is no tinge
of politics in it from first to last — it is simply the speech of a
student, a scholar, a man of the world, who comes forth from his
study to urge upon the youth of the commercial class the facts
which they too often neglect ; that there are other interests in
the world than those of trade, and that there are other delights
than those of dissipation and sensuality. From such an
address it is obviously impossible to extract anything. It
stands by itself. The oldest jest book in the world tells of a
foolish fellow who, having a house to sell, took a brick from the
wall and showed it in the market-place as a sample. I have no
desire to emulate him.

254 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.

NOTE.
It is hardly possible to exaggerate the severity of the " New Poor Law,"
but lest I should be accused of exaggeration I give chapter and verse in
this note for what has been said in the text. "Under this law the poor were
punished for their poverty more severely than criminals for crime. Annexed
is the diet table of the Derby Union "Workhouse, as " established by order
of the Poor Law Commissioners bearing date the 16th day of June, 1837,"

„ , Men 

BREAK FAST.

DINNER.

SUPPER.

2
n
oz.
. 6
. 5
6
. 5656565
6 5
65

4pts. 14
1
1141141li1 14
114
,1

H

11

i
1 f4

ft -S
o "S

¦a oz. 65 ,
65656
5 6
5656
5

.a
pts. 141141141141
14114
1 14
1

1
s
oz. 14n

OZ. 4
4 4

oz. 6
5

oz. 12 8
2016

pts. n .
1 .

oz.
. 16
. 12
. 16
. 12
. 16
. 12

pts. 1

Sunday ... | ^^.^^^ •.;

Monday ...j^^^--;;
m T K Men 

Tuesday .. | ^„^"--:;

Wednesday j^^^---;;
n-T T Men 

Thursday .|^^^^^-;;

^"•i^y  Women'::
„ _,_ 1 Men 

Saturday... ^„^^^ _

" Old people of 60 years of age and upwards to be allowed 1 oz. of tea
5 ozs. of butter, and 7 ozs. of sugar per week if deemed expedient. Children
under 9 years of age to be dieted at discretion : above 9 to be allowed the
same q^uantities as women. Sick to be dieted as directed by the medical
officer." Quoted from a return ordered on the motion of Mr. Ferrand, 1st of
March, 1843. — (65 of the Sessional Papers).
Somewhat later, a committee of the House of Commons, of which Mr.
Disraeli was a member, sat upon the doings of the Andover Poor Law
autliorities. I append a few extracts from the evidence.
Dietary. Por breakfast and supper daily the men had 6 ozs. and the
women 5 ozs. of bread, and IJ pint of gruel. For dinner on Sundays,

The New Poor Law. 255
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, men 7 ozs. bread, 2 ozs. cheese;
and women, 6 ozs. bread, and li oz. cheese. Oil Tuesdays, men, 8 ozs.
cooked meat, women 6 ozs., ^ lb. of vegetables. On Saturdays, men 5 ozs.
bacon, women 4 ozs., and J lb. of vegetables.
Question 895-1. " What was given to tlie inmates as milk, — was milk
mixed with vra,ter ? " " Yes."
8956. " Was the milk skimmed before it was mLxed ? " " Yes."
8964. " Did the children ever complain to you of being hungry — want
ing food ? " " Yes, they have.''
8965. "Often?" "Yes, they have gone and picked up what was chucked
out to the fowls."
Mr. Hugh Mundy, one of the Guardians of this "Union, stated that the
inmates of the Workhouse, who were employed in bone crushing, " were
in the constant habit of eating the marrow and gristle from the -bones . . .
as well from the old bones as from the fresh ones," Aaron Astridge " had
seen men do it, and even the raw potatoes ; they would clap them in their
mouths the same as you would an apple." Samuel Green, " To satisfy our
hunger a little, because a jiint-and-a-half of gruel is not much for a man's
brealifast, we ate the stale and stinking meat from the bones sent in to be
crushed for manure ... I have seen a man named Eeeves eat horseflesh
off the bones wliich had been brought in from Squire Smith's ... I once
saw Eaton take up a horse's leg and take the hair off it and eat the flesh.
The leg was not cooked." The medical officers — Messrs. T. C. Westlake
and Geo. T. Payne — considered that " no harm was done by eating the
stale and stinking meat," and. one of them certifies that "the effluvia
arising from the crushing of stale bones ... is {sic) not at all prejudicial
to health." It is, however, only fair to add that it was Mr. Westlake's
persistency which brougltt about the inquiry into the horrors of the
Andover Union — an inquiry which the Poor Law Commissioners did their
utmost to stifle.
Again, Mrs. Barrett, a widow woman in very feeble health " was ordered
to have meat every day, but she had had it only twice a-week (which is the
usual allowance of the House), with the exception of Thursday last when
Mrs. MacDougal (the matron) sent her up some meat, viz., a piece of beef
which had been boiled in the peasoup to rags, and yesterday she had a
piece of cold bacon, which was quite rusty. Mr. Westlake also ordered
that Mrs, Barfett's child should have some extra nourishment, viz., arrow-
' root, and on my telling Mrs. MacDougal, she said she should give her bread
and milk, which she did once or twice only." When this unhappy woman
was examined before Mr. Parker, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner,

256 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
she made a statement which is simply horrifying. She declared upon her
oath that she had "had one meat dinner in the five weeks after her confine
ment,"— 6 ozs. cooked meat and J lb. vegetables— that she "had a baby and
it was starved to death." " I had no milk " (of her own) " to give it — I had
nothing but cold gruel . . . The medical man ordered arrowroot, and it
was as much as a week before I had it." The Workhouse doctor ordered
beer ; the matron charged for it, but refused to give it to her except in such
small quantities as were perfectly useless. In the result the woman
became dropsical, and had the misery of knowing that her son — a very
young boy who was badly ruptured — had been set to wheeling heavy
barrows. The great argument of the supporters of the New Poor Law was that it
would raise wages by the law of supply and demand. The result of the
law was that in the Andover Union the rate of wages was from 6s. to 9s.
a-week, and that the dread of the Workhouse was such that the farmers
paid practically what they pleased.
The Committee of the House of Commons reported, "That the bad
administration of the Andover Workhouse with which the Board of
Guardians, generally acting in accordance with the frequently published
views of the Poor Law Commissioners, have carried out the law, have often
been the means of inducing labourers to accept reduced wages in order to
avoid the Workhouse."
In the second year of the New Poor Law 400 labourers -with their
families applied for relief, of whom SEVEN only went into the House. It
wUl further prove in what way the law was administered when it is men
tioned that by the testimony of the Reverend Christopher Dodson, Chairman
of the Board of Guardians, the bone dust before referred to was sold to
the farmers by "mock auction.'' I add a few more excerpta from this
collection of atrocities.
Question 3644. Evidence of the Reverend Cliristopher Dodson. " Then
it was the custom of the Board to order an aged man applying for relief, to
come and do some work before that relief was given, the wife being in a
dying state ? If he was capable of it, certainly."
Question 10696. '•' What would be the consequence of a wife going over to
speak to her hiisband on the other side (of the Dining Hall) 1 She would be
strictly ordered not to do it the first time, and if she did it again, she would
be locked up," — in a dark room and for twelve hours, as appears from
other evidence.
10702. " Was that the usual punishment for persons who did not choose to
eat their breakfast ? Yes, or if they were saucy or anything of that kind."

The New Poor Law, 257
10755. " Do you state that this dead-house was tho only place of confine
ment in case of offence, for the paupers ? The only place tliat I laiow of."
A child died rather suddenly in the workhouse. Tho matron refused to
come to the mother while the child was ill, and when it was dead, accused
her of having murdered it — a charge wholly disproved by the medical
evidence, and by the verdict of the coroner's jury. The matron, however,
threatened to make the woman sleep in the dead-house, and the master —
I beg his pardon the " governor '' — forced her to carry the dead child in a
coffin wrapped in a sheet, through the town of Andover, to the church,
where the Reverend Christopher Dodson and his curates, allowed the child
to be buried secretly, and without one word of Christian hope being spoken
over its remains.
The workhouse at Andover was not the only ill managed "one in the
country. An inquiry was held into certain facts connected with that of
the Parish of St. Marylebone, and from the report of the Committee I make
the foUowing extracts : —
" The mortality amongst the chUdren in the workhouse was as high as
15-8 per cent. — 158 per thousand. In 1842, out of 470 children admitted,
61 died — 13 per cent., 130 per thousand." Report on the treatment of
Infant children in Marylebone Workhouse, p. 33.
" Out of 39 cases, not confined to the Infant School, but generally, of
children afflicted with pneumonia, 34 or 35 died — I think 34." Evidence
of Mr. Thomas Potter, ih. p. 13.
" The dormitory contains 5791^ cubic feet", which, when the 21 beds are
full, containing 40 children and the governess, allows only 141 cubic feet to
each individual." Ih. p. 22.*
" The bedsteads are of wood, each measuring 4 ft. 2 in. long ; 2 ft. 9 in.
wide. Two children sleep in each bed." Ih. p. 23.
The children's diet was as follows :—
Breakfast, 5 oz. bread, \ oz. butter, \ pint of milk in water. Supper—
the .same. Dinner, Sun., Mon., Tues., Thurs., Sat., \ lb. cooked mutton
with potatoes. Mon. and Fri. | pint barley broth, 4 oz. bread. Wed. \ lb.
rice pudding.
" This " say the Poor Law Commissioners, " we consider ample."
The mothers complain that theic children are taken from them to be
weaned at six weeks.
In the nurseries 2 mothers and 2 infants sleep in each bed.

* 141 cubic feet represents a box six feet long, five-and-a-half feet high, and less
than four-and-a-half wide,

VOL. I.

258 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
In October 1842, 'of infants under 2 years of age, 16 chUdren were
admitted to the infirmary, of whom 10 died. In November there were 7
admissions, 4 deaths ; in December 15 admissions, 6 deaths, and 1 child
not accounted for ; in January 1843, 14 admissions, 6 deaths, and 3 not
accounted for. The annual rate of mortality during the above four months
for children under seven years of age, was 37-2 per cent.— 372 per 1000.
The average death rate for children of this age is less than 50 per 1000.
In the lying-in ward the beds were only six inches apart— giving each
patient about 233 cubic feet of air : the blankets are described as being
" in a very dirty state " ; the patients were attended by a midwife, who
was afterwards compelled to resign for habitual drunkenness, and puerperal
fever was epidemic.
" Parents are permitted to visit their children in the Infirmary once a
fortnight, but in case of danger, they are allowed to see them daUy on
application,"- only, as the report goes on to say, parents knew nothing of
this latter part of the rule, and never did see their children.
In the surgical ward each patient had 344 cubic feet of space ; in the
medical ward the children sometimes slept six in a bed.
Table 29 of the Report gives the mortality, according to age, under the
old and under the new Poor Law respectively.

Fi

om

1827 to 1836.

From AprU 1836 to July

1840.

per cent.
per cent
From
16 to
20
years
of age .
.. 2'83
From 15 to 20 years of age .
.. 5-20
20 „
80
.. 7.95
„ 20 „ 30
.. 11-52
30 „
40
.. 11-66
„ 30 „ 40
.. 17-24
40 „
50
.. 14-23
,. 40 „ 50
.. 18-96
50 „
60
.. 18-62
„ 50„60
.. 19-88
60 „
70
.. 21-64
„ 60 „ 70
.. 23-53
70 „
80
..29-80 ¦
„ 70„80
.. 29-33
80 „
100
..29-94
88 admissions-
—40 deaths.
From another table in the same volume of Sessional Papers it appears
that the convictions for offences against the Poor Laws, rose from 401 in
1836, to 2299 in 1842. The Committee on the Andover Workhouse report
that between the 7th of August 1837, and the 2nd of March 1846, 64
persons were committed from that workhouse to the borough gaol, and 5
wore sent to the House of Correction at Winchester. In the more detailed
reports, we have accounts of lunatics who were punished for violence, and
who had to be sent from prison to asylums ; of 3 paupers who were
publicly whipped for poverty at Sudbury, in Suffolk ; of a man who was
Keys to Coningsby. 259
kept in prison at Chepstow for twelve months for want of sureties, his
offence being that he had threatened the master of the workhouse with
violence, and finally — not to enlarge a list which is perhaps already too
long and too sickening — we have not one but many cases where the masters
of workhouses were notoriously drunken and profligate, and where they
were fined by the magistrates for their offences, b\it not dismissed from
their posts. The master of the workhouse at Linton was fined £5 for
assaulting a female inmate, but was retained in his office, and Colin
Mac Dougal of Andover, was frequently intoxicated, and lived a life of the
most scandalous immorality, but retained, even to the end of the Parlia
mentary inquiry, the fullest confidence of the Reverend Christopher
Dodson, and of the rest of the Board of Guardians.

NOTE II.— KEYS TO CONINGSBY.
It has been mentioned in the text, that at the time of the publication of
" Coningsby,'' a number of " Keys " made their appearance. From those
which have come under my notice I have compiled the following list,
which, however, is I fear, more curious than accurate.
Coningsby  Lord Littleton, Lord Lincoln or George
Smythe.
Eigby  John Wilson Croker.
Taper  Charles Boss (or Mr. Clarke, tho election
agent).
Tadpole  Alexander Pringle, M.P. (or Mr. Bonham,
ditto.)
Lord Monmouth  The Marquis of Hertford.
The Duke  The Duke of Rutland.
Lord Henry Sidney  Lord John Manners.
Marquis of Beaumanoir  Marquis of Granby .
Madame Colonna  Lady Strachan.
Princess Lucretia  Madame Zichy.
Lord Eskdale  Lord Lonsdale or Lord Lowther.
Lucian Gay  Theodore Hook.
Mr. Oi-msby  Mr. Quentin Dick, M.P., or Mr. Irving.
Sir Charles Buckhurst  Mr. Baillie Cochrane, M.P.
Lord Vere  Lord Edward Howard.
Oswald MiUbank  Mr. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.
Boots at the Christopher  Mr. P. Borthwick, M.P.
The Duchess  ,  ,  TheDuchessofBuckingham and Chandos.
P 2

26o The Public Life of the Eat I of Beaconsfield,
Baroness de E  d  '.  Baroness Solomon de Rothschild.
Duke D  s ¦  Due Decazes.
Baron von H  1  Baron von Humboldt,
Princesse de Petit Poix  Princesse de Poix,
Comtesse C  de E   Comtesse de Castellane,
Mr. Cassilis  Mr. Geo, Wombwell.
Canterton  Mr. Chas. Mills,
Duke of Agincourt  Duke of Buckingham,
Ermengarde  Madame de P  ,
Clotilda  Mdlle. C  --a.
Lord Fitzbooby  Lord Harrington.
Earwig  Sir George Clerk, M.P.
Lord Rauibrooke  Lord Rosslyn.
Tom Chudleigh  Augustus O'Brien.
Lord and Lady Everingham  Lord and Lady Clarendon.
Lady Theresa  Lady Adeliza Manners.
Eustace Lyle  Mr. Ambrose Lyle Phillips.
Mr. Mellon  Hon. James Macdonald.
Mr. G. 0. A. Head  Mr. J. A. Roebuck.
Mr. Millbahk  Mark PhiUips, M.P.
Edith  Miss MaoTavish,
Jawster Sharpe  Mr, John Bright or Mr. George Wilson,
Russian Ambassador and Ambassadress. Prince and Princess Lieven.
GrandDuke  The Czarewitch.
Lady St. Julians  Lady Jersey.
Lord and Lady Gaverstook  Viscount and Viscoimtess PoUington.
Villebeoque  M. Laporte.
Flora  MdUe. A  D  ,
Mr. Guy Flouney  Sir Charles Shakeiiey.
Mrs. Guy Flounoy  Mrs. Mountjoy Martin.
Sidonia  The Baron Alfred de Rothschild of
Naples, or the Author.
Donald Mc Parian  "Mr. M."
Gingerly Browne  Capt. Layard, M.P.
Mr. Juggins  Sir F. Booth.
Sir Baptist Placid  Sir Eardley Wilmot.
Hon. Alborio de Courcy  Hon. Alberic WiUoughby.
Stella  Mdlle. L  F 
Sir Joseph Wallinger  Sir WilUam Clay.
Duohesse de G  . .  Duehesse de Grammont.
Count M  i  Count MoW.

CHAPTER V.
• LEADER OF THE TORIES.
Mr. Disraeli speaks on the Address (Nov. 1847) — Jewish disabilities — Speech of
Mr. Disraeli — Lord George Bentinck retii-es from the Protectionist leadership
— Mr. Disraeli succeeds him — Chartist disturbances — Irish disaffection —
Mitchel's case — State of the Continent — Sir Henry Bulwer expelled from
Madrid — Mr. DisraeU on the subject — Speech on intrigues in Italy — Reviews
the conduct and policy of the Government — Attacks on Lord John Russell —
Death of Lord George Bentinck — The Queen's Speech — Mr. Disraeli on the
Address — Moves resolutions on the burdens on land — Hume's amendment —
Protectionist agitation — Mr. Disraeli returns to the charge — The aristocratic
principle — Declares war agaiust the Ministry — his Motion "not a flash in
the pan" — Advocates reciprocity as the principle of foreign commercial rela
tions — Mr. Cobden recommends " a little agitation " — Mr. Disraeli at Castle
Hedingham — Mr. Cobden at Aylesbury — Protectionist meetings — Session of
1850 — Speech from the throne — Mr. Disraeh on agricultural distress — Returns
to the subject — Criticizes the budget — Agricultural iuterests — Papal aggres
sion — The Durham letter — Mr. Disraeh's remarks upon it — Opening of Par
liament — Ecclesiastical Titles Bill — The Government saved by the Exhibition
— Agricultural distress — Government defeated on Mr. Locke King's county
franchise motion — Retires — Lord Derby sent for — Refusal to form an adminis
tration unless he may appeal to the country — Negotiations with the Peelites
— Interregnum — Lord John returns to oflice— The amended Budget — Mr.
Disraeli on the Income and Property Tax — Has long abandoned the idea of
re-imposing a duty on corn — Beginning of the end — Address to Bucking
hamshire farmers — Lord John Russell expels Palmerston from the Cabinet —
Interference of the Queen iu the matter — Lord Granville sworn in — Lord
John explains — Mr. Disraeli's criticism on his speech — The New Reform
Bill — The Militia BiU — Palmerston's amendment — Defeat of the Government
— Lord Derby is sent for — Mr. Disraeli chosen Chancellor of the Exchequer
— ^Address on re-election — Lord Derby's Protectionism — "The Rupert of
Parliamentary Discussion."
The fifteenth Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland
assembled for business oa the 18th of November, 1847. A

262 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
few days were spent in preliminaries and on the 23rd the
Queen's speech was read by commission. The times were
critical. Peel's Bank Charter Act of 1844 had without doubt
crippled the trade of the country in a manner as extraordinary
as it had been unprecedented. It had been found necessary to
suspend the operation of that Act in order to allow the trade
of the country a chance of escaping from the difficulties by
which it was hampered. Naturally therefore the monetary
crisis took the lead amongst the topics touched upon in the
Speech from the throne. The assembled Houses were reminded
that the suspension of the Bank Charter " might have led to
an infringement of the law " and were congratulated on the
fact that it had not done so. No promise was, however, made
that the working of the obnoxious law should be inquired into
and perhaps it was as well that it was not. The condition of
England was very far from being satisfactory, and though, as
the Koyal speech reminded Parliament, an abundant harvest
had to some extent mitigated the popular distress, popular
discontent was as rampant as ever. In Ireland too, the
agitation of O'Connell and his followers had produced the
worst effects, and the starving and disaffected peasantry were
in a state of almost open insurrection. O'Connell himself was
indeed dead, but the work which he had accomplished was yet
to bear terrible fruit. The first was the announcement from
the throne that extraordinary powers were to be asked from
Parliament for the repression of crime in certain parts of
Ireland. The other topics of the speech were the Navigation
Laws ; the necessity for improving the health of London and
for ameliorating the condition of the poor.
No amendment to the Address was moved, but in a luminous

On the Whig Foreign Policy. 26

J

and statesmanlike speech Mr. Disraeli reviewed the foreign
policy of the Government, and expressed the views of the Tory
pai-ty on such topics as the Spanish Marriages and the extinc
tion of the free state of Cracow by Russia in direct violation of
the Treaty of Vienna. He did not hesitate to stigmatise what
had been done in the terms which were most appropriate at
the moment, and the justice of which has been fully vindicated
by time. His own view of the proper and judicious policy for
this countiy as opposed to that " meddle and muddle " policy
of the Whigs which has so often been censured may be given
in two or three sentences from this speech. " He had not," he
said, "the common jealousy of the influence of France in
Spain, and Russia in Germany. To suppose that great powers
like France and Russia would not have their own ambition to
develope as England had hers was to expect the impossible-
But what was the use of the power of England except to
combat those influences, whether in Spain or elsewhere, if they
found them aiming at an inconvenient preponderance ? He
had often heard that peace could only be maintained by a
cordial understanding between England and France, or a secret
understanding between England and Russia, but peace could
be maintained by England alone if she understood her po.sition
and did not underrate her power. . . . England held exactly
the same position now as she did in the days of the rivalry
between Francis I. and Charles V. ; England held the balance,
and if she was conscious of her position and exerted her
influence with firmness and discretion, she might obtain and
enjoy the blessings of peace, and hand them down to posterity."
It was universally considered somewhat remarkable that no
reference was made in the Speech from the throne to a subject

264 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
which was introduced by the Government at a very early date,
which had without doubt been discussed in the preliminary
meetings of the Cabinet, and which afterwards exercised a
very important influence alike on the political career of Lord
Beaconsfield and on the fortunes of the Conservative party.
That subject was the removal of Jewish disabilities, which
Lord John Russell introduced a few days after the opening of
the session. On a subsequent occasion Lord Beaconsfield
protested somev/hat strongly against this way of dealing with
the matter, pointing out that it had obviously been the duty of
Lord John Russell as leader of the opposition to introduce this
subject from time to time, and so to take the sense of the
counti-y upon it at the time of the general election. When the
matter was formally brought forward, however, Mr, Bisraeli
supported the motion upon religious grounds, pointing out that
the Christian is the fulfilment and completion of the Jewish
religion, and that it is unfair to treat as outcasts those who, if
they do npt believe so much as Christians, yet believe the same
things so far as they believe at all, "The very reason for
admitting the Jews is because they show so near an affinity to
you. Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their
Judaism?" Furthermore no injury can result to the religion
of these realms by acceding to this demand for Jewish equality,
since the Jew alone does not proselytise. "What possible
object can the Jew have to oppose the Christian Church ? Is
it not the first business of the Christian Church to make the
population whose minds she attempts to form and whose
morals she seeks to guide acquainted with the history of the
Jews ? Has not the Church of Christ — the Christian Church,
whether Roman Catholic or Protestant— made the history of

Jewish Disabilities. 265
the Jews the most celebrated history in the world ? On every
sacred day you read to the people the exploits of Jewish
heroes, the proofs of Jewish devotion, the brilliant annals of
past Jewish magnificence, . . . Every Sunday, every Lord's
Day, if you wish to express feelings of praise and thanksgiving
to the Most High, or if you wish to find expressions of solace in
grief, you find both in the works of the Jewish poets, , . . In
exact proportion to your faith ought to be your wish to do this
great act of national justice. If you had not forgotten 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. But
you are influenced by the darkest superstitions of the darkest
ages that ever existed in this country. It is this feeling that
has been kept out of this debate ; indeed that has been kept
secret in yourselves — enlightened as you are — and that is
unknowingly influencing others abroad, ... It is entirely on
religious grounds and on religious principles that I venture to
recommend the subject to your notice. If I do so with
earnestness I hope I may be pardoned. This is not a subject
which often comes under our consideration : I hope we shall
not have to consider it again. But it is a question on which
men, whatever may be the consequences — on which at least I,
whatever may be the consequences — must speak what I feel,
. . . Yes, it is as a Christian that I will not take upon me the
awful responsibility of excluding from the legislature those
who are of the religion in the bosom of which my Lord and
Saviour was born."

266 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
The results of this speech were important in no ordinary
degree. Lord George Bentinck felt himself out of harmony
with his heutenant, and also with a large proportion of the
party to which he belonged. He had assumed the leadership
unwillingly, and having held it for two years, he gladly
resigned it. His letter to Mr. Bankes, announcing this step,
exhibits a certain amount of wounded feeling, but he did not
abandon his party to sulk in retirement. Far from doing so,
he cheerfully assumed the position of a private member, and in
the debates on the Sugar Duties, which followed very speedily
on the opening of Parliament, he took a very active part. The
Parliamentary leadership, however, passed to Mr. Disraeli, who
brought to his new position a power of mastering detail
hardly inferior to that possessed by his late chief. Lord
Gfiorge Bentinck, in the meanwhile, devoted himself with
extraordinary assiduity to the work of protecting colonial
interests, and having obtained a " Select Committee to inquire
into the present condition and prospects of the interests
connected with and dependent upon sugar and coffee planting
in her Majesty's East and West India possessions and the
Mauritius," gave his main attention to the work of that Com
mittee, leaving the Parliamentary campaign in Mr. Disraeli's
hands. The year 1848 was a time of storm and stress in the pohtical
world of Europe. Ireland, as usual, was the chief source of
danger at home, but Chartist disaffection in England assumed
this year its most menacing aspect. Rioting amongst the poor
and the distressed took place early in March in Glasgow,
Edinburgh, Liverpool and other towns, and was only suppressed
by the calling out of a strong military force. In London,

The Chartist Instirrection. 267
demonstration succeeded demonstration, Kennington Common,
then an open space, being the customary scene of these
displays. Men like the late Ernest Jones, and Foargus
O'Connor — sincere but violent and prejudiced in no ordinary
degree — called upon the mob to raise the cry of "Down with
the Ministry ; dissolve Parliament ; the Charter and no sur
render," A few weeks afterwards, the Chartists were openly
preparing for armed rebellion, and a so called National
Convention was set up in London, By the 10th of April, a
second demonstration had been got up, and the whole of
London was put into a state of defence under the orders of the
Duke of Wellington. A proclamation was issued, warning the
public against disorderly assemblages, the Bank was fortified,
and large numbers of troops were brought into the capital.
Do-wning Street was barricaded, and every preparation for
resisting an outbreak was quietly made. The demonstration,
however, passed off without disturbance. The leaders quarrelled
amongst themselves, and the great petition which was to have
been carried by a procession to the House of Commons, was
left for Feargus O'Connor (who then sat for Nottingham) to
present in the usual way. This was done, but nothing came of
the petition, it being recognized on all hands that the agitation
was to a great extent factitious. Not merely were a large
number of the signatures attached to the petition fictitious,
but the sympathies of those persons who, like Lord Beaconsfield,
had pitied the suffering people of England in the earlier years
of the decade, were alienated by reason of the fraternization
of the Chartists with the emissaries of the revolution who
abounded in London at that time, and by reason also of the
large Irish element in these disturbances. During the debates

268 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
on the measures which were considered by the government
of the day necessary for the maintenance of public order,
Mr. Disraeli contented himself with giving a silent support
to the Administration, but when the disturbances in Ireland
rendered exceptional measures advisable, he did not hesitate to
speak plainly. Irish disaffection had indeed attained portentous
proportions. John Mitchel, in the columns of his seditious
newspaper, and on the platforms of innumerable public
meetings, was openly inciting the people to rebellion of the
most sanguinary kind. His example was followed, and his
treason emulated by Smith O'Brien and Meagher, who went
as a deputation from the " Irish nation " to entreat the support
and countenance of Lamartine, and the French revolutionary
government, Lamartine very naturally threw cold water on
the anticipations of the Irish "patriots," but his hint was
wasted upon them. They returned home, only to behave with
greater violence than ever. Rifle clubs were formed in the
spring of this year, and Mitchel, besides advocating them in his
paper, instructed the people in the art of making pikes out of
reaping hooks. At last Mitchel's productions — the worst of
which, by the way, were notoriously written by a lady who is
still alive, whose house in Merrion Square was until very
recently, the resort of every Irishman of disloyal proclivities,
and whose " gifted " pen was ever at the service of the treason-
mongers — grew too bad for even English forbearance. When a
newspaper openly advised Irishwomen to go on the roofs of
their houses and to pelt English cavalry with bottles of
vitriol, the limit of longsuffering was obviously reached. So
Lord John Russell's Cabinet felt, and accordingly passed the
"Crown and Government Security Bill (Ireland)," perhaps

Irish Disaffection. 269
one of the weakest measures ever devised even by a Whig
Cabinet. Finding it insufficient to stem the current of insurrection,
the Government adopted a larger measure, and in July brought
in a bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland.
The powers asked for by this bill might well have been granted
at the beginning of the year. Had they been asked for then,
indeed, there is every reason to believe that much of the
disaffection and disorder- which disgraced Ireland in 1848,
might have been prevented. Unhappily, the destinies of the
country were in the hands of Lord John Russell, who having
carried the Reform Bill of 1832, fancied that he had created
a millennium, and nothing was done until the time for
action had almost passed. When at last a bolder course
was decided upon, Mr. Disraeli offered no factious opposi
tion. He was, however, careful to make his own position
understood. He supported the bill of the Government, he
told the House on the 22nd of July, not because Irishmen
had no grievances, or because he believed the Whig panacea
the best that could be offered, but because he recognized the
essentially factious character of the rebellion, and because he
believed the disaffected spirit of the Irish people to be less the
result of their real and unquestionable grievances, than the
effect of the foreign agitation, which has so often used Ireland
as a weapon against England. He saw in the struggle of
which Mitchel, O'Brien, and Meagher (" of the sword " ) were
the leaders, a continental movement — a Jacobin movement, a
movement which was not agrarian, which was not religious,
which was not occasioned by the social and political evils
with which Parhament was famihar — but a movement created

2 70 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
and stimulated solely by those outlying forces, which had
turned Europe upside down, and which threatened the very
Constitution of these realms.
The state of continental Europe was, indeed, sufficiently
grave to make even the boldest statesman uneasy. Paris led
the way with insurrection. Italy, Prussia, the German States,
Austria, and Poland followed suit. Scarcely a day went by
without the news of some fresh outrage, some new uprising of
the people against their ancient tyrants. Louis Phihppe abdi
cated on the 24th of February, and fled to England by the
Boulogne steamer, in a round hat and frock coat, and under
the name of "Mr. Smith." The Republic was officially pro
claimed two days later, and then began that reign of theorists,
poets, and crotchet mongers, which three years later rendered
the Empire a necessity. That which happened in France was but
the type and the anticipation of what was to happen elsewhere.
A revolution in the Grand Duchy of Baden was obviated only by
the consent of the reigning sovereign to dismiss his Ministers, and
to appoint the nominees of the people. A week, later the Elector
of Hesse-Cassel was forced to concede a large measure of popu
lar reform. Prussia followed suit "with a demand for " reforms in
a Liberal sense," which was met by the Government with a
" whiff of grape shot." In Austria the opening of the Diet in
March was the signal for furious rioting, which, after lasting
for a couple of days, ended in the abohtion of the Censorship and
the establishment of a National Guard. Italy shared in the
changes ; for on the day that the Censorship was abohshed in
Vienna, Pius IX. made his famous Constitutional experiment
in Rome. At Milan the people rose in insurrection against the
Austrian Government, and in spite of the most vigorous efforts

Breach betivecn ' England and Spain. 2 7 1
on the part of Radetsky, drove out the hated Tedeschi. The
King of Bavaria, having created Lola Montes a countess, found
himself forced to abdicate. At Kiel an insurrection was got
up, to bring about if possible the separation of the Duchies
of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark. All Europe was, in
a word, in a turmoil, and England as a matter of course could
not escape. Unfortunately the meddle and muddle policy of
the Whiga prevailed ; and Lord Russell, having in conjunction
with Lord Palmerston sent a remarkably unwise letter of advice
for the Spanish Government to Sir Henry Bulwer, the British
Minister at Madrid, our diplomatic relations with Spain were
broken off. On the 5th of June this matter was brought
before the House of Commons, and on this occasion Mr. Disraeli
made one of those dignified and patriotic speeches which fore
shadowed his later career. Sir Henry Bulwer had been, in
plain words, turned out of Madrid in a remarkably ignominious
manner. Mr. Bankes accordingly moved, on going into Com
mittee of Supply, a resolution : " 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 Goverment, as con
ducted 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." There can be no question that the policy of the
Government deserved this censure and something more. Lord
Palmerston, in concert of course with his colleagues, had per
mitted himself to write to Sir Henry Bulwer that, " The recent

2 72 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
fall of the King of the French 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-disci
plined army becomes an ineffectual defence for the Crown when
the course pursued by the Crown is at variance Avith the general
sentiments of the country. It would then be wise for the
Queen of Spain, in the present critical state of affairs, to
strengthen the Executive Government by enlarging the basis
upon which the Administration is founded, and by calling to
her councils some of those men who possess the confidence of
the Liberal party." When remonstrance was made. Lord Pal
merston doubled his offence, by telling the Spanish Government
in effect that this country had been the means of placing the
Queen of Spain upon the throne, that it was England who kept
her there, and — ^practically — that if Spain did not follow Eng
lish counsels, the countenance of this country would be with
drawn from her,*
It was not surprising that after this note the Spanish Govern
ment sent Sir Henry Bulwer his passports, following, as Mr.
Bankes pointed out, a precedent established by the English
Government. The administration, however, contrived to muddle
matters even more. A special envoy, a M. Mirasol, was sent
over to explain why Sir Henry Bulwer had been turned out of
Spain, and Lord Palmerston refused to receive him or to listen

* "After all Mustering goes a mighty distance in practical politics — and of
that Lord Pahnerstoa employs no small a load," Letters of G, M, Dallas, vol. i,
p. 161,

On Sir Henry Biihver. 273
to anytliing he had to say except through the Spanish Minister.
When Mr. Disraeli rose to criticise the course pursued by the
Government, he mentioned this person ; asked the Government
who he was, and why he was not sent out of the country, eitlier
as a retaliation for the insult offered to Sir Henry Bulwer
or under the provisions of the Alien Act. Of Sir Henry
himself, Mr. Disraeli spoke in the warmest terms. '' It has
been my fortune," said he, " to find Sir Henry Bulwer, as
Minister in several foreign countries, where he was engaged in
important transactions of State, and I believe that no man has
of late years been employed by the Government to serve her
' Majesty abroad who has done better service to the Crown or who
has shown more sagacity, more penetration and — notwithstand
ing these transitory circumstances — I will say more conciliatory
temper than Sir Henry Bulwer." Nor was the speaker content
with generalities. He mentioned what had been done by Sir
Henry in 1840 in terms of warm praise, and expressed satisfac
tion at his consequent promotion. And having said so much,
he asked the House to imagine the position in which he
found himself ; when, after an outrage such as that to which he
had been subjected, he received no recognition of his services
and no te.stimony of the sympathy of his fellow-countrymen.
He then went on to point out that, thanks to the policy of Lord
John Russell, Lord Palmerston and Lord Lansdowne, England
was placed in a very equivocal and very invidious position, and
that the " negotiations," of which the Government had spoken,
would not improbably result in fresh insults on the part of
Spain, On the unlucky dispatch, which had precipitated the
mischief, he heaped an infinite amount of that exquisite ridicule
of which he is so consummate a master ; ironically compliment-

2 74 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
ing Lord Palmerston on his " pure Castilian " style, his " sesqui
pedalian sentences," and his "grandiose phraseology," The
dispatch he argued was obviously intended for Spanish eyes,
and though it was earmarked " confidential," it would have had
no meaning unless it had been communicated to the heads of the
Spanish Government. It was, therefore, obviously unjust to say,
as Lord Lansdowne had permitted himself to say, " in another
place," that such communication was "indiscreet." Lord Pal
merston's betise in reminding the Spanish Government of its
obligations to England was also remarked upon with much
severity. All this was, however, but the prelude to an attack
on the foreign policy of the Whig party generally, as based not
upon the needs of the various nations with which we hold
communication, but as being the outcome of a set of abstract
quasi-philosophical theories. "In fact," said he, "when a man
goes to Madrid, for instance, he is not to guide his coiiduct
with reference to the interests of England or of Spain, which
I hope are mutual, but he Is immediately to set about to
infuse into a party, probably the weakest in the country,
certain philosophical principles ; and the promulgation of those
principles is to be the bond of brotherhood with some small
political faction, which perhaps would never have existed
but for such fostering. . . . You could not find a country
governed by an absolute power without telling it 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
Commerce. . . . By lending the aid of a great country like
England to some miserable faction, you created parties in
domestic policy in every country — from Athens to Madrid, —
deteriorated the prosperity and condition of the people, and

The Whig Foreign Policy. 275
laid the seeds of infinite confusion." * Then — after a brief
review of the Whig foreign policy, as exemplified in Greece,
Portugal, and France — Lord Beaconsfield protested against
the notion that a mere expression of opinion as to foreign
policy must necessarily be regarded as a vote of censure on the
Government, and wound up by urging that it was the duty of
the House to accept the expulsion of Sir Henry Bulwer from
Madrid as a condemnation of Liberalism in foreign politics ; to
express its sense of the insult offered to England in the person
of her representative, and to declare in a decided manner that
it would not permit an eminent public servant to be made the
scapegoat of a mischievous policy.
In much the same spirit and temper Lord Beaconsfield
attacked the Government before the close of the Session for
its intriguing meddlesomeness in Italy, where the policy of
England was generally believed to have stimulated popular
disaffection to no small extent. Thus the appearance of the
English fleet off the coast of Naples was universally understood
to mean that this country was prepared to interfere with an
expedition which the King was believed to have projected
against his rebellious- subjects. Questioned concerning the
matter, the Government through Lord Lansdowne in the Upper
House, and Lord Palmer.ston in the Lower, refused satisfaction
on the ground, "that it is not the practice of the Government
of this country to announce to Parliament what the intentions
* " No one can doubt Palmerston's talents or knowledge. He is admirable in
discussion. He sees with the utmost clearness the point that is before him ; but
he sees only one thing at a time. His policy, therefore, is narrow and insulated,
and sometimes inconsistent. His mind watts keeping. . . . You will not defend
Palmerston's revolutionary policy." — M. Guizot in Senior's " Conversations,"
vol. ii., p. 379. T 2

276 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of the Government are." A little later another intervention
was attempted in Northern Italy, but this time rather too late.
When the good offices of England might have stopped the
effusion of blood, she sat still ; but when Austria had re
conquered her Lombard territory. Lord Minto was dispatched
on a special mission of intervention in conjunction with France.
In Committee of Supply on the 16th of August, Mr. Disraeli
in a long and brilliant speech criticised the action of the
Government, and asked three questions. — "What is the prin
ciple of this mediation \ what is to be the nature of this
mediation ? and what is the end proposed to be attained by
this mediation ? " He pointed out that it really amounted
to something very like an attempt to get rid of the legitimate
sovereigns of the Italian States, and by the force of diplomacy
to establish a Republic in their stead. " What is to be done,"
he asked, " if Lombardy be relinquished by Austria? Is it to"
be given to Charles Albert iu reward for his nocturnal attack
on a neighbour, or to be erected into a weak independent
State ? Is it to be a Kingdom or a Republic ? a Revolutionary
or a Constitutional Republic 1 a Red Republic or a White
Republic? a Republic with a Red Cap, or a Republic with a
White Feather ? " Palmerston, as we know from more recent
disclosures, " wished to see the whole of Northern Italy united
into one kingdom, comprehending Piedmont, Genoa, Lombardy,
Venice, Parma, and Modena," and he anticipated that "Bologna
would in that case sooner or later unite itself to that state or
to Tuscany." * Something had been said of the desirability
of this mediation for the purpose of preventing France from
"¦ Letter from Palmerston to King Leopold of Belgium, 15 June, 1848. Sea
" Life of Viscount Palmerston," by the Hon. Evelyn Ashley, vol. i. p. 98.

Review of the Government Policy. 277
¦ invading Italy. Against any such notion Mr. Disraeli protested
energetically, pointing out that Franco was at that moment
governed only by the military power, that she was torn by
domestic faction, with an empty exchequer, a paralysed credit,
and a people without enthusiasm, and that it was absurd to
suppose that she, under such conditions, was likely to attempt
the conquest of the world. After a protest against an alliance
with those whom he had to the indignation of Mr. Hume styled
the Jacobin party, he concluded a very impressive speech by
calling upon Lord Palmerston " to act in a manner which will
add even to his influence and to the greatness and reputation
of his country. He may," said he, " in this craven age assert
the principles of public justice in a manner which becomes a
British minister ; and he will find that no bandits, whatever
may be their position, will cross any mountains or invade any
capitals when they know that England is prepared to uphold
the principles of public law. For, Sir, in public as mUch as in
private matters I have seen enough, and I am sure that every
gentleman from his own experience must have seen enough, to
convince him in the long run that nothing can withstand
the majesty of law, the force of truth, and the inspiration of
honour." Lord Beaconsfield's greatest oratorical effort this Session was
however, a review of the conduct and policy of the Government,
which he ^delivered on the 26th of August on the motion for
going into Committee of Supply. The Whigs had succeeded
in muddling the finances in a most extraordinary fashion,
and at the end of the Session were compelled to ask the House
for permission to borrow a couple of millions for the purpose
of making up the deficiency in the revenue. Four days later.

278 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
a Sunday paper announced that the ministerial whitebait
dinner had been postponed from the 19th to the 26th in
consequence of the talkativeness of members. The paper was
notoriously in the confidence of the Government, and Mr.
Disraeli accordingly seized the opportunity which it afforded
him of delivering a sarcastic criticism of all that the Govern
ment had done and left undone since Parliament had resumed
its sittings on the 3rd of February. He showed convincingly that
it was not the garrulity of members, but the incompetency of
Ministers that had wasted the time of the House, and that the
weakness of the financial policy of the Government was the
main source of trouble. He classified and compared the four
Budgets introduced between the.opening and the close of the
Session, and with scathing irony complimented ministers on
the thoroughness of their labours. In the first Budget it was
proposed to double the income tax. " Now that was clearly
a financial scheme which must have been most completely
matured. It was not a scheme which was taken up in an
hour or drawn with a pen on the back of a letter."- And so
on, throughout the whole of that long series of blunders which
the Whigs had called governing the country. Then taking up
the question of electoral corruption he showed how immense
an amount of time had been wasted on abortive attempts at
legislation on that subject, on Public Health, on the Bill for
the Repeal of the Navigation Laws, which, like everything
else, had failed, and finally upon that Sugar question which
Lord George Bentinck had made his own, but on which the
Government had attempted in vain to legislate consistently
or satisfactorily. The blundering of the Government had
indeed been almost incredible. The first Bill had been brought

JlViig Blundering. 279
in without any provision for refining in bond, thus placing
the British producer at au infinite disailv.-uitagc as compared
with his foreign competitor. A second Bill was accord
ingly prepared and brought in, which shared the fate of the
first. " Will it be believed," ' said Mr. DLsraeli, " that it was
found necessary to withdraw the second Bill also and introduce
a third, and in the third the Government confessed to the old
sixteen blunders which they would not correct and to the two
new ones which they made in correcting others of the old,
making altogether twenty-five acknowledged blunders of the
Government, and leaving still seven unacknowledged, which we
have authorised by our legislation — blunders of such a cha
racter as calculating that there are four groats in a shilling !
But what is the result of all this ? After ten days' discussion
in the House of Commons upon the Resolutions, with the
Speaker in the Chair, six days' discussions, and seven divisions
take place in committee solely occasioned by the imperfect
preparation of these measures — these three graceful emana
tions of administrative genius — this skeleton Bill and its
companions." Two passages of this speech are especially worthy of attention,
as illustrating the love of literature by which Lord Beaconsfield
has always been distinguished, and his singularly happy faculty
of satiric illustration. Speaking of the conduct of the Govern
ment in suspending that Bank Charter Act, which by restricting
the currency, has, it is contended by its opponents, operated
grievously in restraint of trade, he declared that he knew but
one thing with which to compare it. " In a delightful city of
the South, with which many hon. gentlemen are familiar, and
which is now I believe blockaded or bullied by the English

2 8o Thi Public Life of the Earl of Beaconfield.
fieet, an annual ceremony takes place, when the whole popula
tion are 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
around the vase, and- there is as great a pressure as there was
in London at the time to which I am alluding. The 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 case
of congealed circulation. Just at the moment when unutterable
gloom overspreads the population, when nothing but despair
and consternation prevail, the Chancellor of the Exchequer — I
beg pardon, the Archbishop of Tarento, announces the liquefac
tion of St, Januarius' blood — as the Chancellor of the Exchequer
announces the issue of a Government Letter : in both instances
a wholesome state of the currency returns : the people resume
their gaiety and cheerfulness, the panic and the pressure dis
appear, everybody retuins to music and macaroni — as in
London everybody returned to business — and in both cases the
remedy is equally efficient and equally a hoax," The other
passage to which reference has been made is to be found in the
denunciation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fourth
budget of the Session, of which Lord Beaconsfield said that he
" should never forget the scene. It irresistibly reminded me,"
he went on, " 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 expedition. 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.

Sane ho s Return. 281
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 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 immediate friends
— the barber, the curate, the bachelor Sampson Carasco — whose
places might be supplied 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 sympathy they greeted him,
broken in spirit and about for ever to renounce those delightful
illusions under which he had salhed forth so triumphantly ; but
just at that moment when everything, though melancholy, was
becoming — though sa,d was in the best taste — Sancho's wife
rushes forward 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 surplus a deficiency, and instead of re
ducing taxation he commemorates his second year of finance by
a second loan."
This was undoubtedly hard hitting and it hit home. The
attacks upon Peel had done more to weaken that statesman's
position than his admirers, and the opponents of Lord Beacon.?-

282 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
field have ever been willing to admit, and the Premier of the
future was now turning all those terrible powers of wit and
sarcasm and invective, which had one while been directed
against the betrayer of the Tories, against the incompetent
chief of the Whigs. Lord John Russell was notoriously unfit
for high office. Two years before Leech had drawn him as a
little boy in the clothes of his grandfather with the Queen
looking on and saying, " Well, it is not the best fit in the world,
but we'll see how he gets on," and from that time forwai-d.
Lord John devoted himself to the task of proving that not
merely were Peel's clothes too big for him, but that in the
terms of the epigraph of another caricature by the same hand,
he was "not strong enough for his place." NaturaUy he became
the target for many of Lord Beaconsfield's most vigorous
attacks, though it must be confessed on all hands, that there
was little personality and no rancour in the warfare of the
Opposition, and that Lord Russell's really fine qualities have
always been recognized by his opponent — a condition of things
which offers a rather striking contrast to the course pursued
when Lord Beaconsfield himself attained office.
The spring of 1849 saw Lord Beaconsfield in reality, as well
as in name, the chief of the Tory party. Lord George Bentinck
had died of overwork on the 21st of September, and there was
no one whose genius or abilities commended him for the
leadership as did those of Mr. Disraeli. Accordingly, when
Parliament was opened on the 1st of February, it was he who
moved the amendment to the address. The Queen's Speech
was a somewhat complacent one. The Whigs — or rather Lord
Palmerston — had interfered considerably in the affairs of
Southern Italy — even to the extent of supplying the insurgent

The New Commercial System. 283
forces with the material of war, and consequently the first third
of the address from the Throne was occupied with this subject.
The Navigation Laws were commended to the attention of Par
liament; the estimates were announced as framed with "wise
economy," and as exhibiting large reductions on those of the year
preceding, and great satisfaction was expressed at the general
improvement of the country, the state of the Revenue, the
diminution of Irish disaffection, and the loyalty and good order
of the people at home. Mr. Disraeli naturally took exception
to this rose-coloured view of things, pointing out tliat Ireland
was, if somewhat more tranquil, still not a little disaffected, and
that the Government proposals meant but very little after all.
An inquiry into the working of the Irish Poor Law was
promised, but when such an inquiry had been made there was
no guarantee that Irish grievances would be redressed. At
home there was much distress. The speech from the throne
had congratulated the country upon the improvement in the
state of the manufacturing districts. That was certainly a
matter for rejoicing, but at the same time it must not be
forgotten that the agricultural interest was suffering severely,
and that the principal effect of Free Trade so far, seemed to
be to bring about commercial decay. "The new commercial
system, the results of which are referred to in the Speech, has
had a trial, a fair trial, and has failed." There were some
murmurs at this assertion, but the speaker anticipated the
arguments of his opponents, and pointed out that although the
trade of the country had certainly been interrupted by a corn
famine at home, a cotton famine in America, and the generally
disturbed state of European politics, the want of reciprocity in
our dealings with the Americans, had simply the effect of

284 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
benefiting the people of the New World at the expense of the
Old. "Reciprocity is indeed a great principle," he went on,
" it is at once cosmopolitan and national. The system you are
pursuing is one quite contrai-y : you go on fighting hostile
tariffs with free imports, and the consequence is that you are
following a course most injurious to the commerce of the
country." Then, going into figures, he proceeded to show that
by discouraging the colonies — as by the way the Whigs have
always done — some of the best of existing markets had been
ruined without any corresponding advantage being obtained
from foreign nations. There was some increase on our trade
with the United States, but British North America and the
British West Indies were infinitely more valuable customers in
English markets.
Passing on to the paragraphs of the Speech which related to
foreign affairs, Mr. Disraeli spoke in somewhat forcible terms
of the interference in the affairs of Italy, for which Lord
Palmerston, in conjunction with the French government, was
responsible, arguing that if mediation had been right at all it
must have' been right at first, and not merely when the King of
the Two Sicilies had succeeded in reasserting his threatened
authority, in every city of his dominions save one. And as
regarded La Plata, on which question he had spoken with some
acrimony in the preceding session, Mr. Disraeli asked, sarcasti
cally, how it was that nothing was said on this occasion. " Six
confidential agents have been employed by Her Majesty's
Government in connexion with La Plata, and some of them
Ministers of the highest class. All have failed : the last I
believe, if not actually expelled, has been treated almost with
personal indignity : a second-rate rebel colony of Spain, imitat-

Large Reductions of the Estimates. 285
ing the mother country, and sending away our Minister." Then,
changing the subject, he went on : " Great cluuigos have
occurred since I last had the honour of addressing this House.
Empires have fallen. The Pope no longer reigns in Rome.
Her Majesty's Chief Secretary admits that she has no allies,
but strange as these changes are, nothing is so marvellous as
the fact upon which I have to congratulate Her Majesty's
Ministers — and that is, their conversion to the principles of
financial reform." This of course leads up to the declaration
of the Queen's Speech, that the estimates had been framed
" with a wise economy," and that the present aspect of affairs
had rendered possible " large reductions on the estimates of
last year." Here Mr. Disraeli asked what aspect was referred
to. "Is it what I read of in the Speech itself? ... A possible
rebellion in Ireland, or an actual rebellion in India ? or is it
because 2,000,000 of men are in arms on the Continent of
Europe ? " Last year the world had been at peace, and
Ministers came forward to propose an increase of Expenditure ;
now when the world is in arms we hear of " large reductions."
Having criticised these declarations in this strain for some
time, Mr. Disraeli went on to show that such reductions as
were proposed really meant a largely increased expenditure in
no remote future, and that the state of Europe was not such as
to warrant any diminution in our national defences. Referring
to the Liverpool Financial Association, to whose influence he
traced these dealings with finance, he protested once more
against supplementing the wisdom of the Senate by the pro
ceedings of Jacobin Clubs, and wound up an earnest address
in these words : — " We stand here to uphold, not only the
Throne but the Empire ; to vindicate the industrial privileges

286 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of the working classes, and the reconstruction of (5ur colonial
system ; to uphold the Church no longer assailed by the
masked batteries of appropriation clauses, but by unvizored
foes ; we stand here to maintain freedom of election and
the majesty of Parliament against the Jacobin manoeuvres
of the Jacobin clubs. These are stakes not lightly to be lost.
At any rate I would sooner my tongue were palsied before I
counselled the people of England to lower their tone. Yes, I
would sooner quit this House for ever than say to the people
of England that they over-rated their position. I leave these
delicate intimations to the fervent patriotism of the gentlemen
of the new school. For my part I denounce their politics, and
defy their predictions, but I do so because I have faith in the
people of England, their genius, and their destiny."
The speech failed to convert the House on questions of
either foreign or domestic policy. Two nights were spent in
debate', and on the question of adjournment moved by the
Marquis of Granby, the Government obtained so decided a
victory as to render it obviously useless to press the question
further. Lord Beaconsfield returned to the charge, however,
with a resolution relating to the burdens on land, couched in
the following terms : — •
" That the whole of the Local Taxation of the country for
national purposes, falls mainly, if not exclusively, on real
property, and bears with undue severity on the occupiers of
land in a manner injurious to the agricultural interests of the
country, and otherwise highly impolitic and unjust.
" That the hardship of this apportionment is greatly aggra
vated by the fact that more than one-third of the Revenue
derived from the Excise, is levied upon Agricultural Products,

Agricultural Distress. 287
exposed by the recent changes in the law to direct competition
with the untaxed produce of foreign countries : the home pro
ducer being thus subjected to a burden of taxation, which, by
greatly enhancing the price, limits the demand for British
produce, and to restrictions which injuriously interfere with the
conduct of his trade and industry.
" That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to take
into its serious consideration such measures as may remove the
grievances of which the owners and occupiers of real property
thus justly complain, and which may establish a more equitable
apportionment of the public burdens."
The debate began with a great speech from Mr. Disraeli.
He commenced by a reference to existing agricultural distress
as admitted by Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden. He advocated the
frank adoption of the principle of reciprocity as the foundation
of our commercial code, and he professed his extreme unwilling
ness to undo the work of 1846 by appealing to the passions of
any suffering class. Turning then to the main question, he
sh'owed by figures that the annual budget of ten millions
required for local purposes was raised almost exclusively upon
real property, and that this question interested the entire
population of the country, urban as well as rural. He pointed
out that this is, as a matter of fact, opposed to the spirit of the
law, and that the 43rd of Elizabeth enacted that not the land
owners only, but that " all the people of England according to
their means should contribute henceforth to the relief and
support of the poor." Turning then to the argument that
local taxation was raised for local purposes, he showed that
the maintenance of the poor, the care of the roads, the cost of
the constabulary and similar expenses, were national and not

2 88 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
local charges, and that many burdens cast upon the general
expenditure of the country ought really to be borne by local
rates, if this principal of localisation be adopted. The inter
ference of England in the affairs of La Plata afforded an apt
illustration. The merchants of Liverpool had pressed the
Government to take certain steps. Their views had been
adopted, and a great expenditure had been the result. The
country gentlemen had cheerfully borne their share of that
expense because they had thought it was for the advantage of
the commerce of the country, but they now found that the ,
only result of the expenditure had been to cause an outcry
amongst those very merchants of Liverpool on account of our
extravagant armaments, which they declared were only kept
up to support the younger children of the landed aristocracy.
Here, therefore, was a clear case for striking a rate upon
Liverpool. Of course this was banter, but it was banter of the best kind,
and helped the orator's argument in no small degree. Then
after asking why, if the principle of localising taxation were 'to
be carried out in its entirety, Manchester should not be made
to pay the cost of the last Chinese war, Mr. Disraeli cited the
case of Tawell the Quaker — a Londoner — who, having com
mitted a murder at Salthill in Buckinghamshire, was tried
at the expense of that county. After citing other cases, he
turned to the question of roads and bridges, pointing out that
although these conveniences were for the advantage of all who
chose to use them, they were maintained at the cost of the land.
Having thus shown the unfairness of the system, Mr. Disraeli
proceeded to quote Lord John Russell's declaration of 1846
addressed to the Queen. In that famous document the Whig

Agricultural Loyalty. 289
statesman had said that he would — if he could — "have formed
his Ministry on the basis of a complete free trade in corn, to be
established at once without gradation or delay. Ho would have
accompanied that proposal with measures of relief, to a consider
able extent, of the occupiers of land from the burdens to which
they are subjected." Lord Russell, as we know, failed to form
a Ministry, and Peel returned to office to repeal the Corn Law.?,
but not to give any relief to the occupiers of land. The appeal
to Lord John was consequently doubly cogent. Turning then
to the Malt Tax, Mr. Disraeli referred to Peel's threat that if
that tax was repealed the country gentlemen of England would
have " a good comfortable property tax," reminded them that
they had that property tax, and the Malt Tax as well, and
quoting no less an authority than Mr. McCulloch, argued that
by reason of the restriction upon production which was created
by that tax, the occupiers of land were entitled to substantial
relief. His closing passage was a solemn warning to the Govern
ment against trying the loyalty of the agricultural classes too
far. " You think you may trust their proverbial loyalty.
Trust their loyalty, but do not abuse it. I daresay it may be
said of them as it was said 3000 yeaxs 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 Engli.sh'-
man 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 liberties, and that before this time their ancestors have
bled for justice. Rely upon it that the blood of those men who
VOL. I. u

2 go The Public Life of tJie Earl of Beaconsfield.
refused to pay ship-money is not to be trifled with. Their
conduct to you has exhibited no hostile feeling, notwithstanding
the pohtical changes that have abounded of late years, and-all
apparently to a diminution of their 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 announced 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 produced 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 main
taining 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 flourish
after their destruction — although your ports may be filled with
shipping, your factories smoke on every plain, and your forges
flame in every city — I see no reason why you should form an
exception to that which the page of history has 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

Debate on the Resolutions. 291
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. ... I wish
to see the agriculture, the commerce, and the manufactures of
England not adversaries, but co-mates and partners, and rivals
onl}' in the ardour of their patriotism, and in the activity of
their public spirit."
Mr, Hume moved an amendment to the effect that if there
were any excessive pressure on the landed interest, it should be
removed by a reduction of the national expenditure by ten
millions, so as entirely to .aboHsh the duties on malt and hops.
In moving this amendment, he expressed his satisfaction that
the word " protection " had not been used, and concluded from
that fact that the agitation amongst the agricultural' classes
meant nothing, and that the burdens upon the land were not
felt so much as was asserted, Mr. Cobden answered with a
panegyric upon the effects of the repeal of the Corn Laws in
the manufacturing districts, and a declaration that any diminu
tion of the burdens on land would be simply putting so much
money into the pockets of the landlords without benefiting the
tenant farmers in any degree. In the very brief answer which
he permitted himself, Mr. Disraeli, asked how it happened that
the poor rates had been raised 17 per cent, since the repeal of
the Corn Laws, if that measure had been so universally bene
ficial, and answered the question by pointing out that that
increase had been caused by the distress amongst, that manu
facturing population which Mr. Cobden had said were in the
receipt of high wages, and by the destitution of Ireland, ruined
by Corn Law repeal. Of Mr. Cobden's other argument he dis
posed by pointing out that it would take five and twenty years
u 2

292 The Public Life of ihe Eart of Beaconsfield.
for rents to rise to such an extent as was anticipated, and that
what was wanted was a measure of present relief
The House rejected the motion for an inquiry by a majority
of 91— ayes 189, noes 280. The vote was a strictly party one
— Whigs, PeeHtes, and Irish members coalescing agamst the
representatives of the landed interest. Such a denial of their
rights naturally stimulated the country party, and the Pro
tectionist agitation renewed itself Protectionist meetings,
quite as largely attended as those of the Free Trade party
before the repeal of the Com Laws, were held under the
guidance of the Duke of Richmond, and the complaints of the
agricultural interest were put before the country in a very
striking fashion. There was, indeed, but too much reason for
discontent. As Lord Malmesbury pointed out at one of these
gatherings, up to 1842 the average price of corn for many years
had been 56s. In 1849 it was 41s., representing a loss to the
agricultural interest of 26 per cent. Wages had consequently
fallen, but no reduction of the labourer's pay could make up for
such a loss as this. Meantime the rates were increasing "with
every succeeding year, those for 1849 being actually £700,000
in excess of those of 1848, and amounting in all to £6,100,000.
The administration of the Poor Law, moreover, created great
dissatisfaction, and patriotic men felt that there must be some
thing very defective in a law which had been tinkered five or six
times since it was first passed, and which nevertheless kept an
ever increasing number of able-bodied men in the workhouses.
Lord Beaconsfield does not appear to have attended any of
these meetings, but to have confined himself to his proper work
in the House, where, on the 2nd of July, he brought forward a
proposal that the House should resolve itself into a committee

Countervailing Duties. 293
on the state of the nation. He painted in striking colours the
contrast between the situation of England at that moment and
when the Russell Cabinet came into office — showed how all
interests had suffered, how the exports had fallen off, how the
agricultural interest was distressed, how Ireland was disaffected
— " in a state of social decomposition " — how the revenue which
had formerly yielded a surplus was now marked by heavy
deficiency, and finally how the colonies were alienated, ruined,
and despairing. Then, after going into statistics to prove his
case, and after defending the form of his motion, he expressed
his desire "to know why there is such a depreciation in the
condition of the people of England . , . . why there is such an
increase in the number of able-bodied paupers in England^an
increase in three years of 74 per cent  I want to know,
too," he went on, "why there is such a relative increase in the
general mass of pauperism, and in our expenditure for the relief
of that pauperism,"
And as it would have been absurd to complain without
offering some sort of solution of the problem, he proceeded to
do so, tracing the troubles of the nation first to the falling off
of its foreign trade, the statistics of which showed a diminution
in the exports of not less than seven millions in the three years
1845-8. This he proposed to remedy by encountering the
hostile tariffs of foreign countries with countervailing duties,
the judicious application of which would, he contended, produce,
not scarcity and dearness, but cheapness and abundance. In
any case he protested against handicapping the Enghsh pro
ducer for the benefit of his foreign rival. Then quoting from
Professor Jones's work upon " Rent," he pointed out that the
great reduction in the price of corn — 26 per cent, — left the

294 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
agricultural class with less money — in homely phrase—" to go
to market with," and that the result showed itself in the de
pression of the manufacturing interest. The whole drift of the
argument was that the interests of all classes in the nation are
identical, and that one— the landed interest — cannot be injured
without the others suffering. The same rule he illustrated by
what was going on in Ireland — which, in striking phrase, he
declared to be " pouring her paupers into Liverpool like some
wild nation that appeared at the fall of the Roman Empire " —
and in the colonies, which had been paralysed by the suddenness
of Emancipation, and ruined by the action of the Liberal party
in the matter of the Sugar Duties. That party had laid the
blame of the depression of trade upon the disturbed state of the
Continent. He would not stop to inquire how far England was
responsible for the convulsions themselves, but he pointed out
that when this country might have enacted the part of peace
maker, her hands were tied for the simple reason that she was
everywhere regarded as the handmaid and colleague of the dis
contented in every country.
Leaving these themes. Lord Beaconsfield closed one of the
most powerful speeches he ever delivered by an eloquent
passage, in which he showed that the position held by England
really resulted from the aristocratic principle in its completest
and most magnificent development. That principle the Liberal
party had deliberately set itself to subvert, " You set to work
to change the basis upon which this society was established — "
you disdain to attempt the accomplishment 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 prin
ciple is fallacious — that its infallible consequence is to cause

The General Discontent. 295
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 unrivaUed
factories, nor in the intrepid industry of our miners. Not 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 inde
fatigable ambition 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, accompanied as it is on all sides by
an avowed inability to suggest any remedy. The feature of the
present day is depression and pei-plexity. That En^ish spirit
which was called out and supported by our old system seems
to have departed from us. It was a system which taught men
to aspire and not to grovel. It was a system which gave strength
to the subject, and stability to the State — that made the people
of this country undergo adversity and confront it with a higher
courage than any other people, and that animated them in the
enjoyment of a prosperous fortune to a higher enterprise. . . .
But, 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,
' I suffer, and I see no hope,' I was reminded the other day,
when reading a passage in the works of the greatest of Roman

296 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
statesmen, of the truth that the present is only the reproduc
tion of the past. It would perhaps be pedantic in me to quote
the passage to the House, who are well acquainted with it, but
it is where Cicero tells Atticus, in the last years of that great
epoch when he flourished, that a new disease had fallen upon
the State ; that the State is dying of a new disease, that men
of all conditions joined in denouncing everything that was done ;
that they complained, grieved, openly lamented ; that com
plaint was universal, but that no remedy was proposed by any
one, and he says that there is a general idea that resistance
without some fatal struggle was impossible — although it were
resistance against that which all disapproved ; and that the
only limit of concession appeared to be the death of the Re
public. I think the passage runs somewhat thus : —
" Nunc quidam novo quodam morbo civitas moritur, et cum
omnes ea quae sunt acta, improbent, querantur, doleant, apor-
teque loquantur et tam clare gemunt, tamen medicina nulla
afferatur, neque resisti sine internecione posse arbitramur, nee
finis cedendi, videmus, prsetur exitium,"*
* I have given the passage as it stands iu "Hans.ird," but Mr, Hansard's
reporters must have been nodding when they printed it thus. Eor a long time
I was unable to construe the sentence, or to discover the source from which it was
derived. I now append the quotation as it should be given, with a translation : —
"Nunc quidem novo quodam morbo civitas moritur, ut, cum omnes ea, quae
sunt acta, improbent, querantur, doleant, varietas nulla in re sit aperteqiie
loquantur et jam clare gemant, tamen medicina nuUa aflferatur ; neque enim
resist! sine internecione posse arbitramur, nee videmus, qui finis cedendi prajter
exitium futurus sit. " — Cic. ad Att. ep. 20.
For now the State is dying of a sort of new disease, to the effect that, although
everyone condemns, complains, and grieves at the measures which have been
taken, there is no difference on any point, and people speak out openly, and even
sigh audibly, yet no remedy is brought forward ; and indeed I am of opinion that
resistance is impossible without a massacre, and see not what limit there can he
to giving way, short of utter ruin.

The Motion "Not a Flash in the Pan." 297
The speech concluded with a declaration of war against the
Ministry ; a bold assertion that the Opposition were prepared
with a remedy for the maladies under which the country was
suffering, and something more than a hint that the Tory
party was ready to take office if the country would accord its
confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Charles Wood) replied
in a very long speech, which went to show that, in spite of the
frightful increase of Poor Rates and pauperism, the falling off
of the foreign trade and the general stagnation in the manufac
turing districts, the country had never been so well off or so
happy as it had been since Peel avowed himself a convert to
the doctrines of the Manchester School and with a Tory majority
carried Whig measures. Mr. Roebuck followed on the same
side, and earnestly assured the House that the condition of the
country was one of " hope and confidence." Things might not
be prosperous, but prosperity was coming. In the meantime
England would wait and hope, and as regarded her foreign
policy, trust implicitly to Lord Palmerston. A little discussion
followed, in the course of which Mr. Plumptre, the member for
East Kent, controverted Mr. Roebuck's proposition, that there
was no distress amongst the agricultural labourers by giving the
workhouse statistics for his own constituency, which disclosed a
very terrible state of matters. There was a little farther discus
sion on the question of the adjournment, in the course of which
Mr. Bernal Osborne described the motion as '' a flash in the pan
Motion," a phrase which brought Lord Beaconsfield to his feet
with the declaration : " 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."

298 The Public Life of the Ea^d of Beaconsfield.
He was quite right. The Tory party did not succeed on this
occasion. The debate was adjourned until the following day,
when the greater part of the sitting was taken up with one of
Feargus O'Connor's Chartist motions, in the division upon which
15 members including Tellers went into the lobby of the Ayes
as against 224 Noes. When on the day following the debate
was resumed, the Whigs had things all their own way. Mr.
Hume, who had announced his intention to move an amend
ment to the effect that the relief sought must be obtained by a
reduction of the national expenditnre, withdrew it and made a
speech full of statistics designed to prove that the national dis
tress arose from " bloated establishments." Peel m^ade a speech
so great that he considered it worthy afterwards of separate
publication. It was designed to prove that the policy of which
he had been the consistent advocate during the best years of
his life was a folly and a blunder, and declaring— which Lord
Beaconsfield certainly had not done — that the object of the
motion was to " put a paltry fixed duty on corn," The Marquis
of Granby hit the manufacturing supporters of Free Trade
hardly by showing that the effect of cheapening corn had
been to reduce wages for piece work in the cotton trade to
a very serious extent. And finally, Lord John Russell made
a statistical speech which plainly proved that in as many as 16
out of the 652 Unions in England and Wales there had been
a decrease of pauperism.
The debate was brought to a conclusion at three o'clock in
the morning by a speech from Lord Beaconsfield once more
advocating a reciprocity system, and protesting against the
notion that such a system by any means implied the taxa
tion of raw materials. "A duty on the raw material," said he.

F>'ce Trade v. Protection. 299
" renders British labour less efficient ; a duty on corn on the
contrary would protect British labour and maintain its ex
changeable value." The advocates of protection, in short, did
not wish to restrict the supply of the raw material of Englisli
manufactures, but they did wish by refusing to admit the
product of an American industry free of all duty to stimulate
production at home. Those ideas may be bad political economy,
fallacious, selfish, and so forth, but they were certainly enter
tained by a goodly section of the community in 1849, and later
experience has shown that they are not hopelessly absurd.*
Curiously enough, they have also the sanction of the older
political economists. At all events they had the merit of
patriotism, and though that old-fashioned virtue has been
partially superseded by a bastard cosmopolitanism, there are
still some few people who believe in the greatness of their
country, who recognise the fact that the interests of England
are the interests of peace, order and civilization throughout
the world, and that the best way of securing those interests
is through such a consolidation of the British Empire as that
of which " Disraeli the Younger " dreamed in the " thirties ; "
strove for as the leader of " Young England," and fought for as
the chief — albeit with a mutinous following — of the Tory party
in 1848 and 1849.
It was a mere matter of course that the motion should have
led to no result beyond that of allowing the Tory party to
define their position. The Government obtained a majority of
140 in a House of 452 in spite of Mr. Disraeli's warning that
the vote was one of confidence, and that it meant " confidence
* Jlr. Lecky in his " History of England in the Eighteenth Century," has a,
very curious and interesting passage on this subject.

300 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
in an empty and exhausted exchequer. . . in an endangered
Colonial Empire, , . in Danish blockades and Sicilian insurrec
tions. . . in a prostrate and betrayed agriculture, . , and in
Irish desolation. Vote for these objects," he concluded, " vote
your confidence in the Government in which you do not confide,
but if you give them your votes, at least in future have the
decency to cease your accusations and silence your complaints,"
The time was indeed not yet ripe for releasing England from
the burden of Whig ascendancy. A little later in the Session,
in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr, Cobden recommended
the member for Buckinghamshire to practise a little agitation if
he wished to convert the people to his side — a hint which drew
down on his head a spirited and sarcastic retort. Meetings
were held at various places throughout the country during the
autumn. One at Castle Hedingham where Lord Beaconsfield
made a speech to the assembled agi-iculturists was especially
noticeable. There was no hint of violence or even of agitation
— there were indeed but 180 persons present — but the orator
dwelt with no little force on the fact that by the policy of the
Government the manufacturing class had been arrayed against
the agricultural, and that the time for some sort of reprisal had
come. That reprisal, he suggested, might take the form of a
sinking fund, the means for which should be provided by an ad
valorem duty on all articles of foreign produce. A month or
two later— in January, 1850 — Mr, Cobden did what he had
recommended Lord Beaconsfield to do. He tried a little agita
tion on his own account, and went down to Aylesbury to pro
claim to the farmers of Buckinghamshire the beauties of Free
Trade and the absurdity of their demand for an equalization
of local taxation. An invitation was sent to Mr, Disraeli to

Reftises to meet Mr. Cobden at Aylesbury. 301
attend, but instead of doing so he dined on the day preceding
the soirh with the farmers of Buckinghamshire at Great
Marlow. After dinner he made a short and lively speech, in
the course of which he told his hearers that he did not intend
to go to the soirie, for the simple reason that he met Mr, Cobden
at soirees seven months in the year, and that whenever the
interests of the agriculturists were concerned he "should not be
afraid to speak his mind even to Mr, Cobden." Cobden went
do"wn and delivered a rather long speech, in which he gave
valuable and interesting information concerning the manage
ment of his estate at Midhurst — an estate of 140 acres once the
property of his family and repurchased for him by the Anti-
Corn Law League — and accepted Mr. Disraeli's definition of
the land as the " raw material " of food. Of this admission the
leader of the Tory party made good use at the proper time.
Otherwise the meeting was not an important one. A few
farmers were present, but none of the representatives of the
county, and the majority of the audience were artizans and
mechanical labourers who were not quite so well convinced as
Mr. Cobden was of the increased prosperity of the country since
the adoption of Free Trade, and who manifested their dissent
by carrying on a seri.es of free fights during his address.
Before Parliament opened there were many Protectionist
meetings in various parts of the country. At Stafford one
was held at which the townsmen attempted to interrupt the
farmers, and being ejected from the Town Hall broke the
windows and raised a riot. Other meetings, similarly in
terrupted, were held at Penenden Heath, Lincoln, Northamp
ton, Stepney, Aylesbury, and other places. The discontent of
the agricultural class was deep and abiding, and some strong

302 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
things were said. As a rule, however, the cry of the farmers
was simply for justice, and though a good deal was made of
what were said to be the " dark threats " of the sufferers by
repeal, their threats were honeyed blandishments compared
with the menaces of the Anti-Corn Law party, before 1846,
and of the Whigs before the Reform Bill of 1832. Such
as they were it is a mere matter of course to have to add
that on various occasions in the House, the cries of two
or three of the farmers who had been ruined, were spoken
of with greater severity than was bestowed upon the worst
menaces of O'Connell, Mitchell, and the later Chartists. The
vague threat of a certain Chewier that the farmers would
"back up the labourers in whatever they might do," has
been represented times without number as proving the blood
thirsty temper of the agriculturists. Yet those who have read
so far will hardly have forgotten the declaration of one rever
end and ardent politician during the Anti-Corn Law agitation,
that if the lot fell upon him to murder Peel he would take
it — a little bit of brag which made him acquainted for a while
with the interior of a gaol.
Parliament was opened on the 31st of Januai-y, 1850, by
Commission. The Speech from the Throne contained little
that was of permanent interest — a paragraph about the Navi
gation Laws, another about the cholera, and another about the
Queen's recent visit to Ireland served to introduce one con
gratulating the country on the improved condition of commerce
and manufactures. With regard to the prevaihng agricultural
distress, the Queen was then made to say : " It is with regret
that Her Majesty has observed the complaints which, in many
parts of the kingdom, have proceeded from the owners and

The Landed Interest. 303
occupiers of land. Her Majesty greatly laments that any
portion of her subjects should be suffering distress ; but it is a
source of sincere gratification to Her Majesty to witness the
increased enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts of life
which cheapness and plenty have bestowed upon the great
body of her people." It is not surprising that these words
excited considerable dissatisfaction, and that Sir John Trollope,
who moved the Amendment to the Address, complained of the
almost contemptuous indifference with which the agricultural
class were treated. Mr. Disraeli did not speak until the close
of the debate, and when he did he made two very distinct
points. In the first place he asked if the 250,000 landed pro
prietors of England, with their families and dependents — the
owners of the land — and the 700,000 farmers, with their
families and their dependents, the agricultural labourers — the
occupiers of the land — were so contemptible in number, in
character, and in conduct as to be slighted in this fashion.
"This alone is an affair of millions," said he. "You acknow
ledge those millions are in a state of great distress in con
sequence of your recent legislative enactments, and you
counsel your Sovereign, to treat their feelings with derision
and mockery." Tacitly, though not in so many words, he
admitted that it was impossible to expect a re-imposition of
the Corn Laws. Indeed, the guiding principle of Lord
Beaconsfield's public conduct has always been to accept the
past as inevitable, and to seek for amelioration in other
directions than by the repeal of accomplished legislation — but
he intimated in the clearest way that there was a means by
which agricultural distress might be mitigated, and that that
was by the readjustment of local burdens. Availing himself

304 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
adroitly of Mr. Cobden's admission that land is a " raw
material," he made his second point by calling upon the
Government either to reconstruct the Englisli commercial
.system upon those principles favourable to British industry
which the Protectionists advocated, or else to carry out its
own principles to their legitimate consequences by removing
the burdens on land. " Do not," said he, " under this system
oppress the land of England with the pharisaical pretence that
you are the advocates of a great pohtico-economical scheme
that will not tolerate the taxation of a raw material, and
suppose at the same time that we will endure that the whole
social existence of England shall be founded on a system which
morning, noon and night, in every duty of the life of an
Englishman, taxes the most important raw material of a
nation's industry." It might be thought that this was suffi
ciently plain speaking, but Lord John Russell in replying
professed himself unable to understand what it was that his
opponent wanted, and complained that Mr. Disraeli had " in
volved his purpose ' in such an ambiguity of language, in such
tortuous expressions, and appeals to our sense of justice that
really it becomes a matter of the utmost difficulty to know
what this amendment is to mean." Other members seemed to
have [shared his bewilderment, and on a division the Govern
ment found itself in a majority of 119.
Nothing daunted, Mr. Disraeli returned to the charge some
three weeks later, when he presented a petition from 200
Buckinghamshire owners and occupiers of land, representing
the depressed condition of the agi-icultural interest, and praying
for relief from local burdens and for equality with the foreign
agriculturist. Supported by this petition, and by another

The Agricultural Interest. 305
bearing upwards of a thousand signatures (which, however, he
did not present, on the ground of an informality), Mr. Disraeli
delivered an argumentative speech, dwelling once more on tho
injustice of throwing the burden of local administration exclu
sively on the land, and wound up with a motion for a Com
mittee of the whole House to consider such a revision of the
Poor Laws as might aUeviate agricultural distress. There was
an animated debate for a couple of nights, in tbe course of
which the cause of the agriculturists certainly suffered quite as
much from the injudiciousness of its advocates as from the
power of its opponents. Men like Colonel Sibthorpe and Mr.
Drummond — eminently honourable and worthy of all respect,
but swayed by passion and prejudice in equal parts — did more
to damage the party to which they belonged than Mr. Bright
or Mr. Cobden, and it was the difficulty of dealing with sup
porters like these which delayed the return of the Tory party
to power for so many years. In spite of the hostility of the
united Whigs and Radicals, and in spite also of the weakness
of his own following, Mr. Disraeli succeeded in proving that
his view of the question was gaining ground in the country.
It was a matter of course that he should be defeated ; but the
numbers were very different from those of the last occasion.
The House was unusually full ; 525 members voted, and the
Government found itself in a majority of only 21.
When the financial policy of the year came to be discussed,
Mr. Disraeli found another opportunity of advocating the cause
of the agriculturists. The Budget was brought in by Sir
Charles Wood on the 15th of March. It was, as one of its
critics observed, pas grand' chose, but it was more satisfactory
than the wonderful muddling of 1848. Income was estimated
VOL. I. X

3o6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
at £52,285,000 and expenditure at £50,613,582 leaving a
surplus of, in round numbers, a million and a half, which the
Government proposed to utilise in reducing certain recently
contracted debts, in repealing the excise duty on bricks and in
lowering the stamp duties. On going into supply on the 26th
of April, Mr. Disraeli sarcastically complimented the Govern
ment on its promptitude in making the financial statement so
early in the year but expressed a certain amount of regret that
no greater progress had been made. The measure on the
Stamp Duties had, it seemed, been given up. " All that has
happened hitherto is the repeal of one excise duty, but no
person can say that is the Budget of the Government. All that
recommends it is that it repeals the duty on an article of
excise, and as it is the repeal of an excise duty and not of a
customs duty, it recognises a salutary principle. I am aware
that it is always understood that some indulgence should be
exhibited to the finances of a Whig Ministry. We cannot, it
is admitted, expect that the Government should excel in every
branch. The foreign policy of the Government by its peremptory
decrees maintains the dignity of the country, and by its nume
rous blockades vindicates our supremacy of the seas. The
Colonial Office by its ingenuity in manufacturing constitutions
upholds the well-won reputation of this country as the pattern
of Liberalism throughout the world, and there is always in the
pigeon-holes of a Whig Cabinet a traditionary policy that
inevitably renders Ireland rich and England content. These
are things that may well compensate for an apparent deficit,
and sometimes for a proposition to double the Income Tax."
Then, after pointing to the fact that two months had gone by
and that so far there was no certainty as to what the financial

The Agricultural Interest. 307
policy of the Government was to bo, now that after three failures
the Stamp Act had apparently been abandoned, he asked
Ministers to consider the claims of the agricultural interest —
to which, indeed, a promise had already been made. It was a
matter of course that that relief should not be afforded. Lord
John Russell made a very acrid speech, protesting that the
claims of the rural sufferers had been met by the removal of
the excise on bricks ; Colonel Sibthorpe commented on the
small number of members in the House, and Mr. Hume
censured both sides of the House alike for wasting the public
money on the national defences. Under such circumstances it
was useless to press the matter to a division.
Twice more during this session Mr. Disraeli supported the
agricultural interest in the House. Mr. Grantley Berkeley
brought forward on the 14th of May a motion for a Committee
of the whole House on the Importation of Foreign Corn. It
was very generally believed that a dissolution at that moment
would have returned a Protectionist majority, and it was well
known that the depression of ajgriculture had had the effect of
stimulating emigration to an extent which in many quarters
was thought exceedingly dangerous. The Government naturally
opposed the Committee, and Mr. Disraeli as naturally supported
it, though he was fain to confess that it was not a motion of
which if he had been consulted he should have recommended
the introduction, his objection to it being that it was of a
partial character, and dealt too exclusively with the interests of
a single class. He would have preferred a more general re
adjustment of the taxation of the country, and the adoption of
a system of reciprocity in dealing with foreign states. A
motion so supported could not but fail, and the Government X 2

3o8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
consequently scored a victory by 114 votes — a number which
was raised to 124 when on the 5th July Mr. Cayley moved
for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Malt Tax. On this
occasion Mr. Disraeli again spoke stating the depressed con
dition of agriculture as the primary reason for his intended
vote and the injustice of the heavy burdens on land as the
secondary. He complained in somewhat stringent terms that
the Government had known all about this agricultural distress
for six months and had made no attempt whatever to relieve
it in spite of the many efforts that had been made to induce
them to do so. Finally he argued that the repeal of the Malt
Tax was a necessary corollary to the repeal of the Com Laws,
and therefore called upon the Government to complete its work.
On this question of Malt, however, the Tory pai-ty have not
always been united, and Lord John Russell was able to make a
strong point out of the declaration of Lord Stanley — the leader
of the Tories in the Upper House — that if he " were a member
of the House of Commons he should . . . think no minister in
opposition would vote for the remission of a duty involving
£4,500,000 without being provided with some means by which
the deficiency might be made good."
The autumn of 1850 will be memorable in history chiefly on
account of the establishment of the Roman hierarchy in this
country. During the troubles of 1848-9-50 England had in
every way abstained from active interference in the affairs of
Rome — rather an unusual thing by the way when Lord Russell
was in office — and the Pope is said to have been very grateful
for our neutrality. His gratitude assumed, however, a very ob
jectionable form. Up to 1850 the affairs of the Roman Church
in this counti-y had been managed by a vicar-general, and a tacit

The Roman Bishops and the Whigs. 309
recognition was thus afforded of the validity of English orders
and of the due succession of the occupants of the ancient
historical sees. Now, however, the forbearance of England
was to be rewarded by the Pope parcelling the country out
into a number of sees with territorial titles. The act was an
annoying piece of insolence, but a certain amount of justification
may be pleaded for it. In the first place the officials of the
Government had for some time formally recognised the eccle
siastical rank of Roman Catholic prelates in Ireland and the
colonies. Even that choice specimen of the theological fire
brand, Dr, MacHale — " the Lion of St, Jarlath " — was constantly
addressed as " your Grace," and spoken of as the " Archbishop
of Tuam," and in a Royal Commission Archbishop Murray had
been placed before the Protestant bishops. There had been
many protests 'from the Tory party, but all had been unheeded,
and the Whig pohcy of encouraging the Roman Catholics in
every way had gone on. Emboldened by these circumstances,
and also no doubt by the notorious weakness of the Adminis
tration at this time, the Papal scheme was drawn up. Lord
Minto — Lord John Russell's father-in-law — ^was in Rome at
the time on the special mission to which reference has already
been made, and it is understood that he was invited to approve
the proposal, but that he cautiously refused to have anything
to do with it. There was a great deal of crimination and
recrimination about the matter, and each side accused the
other of falsehood somewhat freely. The truth appears to be
that Lord Minto was honoured with an audience by the Pope
who pointing to a parchment invited him to read it. This
Lord Minto declined to do, and so was able to say that he
knew nothing about the proposed Papal Aggression until his

3IO The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
return to England. That he was unofficially aware of it was
afterwards, however, admitted by himself
The parchment at which he cannily refused to glance was,
without doubt, that Papal Bull " given at St. Peter's, under the
seal of the fisherman," by which Pius IX., after having paid
special devotion to Almighty God, and "the most blessed
Virgin Mary, mother of God, and to the saints whose -nrtues
have made England illustrious," had taken counsel with the
Cardinals of the Congi-egation de Propaga/ndd Fide, and had
resolved and decreed "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 Bull was published in England, and raised one of
those extraordinary panics by which our countrymen some
times make themselves ridiculous. To the looker-on, who
views these matters with phlegm, it is a question of very little
importance whether an elderly clergyman wears red stockings
or black, and of equally little consequence whether some of
his fellow Christians are ordained or confirmed by a " Bishop
of Amycla in partibus infidelium," or by a " Bishop of Liver
pool," in the Kingdom of England. But this " Papal Aggres
sion" roused all the Protestantism of the country, and an agita
tion was got up which seriously threatened the liberty of the
subject. If the orators of Exeter Hall could have had their way,
a persecution which would have put those of the sixteenth
century to shame would have been got up. With his ac
customed forcible feebleness. Lord John Russell led the way.
The Bishop of Durham wrote him a letter, which, curiously
enough, has never seen the light, and in reply the noble Lord
dating from "Downing Street," and thus giving an officia

The Durham Letter. 311
chai-acter to his manifesto, penned that famous epistle which
set the country in a flame. The "aggression of the Pope
upon our Protestantism," he described as "insolent -and in
sidious ; " himself as " indignant." " There is," said he, " an
assumption of power in all the documents which have come
from Rome, a pretension of 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 the Roman Catholic times. . . .
No foreign prince or potentate will be allowed to fasten his
fetters upon a nation which has so long and so nobly vindi
cated its right to freedom of opinion, civil, political and re
ligious." He promised that the law should be examined, and
steps taken to vindicate its supremacy. Then followed a
tremendous phihppic against the Puseyites, and the letter
ended with a delicious bit of clap-trap about "the glorious
principles and immortal martyrs of the Reformation," "the
mummeries of superstition," and "the laborious endeavours
which are now making to confine the intellect and enslave
the soul."
This letter set England raging more fiercely than ever.
Every little dirty boy in the streets shouted " No Popery ! "
and Protestantism grew rampant in public meetings, — especi
ally in those parishes which rejoiced in the possession of a
High Church rector. Lord Beaconsfield was appealed to with
the rest, and, in a letter to the Lord Lieutenant of Bucking
hamshire, he expressed himself with his usual calmness. " After
the recognition given by the Government to the Irish hierarchy,"
said he, " his Holiness might well deem himself at liberty to

3 1 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
apportion England into dioceses, to be raled over by bishops.
Instead of supposing that he was taking a step ' insolent and
insidious,' he might conceive he was acting in strict accordance
with Her Majesty's Government. The fact is, the whole ques
tion 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 prelate, can
not 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 prece
dence, rather invest his Eminence 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 Government is, that there shall be no distinction
between England and Ireland. I am therefore rather sur
prised that the Cabinet are so 'indignant,' as a certain
letter with which we have just been favoured informs us
they are."
It afterwards appeared that Lord John Russell, with his
usual impetuosity, had published this famous letter without
consultation with any of his colleagues and that when it ap
peared it created great dismay and confusion amongst them.
Lord Lansdowne, in an interview with Sir George Bowyer,
expressed his "deep regret," and his distress at the state of
the country.* In spite of this expression of opinion, however,
* It is a little odd that whilst many Protestants treated the creation of this
hierarchy as a very trumpery matter, the most prominent of the Roman Catholics
expressed strong disapproval of the policy of the Vatican. In a correspondence
published within three weeks of the ' ' Durham Letter, " between Lord Beaumont,
the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Zetland, the first expressed Ms regret that
" the Pope by his ill-advised measures had placed the Roman Catholics of tMs

The Qucciis Speech, 313
the agitation went merrily on through the winter. Works on
the Papal controversy poured in shoals from the press — seventy-
eight separate books and pamphlets were published in one
month in London alone — and deputations from the Corporation
of London and from tho Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
waited on the Queen to expound their loyalty, and to protest
against the aggressions of Rome. Bishops and Archbishops
sent in memorials to the same effect, and petitions to Parlia
ment were adopted at enthusiastic meetings which did not
always terminate without disturbance and riot.
Parliament opened on the 4th of February,^ 1851, with a
Speech from the Throne, which, if such an expression were not
profane, one would be tempted to call a "rigmarole." The
most important paragraph related of course to the subject on
which all men's minds were engaged. "The recent assump
tion of certain Ecclesiastical Titles," said her Majesty, " con
ferred by a foreign power, has excited strong feelings in this
country, and large bodies of my subjects have presented ad
dresses to me, expressing attachment 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
independence 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
country in a position where they must either break with Rome or violate their
allegiance to the Constitution of these realms." Further on he spoke of Lord
John as " a true friend of the British constitution. " The Duke of Norfolk wrote
that he " entirely coincided in the opinions " of Lord Beaumont's letter, adding,
"I should think you must feel as we do, that Ultramontane opinions are totally
imeompatible with allegiance to our Sovereign and with the Constitution." It
should be noted that the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk "came over" to the
Church of England at the end of August.

3 1 4 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
God's blessing, to maintain unimpaired the religious 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." The debate on the Address was unusually
lively. Mr, Roebuck, between whom and the leader of the
Tories there was really a community of opinion all the more
remarkable for their not unfrequent quarrels, assailed the
Government with some very hard hitting for the unworthy
panic which the Durham Letter had created, and pointed out
that not only had the contemplated division of England into
Roman Cathohc dioceses been a matter of notoriety for at least
two years, but that the Government had actually treated the
Roman Catholic Archbishops as peers and prelates equally with
the Bishops of the Irish Church.
Lord John Russell made a long and wordy apology for the
Durham Letter ; and speaking with reference to the cheap loaf
pointed out that, although wages had fallen in the agricultural
districts by at least 2s, a week, the purchasing power of the
labourer's 8s, or 10s. was greater since the introduction of free
trade. Mr. Disraeli replied with a sarcastic comment on the
obvious despair felt by the Government of improving the condi
tion of the agricultural classes, and then turned to the great
subject of the day. He would not believe that the Durham
Letter had been written wholly without the assent of the
Cabinet, and that it did not, in some sense at least, express
their views. And he did not think that that letter was solely
provoked by the appointment of Dr. Wiseman as Archbishop
of Westminster. " I think the noble Lord thought that the
time had arrived when, from information which no doubt had
reached his ear, and from thoughts which had long occupied his

Papal Aggression. 315
mind, he felt that a very great change must take place in the
relations which must hereafter subsist between tliu Crown of
England and the Pope of Rome, and the noble Lord took the
occasion of this last drop in the cup to adopt the policy which
he had long meditated. ... I cannot suppose that the noble
Lord only contemplates the bringing in of a Bill to prevent
Roman Catholics from styling themselves Bishops or Arch
bishops of any of these towns or cities in the Queen's dominions ;
he cannot be about to bring in any such measure as that, be
cause then he would not have been justified in stirring up the
passions of a mighty people — in exciting their highest and
hohest feehngs, and in raising in this country a spirit of con
troversy and polemical dispute which recalls the days of the
Stuarts, and the end of which none of us may live to witness.
. . . But if the noble Lord 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 indeed he may lay claim to the reputation and the charac
ter of a great Minister. Such is the measure he must bring in
to authorise the course he has taken ; such is the measure I for
one would humbly support ; 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." When Lord John Russell's absurd and abortive Bill was
brought in. Lord Beaconsfield expressed his contempt for it in
the plainest terms. He indeed voted for the introduction of
the Bill, but was careful to explain that he did so, "because he

3 1 6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
thought it important that the people, the community in generah
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." Having
said so much, he went on to comment with scathing sarcasm on
the ridiculous mouse of which the parturient mountain had
been delivered. " Was it for this that the Lord High Chan
cellor of England trampled on a Cardinal's Hat, amid the
patriotic acclamations 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 occasions
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 Eng
land met ? Was it for this that all our learned and religious
societies assembled at a peiiod 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 determina
tion 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

Lord John Russell's Inconsistencies. 3 1 7
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."
Then, with a good deal of sarcasm, he dwelt upon Lord
John's inconsistencies, pointing out how he had expressly
exempted Ireland in his speeches out of the House, and even
from the operation of his Bill, and yet pointed to the proceedings
of the Synod of Thurles as the exciting cause of the proposed
legislation, and how in July, 1845, the noble Lord had expressed
himself in favour of the repeal of "those disallowing clauses
which prevented a Roman Catholic bishop assuming a title
held by a bishop of the Established Church," and was now,
in 1851, demanding special powers from Parliament for the
punishment of a much smaller offence. Lord John had, more
over, described the Pope's letter as "a blunder of the sudden."
" Is it forsooth," said Mr. Disraeli, "that he begins to believe
that the business is an insignificant one ?  'a blunder of
the sudden ' — a somewhat strange phrase, and one which
perhaps some persons might think applicable to some other
letters." And then he went on to show that there was no
suddenness in the matter. Lord John's own words in 1845 ;
the precedence accorded to the Irish Roman Catholic prelates,
and Lord Minto's quiet avoidance of the subject at the time of
his famous interview with Pius IX., were sufficient to dispose
of the explanation of " suddenness." Finally, he protested
against the notion of allowing the Whigs to attempt the
government of the country by " a continual Popish Plot," and
urged that the Government having made a great deal of capital

3 1 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
out of the Papal Aggression were bound to attempt the solution
of the political problem which it had raised.*
In the course of the discussion the Bill was a good deal
knocked about, and seven nights were consumed in the debate
on the second reading. On the last of these nights, Mr.
Disraeli spoke again, asking in effect whether the measure of
the Government was likely to do any good — whether it was not
likely to do harm, and whether it was not wholly superfluous ?
"I disapprove," said he, "of the Government measure, and the
first reason is this, that by implication it admits that the
conduct of the Cardinal of which we complain is not illegal.
That conduct must be either legal or illegal. If it is legal, then
he has not offended. If it is illegal, why not deal with him by
law ? But I am told you cannot deal with him by law, because
the law is obsolete  The law is ancient, but it is not
obsolete  The whole thing is founded on a fallacy ;
because if you choose to legislate against those titles of which
I disapprove, you ought not to legislate against the assumption
of these titles by bishops of the Romish Church, but against
the ascription of titles of honour and dignity to them by her
* It is somewhat curious to note that in all the debates in Parliament and in
all the public meetings which preceded them, the real point at issue was never men
tioned. There was plenty of Protestantism of the combative sort, plenty of denun
ciation of the usurpations of the Pope, but nowhere do we find any recognition of
the fact that the Pope in 1850, did for England — a professedly Protestant country
— that which he would never have even dreamed of doing in a country professedly
Roman Catholic. In the case of this country he created a number of Episcopal
Sees, to which he was to have the sole and unlimited right of nomination, hut in
evei-y country which officially recognizes the Roman Church, the Government of
the day invariably either selects the candidates for the Episcopate or exercises the
right of veto on their appointment. Had the Government of Lord John Russell
accepted the situation with this condition, which is presumably what Lord
Beaconsfield would have done, the whole difficulty would have vanished.

The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. 319
Majesty's Ministers. What a mockery, 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 1 " In Committee, Mr. Urquhart moved an
amendment to the effect that the recent Papal Aggression had
been really stimulated by the conduct of the Government, which
afforded Mr. Disraeli an opportunity of repeating his argu
ment, and it is not a little interesting to note that on this
occasion he was cordially seconded by his staunch antagonist,
Mr. Roebuck. In the further debates in Committee on this
most unfortunate measure, he spoke several times, and in
variably in the same sense — expressing his belief that the
excuse for the BiU had been found only in the conduct of
Ministers, that a great mistake had been made in making-
legislation on this matter penal, but that if the House had
determined on taking such a step, it was desirable that such
penal legislation should be effective. What the result was, we
aU know. Lord John Russell passed a maimed and futile
measure through Parliament, and nothing more was heard of it
for twenty years. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was simply the
most ridiculous failure of a Government, which was only saved
from an ignominious catastrophe by the accidental influence of
the first Great Exhibition.*
Whilst Parliament was occupied with this measure, greater
events were in course of transaction. On the 11th of February,
Mr. Disraeli having first required that those portions of the
* The reader will doubtless remember Leech's capital cartoon "The Ship
wrecked Ministry saved by Steamer Great Exhibition " — but that was in the days
before Punch had ceased to be a comic paper.

320 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Queen's Speech which related to agricultural distress should be
read at the table once more, called the attention of the House
to the effects of recent legislation on the . agricultural interest,
and to the unequal pressure of local taxation, and moved, that,
in the opinion of the House, it was the duty of the Government
to introduce some measure of relief. It is hardly necessary to
say that no redress was afforded. The debate lasted through a
couple of nights, and the old ground was gone over a great
number of times ; the position of the Government being,
however, somewhat strengthened by the fact pointed out by Sir
Charles Wood, that the prosperity of England was gradually
but steadily returning, and that in proportion as other interests
improved, the agricultural must improve also. It was urged
also that in many ways expenditure might be cut down,
especially in the direction of the reduction of pensions,* while
other members looked to emigration — then becoming greater
with every succeeding week — as the panacea for aU social iUs.
There was, however, nothing very novel in the debate, save
that Mr. Disraeli in his concluding speech, made a good point
by showing that two years before Mr. Cobden himself had
promised the repeal of- the Malt Tax as an " obnoxious impost."
" We owe the farmers something," the great Free Trader had
said, "and we will endeavour to repay them in kind." The
House divided, and as a matter of course Mr. Disraeli was again
defeated, but by a majority of 14 only — a majority so small as
* It might have been as well to begin with the pensions and sinecures of the
two or three great "Whig families who monopolised the good things of the public
service, "What they amounted to in 1851 I have no means of knowing, but
there is in existence authority to show that the united salaries and pensions of
the noble house of Elliot alone amoimted in 1837 to the respectable sum of
£926,687,

Mr. Locke King's Reform Bill. 321
very palpably to affect the position of the Goveniraeiit, Four
days later. Sir Charles Wood brought in the Budget, which was
received with a storm of disapprobation, A surplus of iiLiirly
two millions was anticipated, and one million it was }iroposed
to apply to paying off some part of the lately contracted
national debt, whilst the remainder was to be appropriated to
the partial abolition of the duty on windows. There was little
possibility of mistaking the feeling of the House, and as little of
misinterpreting the opinion of the public on this matter.
Defeat was, however, to visit the Government from another
quarter. On the 20th Mr. Locke King once more opened the
interminable question of Reform with a proposal to reduce the
qualification for the county franchise to the same amount as
that for the boroughs — a £10 occupation. Lord John Russell
made one of his "finality" speeches, declaring himself perfectly
satisfied with the operation of the Act of 1832 — that best and
wisest and greatest of measures — and deprecating any change.
Mr. Disraeli neither spoke nor voted, and upon the division,
as much to the surprise probably of Mr. Locke King as
of anybody. Lord John Russell and his Government found
themselves in a minority of 48. It was certainly a snatched
victory ; the subject was a very large one, and had attracted
a House of only 150 members. That fact, however, coupled
with the smallness of the Government majority on the agricul
tural distress motion, was, perhaps not erroneously, interpreted
by Lord John Russell and his colleagues as evidence that
they were fast losing the confidence of the country. The
Times was accordingly allowed on the Saturday (22nd of
February) to announce the resignation of Ministers— a step
which caused general consternation, and under which consols
YOl, Ii X

32 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
dropped from 96J to 95f. It was known almost immediately
that the Queen had accepted Lord John's resignation and
had sent for Lord Stanley, who, having consulted with Mr,
Disraeli, announced that he was not prepared to form a new
Administration unless he were permitted to dissolve Parliament
at once. To this condition her Majesty refused assent, and at
a later hour on the Saturday evening Sir James Graham and
Lord Aberdeen were summoned with the object, as it was
understood, of bringing about a coalition by taking into Lord
John Russell's cabinet some of the old Peelite Ministers, There
was a peculiar appropriateness in sending for the former, since
in the recent debate on the motion of Mr, Disraeli he had
distinctly declared himself as convinced that the day for any
agitation for an increase in the price of corn had gone by, and
that it would be impossible for the House of Commons to
retrace its steps. On the Sunday the two Peehtes had a pro
tracted interview with Lord John in the morning, and at night
Lord Aberdeen went to the palace once more, it being then
considered the duty of the Sovereign to reside in London
during the greater part of the Parliamentary Session, The
negotiations went on throughout the day on Monday, and in
the evening Lord John was able to announce to the House that
he had consented to return to office with a reconstructed
Ministry. The House then adjourned until Friday the 28th
of February. By Wednesday, however, all hope of a recon
struction of the Government with the additional strength of t-wo
or three Peelite members was given up. Mr. Gladstone, -who
was on his way home from the Continent at the time of the
crisis, arrived on that day, and when applied to also refused to
take any part in the Government. The interregnum was coi)-

The Ministerial Crisis. 323
sequently a period of intense excitement. Lord John's failure
in reconstructing his Government led to fresh attempts on the
part of Lord Stanley, and as the Times of the Thursday
observed, "the political vane was turning with the unsteady
breeze to each successive point of the compass." In the
explanations which were given in both Houses on the Friday
night, it appeared that the efforts to reconstruct the Govern
ment had so far failed, and that Lord John still clung to his
abortive Ecclesiastical Titles Bill with more than parental fond
ness, on which account principally the Peelite members refused
to serve. The Queen had thereupon sent for the Duke of
WeUington, not that he might form a Ministry, but that he
might give her the benefit of his advice. The end of their
deliberations was that negotiations must still go on, and at last,
after an interregnum of eleven days, her Majesty cut the knot
by calling upon Lord John Russell and his colleagues to resume
their posts. The announcement was made on Monday the Srd
of March, and the first act of the discredited and humiliated
Government was to go on with the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
That measure was, however, somewhat modified by the omission
of the second and third clauses, which related to the collation
and induction of priests in Ireland and the succession to
bequests, thus reducing the proportions of the measure to a
declaration of Parliament against the assumption of titles only.
On the 4th of April, Sir Charles Wood brought in his
amended Budget — an improvement upon that which had
excited so much dissatisfaction in February, but not a very
brilliant achievement financially. The window tax was to be
abolished, and a house tax of %d. in the pound on dwelling-houses,
and Od on" shops substituted ; the duty on colonial coffee was to

324 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
be reduced one-fourth, and the protecting duty on foreign coffee
altogether removed, making all kinds pay a duty of 3d The
timber duties were also reduced, and a balance, reckoned at a
little under a million, was retained for emergencies. Such a
Budget naturally brought up Mr. Disraeli, who made a lively
and rattling speech, twitting Lord John with the weakness of his
Government, and recalling the attention of the House to the
fact, that instead of the surplus of £900,000 odd, of which Sir
Charles Wood had boasted, he had really one of £400,000 less,
that sum having just been claimed from the Government by
the East India Company. Farther, he asked for information
as to the reason why the proposals of the first Budget for the
relief of the agricultural interest had been withdrawn. Sir
Charles Wood had offered to allow clover and other seeds to be
imported free of duty, and to contribute from the Consolidated
Fund toward the relief of pauper lunatics. Why were these
proposals withdrawn ? It was true that they did not amount
to much, but they were yet something — the latter boon being
especially gratifying, inasmuch as it was the admission of a
great principle. 1
On this, as on other occasions during this session. Lord
Beaconsfield refrained from everything approaching to factious
attack, even whilst exercising to the full his undoubted right of
criticism, and he confined, most of his exertions in this way to
financial matters. In these he was peculiarly at home, and he
had a happy knack of quoting his adversaries against them
selves, which must have been especially galling to them.
Never was he more successful in this way than in a speech
delivered on the 2nd of May, on the proposal to renew the
Property Tax for three years, which Mr, Hume opposed with

"Doctoring' Public Opinion! 3.25
a proposition that the renewal should be for one year only.
Mr. Disraeli supported the amendment on the ground that tho
assessments proposed under the new Property Tax were not
equitable, but that it was not impossible to make them so.
The whole of the arguments in favour of the Government and
against Mr. Hume were based upon the theory that the
opponents of the three years' clause were in favour of a duty
on foreign corn — a subject which had not been even mentioned.
Mr. Cobden had objected to the amendment, even though it
came from one of the most distinguished members of his own
party, on the express groimd that it was supported by the
Protectionist party, " whose conduct was too transparent." The
hon. member for the West Riding had founded his objection to
Mr. Hume's amendment, on the ground that it opposed indirect
to direct taxation. Upon that Mr. Disraeli based his strenuous
opposition to the Income Tax — an impost which was always
represented as a temporary one, and which, unhappily, had
come to be regarded as " the foundation of our prosperity — the
only guarantee for the future comfort of the country." Turning
back to a speech of Mr. Cobden in 1845, before the Repeal of
the Corn Laws, Mr. Disraeli made some extracts from it which
must have made the ears of the veteran Free Trade to tingle.
" He had said, ' the Income Tax is a fungus growing from the tree
of monopoly.' Why this is the tax that is ' the foundation of the
new commercial system,' that is the only ' security for the con
tinuance of Free Trade 1 ' He then went on to say, ' That one
great monopoly, the Corn Law, alone renders that tax neces
sary.' Talk of public opinion, indeed ! I know not who can
praise it too much, when we see how it is thus doctored and
drilled, and I think it is much to the credit of the common

326 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
sense and spirit of the nation that under such influences they
can still generally act rightly and think justly." Again, speak
ing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer — who was certainly by
no means the strongest member of a generally feeble Cabinet
—Mr. Disraeli quoted from one of his speeches in 1845 : — •
" With regard to the general argument against the Income Tax,
proving its inequality, its injustice, its vexations, no attempts
have been made to answer that." The injustice and inequality
of the tax were, in the opinion of Mr. Disraeli, quite sufficient
to warrant his support of Mr. Hume's amendment, which was
eventually carried in the teeth of the divided and disorganised
administration by a majority of 14.
It is worthy of remark, that in the course of this speech Lord
Beaconsfield constantly spoke of the duty upon foreign corn as
an " abrogated tax " — an " obsolete impost," fi'om which it will
be readily understood that he had made up his mind as to the
impossibility of its reimposition. He did not, however, cease to
attack the policy of the Government in trusting to the Income
Tax as a permanent source of revenue, and On the 30th of June
he delivered a careful and indeed somewhat laboui'ed speech on
financial topics generally. The subject of the debate was the
Inhabited House Duty, and in the course of his speech he urged
upon the House the desirability, if a continuance of the Income
Tax should be considered advisable as an integral feature in
every budget, of placing direct taxation upon a true instead of
upon a false principle — " upon the principle which in the long
run will be advantageous to the' community, and not upon one
which, if it prevail, will in my opinion be most pernicious ; that
the principle which we apply to direct taxation shall virtually
be the same as that which we apply to indirect, and that in its

Prorogation. 327
application we should attempt to make it general, not to say
universal." The Income Tax itself he described as "a tax
Mse, dangerous and pernicious in its principle, as is every tax
intending direct impost to a large amount, and the principle of
which is not of direct application." The House, by carrying
Mr. Hume's amendment in opposition to the Government, had
endorsed this view of the case, and now Mr, Disraeli, accepting
that decision, contended that the surplus on which the financial
calculations of the budget had been based was merely pro
visional, and moved that no financial changes should be made
until smoother water had been reached.
All things now tended to show that the beginning of the end
was approaching. Parliament was prorogued on the 8th of
August in an insipid speech, in which the Queen was made to
thank "my Lords and Gentlemen" for repealing the window
tax, for passing the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, for " maintaining the
" principles of rehgious liberty " and for generally reducing the
taxation. The released members returned to their constituents,
and in the course of the autumn sundry very striking speeches
were made — ^not the least important being one delivered by
Lord Beaconsfield at the meeting of the Agricultural Associa
tion of Buckinghamshire on the l7th of September. In the
course of that speech he adverted, of course, to the repeal of the
Corn Laws, and to its effect upon the agricultural interest, and
then went on to warn the assembled farmers that Protection
was dead. " My conscience," said he, " 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 abrogated are two different things,
and I am convinced myself that the system generally known as

32 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
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 unmistakeable manner. But knowing as I do,
the difficulties in which the question is involved, am I, as the
representative of an agricultural constituency, to sit still, and to
say that those whose interests I represent", are to be allowed to
fall into a state of dilapidation 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." In these words
are to be found the text of the speech, the remainder of which
is devoted to a consideration of the anomalies of the system of
local taxation, and to the unfair pressure of the Malt Tax, for
the reform of both which matters Mr. Disraeli exhorted his
audience to work steadily. The speech was a very significant
one, and one which produced a great effect in the country.
The older section of the Protectionists were, indeed, exceedingly
angry, and Lord Stanhope expressed his opinion that it was
" most indiscreet," but outside the now restricted limits of the
party of Protection it was universally felt that Mr, Disraeli
had taken the wisest and indeed the only possible course
for the leader of the Constitutional party. So long as a possi
bility of reverting to the ancient state of things existed he
had fought undauntedly, but when that consummation became

Difficulties with Lord Palmerston. 329
obviously impossible he refrained from continuing to wage a
losing battle.
In the early winter of this year an event happened which
materially altered the position of the Government, and, in
homely phrase, "drove another nail in the Cabinet coffin."
Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, though working
together in a tolerably harmonious fashion, had long disagreed
as to the amount of independence which the Foreign Minister
of this country ought to possess, " Lord John Russell," says
Mr. Ashley in his life of Lord Palmerston, " not only as Prime
Minister, but as leader of the Liberal party, felt himself to be
invested, not only with great authority, but with great respon
sibility, and was not unfrequently reproached by some of his
colleagues, who, without considering our foreign policy in its
general aspect, were prone to criticise its details, for allowing
the Foreign Office too much independence. On the other
hand Lord Palmerston, who had acquired a complete mastery
over the business of his department, who always acted on
a thorough conviction that his views were undeniably right,
and who refrained from any interference in the internal policy
of the country, was disposed to think that very great latitude
within the sphere of his own .attributes should be allowed to
him. His notion was that a Foreign Minister ought to be
strictly bound to pursue the policy of the Cabinet he belonged
to, but that he ought to be left free to follow out that policy in
the ordinary details of his office, without having every despatch
he wrote subjected to criticism and comment," * This view
* This notion, it may be remarked, is decidedly not in accordance with the
traditions of English oflicial life. The Duke of "Wellington having been asked
by the Prince Consort whether he was not in the habit of interfering in the

330 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
commended itself neither to Lord John Russell nor to the
Prince Consort, who, as appears from his life, now in course
of publication, took a much greater interest and a far more
active part in the government of the country than is dommonly
supposed. The consequence was, that in 1850 a memorandum
was drawn up, requiring Lord Palmerston to do nothing without
consulting the Queen — which at this period meant without
consulting the Prince Consort and Baron Stockmar — and for
bidding him, in somewhat peremptory terms, to alter any
document after it had received the Royal sanction. Such a step,
he was warned, would be followed by his dismissal. He was
also required to place before her Majesty in good time all
despatches received, and to .submit all drafts of rephes. There
can be no reason for doubting that this memorandum was
addressed to Lord John Russell at his own request, and that
it reaUy represented his opinions quite as accurately as those
of her Majesty, There is, however, something exquisitely
ludicrous in the notion of the author of the " Durham Letter,"
complaining of a colleague for acting without consulting his
brother Ministers.
For a while Lord Palmerston appears to have obeyed those
insti-uctions to the letter, but always unwiUingly — principally
because of the loss of time which this system occasioned. The
Queen and the Premier maintained their ground, and insisted
on compliance. Their confidence in Lord Palmerston must,
however, have been considerably diminished when her Majesty
thought it necessary to write, and Lord Russell to communicate
Foreign Ofiice, replied with emphasis, " 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,"

Palmerston and the Htmgarian Patriots. 331
such a letter as that just cited. An imprudence at the begin
ning of 1851 injured him still farther. Kossuth had visited
this country in the autumn of 1850 in the hope of stirring up
a war for the liberation of Hungary. Ho was received with
wild enthusiasm by the people, but the Government was not quite
so eager to display its admiration, and refused the illustrious
exile an official reception. Tliere was no interference so long
as he chose to stay, but he was given to understand very dis
tinctly that he must expect no help from the Government.
After his departure, however, his admirers got up a series of
addresses to Lord Palmerston, thanking him for what he had
done towards securing the personal safety and ultimate libera
tion of the " iUustrious patriot and exile." In those addresses
— which were the production of the enlightened patriots of the
Tower Hamlets, of Finsbury and of Islington — the Emperors
of Russia and of Austria were spoken of as "odious and
detestable assassins," and as "merciless tyrants and despots,"
which might possibly be true, but which were certainly not
expressions which a Foreign Minister ought to allow to be used
in his presence, concerning sovereigns with whom this country
was on friendly terms. Lord Palmerston did more. He
expressed himself as " extremely flattered and highly gratified,"
and the only notice he took of these indecent epithets was
to say, " that he could not be expected to concur in some of
the expressions."
This was, to say the least, imprudent in the extreme. It is a
question indeed whether conduct such as this does not deserve
more severe reprehension, inasmuch as it placed the Sovereign
in a most invidious position with regard to her allies. As her
Majesty herself put the matter in a letter to Lord John

332 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
Russell:* "It is no question with the Queen whether she pleases
the Emperor of Austria or not, but whether she gives him a just
ground of complaint or not. And if she does so she can never
believe that this will add to her popularity with her own people."
Such a matter could not be passed over in silence, and it was
accordingly brought before the Cabinet by the express desire of
the Queen on the 4th of December. No formal resolution was
come to on the subject, but there was a strong expression of
opinion concerning Lord Palmerston's want of caution. Lord
Russell communicated the result to the Queen, adding a hope
that the matter would not be forgotten, and saying that he had
written to Lord Palmerston, " urging the necessity of guarded
conduct in the present very critical condition of Europe." This
letter was written on the 4th of December, on the morning of
which day the news of the cowp d'etat in Paris arrived. The
Queen at once wrote to Lord John Russell, impressing upon
him the need for caution, and desiring him to instruct Lord
Normanby to reiiiain perfectly passive, " since any word from
him might be misconstrued at such a moment." This caution
was the more necessary since, while Palmerston was an ardent
believer in the then Prince President, Lord Normanby was one
of his most violent opponents, and was necessarily recalled on
that account a few months later. On the day following Pal
merston wrote to Lord Normanby, desiring him to make no
change in his relations with the French Government, and there
the matt&- might have rested, but that in the course of business
a despatch from Lord Normanby arrived, replying to that of
Lord Palmerston, and adding that he had called upon M. Turgot,
* Quoted in Mr. Theodore Martin's "Life of tlie Prince Consort," vol. ii.,
p. 410.

Palmerston's Explanation. ¦^iZ
who informed him that he had hoard from Count Walowski that
the English foreign secretary " had expressed to him his entire
approval of the act of the President, and the conviction that he
could not have acted otherwise than he had done."
Naturally enough her Majesty was extremely indignant, and
wrote to Lord John Russell for explanations, saying that she
could not believe in the truth of this statement, " as such an
approval given by Lord Palmerston would have been in com
plete contradiction to the line of strict neutrality and passive-
ness which the Queen had desired to see followed with regard
to the late convulsions in Paris." Lord Palmerston did not
reply to the demand for explanations until the 16th, and in the
meantime he had written an official despatch to Lord Normanby
expressing his satisfaction at the result of the coup d'ita,t.
This despatch was not submitted to either Lord John Russell
or her Majesty. His " explanation," dated on the same day, is
a long statement of his views as to the condition of parties in
France, and of his conviction that since a conflict was inevitable
it was best that the President should have struck a decisive
blow preparatory to the establishment of a strong government
in France. Lord John Russell wrote back to the effect that his
colleague had misapprehended the question at issue, which was
not whether the President was justified in what he had done,
but whether he, as an English Minister, was justified in express
ing an opinion on the subject, and he concluded by saying that
"misunderstandings perpetually renewed, violations of prudence
and decorum too frequently repeated, have marred the effects
vvhich ought to have followed from a sound policy and able
administration" — i.e. his own. He therefore came to the con
clusion that he could not safely allow Lord Palmerston to remain

334 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
at the Foreign Office, but by way of solatium he offered to him
the Irish Vice-royalty either with or without a British peerage.
Palmerston replied that he was ready to give up the seals when
ever his successor was ready to receive them, and refused the Lord
Lieutenancy with the remark, that the offer disproved the charge
of a want of prudence and decorum which had been brought
against him, since those qualities were quite as necessary in
Dublin as in Downing Street. At a Cabinet Council on the
22nd of December the retirement of Lord Palmerston was an
nounced, and on the 27th Lord Granville was sworn in as his
successor. The change most assuredly did not strengthen the Govern
ment. In the first place it loosened its hold upon the Liberal
party, and in the second it materially complicated the relations
of England with foreign powers. Under Lord Palmerston's guid
ance the English Government had come to be regarded abroad,
as Mr. Disraeli had so frequently complained, as the principal
fomenter and encourager of those perpetually recurring insur
rections which had disturbed the peace of Europe ever since
1847. His retirement now was, of course, attributed to Court
influence, which was represented to have been stimulated by
the familj'^ connexions of the Queen, the result being that, as
Mr. Ashley says, " all over Europe the result was regarded as a
triumph for the Absolute, and a blow for the Liberal cause,"
Even Lord Palmerston himself shared in this delusion, and
wrote to his brother a month afterwards, that "the real ground
for -his dismissal was a weak truckling to the hostile intrigues of
the Orleans family, Austria, Russia, Saxony, and Bavaria, and
in some degree of the present Prussian Government,"
Parliament met on the 3rd of February, 1852, The Queen's

The Policy of the Whig Cabinet. 335
speech ended with the promise of a Reform Bill, but there was,
of course, no reference to the changes in the Cabinet, In the
debate on the address an opportunity was, however, afforded for
ministerial explanations, of which Lord John Russell availed
himself with unusual judgment and temper, stating the facts
pretty nearly as given above, and creating some little sensation
by reading the memorandum of 1850 with reference to the
duties of the Foreign Secretary. He made, however, one serious
mistake — ^he mentioned her Majesty's name far [too often.
Lord Palmerston answered, and answered very feebly. He was
followed by some members of small consequence, and finally by
the leader of the Opposition, who commented less on the address
to the Throne than on the debate of the night. Lord John had
explained that in his management of this affair he had not
thought it advisable to consult with his colleagues lest their
united action " might hereafter be tortured into the appearance
of a cabal." Mr. Disraeli fastened on this expression, which he
pronounced a very extraordinary reason for a First Minister of
the Crown abstaining from consultation with his colleagues.
After it the House was bound to express its opinion on the
matter, and for himself he declared tha,t greatly as he had
disapproved the policy of Lord Palmerston, he had never sepa
rated him from the Cabinet, and held every member of the
Government equally responsible with him for what had been
done. He thought the policy of the Cabinet in Foreign Affairs
a pernicious policy, and he had not hesitated to say so, but if it
were to be the policy of the country there was no one so fit to
carry it into effect as Lord Palmerston — "a man whom we all
recognise to be able, and in whose panegyric all his colleagues
join," Further, he protested against the repeated use of the

336 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
name of the Sovereign. "I am bound to say," said he, "that I
cannot at this moment recall any analogous occasion on which
the name of the Sovereign was so frequently and pecuharly
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 person
age whose name is rarely introduced in our debates, I must
express my astonishment at the narrative of midnight despatches,
which were the cause as I understood — though I may have mis
apprehended the noble Lord — of conduct on his part of an
urgent not to say precipitate nature. Now, I suppose, for
everything which has been done the noble Lord, the First
Minister, is responsible, and the noble Lord 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 introduc
tion of her Majesty's name — that frequent and unnecessary
introduction — which has taken place in the debate of to-night."
Mr. Disraeli went on to say that personally he had no wish to
see the Crown weakened in any way, that he considered the
diminution of the power of the Crown most injurious to public
liberty, but that the noble Lord belonged to a very different
school, and that his introduction of^ the Queen's name looked,
therefore, almost like an attempt to shirk his responsibilities.
Turning then to the question of Reform, he expressed his
dissent from the expression of the Queen's Speech that the time
was at all a fitting one for a "calm" consideration of the matter,
and very grave doubts as to whethisr, in the disturbed condition
of Europe, it was a fitting one in any sense of the term. He
promised, however, to listen with attention and with interest to

Reform and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. 337
the noble Lord's exposition of the reasons which induced him to
believe that his own Reform Bill had failed to achieve all that
was promised as the result of it, and that he would regard with
out prejudice "the Whig critic on the Whig law." He reminded
the House of the almost superstitious veneration expressed by
Whigs a few years before for the Reform Bill of 1830 — how
they had talked about it as "the Magna Charta of our
liberties," and how they had called out for " the Bill, the whole
Bill, and nothing but the Bill." And yet these quondam ad
mirers of the settlement of twenty years ago were now caUing
for further change. If their proposals should turn out to be
directed against the landed interest he promised his most deter
mined opposition, even at the risk of being stigmatized as an
anti-Reformer. After commenting on the Colonial Office and
upon the way in which the Colonies generally were dealt with,
the speaker turned to the " great measure " of the preceding
Session — the Ecclesiastical Titles Act — and taunted the Govern
ment with its failure. 'Has it vindicated the outrage which was
offered to our Sovereign and her kingdom ? Has it punished
that insolent aggression ? Has it baffled that great European
conspiracy against the realm of England and the Protestant
faith ? Why, we all know that it has been treated with a
contumely which cannot be expressed and with the derision
which I think it merited."
The great point of the speech was naturally to be looked for
in its reference to the agiicultural class. Their difficulties had
been noticed two years ago without being acknowledged ; in
the preceding year they had had sympathy but no relief, and
now they were not even mentioned. Yet that their difficulties
continued was a matter concerning which there could be no,
vol,. I. Z

338 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
doubt, and even the slight rise in the price of corn — upon which
the speaker had strangely enough just been congratulated by
an eminent Free Trader — was not enough to afford any real
relief The question, in short, was not one of price. " Have as
free an exchange of commodities as you please, but take care
first that you place the British producer on terms of equality
with those with whom he has to compete ; take care that your
legislation does not oppress him with burdens which he alone
bears, and beneath the weight of which he must inevitably
sink." Mr. Disraeli then referred to the new edition of
McCulloch's work on Taxation, which had been recently
published, and in which he had expressed an opinion that the
cultivator of the soil is subjected to unjust taxation and to
injurious restrictions, such as are imposed on no other class of
the community. Mr. McCulloch, of whose faith in Free Trade
no doubt can be entertained, " gives it as his deliberate opinion
that the proper, just, and scientific means by which a fair
adjustment can be arrived at are countervailing duties, but, he
adds, just as these duties would be, the opportunity for apply
ing them has been lost, and the cultivators of the soil in the
present temper of the country must submit to the injustice
which is oppressing them. That is the political morality of a
political economist." * That morality he proceeded to impugn.
* The passage to which Lord Beaconsfield here refers will be foimd in "A
Treatise on the principles and practical influence of Taxation and the Funding
System," by J. B. McCulloch. 2ud Ed. Longman, 1852 ; pp, 195—202. It is
a matter for some regret that, in his obvious anxiety to avoid over-stating his
case, the speaker considerably understated it. The great Free Trader and political
economist shows that the English farmer is clearly entitled to a duty of from 6s.
to 7s. a quarter, to place him on an equality with the foreign producer, and by
implication admits that the repeal of the Corn Laws was brought about by
" misrepresentations and falsehoods of all sorts. "

Lord Russell's Reform Bill. 339
He declared the essential immorality and injustice of con
fiscating the property of the largest body of employers of labour
in this countr}^ and pleaded that in the reconstruction of the
financial system the agricultural classes should have the com
pensation which was legitimately and admittedly their due.
He was soon to have an opportunity of trying his hand at
something of the kind. The Government was already ship
wrecked, and was rapidly going to pieces by its own acts. The
first of these acts was Lord John Russell's new Magna Charta,
which he brought in on the 9th of February. The Bill was a
miserable one. It proposed to reduce the borough franchise to
£5, and in the counties to occupiers of houses rated at £20 ;
to copyholders and long leaseholders of £5 instead of £10, and
lastly, to give a vote to persons paying assessed or income tax
to the amount of 40s. per annum. The Bill was most coldly
received. No one in the House seemed to be contented with
it, and out of the House the only feeling about it seems to
have been utter contempt. Mr. Disraeli spoke very shortly
on the motion, pointing out that the Bill was one which
dealt with a vast number of details, and that the time pro
posed before the second reading — a fortnight — was much too
short. Before the fortnight was over, however, the Government
was out of office, and the waters of Lethe had engulfed the
Bill — that BUl which its author declared to be the result of
long years of study and observation, but which, in the opinion
of the Times and of the English people generally, "bore in
every detail marks of haste."
On the 16th of February Lord John brought in the second
great measure of the Government — a Militia Bill. There was
reason for some proposal of this kind, for England, in .spite of
z 2

340 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
her large expenditure was notoriously not very strong in the
matter of national defence. Waste, jobbery, and peculation
had impaired her Navy, and the efforts of honest and courage
ous men, like the late Sir Charles Napier, to improve matters
had brought- upon them official snubbings and loss of pro
motion. The Army, too, was scarcely popular, and was in the
hands, to a great extent, of the " clothing colonels." A war
was going on at the Cape — one of those inglorious and costly
struggles which our vast colonial empire has so frequently
entailed upon us. There was, moreover, great reason for
uneasiness at home. Our injudicious sympathy with foreign
Liberalism had raised up for us a host of enemies, whom
Palmerston's " spirited foreign policy " had multiplied. At one
time — that of Kossuth's visit to England — a war against the
combined forces of Russia and Austria had been imminent, and
the ambassadors of both countries it is now known had orders
to withdraw if any official recognition had been accorded to
the Hungarian patriots. Nearer home still greater difficulties
were impending. Louis Napoleon had seized on the imperial
crown of France, and there was no little fear lest he might
emulate the example of his uncle, and begin his reign by
demanding an increase of territory — perhaps even by an
attack upon England. There has seldom been a greater
¦ panic than there was at this time, and the press, by way
apparently of vindicating its freedom, complicated matters by
daily invectives against the French Government, and by
implication against the people of France who had accepted
that government. Something for the strengthening of the
national defence must obviously be done, and the result was
Lord John Russell's Militia Bill. It was a measure never

The Militia Bill. 3^^i
popular in any quarter. At Court it appoar.s to have been
accepted only after a good deal of protest, chiefly on the
ground that the scheme would give no trained soldiers to the
army. More than once the Prince Consort wrote suggesting
an increase in the number of pensioners and the formation of
a reserve in preference to the employment of untrained men —
or rather of men with only a fortnight's training. Lord John
Russell, however, stuck to his text, in spite of remonstrance
from the Crown and the Duke of Wellington alike, and on the
16th of February the Militia Bill was brought in. It bore
very evident traces of its authorship — in other words, it was
about as feeble and even childish a Bill as could well be
imagined. The country was to be called upon to spend about
^200,000 a year in the creation of a local militia, which could
be called out for a month's training in the first year of its
existence and for a fortnight in each succeeding year, and
which, in the event of an invasion, might be called out at any
moment. Mr. Disraeli took no part in the opposition. It was
sufficient to leave it in the hands of the discontented Whigs
and of the Peelites, who, under the leadership of Lord Palmerston,
inflicted another defeat on the Government when the report
of the Committee was brought up, recommending " that leave
should be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting
the local militia," Lord Palmerston moved the substitution
of the word " consolidate " for " amend," and the omission of
the world " local," The Government went to a division, and
found itself in a minority of 11 — upon which Lord John
Russell at once announced that he accepted the decision of
the House as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence — by
which step he ingeniously evaded a vote of censure on account

342 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of the Caffre war. The feeling in England against that war
was very strong, and in a few days it would have been discussed
in the House, when the fate of the Government would un
questionably have been decided in a much less pleasant
fashion. Lord Derby was accordingly sent for, and undertook the
formation of an administration. It must be confessed that
his prospects were by no means hopeful. Parties were in
much the same state that they had been in twelve months
before when Lord John Russell had so precipitately resigned.
The Tory party were in a minority in the House of Commons,
and were not very strong in the House of Lords, They were
to a great extent, pledged to Protection, though Mr, Disraeli
had, as we have seen, cut himself adrift from that part of the
Tory programme ; but, having helped on the defeat of the
Ministry, they were bound to take their places. Another thing
was greatly against them. The practical ascendancy of the
Whigs since 1832 had left the Tory party out in the cold for
so long that few, if any, of its members had any official
experience. An alliance with the Peelites was impossible,
and consequently Lord Derby had to begin the task of govern
ment with what may not ungenerously be termed an " awkward
squad." Nor had he open to him the alternative of an appeal
to the country. In the then existing condition of Europe a
general election would have been siinply suicidal, but when
the session was over it was understood that the Government
would take the s6nse of the constituencies.
On the 27th of February Lord Derby made his statement
in the Upper House, that of the Leader of the House of
Commons being necessarily delayed until the elections could-

Address to Buckinghamshire Electors. 343
be completed. Mr, Disraeli, having accepted the post of
Chancellor of the Exchequer — which by the way had been
offered to and refused by Lord Palmerston — addressed the
electors of Bucks, and was at once returned by them without
even the pretence of opposition. The following passages from
his address embody all that is necessary to record of this fonnal
proceeding : " Our first duty," he wrote, " 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 productive interests, suffering from unequal taxa
tion, haven right to demand from a just government; to culti
vate friendly relations with all foreign powers, and to secure
honourable peace ; to uphold in their spirit, as well as in their
form, our political institutions, and to increase the efficiency
as well as maintain the rights of a National and Protestant
Church." These professions appear to have afforded ample
satisfaction to the Buckinghamshire electors, though they con
tained no mention of "Protection," and spoke only of "remedial
measures," under which phrase was of course implied, not the
reimposition of the duty on corn, but readjustments of local
taxation, and of those imposts which specially press upon the
agricultural interest, in the sense indicated by the speech at
Aylesbury in the preceding September. Lord Derby had
been a little more outspoken in the House of Lords, and the
result of his speech had been a great meeting at the Free

344 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
Trade Hall in Manchester, for the revival of the Anti-Corn
League — a matter which Manchester had so much at heart
that ^27,000 was subscribed for its purposes within ten
minutes of opening the list. Several years before, in a long
personal debate on certain language used by Mr. Ferrand with
reference to Sir James Graham, Mr. Disraeli had spoken of
Lord Derby as the "Prince Rupert of Parliamentary discus
sion," adding that " his charge is resistless ; but when he
returns from pursuit he always finds his camp in the possession
of the enemy." It is seldom that so complete an ex post facto
justification for an epigram has been afforded as by this
unfortunate declaration of the noble earl.

CHAPTER VI.
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,
Questioned by ilr. Villiers — Declines to pledge himself on his policy for the next
year — The constitution of the Opposition — The New Militia BiU — Factious
opposition of Lord John Eussell and the "Whigs — Budget — Bonewal of In
come and Property Tax — General satisfaction with the finance of the Govern
ment — Lord Derby at the Mansion House — Alarm of the Free Traders — Tho
St. Albans and Sudbury Bills — Defeat of the Government — Close of the Session
— Great measures carried for wliich the "Whigs claim credit— Attacks of Lord
John Eussell — Mr. Disraeli's reply — Import duty on Corn no longer possible —
General Election — Address to the electors — Piesult of the elections — Convoca
tion restored — The New Parhament — Queen's Speech— Debate on the Address
— Mr. VOliei-ss attempt to hamper the Government — -The resolutions — Mr.
Disraeli's amendment — Speech thereon — Mr. Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel —
Their position defined — Attacks upon the former — Lord Palmerston's amend
ment — Accepted by the Government — Defeat of the "Wliigs — Mr. Disraeli's
second budget — Analysis of its details — "Ways and Means — ^Whig misrepre
sentations — General characteristics of the scheme — The debate— Mr. Disraeli's
reply — The division — Not a minister on sufferance — Oat of office.
The new ChanceUor of the Exchequer took his seat on the
15th of March, 1852, and at once assumed the Leadership of
the House of Commons, He was supported by a body of
colleagues of more than ordinary capacity, but with the mis
fortune already hinted at of being almost wholly new to
official life. Mr. Walpole was at the Home Office ; Sir John
Pakington, Colonial Secretary ; Mr. Herries, President of the
Board of Control ; Mr. Henley, President of the Board of
Trade ; Lord John Manners, First Commissioner of Works ;

34^ The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
Mr, Christopher, Chancellor of the !^Duchy of Lancaster ; Major
Beresford, Secretary at War ; and amongst other members of
the Government occupying minor offices were the Marquess
of Granby, Mr, Stafford, Mr. Charles Bruce, Mr, Henry J,
Baillie, Sir Frederick Thesiger (Attorney-General), Sir Fitzroy
Kelly (Solicitor-General), and Lord Naas, Chief Secretary for
Ireland. Mr. Disraeli had not occupied his seat behind the red-box
for much more than half an hour before he was called upon
to listen to a long and catechising speech from Mr, ViUiers,
who expressed the greatest possible anxiety to know whether
the " glorious boon " bequeathed to the people of England
"by a statesman whom the nation now deplores," was to be
withdrawn; whether they were to become the victims of a
policy of reaction, and were to have their liberties "filched
from them," or whether they were to be consoled " by a decla
ration on the part of the Government that they have not any
intention to disturb the policy of Free Trade." The Chancellor
of the Exchequer thus called upon was equal to the occasion,
Mr, Villiers had described the condition of England as one
of distrust, of apprehension, of anxiety, of uncertainty ; he had
even found that the feeling of distrust amounted to paralysis.
Mr. Disraeli had met a con,siderable number of mercantile
men, and had found them eminently contented and prosperous,
and he had looked at the prices of public securities without
finding any signs of that panic of which his questioner had
spoken. Furthermore — on the hypothesis that the Govern
ment intended to put a 6s. duty on corn, which was only to
produce 2s. profit to the farmer — Mr. Villiers had built up a
very pretty theory about landlord oppression. To that it was

j\Ir. Villiers s Catechism. ^\']
of course not difficult to find an answer. As to the main
question, he could not see that there was any necessity for
the present Government to bring forward the subject of Pro
tection in any form in a House which had been elected on
purely Free Trade principles. "I think it is preposterous to
suppose," said he, "that the instant a change of government
takes place we should be called upon in the House of
Commons to announce the measures which we think ought
to be introduced into the next Parliament. . . . The hon, and
learned member wants to know whether in another Parliament
we shall be prepared to propose a fixed duty according to his
own figures — a fixed duty of 5s. on corn. That is the question."
There was some little agitation on the left ; cries of No ! No !
and Hear ! Hear I and Mr, Villiers explained that what he
wished to know was, whether the Government " intended to
introduce any scheme of fiscal legislation before the dissolution
of Parliament, in order that members might go to the country
on the question of Free Trade v. Protection. Mr. Disraeli's
answer was brief and to the purpose : " It is not the intention
of her Majesty's Government to do anything of that kind."
The Government would do its best to relieve the depression
of the agriculturists, but it was already pledged to no specific
measures, and certainly would hesitate long before adopting
that proposed by Mr. Villiers. He would not indeed say that
such a measure was one which no Government ought to bring
forward, but "the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends
have , . . succeeded in investing a very simple fiscal proposi
tion with such an amount of prejudice that although I might
consider such a proposition a just one, I might not think it
expedient or politic to propose it," In one word, the Govern-

348 The Ptiblic Lif e of the Earl of .Beaconsfield.
ment pledged itself to do all that could be done to redress
the grievances of the agricultural interest, but dechned to
specify any particular line of policy.
This, the first speech delivered by Mr, Disraeli in his new
capacity, wound up with a very pertinent inquiry. Honour
able members had asked, as they had a right to do, upon
what principles the Government had been formed : he wished
to know upon what principles her Majesty's Opposition had been
formed. Lord John Russell, he had been informed, " within
a fortnight of resigning the Government of the country, from
avowed inability to carry it on, — within a fortnight of having
communicated to the House of Commons the solemn and
mature decision of his own Cabinet, that a dissolution of
Parliament was not expedient . . , has now felt it his im
perative duty to reconstruct a new Opposition, the object of
which, so far as I can recollect it, , , . is to force Lord Derby
to do that which the noble Lord himself announced it as the
opinion of his Cabinet that it was not expedient to do," The
fact was, that a coalition had been effected between the
Peelites, as represented by Sir James Graham, the Whigs led
by Lord John Russell and the more extreme members of the
Liberal party, under the guidance of Mr, Cobden, for the
purpose of breaking up the Government, and of obstructing
legislation. The effects of this coalition — ^which was not
denied by Lord John Russell in his reply, were visible as soon
as the first of the more important measures of the Session — ^the
Militia Bill — was brought in.
This measure was introduced on the night of the 29th of
March by Mr, Walpole, and was very cordially received by the
House. The scheme was simple enough, and it has worked

Lord Russell on the Militia Bill. 349
thoroughly well in practice. Fifty thousand men were to be
raised in the first year, and thirty thousand in the second;
the period of service to be five years; each man to receive
a bounty of £3 or ^4, paid either in a lump sum or by in
stalments, at' the recruit's option, and the period of training
to be 21 days— or, if thought necessary by the Government,
— seven weeks. Lord Palmerston lent the scheme a cordial
and generous support, both on the first and second reading,
but Lord John Russell, who had thrown up the Government
on the plea that he was hampered in bringing forward a
confessedly less effective measure, opposed it in his usual
carping and petty fashion,* The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke but once on the principle of the Bill, though he rendered
every assistance to his colleagues in piloting it through the
difficulties of Committee, His single speech was on the first
reading, and was designed mainly as a reply to the opposition
of Mr. Cobden, who had used arguments against the Bill
which seemed to imply that there was no necessity for national
defence at all. In the course of his brief address, Mr, Disraeli
mentioned that the Government had consulted the highest
military authorities, and had weighed all the evidence before
them with the utmost care. The military authority was the
venerable Duke of Wellington, who supported the Bill most
• "This last frolic of his (Russell's) in opposing the organization of u, militia
by the present Government after having two months ago resigned, because he
said he was prevented (though he was not) from bringing in a BiU for the same
purpose, and having stated in Parliament that his reason for resigning instead of
dissolving was that he did not think it right to deprive the country during the
time necessary for a general election of the means of passing a law for the national
defences— this frolic has astounded and disgusted the whole "Whig party and all
other parties into the bargain." — Mr. Ashley's " Life of Lord Palmerston," vol. i.,
p. 305.

350 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
warmly in the House of Lords, and whose latest public utter
ances dealt with it.
The Budget was brought in on the night of the 3()th of April,
and was necessarUy of a very simple character. The income
for the preceding year had exceeded the expenditure by a little
over two 'millions; but for the year to come, the expiration of
the Income Tax left an estimated deficiency of the same
amount. Mr, Disraeli proposed, therefore, to continue that
impost for another year; remarking, by way of explanation,
that it was practically the only course open to him, "Her
Majesty's Government," said he, " would not shrink from sur
veying the whole system of finance, with an attempt, if possible,
to induce the House of Commons to come to some clear and
decided opinion on the principles on which public revenue
should be raised, . . . They consider that nothing would be
more injurious than rashly and rapidly to reduce the sources of
indirect taxation, whUe you have come to no general conclusion
as to the principles upon which direct taxation shall, be levied,
. . . They deem it their duty to denounce, as most pernicious
to all classes of this country, the systematic reduction of indirect
taxation, while at the same time you levy your direct taxes
from a very limited class. 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 I am sure no member of the
Government has yet been able to devote to it." The Budget
was received with a general chorus of applause from all quarters.
Sir Charles Wood — himself so generally unfortunate in his
financial policy — was good enough to express his entire con
currence in the proposals of the Chancellor, and to explain that

Mr. Disraeli's Budget. 351
lie did so because they afforded a proof that the finance of the
Whigs had been successful. Mr. Hume thanked Mr. Disraeli
for helping him to get a Committee on the Property and Income
Tax, and hoped that he " looked back with regret and remorse
on his past careei-." Other speakers took a similar line, but the
general tone was one of entire satisfaction. Lord Palmerston
wrote to his brother, under date 30th of April, "Disraeli has
this evening made a good financial statement. His speech of
two hours was excellent, weU-arranged, clear, and well-delivered,
but," he adds, " it made out the complete success of the finan
cial and commercial measures of the last ten years of the Peel
and of the Whig Administrations, which, while they were in
progi-ess and under discussion, he and Derby were the loudest
to condemn. 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 Pro
tection," It may be remarked in this place, that the notion of
Lord Beaconsfield having " made out the complete success "
of the Peelite and Whig financial policy — a notion which
Palmerston shared with the Times and with the organs of
those parties — is based upon the fact that he admitted the
general prosperity of the country. As, however, that prosperity
was mainly due to the greatly improved state of trade,
consequent upon the success of the Exhibition, and to the
enormous influx of gold from Australia ; and as the opponents
of the late Government had always urged that the true remedy
for existing evils was the legitimate development of the national
resources, it is evident that in writing thus Lord Palmerston
went rather too far. The remark about Protection simply

352 Ihe Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
proves that Lord Palmerston had not watched the course of
the leader of the Opposition quite as closely as he might have
been expected to do.
Every body, as has been said, was satisfied with the Budget,
One exception, however, ought to be made in the person of the
Prime Minister, Lord Derby was confessedly much annoyed
that Protection found no place in it. Lord Palmerston had
refused to enter the Cabinet ¦ because be found himself at
variance with the head of the Government on the question of
an import duty on corn, and now the lieutenant whom he had
chosen to take his place, had not merely omitted all reference
to the subject, but had spoken in a way which created a belief
that he considered such a notion wholly out of the question.
He chose, therefore, to supply the omission at the Mansion
House banquet of the 8th of May, where, in an after-dinner
speech, he cautiously and with considerable circumlocution
spoke of the necessity for " compromises " between the class
which was a producing class and the consuming classes. What
he intended was not perhaps very clear, but it was sufficiently
so to create no little uneasiness amongst the more moderate of
his o"wn supporters, and to increase very largely the bitterness
with which the Administration was already regarded by the
Peelites. No time was lost in giving the Government its lesson.
The speech of Lord Derby had been made on Saturday night,
and on Monday the House proclaimed, as clearly as possible,
the unpleasant fact that the Administration only held ofiice
on sufferance. St. Albans and Sudbury — hot-beds of political
corruption for many years — had been disfranchised ; and at the
opening of the Session, ministers had announced that before
the general election, they intended to dispose of the four seats

Sudbury and St. Alban's. 353
thus set at liberty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accord
ingly came forward with his proposal. Had he consulted his
own comfort or the convenience of the Government he would,
he said, in effect, have gladly evaded the matter as one cal
culated to excite the jealousies of town against country, and
country against town, as well as of all those conflicting interests
which are so constantly calling out for Parliamentary represen
tation. The Royal Society, the Loudon University, the Scotch
Universities and the Inns of Court — all eminently worthy and
respectable bodies — ^had put in their claims ; but on careful
examination, he faded to see that they fulfilled the conditions
under which representation can be claimed as of right. He
proposed, therefore, to allot the vacant seats to two great con
stituencies, which at that time were most assuredly imperfectly
represented — the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Southern
Division of Lancashire. With regard to the former, he pro
posed to take the line of the Midland Railway as the basis of
his division, the portion south and west of that line to be called
the South Division of the West Riding ; and the portion North
and East, the North Division, The Constituency of the latter
would be 17,965, and of the former, 18,785. In this way two
members would be accounted for, and the change would have
the advantage of representing not merely numbers but interests,
since the South Division being an almost purely manufacturing
constituency, would give Mr. Cobden a seat for life ; whilst the
North Division, being almost exclusively agricultural, would have
members of its own fitter than he to represent their interests.
In describing his proposed arrangement, Mr. Disraeli was espe
cially careful to speak of Mr. Cobden — as indeed he always did
— with the respect which his abilities demanded. " If the

354 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
result of this arrangement be that the honourable member for
West Riding shall have a permanent seat in the House, I
cannot say that I shall regret it. I confess that I should be
sorry to see the honourable gentleman absent from this House.
Where a man has the power of influencing public opinion, it is
in my mind much better that he should be responsible for his
conduct in an assembly like this, than that he should exercise
his great .talents in other scenes independently of his responsi
bility as a member of the British House of Commons." The
division of South Lancashire was equally simple. That great
constituency, which even then numbered 21,500 electors, was to
be divided by its hundreds ; the hundred of SaUbrd, with about
12,000 electors, becoming one electoral division ; and that of
West Derby, with 9,500, the other. Mr. Gladstone, in a verbose
and utterly uninteresting speech, chiefly directed towards the
elucidation of the recondite point that a change of the repre
sentation on the eve of a dissolution is a dangerous experiment,
moved the order of the day ; and without further discussion the
division was taken, with the result of placing the Government
in a minority of 86, in a House of 382.
Rebuffs such as these might naturally be looked for. The
Government existed only by favour of its opponents, and the
clamour for an appeal to the country grew louder with every
succeeding day. On the 2nd of June, therefore, the ChanceUor
of the Exchequer put forth his address to the electors of
Buckinghamshire in view of the approaching elections. It is
remarkable as indicating, in the clearest possible manner. Lord
Beaconsfield's final abandonment of the principle of protection.
"The time has gone by," he -wrote, "when injuries which the
great producing interests endure can be alleviated or removed

The Progress of Public Business. 355
by a recurrence to the laws which, previously to 1846, pro
tected 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 Legislature 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 will
effect this end. One of the soundest means, amongst others,
by which the result may be accomplished, will be a revision of
taxation." The business of the Session was speedily wound up ; but
though it had been very short, it was by no means a barren
or useless one. Even in those days the House boasted
an " obstructive " of the most pronounced character in the
person of Mr. Chisholm Anstey, the member for Youghal,
whose powers of tongue were quite as great as even those of
Mr. Parnell himself. Armed with a pile of papers and of blue
books, he would come down to the House and talk for hours at
a time, but to very little purpose. He was especially great on
foreign politics, and when it was moved that the House should
go into Committee of Supply, he had, as a rule, something to
say on those topics. In spite of his obstructiveness, however,
the ChanceUor of the Exchequer was able to announce, on the
7th of June, that only nineteen votes remained to be taken in
Supply. Considering that the members of the Government A A 2

356 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
who sat in the House of Commons had been able to take their
seats only on the 15th of March, this fact alone would imply
great tact and ability in the conduct of the business of the
House. But besides Supply the Government had managed in
those three months to pass no fewer than 37 bills, 20 of which
had, when Mr, Disraeli made his statement on public business,
become law, A week later a debate was raised on the case of
a certain Mr, Mather, who had been struck in the streets of
Florence by an Austrian officer, a propos to which Lord John
RusseU commenced a discussion of the general policy of the
Government in domestic as weU as foreign affairs. Mr. Disraeli
replied, "vindicating the conduct of his Government in this
affair — a matter perfectly iminteresting now to any but the
persons concerned — and pointing out that the unpopularity of
this country in Italy was mainly the result of the foreign policy
of the Whigs. Turning then to the acrid criticism of which he
had been the victim at the hands of Lord John Russell, he
vindicated himself from the charge brought against him of
having maintained that the Corn Laws had been passed for
the purpose of maintaining rents at a high figure, and defended
the language of the address to the electors which has just been
quoted. Lord John had furthermore taunted the Government
with having done nothing, " I will say," said he, " with regard
to what they have done, that, with the exception of the Militia
Bill, which is entirely their own, and which I wUlingly resign
to them, they derive all their credit from the measures of the
last Government," Even the Chancery Reform BUl was not
their own, but was based upon the report of a Whig Commission
and would have been useless but for the aid afforded by Sir
James Graham in getting rid of the obnoxious clauses intro-

The Education Grant. 357
duced by the Government. To this Mr. Disraeli could reply,
and reply with truth, that both Chancery Reform and the
Militia Bill had been carried, " in spite of the opposition and the
derision of the noble Lord," while the former had encountered
successfully the opposition of the small but powerful party led
by Lord Palmerston. Furthermore, Lord John had brought an
odious charge against the Government of having, for hustings
purposes, tampered with the Education grant. " He charges
us," said Mr. Disraeli with honest indignation, " with having
stealthily obtained and cheated the House out of a money
vote. He has lent his — I will say — illustrious name to the
circulation of a statement, which must agitate every hearth in
the country, that the Government are tampering with a system
of education that has received for so long a period the appro
bation of Parhament, and that they have done this in a manner
the most disingenuous and the most disgraceful, by procrasti
nating their movements until Parliament has been betrayed into
a generous vote of upwards of £150,000, which is now to be dis
tributed and applied to a new system, which they have disin
genuously established — thus making the House of Commons an
unwUling confederate with us in a revolution which the noble
Lord deprecates and denounces. But what is the fact? I
have shown that in no one instance where the management
clauses are concerned has the minute of the Privy Council ever
been laid on the table of the House of Commons ; in every
instance, whatever changes might have been made. Parliament
has always voted for the sum in perfect ignorance, and in total
disregard of what might be the change in the management
clauses which the Government, in its responsibility, might
think fit to recommend." This may perhaps be thought a

35^ The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
trivial matter to recall at this distance of time. It has its
interest, however, as exhibiting the kind of opposition with
which the Government had to contend, and the unscrupulous
misrepresentations to which a Whig out of place will not
scruple to descend.
Turning then to the attacks made upon him on account of
his presumed determination to reimpose a duty on corn, Mr.
Disraeli delivered himself of a vindication of his conduct and
policy, which at once and finally severed him from protec
tionists of the type of Colonel Sibthorpe, who still pinned their
faith to it. He denied that there had been any change in his
position since 1846. He thought then, and he thought still,
that the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the alteration of the
Sugar Duties, were mistakes productive of great suffering both
in England and the Colonies. But he had never proposed to
go back to the state of things prevailing before 1846. "You
cannot recall a single speech to that effect : I defy anybody -to
quote any speech I ever made, or any sentence I ever uttered,
that recommended such a course as desirable or probable."
The charge against Lord Derby was that he was in favour
of a small fixed duty on corn— a very different thing, be it
remarked, from the sliding scale. And even as to "that
question of a fixed duty that is talked of so much, I must,"
said Lord Beaconsfield, "say now what I have said before in this
House, that I wiU not 'pin my political career on any pohcy
which is not, after all, a principle but a measure. I should be
very glad, as a financier, that there was a moderate fixed duty
on corn. But, sir, when I find that by circumstances which I
do not wish now particularly to describe, by arts which I have
no wish now to denounce, a fiscal proposition is invested with

Accepting the Situation. 359
so much popular odium, that it would be one of the unwisest
things which a Minister could do to propose such a tax thus
disliked by the people— whether rightly or wrongly I will not
say — I do not feel myself bound in honour to make that tho
basis of my policy, or to hold it up as the only measure which
I can offer as a panacea to a suffering community." After
showing how easy it would be to cite passages in favour of- such
a duty, from those political economists whose authority the
Liberal party was ever ready to invoke — Mr. McCulloch,
Colonel Torrens and Mr. MUl — he went on to urge that he, and
those who worked with him, had during the preceding six
years, constantly followed one line of policy. They had sought
to compensate the interests which had been injured in 1846,
with as little damage as possible to those who had profited,
perhaps more than they had deserved. " 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 on the producer, while at the same time you resort
to no tax which gives to the producer an unjust and artificial
price for his production. These are the views which we sup
ported in opposition, these 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."
With this declaration of policy, the Ministry went to the
country. Parliament was prorogued on the 1st of July. The
session had been a remarkably short one — practically limited to
four months — ^but the Queen was able to congratulate " my
lords and gentlemen " on a more than usually important series

36o The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of measures— the Militia Act, Chancery Reform, Extramural
Interment and Improved Water Supply had all been carried,
whde in addition New Zealand had been provided with a
Constitution, and an act had been passed, rendering avaUable
for the service of the Austrahan colonies," the portion arising
withui them of the hereditary revenue placed at the disposal
of Parliament on the Queen's accession— a step rendered
necessary by the increased expenditure consequent on the
disorders of the gold fields.
Mr. Disraeli's re-election was practically unopposed. The
Liberals put forward a candidate in the person of that Dr. Lee
of Hartwell House, whose name figures so conspicuously in the
records of local pohtics, but his candidature was from the first
rather farcical. He had a certain amount of support in Ayles
bury and the district around, but in the county he was by no
means popular, as was plainly proved when the poll was
declared. The numbers were, Du Pr^, 1999 ; Disraeli, 1972 ;
Cavendish, 1403; Lee,' 656. These figures proved pretty
plainly in which direction the sympathies of the electors lay.
Mr. Cavendish — a Whig of the old type — had enormous landed
interest at his back, but even with that interest, and with the
support of the second votes of those who followed Dr. Lee, he
was, as is evident, a long way behind the two Tory candidates —
a fact which caused no small regret when the election was over
that a third Tory had not been brought forward. In the actual
proceedings of the election there was but little to call for atten
tion. Mr. Disraeli's speech was not a long one, and was greatly
interrupted by the manifestations of the supporters of Dr, Lee,
It was, however, remarkable, inasmuch as he held on the
hustings the same language with regard to the revival of the

Results of the Election. 361
Corn Laws, that had been employed in the House of Commons,
" We have been taunted to-day," said he, at the nomination,
"with the usual question of 'Are you a Free Trader or are you
not 1 ' and I am almost surprised that the big and little loaf did
not appear in the procession. Gentlemen, the time has gone
by when these exploded politics can interest the country. No
one can suppose that the present Government had any intention
of bringing back the laws that were repealed in 1846." Then
speaking on the revision of local taxation, he urged that the
policy, of which he was the advocate, by relieving the English
farmer from the burdens which unjustly weighed upon him,
would enable him not merely to supply cheap bread, but to
supply it even more cheaply than his foreign competitor.
The elections went off generally in favour of the Liberal
party, though some of the most prominent members were
unseated. Mr. Cardwell, Lord Mahon, and Sir George Clerk,
amongst the Peelites, were displaced, and amongst the more
pronounced Liberals Sir George Grey and Mr. Horsman shared
their fate. Mr. Lowe, it may be noted, was first returned to
Parliament at this election as member for Kidderminster. It
was, however, evident that the actual proportions of parties
remained pretty much as they had been. The Tory party on
the one side, and the Whig Radical coalition on the other, were
about equal in numbers, while the Peelites, wavering between
the two, and voting now on one side and now on the other,
exercised an influence altogether out of proportion to either
their numbers or their abilities. The time for public action
had not yet arrived, however, and during the autumn of this
year popular attention was turned from the strife of party,
by the death of the venerable Duke of Wellington. One event

362 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of the autumn deserves to be chronicled. Acting doubtless
with the concurrence of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose
desire to see the Church a real and hving power, has more
than once found expression in his writings and in his public
addresses. Lord Derby advised her Majesty to aUow Convoca
tion to resume once more its long suspended Synodical func
tions. Those Churchmen, who in their ardent zeal for the
Greek Church and for union with Russian Christianity, some
times forget their duties to their 0"wn communion, should re
member to whose influence they owe the one measure which
raised the Church of England from the abyss of Erastianism,
into which two centuries of Whig neglect had plunged it.
The new Parliament opened on the 4th of November. A
few days were as usual consumed in the arrangement of pre
liminaries, swearing in of members, election of a Speaker and
so forth. On the 11th came the formal opening by the Queen
in person. The Speech from the Throne, as might be expected,
contained a reference to the state of the agricultural classes,
concerning whom Parhament was recommended "dispassion
ately to consider how far it might be practicable equitably to
mitigate" the injury inflicted by the legislation of 1846, "and
to enable the country to meet successfully that unrestricted
competition to which Parhament in its wisdom has decided
that it should be subjected." With regard to Ireland, the
Government recommended " the adoption of such a liberal and
generous policy as might encourage and assist her to rally from
the depression in which she has been sunk, by the sufferings
of late years." The Queen's Speech also announced the issue
of a Royal Commission on the capitular institutions of the
country, and that the Reports of the Universities Commission

Mr. Villiers's Resolutions. 363
would be laid before Parliament at a very early date. The
abolition of transportation and Legal Reform were also
announced as subjects for legislative consideration in the new
Session. The debate on the Address was unusuaUy brief — the Hou.se
adjourning at half past nine. One incident, and one only, was
worthy of notice, and that was an attack by Lord John Russell
on the paragraph of the speech relating to the agricultural
interests, which he was pleased to describe as " evasive." The
Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the effect that it
was, so far from being evasive, really the clearest paragraph
in the Speech, inasmuch as it recognized unrestricted com
petition as the principle of her Majesty's Government. At
the same time he pointed out that that principle, in its
initiation, had subjected to considerable hardships large num
bers of the people of England, whose case certainly deserved
as much attention as the case of those merchants and ship
owners of London, whose grievances, through the repeal of
the Navigation Laws, Lord John Russell had taken in hand.
The remainder of the speech was chiefly composed of an
appeal to Mr. Hume and Mr. Villiers, to refrain from bring
ing forward motions which could only serve to hamper and
embarrass the Government, until the financial statement was
before the House — an event which was promised for a very
early date. The ardour of the Free Trade party, would not,
however, allow them to wait for the declarations of the Govern
ment. Mr. Villiers forthwith gave notice of his intention to
move a string of resolutions on commercial policy, which
Mr. Hume thought so important, that he actually moved
for a call of the House to listen to the discussion. They

364 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
were brought forward on the 23rd of November. The first
declared that the improved condition of the working classes was
the result of the repeal of the Corn Laws ; the second, that it
was advisable to maintain and extend the policy of Free Trade ;
and the third, that the House was ready to take into its con
sideration any measures, consistent with the principles of these
resolutions, which the Government might bring forward. To
these resolutions the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of
his intention to move an amendment in the following terms: —
" 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 unrestricted com
petition having been adopted after due dehberation as the
principle of our commercial system, this House is of opinion
that it is the duty of the Government unreservedly to adhere
to that policy in those measures of financial and administrative
reform which, under the circumstances of the country, they may
deem it their duty to introduce."
Such an amendment, committing the Government as it did
to the principle of Free Trade, might have been thought a
sufficient concession to the Liberal party. It accepted their
principle and left the administration very httle liberty even in
matters of detail. Those, however, who fancy that such a
concession could be accepted by the followers of Mr. Bright and
' Mr. Cobden without an exhaustive debate, know but httle of
the powers of talk possessed by the genuine Liberal. It is not
sufficient for their opponents to accept defeat : the battle must
be fought over again and the slain, slain once more. On this
occasion three nights were expended on what was really a

Mr. Disraeli's Amendment. 365
party fight. Mr. Villiers opened on the night of the 23rd with
a speech which was happily described by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer when he said in moving his amendment that it
would have been much more appropriate had it been delivered
in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws or of the Sugar Duties
as they existed some years before. The question at issue really
was whether Ministers were entitled to public confidence, and
whether having announced that they would defer their own
opinion to that of the country on a subject of great importance,
they had frankly or otherwise communicated to the House the
resolutions at which they had arrived. Mr. Disraeli then
proceeded to review the conduct of the party with which he
was allied, pointing out the fallacy of the common notion that
the House could be divided into two great sections — one all
for Free Trade, the other all for Protection. The Corn Laws
were repealed by a minister who objected to the repeal of the
Sugar Duties, and the Navigation Laws by another parliament
and a modified ministry. Protectionists had been accused by
Mr. Villiers of " perpetrating enormous mischief," — could their
opponents point to a single motion brought forward by them
for the re-iraposition of the duty on corn ? What had they
done with regard to sugar 1 Lord George Bentinck, knowing
the devastation which unrestricted competition had produced
in the sugar and coffee colonies, had obtained a committee on
which three Protectionists, two Peelites, one Whig, and six
staunch Free Traders (of whom Mr. Villiers was one and Mr.
Milner Gibson another) had seats, and the report of that
committee recommended a differential duty of 10s. per cwt.
between foreign and colonial sugar ; and that staunch Free
Trader, Lord John Russell himself, when holding the office of

366 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
First Minister, had actually brought in a bill to suspend the
operation of his own act. With regard to the Navigation Laws
the policy of the Government had been the same. So soon as
the bill for their repeal had become law. Lord Derby had said
in the Upper House that the change was one which could not
be reversed.
Lord Beaconsfield then reviewed the policy of his party with
especial reference to the abrogated Corn Laws, pointing out
that when the effect of their repeal began to be felt by the
agricultural classes, he had striven to lighten the burden under
which they groaned, not by agitating for a return to the old
system, but by bringing forward a motion for the re-adjustment
of local taxation. Turning from himself to his parliamentary
chief, he claimed for Lord Derby credit for the same modera
tion. His policy had been one of compromise and conciliation,
and the relief he had sought to afford to agriculture had been,
not by a return to the sliding scale, but by the imposition of an
equitable countervailing duty, such as was called for by political
economists, and such as commended itself even to a Free Trader
like Lord Palmerston. The new Government had come in with
less party feeling than any government for many years past,
but scarcely had Ministers taken their seats after re-election,
when "the hon. and learned gentleman oppo.site, the stormy
petrel of Protection " (Mr. C. Villiers) rose to ask whether the
Government was about to resort to a policy of protection.
By quotations from the speeches of his opponents, and espe
cially from those of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli showed that
the complaints of the agricultural interest as to the incidence
of local taxation were entitled to consideration, that the condi
tion of the agricultural labourer demanded the attention of

Difficulties of the Position. 367
the House and that it was the most distinguished of the
Peelites who had asked for reciprocity in dealing with the
Navigation Laws. Yet if we, said Mr. Disraeli in effect, say a
word on any of these subjects, we are at once accused of
wishing to revert to the exploded system of protection, and
that in spite of an expression in the Queen's speech which we
considered direct and unambiguous. We are now met with
what must be called a vexatious motion. How have we met
this motion 1 Seeing that the financial statement is but two
nights distant, it might have been encountered with the
previous question. Instead of taking that course the Govern
ment have accepted the challenge, and have brought forward
their amendment frankly and plainly, feeling that this motion
is really one of want of confidence. " We neither seek to be,
nor will we be. Ministers on sufferance. We took upon our
selves the reins of government without inquiring whether the
late parhament was hostile to our general policy or not, but
we took them at the general desire of the House of Commons
and of the country. We met the difficulties of our position
fairly, and administered the government of the country to the
best of our ability, applying ourselves dihgently and assiduously
to the affairs that were brought under our consideration, till
such time as there had been an appeal to the country. But
whatever were the exigencies of the case in the old par
liament, we neither desire nor will we submit in the new to
carry on the government under any indulgence which is foreign
to the spirit of the British constitution,"
It is unnecessary to say much by way of comment on these
speeches. To all who do not approach this subject with their
minds made up, they will sufficiently prove the consistency of

368 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the speaker's career. So long as Protection waS possible. Lord
Beaconsfield was a Protectionist, but when Free Trade principles
had triumphed he did not profess to have become a convert,
but simply to submit to the will of the majority and to accept
the popular verdict. In principle, the agricultural interest is,
in the opinion of all the greatest political economists — Adam
Smith, Ricardo, and McCulloch — entitled to not a "protective,"
but a countervailing duty in order that it may be placed on the
same terms at starting as the foreign producer. When, how
ever, the representatives of the nation had decided that no such
duty should be imposed, and when that decision had been
ratified by a general election. Lord Beaconsfield, in what I
venture to think the true spirit of statesmanship, accepted the
situation, and sought compensation for the agricultural interest
in other ways — in the relief of local taxation and the readjust
ment of certain duties. It has been urged that he " turned Free
Trader,'' and that just as he had a right to taunt Peel with
using his Tory majority to carry Whig measures, his opponents
had a right to taunt him with sitting as a Protectionist and
supporting Free Trade. The cases are, however, very different.
In Peel's case, a statesman who had been before the country for
more than thirty years suddenly turned round and declared that
his whole past career had been a mistake, seized the programme
of his rivals, and kept himself in office by carrying it out. In
the case of Lord Beaconsfield we find him professing himself still
a Protectionist in principle and a supporter of the agricultural
interest, but convinced that a return to protective and restric
tive duties was impossible, and looking for compensation else
where. That he ought, after this election, to have at once
resigned office was commonly said. Mr. Sidney Herbert in the

y I Hacks upon Lord Beaconsfield. 369
course of this debate argued to this effect, and it is needless to
say that the more extreme Liberals followed where he led.
They, however, forgot the circumstances of the case. When
Peel turned Free Trader he did so to carry a measure of Free
Trade, and he retained office for the purpose of carrying it.
Lord Beaconsfield submitted to the inevitable and bowed before
the storm, retaining office not because he was converted, but
because he hoped to secure those compensations for the agri
cultural class to which the Whigs admitted they were entitled,
but which they obstinately refused to concede. The action of
Lord Beaconsfield in this matter has been thoroughly misunder
stood — where it has not, as is too often the case, been studiously
misrepresented— and I am disposed to attribute much of the
misunderstanding to a very simple cause. Pvmch in these
years was conducted with remarkable ability. Its pages
sparkled with wit, and the greatest comic artist of the century
adorned it with drawings of remarkable power. These qualities
¦were enlisted uniformly in the service of the Whigs, whose
hatred of Lord Beaconsfield is notorious. The result was that
for years no week went by without some caricature of Lord
Beaconsfield — some attack upon him often as malevolent and
ignorant as it was unquestionably funny. During the year
1852 these attacks reached their climax, and of the fifty-three
or four cartoons which Mr. Leech contributed to its pages there
are hardly half a dozen in which Lord Beaconsfield is not the
principal figure, and in which he is not represented in some
ludicrous or degrading light. The result may be traced even
now. Mud was thrown plentifully enough during Lord Beacon f-
field's first tenure of office, and some of it stuck even until the
day of his triumph.

370 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
The debate on these resolutions of Mr. ViUiers extended over
three long sittings of the House, and the Government wisely
insisted on adhering to its original intention of treating the
question as one of confidence. There was, however, some little
indisposition to accept the Government amendment, whereupon
Lord Palmerston came to the rescue on the second night with
one slightly different in wording, but so framed as to enlist
the vote of the Peelites on the side of the Government. The
amended resolution was in the following terms : —
"That it is the opinion of this House that the policy of
unrestricted competition, firmly maintained and prudently
extended, will best enable the industry of the country to bear
its burden, and will thereby most surely promote the welfare
and contentment of the people; and that the House will be
ready to take into consideration any measures consistent with
those principles, which, in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious
speech and recommendation, may be laid before it."
Mr. Disraeli did not speak again, and when- after the whole
question of Protection v. Free Trade had been threshed out —
happily for the last time in the House of Commons — a division
was taken, Mr. Villiers's resolutions were rejected by 336 votes
against 256. Lord Palmerston's amendment was then taken and
carried by a majority of 415 — 468 Ayes to 53 Noes. The
minority would possibly have been larger but for the air of
ridicule which one or two of the more prominent protectionists
tried to throw over the whole subject. Be this as it may, how
ever, the debate was the funeral service over the grave of Pro
tection. The principle was dead and buried, and it is tolerabl)'^
safe to predict that it will never be resuscitated in this country.
On the 3rd of December Mr. Disraeli brought in his second

Mr. Disraeli's Second Budget. 371
Budget, "in a speech," says Mr, Theodore Martin, "of con
spicuous ability, which kept alive the attention of the House
for five hours and a quarter." He had already laid the four
resolutions which formed the basis of his proposed financial
arrangement on the table, and he began his speech by asking
the House, under the peculiar chcumstances in which he was
placed — having to bring forward his financial statement when
but three quarters of the year had expired — to consider the
scheme as a whole. After unrestricted competition had been
unreservedly adopted as the principle of our oommercial code, all
well founded causes of discontent could, he observed, be removed
only by enlisting the sympathy of all classes, but he would first
consider the claims of those who thought they had received
pecuhar injury from recent legislation, and whether their claims
and complaints were just. The great interests which had been
peculiarly affected by the recent changes in the law were the
shipping interest, the sugar producing interest and the agri
cultural interest. With regard to the first the Government
were of opinion that that interest was then subjected to burdens
to which it ought not to be liable, and to restrictions which
impeded its prosperity. As an instalment of justice they
proposed to confine the light dues payable by shipping to those
from which ships really derived benefit. By this concession
about £100,000 a year raised from a limited class would be
thrown upon the general resources of the country. The sugar
interest opened up a much larger question. There was no room
for doubt that its sufferings through recent legislation had been
severe, and the question now was what could be done to redress
the grievances of those interested with justice to other classes of
the community. They made six demands ; 1st, the arrest of the
B B 2

372 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
process of lowering the duties on foreign sugar ; 2nd, the reduc
tion of the duty on sugar produced in British plantations ; 3rd,
a guarantee of additional loans for emigration and improve
ment ; 4th, permission to refine bonded sugar ; 5th, permission
to use molasses in British breweries ; and 6th, the equalization
of the duties on rum and on British spirits. The first con
cession the Government did not propose to grant, since the
increasing importation of British sugar and the decrease of
foreign showed that there was no real necessity for it. Nor
was the Government prepared to guarantee fi-esh loans, mainly
because the loans already sanctioned had not yet been ex
hausted. Refining in bond would be permitted because, whilst it
was a concession to West Indian interests, it did not interfere with
that principle of unrestricted competition which the House had
sanctioned. With other matters he did not propose to interfere.
Turning now to the agricultural interest, Mr. Disraeli pointed
out that the farmers' grievances chiefly arose from the pressure
of local taxation, which was composed of three principal rates —
the highway rate, the county rate and the poor rate. The first
he proposed to make the subject of special legislation. The
county rate produced only £600,000, and he was not prepared
to recommend any alteration. With regard to the poor rate
he had not altered his opinion, but a great change had come
over the country since 1849, when the amount of expenditure
on account of the poor was 25 per cent higher than at that
moment. The incidence of this tax being so much less severe,
and believing that the remedies he was about to propose would
greatly assist those who had been subjected to very severe
treatment, he was not prepared to recommend any alteration in
the mode of raising the local taxation. He now approached the

The Malt Tax. 373
general system of taxation under the new circumstances in
which all agreed to place it. He had to consider, first, the general
system after the solemn verdict of the country applying to it
the principle of unrestricted competition had taken effect, and,
secondly, what were the measures to be recommended to Parlia
ment, now that that principle had been finally established, to
enable the community to encounter the competition which had
become inevitable. This could only be done by cheapening as
much as possible those articles which sustained life and if he
found any article of primary necessity subjected to heavy taxa
tion, its maintenance would be inconsistent with the new system.
The House, therefore, would not be surprised to hear that her
Majesty's Government were prepared to deal with the Malt Tax,
and that they did so on no other plea than the interests of the
consumer. At the same time he had never disguised his
opinion that there was no other tax which could be dealt with
by Parliament with greater advantage to agriculture. The
question of the repeal of the Malt Tax had assumed a different
aspect since the repeal of the Corn Laws — a measure which had
had the effect of limiting the cultivation of wheat to those soils
which were more especiaUy adapted for it. In what manner,
then, must this impost be dealt with \ If treated in a small
and petty fashion none of the objects aimed at by the Govern
ment would be accomplished. It was proposed, therefore, to
reduce the tax by one half, levying it on malt from barley, here
and bigg, and doing away with the malt drawback in Scotland
upon spirits made from malt. The alteration was designed to
take place on the 10th of October next, when stock would be
taken of the malt in the country and a drawback allowed.
The agricultural interest was not, however, the only interest

374 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
which the ChanceUor of the Exchequer proposed to relieve.
Tea had become as much a necessary of life as malt and was
subjected to much heavier duties. He proposed therefore to
deal with the tea duties, though it had been argued that the
article was one of limited production. Its importation, how
ever, was constantly increasing, and had reached the enormous
amount of 71,000,000 lbs. The heavy duties checked the
consumption, and of this amount only 54,000,000 lbs. came
into use in this country. On this subject the Government had
made very laborious calculations, and had arrived at the con
clusion that there was no prospect of a failure of the supply of
tea, while it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that
the reduction of the sugar duties had brought about a vastly
increased consumption of that article. They were further of
opinion that it would be impossible to have a differential duty
in respect of black or green teas or on account of quality. The
proposal of the Government was that the duty should be
gradually reduced from 2s. 1\d. per lb. to Is. ; the reduction
to take effect during a term of six' years, beginning with a
reduction of ^\d. (which would make the duty Is. lOcZ.), and
going on from year to year with successive reductions of 2d
per lb. until the duty reached Is, The hop duty he further
proposed to reduce by one half— from Id. per lb. and 5 per
cent, to \d. per lb. and 5 per cent., while the Customs duty on
foreign hops would be reduced from 45s. to 22s. %d., or from
4(Z. to 2d. per lb. No doubt, said he, the returns showed that
emigration was greater in amount than the increase of the
population through the number of births, but experience
showed that the consuming power depended less upon the
numbers of the people than upon their condition.

The Income Tax. 2i7S
By the reductions thus proposed there would be a loss of
revenue to the extent of nearly four millions. But it must
further be considered that within a few months one of the
principal sources of revenue would terminate by the expiration
of a tax yielding more than £5,000,000 yearly — the Property
and Income Tax. Here Mr. Disraeli reminded the House of
the remark which he had made in the last Parliament — that
direct taxation could not rest upon a system of exemptions.
The interval had not changed his opinion. He still beheved
that if we are to have recourse to direct taxation, it must be
made as general as indirect, and that a permanent system of
direct taxation, founded upon a system of exemptions, was most
pernicious. In applying this doctrine to the Income and
Property Tax, Ireland was the one exception he felt himself
bound to notice. Su- Robert Peel, when he first introduced
this tax in 1842, exempted Ireland from its operation on the
gi-ound that she contributed to the revenue in another form an
amount quite equal to that which would be raised in this way.
Those duties, however, had been repealed or had fallen off. It
was impossible to forget or to ignore what Ireland had gone
through, but even for Ireland the prospect was brightening —
her Poor Law Expenditure had faUen from £1,320,000 in 1850
to £855,000 in 1852. He did not wish to treat Ireland with
harshness, or to say in summary fashion to her, " You must pay
your quota," but he thought it would be only fair to extend
the Income Tax to funded property and to salaries in Ireland.
There was another principle with regard to this tax to which
the Government was prepared to assent, namely distinguishing
between permanent and precarious incomes. Viewing the tax
therefore with reference to these two principles, viz., first, that

376 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
in constructing a direct tax it should be as general as an
indirect tax, and secondly, that a difference should be recog
nised between realised and precarious incomes, he would now
state the rate of duty which the Government were prepared
¦ to recommend. The tax on farmers' profits (Schedule B) to be
reduced from 3|d to \\d. in the pound in England, and from
2Jd to \\d. in Scotland; the tax on Schedules D and E
(trades, professions, and offices) to be reduced from Id. to 'o\d.
in the pound ; the duties in Schedules C and E to be extended
to Ireland. In Schedules A and C (Land and Funds) the
minimum to be reduced from incomes of £150 to incomes of
£50 a-year. In Schedules B, D, and E the minimum to be re
duced from £150 to £100 a-year. The amount he calculated to
receive under the Schedules was £4,961,000 ; the reduction of
the exemptions he took at £400,000, and adding the modest
sum of ^960,000 for Ireland he looked for £5,421,000 from this
source. It would be his duty to lay before the House a sup
plementary estimate of expenditure for the national defences,
which had nothing to do with any question of peace or war,
but would be necessary under any circumstances. This he
reckoned at £600,000.
He now approached the question of Ways and Means. The
state of the Revenue was extremely favourable. He had calcu
lated that there would be a decrease of about £100,000 in the
Customs and he expected a slight increase in the Excise, in
which particular his hopes had been more than realised.
Stamps had greatly increased, and on the whole there was
every probabUity that the surplus, instead of being, as he had
calculated in the Spring, less than half-a -million, would more
nearly approach thrice that sum. The loss by the remission

IFays and Means. 377
of the Malt Tax which would not come into operation until
October, 1853, he put at £1,000,000 ; the reduction of the Tea
Duty meant a deficiency of £400,000 ; the duty on hops would
not affect the revenue of the coming year ; the supplemental
estimate would be £600,000, and the light dues £100,000.
There was thus a deficiency of £2,100,000. How to choke that
deficit was the question with which he had to grapple. He
did not propose any new tax, but he asked the House to
consider an old one, and apply to it the principles they had
supported. The tax was the House Tax — a direct impost, and
one remarkable for all the features by which direct taxation
was distinguished. Its operation was now limited to houses of
£20 a-year and upwards. He proposed to reduce the limita
tion to £10 a-year. At present private houses paid 9d. and
shops %d. in the pound ; he proposed that the former should pay
Is, 6cZ, and the latter Is. The amount of the tax would then
be £150,000 a-year less than the window duty. He would have
haff-a-year's income tax — £2,500,000 — to meet the extra expen
diture of £2,100,000. In 1854-55 there would be a loss arising
from the various remissions, which with £600,000 the increased
estimates would make £3,587,000, whUe the ways and means
would amount to £3,510,000.
Such were the leading features of the financial statement
of December, 1853, which Mr. Disraeli put forward with two
pleas in its favour — one that the Government had not proposed
anything upon which it was not at once prepared to act ; the
other that, although only an instalment, it was introduced as a
coherent part of a large and logical system of finance. I have
thought it right to- give the details of the Budget at some
length for the simple reason that they are almost invariably

2,7^ The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
misrepresented, and that too in works the writers of which
are certainly incapable of deliberately stating that which they
know to be untrue. Thus, for example, I find it stated in
Mr. Evelyn Ashley's " Life of Lord Palmerston," that " the
principal features (of the Budget) were a reduction of the
Malt Tax which created a large deficit and a doubling of the
House Tax to supply the void. The farmers expecting some
thing better, did not care about the reduction ma'de in their
favour, while the town folk did care very decidedly about the
reduction made at their cost." Mr. Theodore Martin, again,
in his " Life of the Prince Consort," says of the Budget
that "its leading features were a reduction of the Malt Tax
and of Excise and other duties estimated at two millions
and a half, a fifty per cent, (sic) increase of the House
Tax, and a fifty per cent, decrease in the Income Tax on
farmers' profits." Was it by accident or by design, one is almost
tempted to ask, that in two separate works by gentlemen
of the Whig persuasion, published after Mr. Gladstone had
made his famous reduction of the Tea duties, no notice is
taken of the fact that had Lord Beaconsfield continued in
office in 1852 all the reductions accomplished with so great
a fiourish of trumpets by the last Liberal Government would
have taken effect twenty years before 1
Looking back on this scheme by the light of the Whig
budgets which had preceded it, no one can fail to be struck
with its large and statesmanlike comprehensiveness. That
largeness seems indeed to have almost appalled the ex-
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Charles Wood) who piped
out a piteous complaint of "the enormously complicated
scheme ... to which many and various objections might be

Policy of the Opposition. 379
raised, and all the parts of which so hung together that
probably no one pai-t could be settled separately." Accus
tomed as they were to financial legislation of the nibbling
and niggling order — legislation which went on the- principle
of taking off one or two trumpery imposts and supplying
their places with an additional penny on the Income Tax — the
Opposition could not understand a scheme of finance which
went upon the principle of making concessions to each of the
interests which had suffered by recent legislation, and of
providing for the deficiency thus created by a re-arrange
ment of the fiscal system. Only the Times seems to have
recognised the true character of the Budget. In a leading
article of the day following the financial statement, that
journal remarked that its leading characteristics were "first
that it was based on the principle of 'unrestricted competi
tion' applying that principle not only to the acceptance of
recent legislation, but also to the removal of existing restric
tions and burdens of questionable utility and scarcely ques
tionable injustice; secondly, the wide range of the proposed
financial revision ; lastly, its great boldness as exhibited in
the unsparing hand with which some of our greatest common
burdens are dealt with, and the confidence displayed in the
growing prosperity and resources of the nation." Two days
later the same journal admitted the principle that " by the
consent of all financiers no tax is so fair as an inhabited
house duty," and declared . that the removal of the exemption
of Irish land from the operation of the Income Tax " entitled
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all the support Parliament
could give him."
The Opposition, however, speedily found flaws to lay hold

380 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of Mr. Gladstone made the notable discovery that to make
any distinction between the income derived from property and
the income derived from other sources, is a direct injustice to
the owner of property ; and in the case of the fund-holder, a
breach of the public faith. Marylebone, through its member,
Mr. Duncombe, protested vehemently against any increase of the
House Tax ; and before the House went into Committee, half
the leading features of the Budget had been canvassed in an
informal manner. When at last Committee was reached, the
Budget, which Mr. Duncombe was pleased to describe as " pre
posterous," was criticised with a severity which even the blunder
ing financial statements of 1848 had never encountered. The
reduction of the Malt Tax was objected to because it would
benefit not the farmers but the great brewers ; the House Tax
was not wanted ; the reduction of the Tea duties would create
a frightful loss of revenue, and the whole of the changes in
the system of taxation would fall with cruel severity on the
poor man — and especially on the poor Irish man. Such were
the arguments which were repeated and re-repeated through
many weary hours, until four o'clock in the morning of
Thursday, the 16th of December. Just before the close of the
debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to reply to some of
the criticisms, to which during a four nights' debate his financial
propositions had been subjected. He had been asked; he said,
why he took credit amongst the Ways and Means of the year
for £400,000 from the Exchequer -Loan Fund ? He did so
because he intended to abolish that fund, which was simply a
drain on the national resources and a method of wasting- public
money. Sir Charles Wood had accused him of wrongly esti
mating the amount of loss to the revenue through the partial

The House Tax. 381
remission of tho Malt Tax in the approaching Octolx^r. He
went through his calculations again, and showed that tho amount
had been over rather than under-estimated. It had been said
that he had falsely represented the Caffre war as at an end,
and he quoted a despatch of General Cathcart to show that he
was right, and that he had the authority of that distinguished
officer for his assertion. " The war of rebellion," the General
had written, " may now be considered at an end." Mr, Goulburn
had expressed his belief that the concession to the Sugar Trade
of refining in bond, would produce a heavy loss to the revenue,
Mr, Disraeh replied by entering into calculations, which proved
that no loss whatever was likely to accrue. Coming to the House
Tax, he sketched rapidly the various parts of our colossal system
of taxation, which had now to be accommodated to the new policy
of 'unrestricted competition;' observed that the Government re
quired some direct tax upon which to fix in order to carry out
their project of financial reform, and retorted the charge of
recklessness upon Sir Charles Wood — who had on one day pro
posed to double the Income and Property Tax, and on the
next had come down to the House and announced that he had
sufficient ways and means without it. In providing an amount
of direct taxation for their purpose, the Government were
guided by two principles — ^first, as regarded the Income Tax, to
establish a distinction between realised and precarious incomes ;
and secondly, to enlarge the general basis of direct taxation.
Believing that the House Tax was a reasonable, just and bene
ficial measure, and that it would supply the necessary amount
of direct taxation, they had to decide upon which group of in
direct taxes they should operate, and they came to the conclu
sion that they should act upon those articles which came into

382 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the consumption of the people, and which were subjected to the
heaviest imposts. He defended his selection of the Malt Duty
against the various attacks made upon it, and expressed his
opinion that, by the end of the year 1854, there would be
a considerable surplus of income ; whilst the public service
might be improved and made more economical by judicious
administrative reforms. The conclusion of his speech deserves
attention : — " Some advice has been offered to me which I
ought perhaps to notice. I have been told to withdraw my
Budget. I was told that Mr. Pitt withdrew his Budget, and
that more recently other persons have done so too. Now, I do
not aspire to the fame of Mr. Pitt, but I will not submit to the
degradation of others. No, Sir, I have seen the consequences
of a Government not being able to pass their measures — con
sequences not honourable to the Government, not advantageous
to the country, and not, in my opinion, conducive to the reputa
tion of this House — which is most dear to us. I remember a
Budget which was withdrawn and re- withdrawn and withdrawn
again in 1848. What was the consequence of the Government
existing upon sufferance ? What was the consequence to the
finances of this country? Why that ignoble transaction re
specting the commutation of the Window and House Duty,
which now I am obliged to attempt to readjust. The grievance
is deeper than mere questions of party consideration. When
parties are balanced, when a Government cannot pass its
measures, the highest principles of public life, the most impor
tant dogmas of politics, degenerate into party questions. Look
at this question of direct taxation, the most important question
of the day. It is a question which must sooner or later force
itself upon everybody's attention, and I see before me many

The Hour and the Man. 383
who I know sympathise, as far as that important principle is
concerned, with the policy of the Government. Well, direct
taxes, though applied with wisdom, temperance and prudence
become a party question. Talk of administrative reform ! Talk
of issuing commissions to inquire into our dockyards ! Why,
if I were, which is not impossible by intense labour, to bring
forwai-d a scheme which might save a million to this country,
administrative reform would become a party-question to-morrow.
Yes, I know what I have to face. I have to face a coalition.
The combination may be successful. A coalition has before
this been successful. But coalitions, although successful, have
always found this, that their triumph has been very brief This
I know — that England has not loved coalitions. I appeal from
the coalition to that public opinion which governs this country
— to that public opinion, whose wise and irresistible influence
can control even the decrees of Parliament, and without whose
support the most august and ancient institutions are but the
' baseless fabric of a vision.' "
Mr. Disraeli sat down amidst cheering so hearty and so long
continued that one might almost have imagined that-the House
of Commons had reaUy risen to the height of his great argu
ment, and had recognised its ruler. The hour had come and
here was obviously the man. For a moment even the medio
crities who form the rank and file of every political party
appeared to confess that a great man had risen in Israel. The
cheering had been incessant and enthusiastic. Every sentence
had told, and even veteran Whigs were taken by the enthusiasm
and joined in the chorus of applause. But now came an incident
of the debate which is worth -recalling. In the course of his
speech Mr, Disraeli had spoken with some contempt of Sir

384 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
James Graham — who will perhaps be remembered by posterity
chiefly through Leech's caricature of " the dirty boy who was
always getting into a mess," — and had said of his opinions that
he " regarded but did not respect them." No sooner had Mr.
Disraeli sat down, than ineffable virtue, in the person of Mr.
Gladstone, rose to rebuke him. With that air of superiority
which he is so fond of assuming, Mr, Gladstone delivered him
self of a school-masterish lecture, of which about one-half was
audible, the latter portion of his bitter and excited sentences
being drowned in the outcries of his own and of the Tory party
alike. Enough was said, however, to prove the existence of
that intense exasperation of personal feeling which has
uniformly characterised Mr. Gladstone's relations with his great
and victorious rival. As regards the attack itself, nothing more
need be said than that if Mr. Disraeli expressed his contempt
for the onslaughts of Sir James Graham in terms somewhat too
contemptuous, Mr. Gladstone rebuked that language in words
which were scarcely parliamentary, and whose true character
was fairly appreciated by the House. ' This personal attack he
followed up by a reiteration of his onslaught on the Budget,
which is now chiefly remarkable as showing how wonderfully
the aspects of great questions change when those who consider
them leave the ranks of the Opposition for the Treasury bench.
Well intentioned though it may have been, it may be doubted
whether Mr. Gladstone's flood of eloquence had any effect upon
the division. The result had been discounted long before. With
such a House of Commons no Budget could have been brought
forward by a Tory Government with even the shadow of suc
cess. The Protectionists were angry at the appearance of even
the smallest concession to the principles of Free Trade; the Whigs

Lord Derby Resigns. 385
were indignant that the imbecility of their leader had deprived
thera for a time of those sweets of office which noiio appreciate
more perfectly than they, while the Peelites had personal
reasons for detesting the statesman who had held their idul up
to public contempt. Mr. Disraeli had, indeed, to face a coalition
— ^if the combination against him does not deserve a stronger
word. The Opposition at this time had literally no other policy
than that of attacking the Government, Theorists of the most
diverse order, and partisans of the most opposite character found
themselves bound together by the one tie of hatred of the Tories,
and the result was that when the division was taken Ministers
found themselves in a minority of 19, the numbers being 305
against the Budget to 286 in its favour. All was thus over.
The Ministers who had declared that they would not be
Ministers upon sufferance, were not likely to hesitate as to their
proper course when they found themselves, in a minority in the
House of Commons. The division was taken at four o'clock in
the morning. In the course of the day her Majesty received a
letter from Lord Derby announcing the resignations of himself
and of his colleagues : a Cabinet Council was called for noon,
and after sitting for an hour broke up. Lord Derby went down
to Osborne by the three o'clock train, and formally resigned the
seals'of office. In the evening of Monday, the 20th of December,
Mr. Disraeli stated what had happened to the assembled House
of Commons, and in a few minutes more the first Administra
tion of Lord Derby and of Mr. Disraeli had ceased to be.

Vol, i, 0 0

CHAPTEE VII.
< AGAIN IN OPPOSITION.
The Coalition Government — A strong administration— Clouds in the Bast — At
home — Ministerial indiscretions — The French alliance — Attacks on foreign
powers — Analysis of the situation — Tlie Budget — Conceived in a spirit of
hostility to the land — Anti-Eussian feeling in England— A new Reform Bill
— Palmerston's resignation — Absurd reports about the Prince Consort —
Opening of the Session — Ministerial explanations — Speech on the Address^
Lord John's Eeform Bill — Drifting into war — Speech on the Government
policy — Preparations for war — The Supplemental Budget — Criticisms of the
chief of the Opposition — Government war policy —Prorogation of Parliament
— Landing of the Allies in the Crimea — Vacillation of Lord Aberdeen —
Speech on the conduct of the war — The Prince Consort's Proposals — Lord
John Eussell "upsets the coach" — Re-assembling of Parliament, January,
1855 — The Crimean Inquiry — Collapse of the Government — The Interregnum
— Palmerston Prime Minister — Speech of Mr. Disraeli — Eetirement of the
Peelites — Ministerial explanations — Sir G. C. Lewis's Budget — Failure of the
Vienna Conference — "Ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of the
Government '' — Resolution — Aggressive war and protective diplomacy —
Amendments — Lord John RusseU at Vienna — Retirement of Lord John
Eussell — Cabinet sympathy with the Peace party — Prorogation and the
Queen's Speech.
The coalition having thus succeeded in driving the Tories
from office, it was only natural that they should be entrusted
with the formation of the new Government. We are told that
" the Queen felt that the time had now come for the formation
of a strong administration, and for closing the unsatisfactory
epoch of Government upon sufferance, Avhich had resulted from
the disorganization of parties since 1846." * Her Majesty deter-
"' "Life of the Prince Consort,'' vol. ii. p, 482,

Lord Aberdeen takes Office. 387
mined therefore on the formation of a strong, popular, and
efficient Government, and with this view sent for Lord Aberdeen
and Lord Lansdowne, Lord John Russell had failed so igno
miniously that his presence as Premier was wholly out of the
question. It was known moreover that Lord Palmerston would
not serve under him, and Palmerston's presence in any Cabinet
that might be formed was absolutely essential. Lord Lansdowne
would, perhaps, have been more eligible in the highest place
than Lord Aberdeen, but it was well known that the Peelites
would not tolerate him as their leader, and their co-operation
was essential. Lord Aberdeen did not find the formation of his
Government by any means an easy task. He was embarrassed
on the one hand by the number of ex-Ministers who expected
to be taken in — it is said not fewer than thirty-six — and who
might be somewhat awkward critics if left in the cold, while on
the other some of those on whom he most relied were not very
wiUing to serve under him. Amongst those who were thus coy
was Lord Palmerston, to whom he made his first apphcation.
He for a while withheld his consent, anticipating that the foreign
policy of the new Administration would not be such as he could
honestly support. As Mr. Ashley puts the matter, however,
" he was indispensable. A general though undefined feeling
among the pubhc had already marked him out as the coming
man." Lord Lansdowne urged the matter very strongly, and
when he found that Lord John Russell or Lord Clarendon
would take the Foreign Office, he relented, and joined the new
Administration as Home Secretary.
The Liberal party rejoiced greatly over the constitution of the
new Cabinet, which, in the words of Lord Palmerston, " com
bined all the men of talent and experience in the House of
0 0 2

388 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Commons, except Disraeh." Truth to say, there was some
reason for this exultation. Lord Palmerston, the Duke of New
castle, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Sidney Herbert were all men
of approved capacity and high personal character, and Lord
Aberdeen himself, if not possessed of exceptional abilities, was
an honest and upright statesman. The Duke" of Argyll and
Earl Granville, Lord John RusseU and Mr. Cardwell, Lord
Canning and Mr. Strutt, Mr. Baines and Mr. Villiers were all
looked upon as valuable members of the Government, and if
weak places could be found, they were only at the Admiralty
in the person of Sir James Graham, in the office of Under
Secretary for the Colonies, filled by Mr, Frederick Peel, and at
the Board of Control, where Sir Charles Wood had found a
refuge after his ignominious failure as Chancellor of the Ex
chequer. The times certainly needed a strong and a discreet Govern
ment. In the East the clouds had long been gathering, and
the year 1853 was barely a week oM when the storm broke.
On the 9th of January the Emperor Nicholas held that famous
conversation _ with Sir Hamilton Seymour, which proved the
prelude to the Crimean War — the first conversation of a long
series, which have been almost literally reproduced by the
present Emperor in his communications concerning the late war
with Turkey, Before many days had passed came Lord John
Russell's famous despatch about the Holy Places, in which he
cast upon France the responsibUity of disturbing the status quo.
The fitness of the Administration for dealing with questions of
foreign politics was further tested before Parliament met. The
Government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany had, as a matter of
internal police, placed a Protestant family under arrest, where-

Sir Charles J Food on France. 389
upon Lord John directed Sir Henry Bulwer to interfere, in a
despatch which has since been somewhat fiercely criticised.
The crowning evidence of the character of Wliig foreign policy
was, however, afforded by Sir Charles Wood on the 3rd of
February, when, addressing his constituents at Halifax, he
said : — " Take our nearest neighbours. Such a despotism never
prevaUed in France, even at the time of Napoleon the First.
The press gagged, liberty suppressed, no man allowed to speak
his opinion, the neighbouring country of Belgium forced to gag
her press, no press in Europe free but ours, which, thank God
he cannot gag. And hence his hatred of our pres.s, which alone
dares to speak the truth." With a Government whose members
were capable of indiscretion such as this, and v/ith the Eastern
Question in such a perilous condition, it became doubtful, in
the minds of most thoughtful men, how long it would be
possible for the Queen to say, as she had in her Speech at the
opening of the Session, that she " continued to receive, from all
Foreign powers, assurances of their anxious desire to maintain
the fi-iendly relations now happUy subsisting with her Govern
ment." It was not to be expected that this speech of Sir Charles
Wood could pass without criticism. Nor did it. He took his
seat after his re-election for Halifax on the night of the 18th of
February, and the first business being Supply, Mr. Disraeli rose
"to make some inquiries of her Majesty's Government with
respect to our relations with France." After dwelling upon
the fact that there are some persons who still believe in the
hereditary hostility of that country to our own, -he went on to
say that he for one did not believe in the existence of anything
of the kind, and to point out that on the contrary the trgdi-

390 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
tional policy of this country was really one of alliance with our
neighbours. Yet there now seemed to be a general feeling of
hostUity between the two nations. Revolutions and disturb
ances of all kinds on the Continent had made it essential for
England to strengthen her national defences, and that work
the late Government had performed ; but the improvement of
our armament was no reason for imagining that the English
nation entertained any distrust of its nearest neighbour and
most natural ally. There was, however, a considerable prejudice
against the Emperor of the French, because he had terminated
what was considered a Parliamentary constitution, and had cur
tailed the liberty of the press. " It is unnecessary for me to
say," Mr. Disraeli went on, " that it is not probable that I shall
ever say or do anything which would tend to depreciate the
influence, or to diminish the power of Parliament or the press.
My greatest honour is to be a member of this House, in which
all my thoughts and feelings are concentred ; and as for the
press, I am myself 'a gentleman of the press,' and bear no
other escutcheon." * With regard to the liberty of the press
itself, however, he pointed out that it is in this country the
* It is worthy of remai-k that this is literally true. Lord Beaconsfield had no
armorial bearings until he obtained a grant in proper form on his elevation to the
peerage. Alone, amongst the crowd of successful tradesmen whose "crest and
arms " from a seal engraver's shop figured in the pages of Debrett, Mr. Disraeli
bore a plain shield. One is reminded of Talleyrand's '¦'¦Ma foi, c'esf Men
distingui." In his earlier years he had, indeed, used a seal with a castle as his
crest, presumably an heraldic bearing granted to his family in Spain, but after
1847 he seems to have discarded it. The castle, however, reappears in the arms
of Lady Beaconsfield, who as the daughter of Captain Viney-Evans bore three
boars' heads for Evans, with a slip of vine fracted and leaved. The arms of Lord
Beaconsfield are the same, but with the addition of supporters— a lion and a
griffin, each charged with a castle. Forti nihil difficile has always been his motto
even when he used no iirms.

Mr. Disraeli's Criticism. 391
result of a long established habit of order, of freedom of discus
sion, and of an absence of those causes which disturb the peace
of continental states. " Let us suppose that we had had in the
course of a few years, great revolutions in this country — that
the form of our Government had been changed — that our free
and famous monarchy had been subverted, and that a centralized
republic had been established by an energetic minority — that
that minority had been insupportable, and that the army had
been called in by the people generally, to guard them from the
excesses which they had experienced. Do you think that
under any of these circumstances you would be quite sure of
enjoying the same liberty of the press which you enjoy at this
moment ? Do you think that in the midst of revolutions, with
a disputed succession, secret societies, and military rule, you
would be quite certain of having your newspaper at your break
fast table every morning ? " Then, after paying a tribute to
Louis Philippe, he went on : — " After a reign of unbroken
prosperity of long duration, when he was aged, when he was in
sorrow, and when he was suffering under overwhelming indis
position, this same prince was rudely expelled from his capital,
and was denounced as a poltroon by all the journals of England
because he did not command his troops to fire upon his people.
Well, Sir, other powers and other princes have since occupied
his seat, who have asserted th^ir authority in a very different
way, and are denounced in the same organs as tyrants because
they did order their troops to fire upon the people. . .*. What
is the moral I presume to draw from these circumstances ? It
is this — that it is extremely difficult to form an opinion upon
French politics ; and that so long as the French people are exact
in their commercial transactions, and friendly in their political

392 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
relations, it is just as well that we should not interfere with
their management of their domestic concerns."
But though the press might be forgiven for its mistakes, the
Government was bound to make none ; and the speaker there
fore asked for explanations as to the policy of the Government
with regard to France. He did so because of certain declara
tions which, had been made by members of the Administration,
on presenting themselves to their constituents for re-election.
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham) had
described the Emperor of the French to his constituents as " a
despot who had trampled on the liberties of forty millions of
men." " Therefore," went on Mr. Disraeli, "the French people,
according to the right honourable gentleman, are a nation of
slaves ; and a despot and slaves are those with whom we are
to have a cordial understanding, in order to prevent those
dangers, and secure those blessings which, by a reference to those .
proceedings which I have already detailed, are the consequences
of having a cordial understanding with France, . . . How are
we to account for such a declaration ? I will not be so imperti
nent as to suppose it was an indiscretion. An indiscretion from
' All the talents ? ' Impossible^ ! Can it then be design ? I
will not misrepresent the right honourable gentleman. I will
not commit the mistake I made the other day. I understand,
from what the noble Lord opposite then stated, that- you may
call the French slaves if you are speaking illustratively of
politics'in general, but you must not call the Emperor of the
French a tyrant, or his subjects slaves, if you are formally
treating of the foreign relations of this country. . . . The
present Government tells us that they have no principles, —
at least, not at present. Some people are uncharitable enough

On Graham and Wood, 393
to suppose that they have not got a policy, but in Heaven's
name, why ai-o they Ministers if they have no discretion ?
That is the great quality on which I had thought this Cabinet
was established. Vast experience, administrative adroitness —
safe men who never would blunder — men who might not only
take the Government without a principle and without a party,
but to whom the country ought to be grateful for taking it
under such circumstances. Yet at the very outset we find
one of the most experienced of these eminent statesmen acting
in the teeth of the declarations of the noble Lord opposite, and
of Lord Grey, made in 1852, and holding up to public scorn and
indignation the ruler and the people, a good and cordial under
standing with whom is the cardinal point of sound statesman
ship." Turning then to Sir Charles Wood's unhappy outburst quoted
above, Mr. Disraeli first vindicated the King of the Belgians
from the absurd and degrading charge brought against him,
and declared that his appeal to his Parliament to silence the
vile prints which counselled the assassination of the French
Emperor was the act of a "wise and able sovereign." And
yet, he continued, "it was not a newspaper, it was not one
of those vUe prints that counsel assassination that made the
statement that the press of Belgium is gagged, but a Councillor
of Queen Victoria, an experienced statesman, a statesman
selected to sit in the councils of the Government (where there
is no regard to the principles of the gentlemen who compose
it, as that is a question of second-rate importance), selected to
take office on account of his admirable discretion, his unfail
ing judgment, and the certainty that under no circumstances
he would say or do anything that could commit his col-

394 The Public Lif e of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
leagues." There was, however, one passage in Sir Charles
Wood's speech which was even more deplorable. He had been
talking about the importance of national defence, and to Ulus-
trate that importance he had said : — " I do not think there will
be a regular war with the French, but I teU you what you will
have : you wiU have bodies of five thousand men suddenly
thrown upon the coast, and how would you like that ? How
would your wives and daughters be treated,?" And it was for
the sake of putting into office men who could be guilty of utter
ing such ineffable foUiesas these that the Tories had been
turned out, and a Coalition Ministry brought in ! Small
wonder if the leader of the Opposition spoke strongly, or if he
quoted as he did the condemnations of the foreign policy of
the past, which Lord Aberdeen had announced was to guide
the future, uttered by members of the Cabinet when out of
office. The close of the speech was striking : — " We have at this
moment a Conservative Ministry and a Conservative Opposi
tion. Where the great Liberal party is I pretend not to know.
Where are the Whigs with their great tradition — two centuries
of Parliamentary lustre and noble patriotism 1 There is no one
to answer. Where are the youthful energies of Radicalism, its
buoyant expectations, its sanguine hopes \ Awakened, I fear,
from the first di-eam of that ardent inexperience which finds
itself at the same moment used and discarded — used without
compunction, and not discarded with too much decency. Where
are the Radicals % Is there a man in this House who declares
himself to be a Radical. (A Voice. Yes.) Oh, no ! you would
be afraid of being caught and changed into a Conservative
Minister. Well, how has this curious state of things been

I\Ir. Gladstone's Budget. 395
brought about ? The First Lord of the Admiralty. . . said in
a manner the most decided that his political creed was this : —
' I take my stand upon progress ! ' . . . We have now got a
Ministry of Progress and e\'ery one stands still. We never hear
the word Reform now : it is no longer a Ministry of Reform ; it
is a Ministry of Progress, every member of which agrees to do
nothing. AU difficult questions are suspended. All questions
which cannot be agreed upon are open questions. I do not
want to be unreasonable, but I think there ought to be some
limit to this system of open questions. . . Let Parliamentary
Reform, let the Ballot, be open questions if you please, let every
institution in Church and State be open questions, but, at least,
let your answer to me to-night prove that among your open
questions you are not going to make an open question of the
peace of Europe."
This was the only occasion during the Session of 1853 on
which Lord Beaconsfield spoke at any length on foreign aflairs.
For the most part he contented himself with keeping a close
and critical watch upon the conduct of the Government and
with asking occasional pungent questions, as our relations with
Russia grew more strained with the advance of the year. At
the same time he carefully abstained from everything that could
. hamper or embarrass the Government, or could prevent it from
carr3dng out its pohcy. The same course he pursued on aU other
subjects with the one exception of finance, to which he paid, as
he always had done, especial attention. Mr. Gladstone brought
in his Budget on the 18th of April, and if it were not so large
and far sighted a measure as that which the Coalition had
rejected in the preceding December, it was at least broad and
statesmanlike in its inception. Its leading features were a

396 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
gradual reduction of the Income Tax, the extension of the
Legacy Duty ; equahzation of the spirit duties ; abohtion of the
duties on soap ; the simplification of the Stamp Duties by the
adoption of the penny receipt stamp ; the reduction of duty on
cabs and hackney carriages; and the equalisation of the Assessed
Taxes. The resolutions moved in the terms of the Budget
showed that in the case of 133 articles the duty was to be
materially reduced, and that 123 were to be wholly set free.
The first great reduction was upon the tea duties, in which
matter Mr. Gladstone adopted the scheme proposed by his
predecessor, but making the reduction much more rapidly.
The duty was to be brought down from 2s, ''L\d. to Is. per lb.
by successive stages of descent, the last to be reached in April,
1856. AU these changes were consequent upon the significant
fact that the financial pohcy of the late Administration had left
in the Treasury a surplus of nearly two mUhons and a half.
The great feature of the scheme was, of course, the retention of
the Income Tax — that inquisitorial and odious impost which
every financier had hitherto endeavoured to mitigate, even if it
were impossible altogether to get rid of it. Mr. Gladstone
indeed offered the House an alternative to the Income Tax in
the shape of a conjunction of three measm-es — one, a tax of %d.
in the pound on land, houses and visible property ; the second, ,
a system of universal licences on trade, averaging something like
£7 ; and the third, a change in the system of legacy duties.
Knowing, however, that the House would not agree to any
scheme of this kind he fell back upon the Income Tax, " that
giant who, after having shielded us in war, had been called
forth from his repose to assist our industrious toils in peace."
Sir Stafford Northcote, writing in 1862, and approving generally

The Income Tax Clauses. 397
the provisions of this Budget, points out its groat defect — tho
"want of sagacity to discern tho signs of the times." * It would
doubtless have been a perfect Budget from Mr. Gladstone's own
point of vieAV could its framer have made sure that nothing
would occur to produce a large increase of expenditure prior to
1860, but there was nothing to warrant any such hope. There
was, indeed, every reason to fear that before many months were
over England would be involved in a costly war with Russia,
and that expectation was fulfilled in less than a year.
The Income Tax clauses naturally produced a very animated
discussion. Sir E, Bulwer Lytton moved as an amendment,
" That the continuance of the Income Tax for seven years, and
its extension to parties heretofore exempt from its operation
without any mitigation of the inequalities of its assessment,
are alike unjust and impolitic," and a great debate followed, in
which Lord Beaconsfield spoke twice — first on Bulwer's amend
ment, and afterwards on a minor point.
The first was decidedly a great effort. Starting with the
declaration that he gave to the Budget his entire approbation
as a matter of general principle, he went on to say that he did
so because Mr, Gladstone had based his calculations on the
principle which he himself had laid down four months before.
He had then said, that the time had arrived when it was
necessary " to assimilate our financial policy to our new com
mercial system," These words afforded an opportunity for a
lively passage of arms. Lord John Russell cheered them,
whereupon Mr, Disraeli reminded him that when he had
enunciated that principle, the noble Lord "instead of cryino-
' hear, hear,' rose in a spirit certainly of incredulity if not of
* " Twenty Years of Financial Policy," p, 200,

398 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
ridicule, and spoke of the idea of assimilating our financial
policy to our new commercial policy as an absurdity and a
wild conception which could have nothing to do with the
practical affairs of England." He expressed his gratification
that Lord John had so completely changed his opinion, and
then by the dexterous use of quotations from the speeches
delivered on his own Budget, he showed that the supporters of
the Government — Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Lowe and Mr. Goul
burn — were actually committing themselves to principles which
when in Opposition they had vehemently opposed. On Mr.
Lowe he was naturally somewhat severe. That gentleman had
censured him somewhat harshly for offering to the House a
financial policy for two years. " The wisest man," he had said,
" would have enough to do in attempting to arrive at a correct
view of the financial condition of a great country even for a
single year." "But now," retorts Mr. Disraeli, "we have a
Budget for seven years ; and not content with this, not content
with regulating our commercial an-angements and taxes for
that time, they are entering upon financial operations that fix
the rate of interest for nearly half a century. "Really," he
added, " for statesmen who will not say one thing to-day and
another to-morrow to win an ephemeral popularity, for men
who will not sacrifice their opinions for an object of such a
character, I think this is rather a troublesome contrast to have
occurred within the space of four months, the only difference in
the circumstances of the case being, that the honourable member
for Kidderminster of four months ago (Mr. Lowe) is now the
Secretary of the Board of Control."
Reverting then to the substance of the Budget, Mr. Disraeli
went on to urge the objectionable character of the proposal to

The Budget Hostile to the Landed Interest. 399
continue the operation of the lucome Tax for seven years.
When he had proposed fiscal arrangements extending over the
current year and the year to come, his idea was scouted by the
Liberal party as heretical Yet now that a Liberal Government
was in office, it was found proposing to continue an impost not
for two but for seven years — a step which though approved by
the Economist newspaper, had been very definitely condemned
in principle by no less a personage than Lord John Russell.
On the question of the incidence of the tax, he pointed out that
by an Income Tax as assessed on the Government principle, a
gi-eat injustice is done — not, as might have been anticipated, to
the landowner, but to the commercial class, inasmuch as the
impost is levied at the same rate upon the profits of trade
which are of the nature of a terminable annuity, as upon the
interest derived from realized property. "And this is the
system which you are going to support — which you who profess
to be the peculiar representatives of the commercial body are
now going to establish for a term of seven years, but as I shall
presently show you, most probably for ever." Having shown.
how certain the tax was to become a permanent item in the
finance of the country, he asked the House to consider whether
it was right to extend it to new . classes and countries, without
any attempt to mitigate its odious character and to adjust its
notorious inequalities.
On the general policy of the Budget, Mr. Disraeh spoke
somewhat strongly, arguing that it was conceived in a spirit of
hostility to the land. One fourth of the revenue of the country
is raised from the duty levied upon a single crop of the British
farmer. The average of the united duties levied directly or
indirectly on barley is upwards of 230 per cent. Yet the

40O The Public Life of . the Earl of Beaconsfield.
farmer was to have no relief, whilst the Chinaman was brought
into more direct competition with him than at any preceding
time. Mr. Disraeli was not, indeed, frightened at the prospect
of an increased consumption of tea, but he certainly preferred
his own more prudent proposition for the reduction of the duty
upon it, coupled as it was with relief to the agricultural
interest. The principle he advocated was, in short, that the
Government are bound, if they admitted foreign products like tea
and wine at largely reduced duties, to deal also -with that
immense mass of indirect taxation which is raised from the
English articles, for which these foreign products would in all
probability be substituted. The Government, however, had
taken a course precisely the reverse of this, and had said in
effect to the English producer — " You will meet this increased
competition with increased indirect imposts, and in addition to
all this, to sustain you in the contest, we are going to put on
you an income tax." "That," said Mr. Disraeli, "is the position
of the cultivator of the soil. What is the condition of the
.proprietor of the soil — the proprietor of the soil, who has been
told to devote his capital to the improvement of his estate ?
You are going to propose a tax, which you call extending the
legacy duties to land, which will act as a direct tax of very
considerable amount upon all real property, and of course if
upon all real property, in a very great degree, if not mainly,
upon the land."
After a protest against the imposition of the Income Tax upon
Ireland, in the course of which he quoted with much effect
Lord John Russell's denunciation of " this odious, this unjust,
this inequitable, this inquisitorial tax," Mr. Disraeli passed on
to the projected licence duty. Concerning that matter, he had

No Hostility between Town and Country. 401
received, he mentioned, some 300 or 100 letters all condemna-
torj'- of the proposal, and all declaring lliat a licence duty
would be infinitely worse than the rejected scheuio of a
House Tax. Representations of a similar nature had doubt
less been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
result was, that his opinion had already been shaken — a fact
which afforded the speaker an opportunity for some of those
admkably sarcastic comments, with which he has repeatedly
assailed the levity of Liberal financiers, who adopt absurd
schemes without consideration, and drop them without inquiry.
The point of the speech is as usual, however, to be sought
at the close. Hitherto, Mr. Disraeli had been dealing with
detaU. He now came to a matter of principle. Mr. Cobden
had stated that Mr. Newdegate had described this Budget
as a great triumph for Manchester. "I had hoped," said
Mr. Disraeli, " that the old feud between town and country
had ceased for ever. There exists no difference of material
interests any longer between town and country." Mr. Bright
had told his constituents that the country gentlemen were
entitled to the kindly feeling of the -ft'orking classes, on account
of the attitude they had taken up on this question. "The
honourable member for Manchester had spoken in a manner
honourable to himself and worthy of the occasion ; and I teU
the honourable gentleman that there is no class which has
struggled more for the rights and liberties of the people than
the country gentlemen ; no class has less interest in the cor
rupt administration of affairs, and no class has a greater in
terest in the -economical administration of those affairs. Gen
tlemen are very apt to tell us of the weight and importance
of the great towns, and that this budget was supported by
VOL, J, OB,

402 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the members for those great towns. I have already said,
that there is no longer any difference of material interests
between the people of the great towns and the people of the
country. But I am told that there are social and political
differences. I am loth to believe it. I cannot but beheve
that it will be remembered that these great towns are situate
in a country of a considerable extent ; with no excessive
population, with a commerce which, however great, has been
equalled ; and with manufactures which, however successful,
have been surpassed. What then makes the country great ?
The national character of the country created by its institu
tions, and by the traditionary influence impressed upon those
institutions. Those institutions are deeply and broadly planted
in the soil, and that soil is not the possession of any exclusive
class. The merchant or the manufacturer may deposit within
it his accumulated capital, and he may enjoy those pri-vileges
to which his position entitles him, on condition that he dis
charges those duties which its possession also imposes. Then
why this hostility to the land ? Every man is deeply interested
in maintaining its influence. I, therefore, adjure those gentle
men who are the representatives of large towns, to condescend
to ponder over these observations, and not to be led away by
prejudices ; remembering, that we are all alike interested in
maintaining the greatness of our country and that that great
ness depends upon its institutions as well as its material
prosperity. Should, however, as I trust not, the representa
tives of towns take another course, then of this I feel convinced,
that if they are still alienated from us — if they stUl proceed
in their illusory progress, they may, perhaps, arrive at the
goal which they contemplate, they may perhaps achieve the

The Eastern Question. 403
object they have set before them ; but I believe they will
be greatly disappointed in the result, and that they will only
find that they have changed a first-rate kingdom into a second-
rate republic."
Reading these words in the light of subsequent events, it
is impossible not to be struck with the patriotism which
dictated them, and with the astonishing political foresight
which they display. Few will be prepared to deny that,
by the end of 1873, when Gladstonian Liberalism had had
its way unchecked — save for two brief intervals, for twenty
years the position of this country in the scale of nations
was miserably low, that our pretensions were openly scoffed
at, that we were hardly considered to hold a position amongst
the Great Powers at all, that we had no allies and that our
colonies were almost ready to take Liberal Ministers at their
word, and to declare their independence. Our position was
then about as dignified as that of Holland : our Government
was -virtually that of a Republic. If things have altered
since, they have altered under the guidance of the Minister
who foresaw the inevitable result of the Peelite-cum-Whig-
cum-Radical coalition and its policy, and whose patriotism
induced him to devote his hfe to the organization of a national
party in opposition to it. But for such a man,- surely even
a Liberal ex-Minister might find something better to say,
than an assurance to an excited and tumultuous crowd, that
the Prime Minister " is a foreigner without a drop of English
blood in his veins."
The session came to an end on the 20th of August, amidst
increasing gloom on the Eastern Question. On the 23rd of
July, the Lord Mayor had entertained Ministers at the Mansion
una

404 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
House, and Lord Aberdeen had expressed a very ardent desire
for peace. Four days before the session came to an end. Lord
John Russell entered upon certain explanations of the foreign
policy of the Government, which did not explain much, but
which are interesting at the present time ; inasmuch, as they
prove that the Cabinet of 1853, of which Mr. Gladstone was
a member, had for " the main object of its policy in reference
to affairs in the East, the independence and integrity of
Turkey" — a view which was more than confirmed by a sub
sequent speech of Lord Palmerston, and by the declarations
of Lord Aberdeen in the Upper House on the same evening.
This end was to be accomplished, however, without resort
to force ; but the temper of the English people was rapidly
rising, and it was evident to everyone outside the Government,
not merely that war must come, but that England would be
dragged into it. All through the month of September, meet
ings were held in various parts of England, for the purpose of
urging the Government to take some active steps for the solution
of the difficulty which had been raised by Russian aggression ;
but for a considerable time nothing was done. There were
notoriously differences in the Cabinet, and Lord Palmerston
was thwarted in his well-known desire to move promptly in
this matter, by the influence of Lord Aberdeen. When Russia
had crossed the Pruth and occupied the Danubian Principalities
in July, Palmerston was anxious to order the combined English
and French fleets from Besika Bay to the Black Sea, To
this proposal, however. Lord Aberdeen refused to consent,
clinging still to the vague and baseless hope that the form
of convention between Russia and Turkey would be accepted
and peace maintained. By the beginning of October, it was

Russia Declares Jl^ar. 405
evident that all hope of this solution was gone : by the
14tb, the allied fleets were in front of Constantinople, ,and
by the 1st of November Russia had declared war. Still Eng
land remained passive, though after the tragedy of Sinope
— which unquestionably would have been prc\'ented, had
Palmerston's bolder counsels prevailed — public opinion had
declared itself very forcibly. By the middle of December
the country was startled by the news of Palmerston's retire
ment from the Administration, and though he was at the
Home Office, his name was so associated with foreign politics
that it was universally believed that his retirement had been
caused by differences with his colleagues on the Eastern
Question. It is now known that the real reason was a very
different one, and one which affords an amusing clue to the
character of the Administration of which Lord Beaconsfield
was an opponent. While this great European" conflagration
was on the point of bursting out, Lord John Russell and
Lord Aberdeen were busy with a new Reform Bill, and for
the sake of it were actually prepared to allow Palmerston
— the ablest member of the Cabinet, and the only one who
reaUy understood the Eastern Question — ^to retire from their
body. Happily for themselves and for their country wiser
counsels prevailed, and Palmerston having withdrawn his
resignation, had the satisfaction of finding his views on
foreign politics substantially adopted.
His temporary retirement, however, produced one evil and
even ludicrous effect. The real reason for the step was not made
public, and the consequence was, that the world invented a
reason of its own. Lord Aberdeen was said to have been bought
over by Russia in spite of the protests of Palmerston, and to

4o6 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
have retired on that account and because of certain Court
intrigues in which the name of the Prince Consort was mixed
up in a very undesirable fashion. One or two journals threw
out hints that the Prince had used his position to control the
action of the Government, and to advance the interests of
foreign powers to the prejudice of England, It must be ad
mitted that from the outside there were appearances which
may be held to extenuate if they do not altogether excuse the
suspicion. The Prince very naturally and properly acted as
Her Majesty's private secretary, and he had for friend the
Baron Stockmar, who was the medium of communication be
tween the King of the Belgians and the Enghsh Court, Of
course this fact does not justify the absurd rumours which were
spread in London society at this time, just as on the other hand
there is not the smallest justification for the insinuation of the
Times that those rumours were put about by the leaders of the
Tory party, of whom Lord Beaconsfield was naturaUy the most
conspicuous. The Session opened on the 31st of January, and it was but
reasonable that the topic of the day should form the principal
subject of the Debate on the Address, Lord Aberdeen gave
sufficient explanations in the House of Lords, and Lord John
Russell fulfilled the same duty in the Commons, . It was un
necessary for Mr, Disraeli to do more. He therefore devoted
the greater part of his speech to the impending war. He
was quite prepared to give Ministers credit for the most
sincere desire to maintain peace, and the one thing which led
him to believe that peace was possible, was, the enormous
amount of work which the Government had laid out in the
Queen's Speech, "I can hardly conceive," said he, "that a

speech on the Address. 407
body of men who are about to embark in — I wUl not say a
great European struggle, though that is the common phrase —
but which, in fact, is not only a European but an Asiatic
struggle, which indeed, may stretch into a third quarter of the
globe — for Russia has not only European, but Asiatic and
American territories — I say I cannot conceive that a body of
statesmen who believe that we are about to embark in such a
conflict, who are now preparing to meet such an awful con
juncture — I cannot beheve that any body of statesmen so placed
would have asked us not only to reform the whole of our civil
service, not only to reform the ecclesiastical courts, not only
to reform the Poor Law, but even to reform the House of
Commons," Quitting irony and sarcasm, he expressed in earnest
terms his conviction of the unwisdom of selecting a period when
the whole energies of the nation should be devoted to the great
struggle on wliich it had practically embarked, for bringing
forward the question of Parliamentary Reform, When such a
subject is once started it cannot be dropped with levity, yet
there was a great example upon which Lord John Russell might
faU back — the example of Mr. Pitt, who, having pledged him
self to a measure of Reform, did not hesitate to act in opposition
to his former opinions when pressed by foreign war. Now,
however, with war becoming daily more imminent. Ministers were
pledged to bring in a large measure of Parliamentary Reform.
When that measure was brought in, he promised to consider it
carefuUy, to digest it as he would a Blue Book, and to criticise
it in the same dispassionate way. But he protested against
mixing up with that subject, the question of suppressing bribery
and corruption, with which the Speech from the Throne pro
mised also to deal, He expressed a strong opinion of the

4o8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
unwisdom of perpetually tampering with the franchise, and he
closed a pungent speech with a sharp denunciation of the
injustice of that principle which gave to the boroughs with
their seven and a half millions of inhabitants two-thirds of the
representation, whilst the counties, which include half the
population of England, have but about 160 or 170 members
amongst them.
Warning and criticism were alike wasted on Lord John
Russell. His new Reform Bill was brought in on the 13th of
February with the announcement that it was really a very
smaU affair after all. As it was postponed on the 3rd of March
and abandoned on the 11th of April it is perhaps hardly worth
more than a passing mention. Its principle was a £6 rating
in boroughs, a j610 household franchise in counties, half-a-dozen
fancy franchises, and a rearrangement of seats. Lord Beacons
field pronounced its funeral oration. He expressed " the most
heartfelt respect " for Lord John Russell ; he described his
character and career as " precious possessions of the House of
Commons," but he dwelt upon his own inability to understand
upon what grounds the Government could have thought it
advisable to bring forward this Bill at the commencement of
the Parliamentary Session, He pointed out that the very
suggestion of a reconstruction of the House of Commons being
necessary had a tendency to produce disaffection in the country,
while its withdrawal had a dangerous effect on the strength
of the Government, But he had greater and stronger reasons
than these for objecting to the course of the Whig-Radical
party on this question of reform. The Government of Lord
Aberdeen had come into office upon it at a time when every
body believed war with France to be imminent, and it had only

Drifting into War, 409
withdrawn this — the second attempt to deal with the question
— after war with Russia had been solemnly declared. Such a
course he did not hesitate to stigmatize as levity, and, seeing
that the country was really indifferent about Reform, to recom
mend that the subject should bo allowed to drop. " You can
never obtain a change such as you desire unless a great pre
ponderance of public opinion demands it. Well, then, why
embarrass the Government with a constant pledge of this kind ?
The noble lord -will pardon me for saying that it would have
been more statesmanlike if, after aU that he has done, and I
will say after all that he has suffered, he had asked the House
to-night to place confidence in his sincerity and to show by the
manner in which they received his words to-night that they
thought his honour was intact, and had then told them that it
was much better not to embarrass the Government any longer
¦with pledges on this subject, but that they might be confident
that when the time was ripe the measures that were demanded
by necessity would be brought forward by any Ministry who
happened then to be in the possession of power."
All subjects were of course postponed to the overwhelming
one of the war into which England, as has very truly been said,
" drifted " under the guidance of the veteran statesman, whom
it has pleased the Queen to describe as " our dear good
Aberdeen." Before war was formally declared a very interest
ing debate was raised upon the question in the House of
Commons by Mr. Layard, who, in his opening speech strongly
condemned the sluggish and indecisive policy of the English
Government, which was neither at peace nor at war, and which
was hampered very seriously by dissensions between the am
bassador in Constantinople and the admiral in command of the

4IO The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
British fleet in the Bosphorus, and by notorious divisions in
the Cabinet at home. He was met in a sneering and captious
spirit by Sir James Graham, who roundly declared that there
was no perU of war, and that even if there were, both England
and France were ready for it, and determined to maintain the
independence and integrity of Turkey. Mr, Disraeli spoke at.
considerable length on the second night of the debate, and in
•view of recent events his declarations have a special interest.
The object of his speech, he began by saying, was to make
people clearly understand with what purpose we were going to
war, believing that the country would be much more willing to
make the necessary sacrifices if they knew accurately why they
were called upon for them. With that object he went over the
history of the Eastern Question dming the previous five-and-
twenty years, in the light of the papers then before the House,
From those papers he drew the inference that Russia had no
intention of forcibly conquering Turkey, but that by intrigue
and indirect means and by exercising an infiuence over the
Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire she would obtain all
the authority that would result from the possession of Constan
tinople. This design had been practically avowed in a despatch
of Count Nesselrode in January 1853. The policy of Russia
had been perfectly clear and inteUigible ; there was to be a
diplomatic movement peaceably to increase her influence over
the Greek population in Turkey by the friendly exertions of
English ministers at Paris and at Constantinople. Enquiring
how Ministers encountered this design, Mr. Disraeli reviewed
the proceedings of the late and of the present Governments,
imputing to the latter the omission of a fonnal demand for an
exphcit declaration from Russia of what was meant by " equiva-

The Russo-Ttirkish Dispute. 411
lent compensation" when her forces were assembled on the
frontier. The Government had had those warnings — mUitary
declarations and demonstrations from the Russian Ministers —
yet at the time when she was menaced by the legions of Russia
they were lecturing Turkey, whose independence and integrity
were assumed to be not phrases but facts, about internal re
forms, with a significant intimation that the conduct of the
Porte must be distinguished by the utmost moderation and pru
dence — aU which could bear only one interpretation — that the
Enghsh Government was of opinion that Turkey should comply
with the demands of Russia. " Lord Stratford de Redcliffe is
instructed to tell the Porte 'with all frankness and without
reserve ' that it ' is now in a position of peculiar danger,' He
is to 'insist upon the accumulated grievances of foreign nations
which the Porte is unwilling or unable to redress, and upon the
increasing weakness of its executive power,' The Government
whose independence we profess to defend is to receive our
dictation as to reforms and improvements, and as to the
development of its commercial resources, . . . The ' exigences
of Christendom ' are then ascribed to — ^what ? To the ambition
of Russia ? . . . No ; the cause which Lord Clarendon
assigns is not the ambition of Russia, but ' the unwise policy
and reckless mal-administration of the Sultan himself Now
I ask the House is this the way to maintain the independence
of a power menaced by the warlike legions of Russia ? Was it
at this moment of its utmost need — that we should lecture
Turkey about internal reforms and commercial policy?"
Mr, Disraeh then read with a running comment a series of brief
extracts from the Blue Book from January to July, 1853, wind
ing up with a strongly worded complaint that in the Upper

412 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
House Lord Clarendon had wilfully misrepresented the object
of Prince Menschikoff's visit to Constantinople.
One of the leading features of Sir James Graham's flippant
and unmannerly reply to Mr, Layard on the first night of this
debate had been an elaborate sneer at those members who
" potter over blue books," " A year ago," said Mr, Disraeli in
touching on this point, " we made inquiry of the Minister in
his place in Parhament — which of aU places in the world should
animate a man to a noble performance of his duty — and we
were met by the usual answer that the inquiry was inconve
nient; but information was given, which information we did
not find to be fraudulent until we had the blue book to ' potter
over.' Talk of the conduct of Prince Menschikoff! I think
that the Parliament of England have been treated by a Secre
tary of State in a harder fashion than they were treated by the
Russian Minister. I will give no opinion on the alternative,
but what I want honourable gentlemen to do is to apply this
alternative to all these documents — to apply this alternative
to the representation made by the Secretary of State when he
was in possession of Colonel Rose's despatches — and I ask you
whether that representation made by Lord Clarendon was in
fluenced by credulity or connivance 1 " The Vienna Note he
described as the greatest failure upon record, and eminently
difficult to explain upon the hypothesis of credulity. He could
not beheve that an admimstration of " all the talents " could
have made such a mistake. "But if from the flrst there
had been a foregone conclusion — I do not say in the whole
Cabinet, but in the majority of the Cabinet . . . that the
independence and integrity of Turkey were a farce, and that
by a conscientious connivance the affair might be settled by

" Connivance or Credulity!' 413
means of this note, then we can account for its production and
for its failure." Then referring to a speech which had been made
during the recess by Mr. Gladstone at JManeliester, in the course
of which he had practically told the country that the case of
Turkey was hopeless, Mr. Disraeli exhorted the House to
pause before entering into war. If the conflict was to be con
ducted only on a policy of " conscientious connivance," it could,
he urged, end only in an ignominious peace. But, he con
cluded, if war should be found inevitable, the Opposition
wUl cordially and sincerely support their Sovereign and main
tain the honour and dignity of their country. "This I can
say — I can answer for myself and my friends, that no future
Wellesley on the banks of the Danube will have to make a
bitter record of the exertions of an • English Opposition that
depreciated his efforts and that ridiculed his talents. We shall
remember what we believe to be our duty to this country;
and however protracted may be the war, however unfortunate
your counsels (to the Ministry) at least we shall never despair
of the Republic."
It seems somewhat singular that an enlightened, statesman
like, and patriotic speech such as this should have excited but
small interest amongst the English nation. The supporters of
the Government scarcely attempted to answer it ; Lord Palmer
ston touched it in his airy way and let it go again ; Conservative
journals — always the weak point of the Tory party — hardly
attempted to follow out the line of argument which it suggested,
and the Times dismissed the suggestion of "connivance or
credulity " as a mere rhetorical flourish. The popular mind out
of doors was too busy to occupy itself with the careful and
minute study of dry documents which such a speech demands

414 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
in order to be fully appreciated, and cared more for sneering
at tbe Peace Party and for extoUing Palmerston than for sound
statesmanship based upon equally sound patriotism.
The preparations for the war went on ; diplomacy confessed
itself baffled, and on the 8th of May Mr. Gladstone brought in
his supplemental budget to provide for the extraordinary
expenses of the great struggle on which the country was now
fairly embarked. The speech in which he introduced this
series of resolutions occupied three hours and a half ; but the
substance of them may be given in half-a-dozen lines. The
total extra expenditure to be provided for amounted to
£6,850,000, and that sum he proposed to raise by doubling
the Income Tax to the end of the financial year ; by adding
Is. to the Excise duty on Scotch whisky, and 8d to that on
Irish ; by a readjustment of the Sugar Duties, which was
estimated to produce £700,000, and by increasing the Malt
Tax from 2s. 9d to 4s. One of the special features of the
Budget was a proposal to retain the Income Tax at the in
creased rate (14(^. in the £) until the close of the war. In
order to provide for the payments necessary to be immediately
made, he obtained leave to issue Exchequer bonds to the
amount of £6,000,000 in three series — one for each of the
three following years. Mr. Disraeli, of course, submitted these
proposals to a searching criticism, and spoke -with some energy,
though unfortunately without effect, upon the injustice of
adding 50 per cent, to the duty levied upon a single crop of
the British agriculturist, especially when the series of reduc
tions in the Tea Duties, proposed in the earlier Budget of the
Session, was not to be interfered with. Further he protested
against the impolicy of saddling the landed interest, to which

The Supplemental Budget. 415
the country is compelled to look in the event of war, with so
disproportionate a share of the public burdens, and ho wound
up by asking how it was that Ministers scarcely attempted to
defend the vote. They had, however, a majority at their
backs, and the increased Malt Tax was carried by a majority
of 108 in a House of 498. Nor were Mr. Disraeli's criticisms
of the system of Exchequer Bonds more succsssful. It is true
that that notable de-vice for swelling the unfunded debt of the
country had turned out a dismal failure ; the public, as Sir
Stafford Northcote has since pointed out, ha-ving refused, in
an unmistakeable way, to adopt the proposal of the Govern
ment to any appreciable extent, though the investment
produced much better interest than Consols. In the discussion
in Committee on this latter proposal, towards the end of May,
Mr. Disraeli canvassed the financial policy of Mr. Gladstone,
urging that it was in many respects erroneous. He censured
the reduction of the rate of interest on Exchequer Bills,
refusing to admit that the policy of Mr. Gladstone was in any
way vindicated by the fact that in the month of March
Exchequer Bills were sent in not for redemption but for con
version, and pointing out that in consequence of this reduction
so large an amount had been withdrawn as very seriously to
interfere with the Treasury balances. The second mistake
•with which he charged Mr. Gladstone was that of entering
upon a great scheme of financial conversion at a time when
the papers in the possession of the Government must have
proved to every member of it the imminence of the struggle
in which they were then engaged. Thirdly Mr. Disraeli cen
sured his successor still more severely for having, in the
unsettled state of politics in 1853, brought in a Peace Budget

4i6 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
—a Budget based upon the repeal of valuable imposts which,
in all human probability, would be found equally necessary
with those other taxes which he had substituted for them.
Mr. Gladstone had criticised the Budget upon which his rival
had gone out of office with some little acerbity, in reply to which
criticism Mr. Disraeli now pointed out that his principal strictures
rested upon no tangible basis ; that he was mistaken in suppos
ing that the late Cabinet had not carefully considered the prin
ciple of discriminating, for fiscal purposes, between fixed and
precarious incomes, and that, as a matter of principle, such a
discrimination was better than the communistic theory, that
the rich should pay more in proportion to their riches, upon
which Mr. Gladstone had gone.
Having dealt with these and some minor blemishes in the
Budget of 1853, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to comment on the'
hasty way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come
do^wn to the House on the 6th of March, had announced that
he had a considerable surplus in hand, but had asked for a
million and a quarter in addition, to defray the expenses of
sending our little army of 25,000 men out and fetching them
back, and finally, having found that nearly six millions more
were required, had attempted to obtain a loan at 4 per cent.,
and was actually unable to raise the money. The close of the
speech is amusing, as affording an instance of that rivalry
between the two leaders of the House of Commons, which,
after lasting through a quarter of a century, has culminated in
the retirement of one to the serener atmosphere of the Upper
House, and of the other to the warmer precinct of his library,
whence he periodically discharges a shower of minatory post
cards and denunciatory letters, Mr, Gladstone had on this

Vacillating Policy of the Government. 417
occasion indulged in sundry sneers at Mr, Pitt — sneers not
very wise or well founded. Having pointed out that the
phrase "heaven-born minister" was not, as Mr, Gladstone had
thought, a Stock Exchange joke, but the utterance of the
Duke of Chandos in the House of Lords, ho went on — " But
if the right honourable gentleman will allow me, I trust with
out offending either himself or his friends, I would presume to
give him a piece of advice : I would give over these unworthy
sneers levelled at the reputation of a great Minister. I would,
if I were the. right honourable gentleman, confine myself in
future to self-glorification, an art of which I admit that the
right honourable gentleman is a great master. Let him dilate
upon the astuteness with which he effects the conversion of
South Sea Annuities ; let him dwell upon the intrepid courage
with which, tp show his spite against the party he has quitted,
he can double the Malt Tax ; but let him cease from these
refiections upon the memory of a statesman who, I can assure
him, is still dear to the people of England. Let him remember
that Mr. Pitt, whatever may have been his failings, held with a
steady hand the helm, when every country but Great Britain
was submerged in the storm; and when he taunts Mr, Pitt with
courting bankers and money-lender?, he might also remember
that that Minister owed to a grateful country an eleemosynary
tomb," Once more before the House adjourned Mr. Disraeli found
occasion to censure the hesitating, indefinite and vacillating
policy of the Government with reference to the war, and to call
upon Lord John Russell to state with clearness and precision
what the true objects of the confiict were and how it was pro
posed to attain them. He commented in his accustomed vein

41 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
on the divisions in the Cabinet, as proved by the varying
utterances of its members in the two Houses of Parliainent, and
by a process of elimination succeeded in showing that the
objects the Government had iu view were very small and some
what unworthy. " We hear at last, as the Session closes, that
they are at unison upon one subject ; and so far as the conduct
of the war for small purposes, so far as having for the great
object of their policy a mean and insignificant end, her Majesty's
Ministers, though they are a Coalition Ministry, appear to be
unanimous." Palmerston was put up to reply and he repelled
the charge that the war had been caused by a Coahtion 'ministi-y,
by a declaration that it was solely owing to the "reckless ambition
of one man, whose mind has been carried away by a course of
successes which has led him to over-rate the power of the
country which he governs." * That the conflict into which
England had so reluctantly drifted might not have been averted
by a bolder and more skilful diplomacy he did not, however,
venture to assert ; and though his biographer does not say so in
- so many words, there can be little doubt as to what was his real
opinion. Parliament was prorogued on the 12th of August with a
speech mainly devoted to the war and to a recapitulation of
the work of the Session. It met again on the 12th of December,
but in the meanwhile important events had occurred. On the
14th of September the Allies landed in the Crimea, a step the
* This was distinctly the Court -view of the matter. When, without consulta
tion with the Queen, a day of national fasting and humiliation was decided upon,
her Majesty, according to Mr. Theodore Martin, expressed some little .annoyance,
since it would be impossible to prevent the clergy from saying that the war was
a punishment for our sins and shortcomings, whereas it was really the result of
the insatiable ambition of one man.

The Crimean Campaign. 419
credit — or otherwise — of which is wholly due to Lord PalnKjr-
ston.* On the 20th the battle of the Alma was fought ; on
the 28th a base of operations was established at Balaclava ; on
the 17th of October the siege of Sebastopol began, and on the
25th of the same month came the glorious but melancholy
victory of Balaclava. Then people began to complain of the
administration. The hospital department had gone to utter
chaos and Miss Nightingale had been sent out to restore
order. In other directions the evil was even greater. Our
losses in battle had been very serious ; our losses by famine and
disease were even worse ; and it was obvious to the meanest
capacity that unless something were done, and done with all
speed, disaster would befall our arms. Her Majesty, whose
interest in the war was naturaUy very great, caused an urgent
letter to be written to Lord Aberdeen warning, him that "the
Government would never be forgiven if it did not strain every
nerve to avert the calamity of seeing Lord Raglan succumb for
want of means," and cautioning him against continuing in the
beaten track of routine. The Prince sketched out a plan of
what ought to be done, which is marked by no common fore
sight, and he tells Lord Aberdeen that " the time has arrived
for vigorous measures, and the feeling of the country is up to
support them if Government wilh bring them boldly forward."
Unfortunately boldness was not a marked characteristic of Lord
Aberdeen, and for a few days nothing was done. Meanwhile
the clamour outside became too loud to pass unheeded any
longer, and Lord John Russell was compelled to write to his
chief to propose a concession to the popular wish by getting rid
* See letter from Mr. Gladstone in the "Life of Lord Palmerston," vol. ii,
p. 68. E E 2

420 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
of the Duke of Newcastle, and by placing Lord Palmerston at
the head of the War Office, This, however. Lord Aberdeen
refused to do, on the ground that although such an appointment
might have been advisable in the first instance, it would now be
unfair to the Duke, who had discharged his duties ably and
honourably. Matters were thus allowed to drag on, the nation exulting in
the glorious feats of her sons in the Crimea, and chafing against
the inaction and maladministration of the Government at home.
An opportunity was speedily afforded for it to make its voice heard
with effect. In deference to the Royal will a winter Session of
Parliament opened on the 12th of December. The Queen's
Speech announced that Parliament had been summoned at this
unusual time in order to take measures for prosecuting the war
with vigour and, effect. The debate upon the Address was an
eager one, and a good deal of strong language was used in it.
The Government was charged alike by its opponents and by
those who usually voted with it, with carrying on the war with
apathy, with wasting the public money and with squandering
the lives of its troops with reckless prodigality. Mr. Layard
and Sir John Pakington vied with each other in the vivacity of
their attacks, and when the former sat down it was anticipated
that a member of the Government would at least attempt some
reply. No one rose, and after a few words from Col. Dunne
expressive of his astonishment at the circumstance, Mr. Disraeli
delivered himself of a scathing attack upon the administration.
He told the Government that they were bound to answer the
speech of the member for Aylesbury — a supporter of their own,
and a man of genius who " would be remembered when a great
portion of the existing Cabinet is forgotten." He protested

The Brcakdoion of Administration. 42 i
against the manner in which the Government attempted to
stifle freedom of speech in the House by denying to the
Opposition the legitimate right of criticism, unless every effort
at such criticism were treated as a proposed vote of want of
confidence. Then turning to the subject more immediately in
hand he referred to the wording of the Queen's Speech, in
which it was declared that the country was involved in a " great
war." He called upon the House to note that fact, and com
mented upon the correlative circumstance that the Government
had treated the war, not as a great, but as a very small affair.
They had thought in the early part of the last Session of
Parliament that the only operations necessary would be to send
25,000 men out to Malta, and to bring them back again, and at
the beginning of the Session they had actually introduced a
proposal for the reconstitution of the House of Commons. In
one word they had not appreciated the situation. Yet their
own position was one of unequalled advantage. They had a
unanimous Parliament and a unanimous people ; they were
strong in the confidence of the House ; they had an overflowing
Exchequer; they had a prosperous people, and in addition to all
these advantages, they had the most powerful ally in the world.
" I now ask the House for a moment to turn round and con
sider, not whether there were sufficient nurses or surgeons at
Scutari, not what was the number of pots of marmalade which
should be sent out towards the support of our starving troops,
but I ask the House to consider what have been the results
which this Ministry with these enormous advantages have
obtained." Then came a review of the campaign. The Baltic Fleet —
" greater than any Armada that ever figured in the history of

42 2 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
our times"— had gone out " with the blessings and the benison
of our most experienced statesman and had the advantage of
being commanded by a true Reformer," And it had destroyed
the half finished fortifications of Bomarsund. What is the next -
act of the drama? "You attack with a force of 20,000 or
30,000 men a fortress probably as strong as Gibraltar and
better provisioned. And under what circumstances did you
undertake this enterprise ? The Secretary of War tells you that
their object is to strike at the heart of Russia in the South, and
therefore they attacked Sebastopol, . . . But why attack the
place at the wrong time and with ineffective means ? It may
be a question that there should be a campaign in the Crimea :
none that there should not be a winter campaign. But you
have chosen a winter campaign, and what have been your
preparations for it? In November you gave orders to build
huts. You have not yet sent out that winter clothing' which is
adapted to the climate. , , You have commenced a winter
campaign in a country which most of all should be avoided-
You have commenced such a campaign — a great blunder, with
out providing- for it — the next great blunder. The huts will
arrive in January, and the furs probably will meet the sun in
May, These are your preparations ! " The Treaty with Austria
followed in the order of the topics of the Queen's Speech, On
this subject Mr, Disraeli called for full and explicit declarations
from the Government, He dwelt for a moment on the mag
nanimity of the French Government in consenting to negotiate
with Ministers who, as in the case of the existing cabinet, had
commenced their official career by slandering the entire French
nation from the Emperor down to the private soldier, and
warned the House that there was not the smallest probability

The Foreign Legion. 423
that Austria would do more than stand by and watch the
game. But though Lord Beaconsfield fulfilled his duty of criticising
the Ministry when criticism became necessary, he adhered loyally
to his promise not to emulate the conduct of the Opposition
who had slandered and ridiculed Wellington during the Penin
sular War, When it was proposed to vote the thanks of the
House to the Army in the Crimea, he seconded the motion in a
briUiant rhetorical speech, short but so warm and telling that
no collection of his merely oratorical essays can be complete
without it.
The business for which the House had been called together in
December was, as the Queen's Speech had informed Parliament,
to provide the means of carrying on the war with vigour and
effect. Amongst those means, as .sketched out by the Prince
Consort in his letter of November, was the scheme for raising a
Foreign Legion. This scheme — which afterwards turned out
such a costly failure — was one of the first brought forward by
the Government, and, having been hurried through the Lords,
made its appearance in the Lower House on the 18th of
December, and was read a second time on the 19th. To this
measure Mr, Disraeli expressed a good deal of repugnance,
mainly because the foreigners whose services would be obtained
were hardly hkely to be valuable as soldiers ; but also, because
of the strong dislike of Englishmen to mere mercenaries. They
will fight, he argued, side by side with foreigners of every race
if they fight as allies, but they do not like the eondottieri
of modem Europe. He had a further objection to the proposal,
inasmuch as it tended to produce an impression abroad that the
recruiting powers of England were exhausted — a theory from

424 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
which he most earnestly dissented. Protest was however
in vain. The scheme was carried by the Ministry and the
Legion was enlisted.
New difficulties were, however, preparing for the Government
— this time from within. The culprit was, of course. Lord John
Russell: As a bantering critic in the Quarterly Review once
said, " the vocabulary of disaster is exhausted in speaking of the
noble Lord." He now contrived once more to " upset the coach."
It has been mentioned that in the preceding November he had
written to Lord Aberdeen suggesting that the Duke of New
castle should retire in favour of Lord Palmerston. That pro
posal was, as we have seen, rejected ; though the Duke, whilst
expressing himself as " deeply mortified at the reckless manner
in which Lord John contemplated ruining his reputation and
public position, begged most earnestly to be removed if this were
the only way to keep the Cabinet together," The Government
thus went on for a while, but Lord John intimated his intention
of resigning at the end of the autumn Session. This step he
appears to have taken in the hope that he might be able to
throw out the Government, and to resume his place as Prime
Minister. Lord Aberdeen, however, knowing that the Cabinet
would never accept him as its chief, determined to remain at
his post, and if Lord John fulfilled his threat, to replace him as
leader in the House of Commons by Lord Palmerston, When
Lord John understood this, he suddenly submitted, and on the
16th of December told his chief, in a private conversation, that
he withdrew his intended resignation.
Parliament re-assembled on the 23rd of January, 1855, after
a month's recess, and on the day that the House met, the long
pent-up indignation of the nation with' the conduct of the Ad-

A Ministerial Crisis. 425
ministration found vent in a notice of motion by Mr, Roebuck
for the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into
the condition of our army before Sebastopol, and into the
conduct of those departments of the Government whose duty
it had been to minister to the wants of that army,'' At such
a moment, when the acts of himself and of his colleagues
were to be made the subject of investigation . and attack, it
mio-ht have been thought that even Lord John Russell would
have had courage enough to meet his critics. He had not, and
on the following day he resigned his office, without notice or
warning, on the ground that he " did not see how the motion
was to be resisted," The Duke of Newcastle, seeing that a
Jonah was wanted, entreated Lord Aberdeen to accept his resig
nation and put Lord Palmerston in his place ; but when the
matter came before the Cabinet, the Whig members of it, not
seeing how the Government was to be carried on without Lord
John, expressed their wish to follow his example. An appeal
made to them by Lord Aberdeen was successful in inducing
them to retain their posts until the debate on Mr. Roebuck's
Motion should have concluded.
Lord John Russell made his explanation in the House on the
night of the 26th of January ; and it must be confessed that he
did not greatly add to his reputation by what he then said.
He appeared, indeed, to think that the only course open to him
was that of stooping to avoid the blow which was about to fall
upon him and upon his colleagues. Immediately upon the ter
mination of this incident, Mr. Roebuck brought forward his
resolution on the conduct of the war. The debate lasted the
whole evening, and was then adjourned until the Monday, on
which night Mr. Disraeli spoke, practically winding up the

426 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
case of the assailants of the Government. In dealing with the
objections of the Government and its supporters to the proposed
inquiry, he pointed out that they were after aU reducible to no
more than three — all equally untenable. The first, that the
inquiry involved censure upon Lord Raglan might be dismissed
with contempt ; the second, that such an inquiry was unconsti
tutional, he refuted by reference to the Walcheren expedition
and its results ; and the third, that it implied a want of confi
dence in the Government, he disposed of by pointing to the
resignation of Lord John Russell. After a protest against the
notion entertained in some quarters that it would be possible to
separate one Minister from his colleagues, and to make him the
scapegoat for the blunders of the Cabinet, Mr. Disraeli described
in ternis of strong reprehension the conduct of Lord John Russell,
whose explanation of Friday night he compared to a page of
Bubb Dodington. " Such an all-unconscious admission of pro
fligate intrigue is not to be matched in that record which com
memorates the doings of another Duke of Newcastle, who was a
Minister of England when the House of Commons was led by
Sir Thomas Robinson, and when the Opposition was actually
carried on by the Paymaster of the Forces and the Secretary of
War." Then came a protest against Government by a Coali
tion. "All that the country requires of public men when they
act together, is that they should idem sentire de republicd . . .
but with regard to fhe existing Government — that is, if it still
be an existing Government — all have seen that during their
career it does not appear that upon any great question, whether
domestic or external, they have been animated by the same
spirit and sympathies. . . , Sir, I have no confidence whatever
in the existing Government, I told them a year ago, when

Collapse of the Coalition. 427
taunted for not asking the House of Commons to ratify that
opinion of mine, tbat as they had no confidence in each other,
a vote of want of confidence from this side of the House was
a surplusage. I ask the House of Commons to decide if
twelve months have not proved that I was right in that as
sumption, although its accuracy was then questioned. . . . Two
years ago England was the leading power in Europe, but is
there any man in this House who can pretend that she holds
that position now ? If this be the case, if we are called upon
to decide whether the House of Commons has confidence in the
Ministry, when the debate is commenced by the secession of
the most eminent member of the Government — when affairs are
in a calamitous state, and when we are told by the late Lord
President of the Council that the conduct of the war is en
trusted to a Minister who he thinks is unequal to the task — I
ask the country — I ask this House — I ask the Ministers them
selves whether they can complain that a member of the Oppo
sition should give his vote according to the belief which he
entertains that the affairs of the country are entrusted to a
deplorable Administration?"
There was little more to be said, for the House was impatient
to divide, and even the few words in which Mr. Roebuck wound
up the debate were listened to with impatience. When the
division had been taken, the numbers for the motion were 305 :
against, 148. Majority against the Government, 157. "This
starthng result," says Mr. Ashley, " so amazed the House, that
they forgot to cheer, but laughed derisively." Well might the
Times ' say that " it would tax the be.st read historical student
to produce a more complete case of political collapse than that
which it is England's ill-fate, sore cost, and we had almost said

42 8 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield..
foul dishonour, to witness this day." The consequence was, of
course, that Lord Aberdeen at once placed his resignation in
the hands of Her Majesty, and forthwith dropped out altogether
from English political life. Lo^d Derby, as the leader of the
strongest section of the fortuitous combination by which the
Coalition Government had been thrown out of office, was at
once sent for, but expressed himself as extremely unwilling to
attempt the formation of an Administration. His foUowers in
the House of Commons, he explained to the Queen, could not
avoid voting for Mr. Roebuck's motion when Lord John Russell
himself had told them authoritatively that there was the most
ample cause for inquiry and that the whole country cried out
for it. He agreed, however, to attempt a formation of an ad
ministration, and though he did not concur in the popular
opinion as to Lord Palmerston's fitness for the War Office, he
was anxious to take him into his government, and would give
him the lead of the House of Commons, which Mr. Disraeli
was ready to resign to him. Through Lord Palmerston, Lord
Derby also made offers to Mr, Gladstone and Mr, Sidney
Herbert as representative Peelites. He was, however, dis
appointed. Lord Palmerston would give ~his independent sup
port " to any Government that shall carry on the war with
energy and vigour," but neither he nor his friends would
promise anything farther. The result was, of course, that the
negotiations fell through. Lord Derby advised a combination,
of which .Lords Lansdowne and John Russell might be the
guiding spirits. The former was accordingly sent for, but he
refused even to attempt the construction of an Administration.
Lord John was therefore appealed to once more, as having been
the principal cause of the collapse of the Government, and in

Lord Palmerston is sent for. 429
the letter summoning him, the Queen expressed a particular
desire that Lord Palmerston should take part iu the Govern
ment. The Whigs — Lords Clarendon, Grey, and LansdoAvne —
peremptorily refused to take any part in a Cabinet of which
Lord John was to be the head. The party was, in a word,
heartUy sick of the forcible feebleness of the author of the
Reform BiU, and had determined to serve under him no more.
In eight and forty hours Lord John recognised the fact that
his day was over, and resigned the attempt to form a
Ministry. The crisis was a terrible one. The Coalition Government
had gone out of office on the 23rd of January, and even by the
5th of February, thanks to the divided state of parties, England
was still without a Government. The effect of this state of
things on the Continent was simply disastrous. Russia was in
the highest spirits ; the party of reaction in Austria and Prussia
found their hands strengthened to an extent which in their
wUdest moments they had never dreamed of, and even the
prospects of the Anglo-French Alliance were for the moment ob
scured. In the emergency the Queen sent for Lord Palmerston
(whom Punch, by the way, had hailed as the " coming man " in
his first issue for the year), who succeeded in forming a new
Ministry out of the debris of the old, retaining the services
of Lord John Russell as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary at the approaching Congress at Vienna. The
principal changes were, that Lord Panmure, who had some
reputation as a military reformer, replaced the Duke of New
castle as Secretary at War ; that Lord Granville took the place
of Lord John Russell as President of the Council ; that Lord
Carlisle became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in place of Earl

430 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
St. Germans, and that Sir Benjamin Hall succeeded Sir WUliam
Moles worth at the Board of Works.
It cannot be said that Lord Palmerston's first act as a
Minister was one of consummate wisdom. He gave his Minis
terial explanations in the House on the night of the 16th of
February, and appealed to the House to set aside its decision
to have a Committee of Inquiry into the mismanagement of the
Crimean army, pledging the Government to make a stringent
inquiry into the conduct of the war, and stating that Colonel
TuUoch and Sir John MacNeiU had been sent to the Crimea.
Mr. Roebuck's reply was very brief. The illness under which
he laboured when moving for his Committee sfUl continued, but
he was able to announce that he held himself pledged to the
House to move for the nomination of the Committee, and that-
that pledge he should most certainly redeem. Before speaking
he naturally waited for the leader of the Opposition to reply
to Lord Palmerston's speech, Mr. Disraeli did not take up
much of the time of the House. He caught up an aUusion of
Lord Palmerston with his usual happy readiness, and in reply
to his promise, that since the Commons had lost their leader he
would take his place, protested against comparing the Commons
of England with the rabble of Wat Tyler. As to the request
that the vote on Mr, Roebuck's motion should be set aside
because the Government were about to enter upon an inquiry
of their own, that notion hB scouted at once, " No, sir. The
first Minister of the Crown in this House, the man of whom as
a member, irrespective of all party politics, this House is most
proud, the man who had previously been Prime Minister of
England for a long period of years, the man whose qualities,
whose sagacity, whose wisdom, whose statesmanlike mind have

The Crimean Committee. 43 r
been just eulogized by the First Minister on the Treasury
Bench, a man of such qualities that, though he had intentionally
destroyed his late colleagues, they have already employed him
upon an august mission — this eminent person comes down to
Pailiament and tells you that, although as a Minister of the
Crown he cannot, with all the advantages of official experience,
penetrate the mystery of the national calamity that has
occurred, and that he thinks inquiry ought to be granted, as
the plea for it is irresistible. Acting on that intimation,
supported by that grave authority, echoing the universal
opinion of the people of Great Britain, the House of Commons,
not in haste, but after a debate which occupied days, with
unusual numbers present, with its members hastening from
every part of the country, by a majority almost unprecedented
in the records of Parhament declared that an inquiry is the
first duty of those, whoever they may be, who may be intrusted
-with the government of the country — that an Inquiry by a
Committee of the House of Commons is the only mode in which
the necessary improvements can be indicated — and then we
are told to-night that the House of Commons is to stultify
itself 1 — that this House of Commons, which only ten days ago,
under circumstances of such unmistakeable conviction and
sanctioned by the high authority of the leader of the House,
amved at this solemn decision, are to recede from the ground
which they then so triumphantly occupied, are to rescind the
resolution which they then so solemnly affirmed, are to infiict
a blow on their reputation and their public influence, such as
in my mind a long period of years will not counteract." After
re-asserting his intention to support the decision of the House
and to vote for inquiry, Mr. Disraeli adverted to the approaching

432 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Vienna Conference, and reminded the Government that the
country would never consent to a peace upon unworthy terms.
Then, reverting to the re-constituted Ministry, he closed his
speech by a sarcastic allusion to the -way in which the men who
had been dispossessed a fortnight before had shuffled the cards,
and returned to office. "Let us hope that those who with
unprecedented resources have realized no other results than
disastrous consequences may now open a new and unexpected
scene of success, of prosperity, and of triumph ; and let us assure
them that as long as they attempt to do their duty in the
conduct of this war, they may reckon, as far as the Opposition
is concerned, upon the same support as their identical prede
cessors received ; and I doubt not that if disaster be their lot,
if naaladministration be inseparable from their condition when
they fall, they will, like the late Government, not be able to
impute that fall to the faction of those who sit opposite to
them, but to the recognition by the country of a total want of
those qualities which the crisis requires, and of which the
country at this moment is most in need,"
It was not to be all plain sailing for the reconstituted Ministry
even after this debate. The objections of the leading Peelites
to the Committee still continued, and the more energetic
members on both sides protested in various ways that after
all the great object of Government was the good of the people,
and not merely the gratification of the heads of certain Whig
families. Of those who were bold enough thus to think Mr.
Layard became the spokesman, and on the 19th of February
he delivered a vigorous and telling speech on " the deplorable
condition of public affairs," and the absurdity of replacing
a ministry which had been emphatically condemned by a

splits in the Cabinet. 433
ministry which merely presented tho same men in dilTorent
offices. What the country wanted, he said, was " not septua
genarian experience, but more of youthful activity and energy."
Four days later came another split in the Cabinet. Sir James
Graham, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, retired
because Mr. Roebuck's renewed motion was not to be resisted,
and a fortnight later Mr, Cardwell followed their example.
The first was succeeded at the Admiralty by Sir Charles
Wood ; Mr. Gladstone was replaced at the Exchequer by Sir
G. C. Lewis ; and Mr. Sidney Herbert at the War Office by
Lord John Russell. When Mr. Cardwell retired Lord Stanley
of Alderley took his place.
The ministerial explanations were offered on the evening
of the 23rd of February, when Mr, Disraeli after listening to
the prolonged debate — that by the way which was irradiated by
Mr. Bright's solemn and most eloquent appeal to Lord Palmer
ston to stop the war — sarcastically asked the noble Lord if there
really were any government in existence in this country. Only
a week before the nation had been congratulated on possessing
"a ministry distinguished ahke for administrative ability,
political sagacity and sufficient liberalism," and now behold
three of its members are already gone. What again are
the principles of the Government. A week ago, "one little
week," the noble Lord had formed his government on the
principle of opposing the Committee of Inquiry : now he has
felt the pulse of the nation ; stakes the existence of his
administration on the very sitting of that Committee, and
loses three of his most valuable colleagues as the consequence
of that change of front. As for the promised peace, with the
hope of which Lord Palmerston had tantalized the House,

434 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Mr. Disraeli would only say that he hoped the instructions
to Lord John RusseU on his mission to Vienna were '-' con
ceived in a more frank spirit, and in more intelligible language
than the communications which Palmerston had had on behalf
of Lord Derby with Mr. Gladstone."
Sir George Cornewall Lewis's Budget— which was chiefiy
remarkable as adding sixteen miUions to the National Debt
— Mr. Disraeli passed by without remark, save as to matters
of detail. Under the circumstances it would obviously have
been impossible to provide for the current expenses of the
war without exceptional measures of some sort, and as the
policy of the opposition was not factious obstruction but
legitimate criticism, its leader did not think it desirable to
embarrass the Government. When, however. Lord John
RusseU came back from the abortive Vienna Conference there
was some delay in placing the papers on the table, Mr.
Disraeli accordingly asked on the 4th of May — the Con
ference having come to an end more than a week before —
why papers were not presented. In the course of his question
he referred to the negotiations for peace in 1796, and con
trasted, to the disadvantage of the Government, the promp
titude of Lord Malmesburj' on that occasion with the present
dilatory policy. According to precedent the result of the
Conference should have been embodied at once in a Royal
Message, and Parliament should have been afforded the op
portunity of discussing what had been done. There were
still delays, but after seine pressure from the Opposition the
papers were laid upon the table, and Mr. Milner Gibson gave
notice of his intention to move an Address to the Crown
with respect to them. This course of proceeding was so

Ambiguous Language of the Government. 435
contrary to all usnge that Mr. Disraeli consiilored it his duty
to press the Government on the subject, but received from
Lord Palmerston only a curt and not too courteous negative
in reply. When a week or two Later pressure was put upon
Mr. Milner Gibson to induce him to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Disraeli .again protested against the course which liad
been adopted by the Government, urging that the only object
of placing papers on the table is to elicit the opinion of the
House upon them, and that the pretext of Lord Palmerston
tbat discussion would be inconvenient, "because the means of
solution were by no means utterly exhausted," was wholly
untenable. This speech was succeeded on the following night
by the announcement that in consequence of the ambiguity
of the conduct and language of the Government, the leader
of the Opposition would raise a discussion on the matter on
the following Thursday. On that night accordingly he moved
the foUowing resolution : —
"That tJiis House cannot adjourn for the recess without
expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language
and uncertain conduct of hei Majesty's Government in refer
ence to the great question of peace or war; and that under
these circumstances this House feels it a duty to declare
that it will give every support to her Majesty in the pro
secution of the war until her Majesty shall, in conjunction
with her Allies, obtain for the country a safe and honourable
peace." This resolution it is now known was two-edged. On the one
hand it was intended to strike at the Government, and to force
them to a more vigorous prosecution of the war, instead of
wasting time over fruitless negotiations for an unsatisfactory F F 2

436 The Ptiblic Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
peace : on the other, it was intended to checkmate an unprin
cipled coalition which had been hatched up between the
partizans of peace at any price, and the Peelites, who had
thought it advisable to retire from the Government within a
week of their taking office, when they found that it would be
impossible to evade Mr. Roebuck's Crimean Committee. Mr.
Disraeli's speech upon it occupied two hours and a half, and was
one of the severest attacks to which Lord Palmerston and Lord
John Russell ever had to listen. The latter was the greatest
sufferer. Mr. Disraeli set out by saying that the appointment
of the Plenipotentiary at Vienna did not seem to be altogether
happy. Lord John Russell " is so distinguished that I find it
difficult to fix upon any subject or upon any part of his life in
which he has not rendered himself remarkable ; but I know
nothing by which the noble Lord has more distinguished him
self of late, than by his denunciations of the power and the
ambition of Russia. . . . The noble Lord . . . addressed as the
leader of the House of Commons, not only fervid but inflam
matory harangues to the Pai-liament and the people of England,
the object of which was to show that war with Russia was the
duty of this country, and that it ought to be carried out in no
hesitating spirit, but ought to be undertaken by us with a
determination of realising considerable results." Then, after
citing certain passages from Lord John's speeches, he went on :
— " When the noble Lord goes to war, he knows what he is
going to war about ; he wants to reduce the proportions of the
Russian Empire; he wants material guarantees for peace.
These are designs which some may think rash, but which all
must at least respect as great." Lord Lyndhurst had, in the
other House, asked how these professions could be reconciled

Why the Vienna Conference Failed. 437
with the protocol of the 5(h of December, 185,1, to which
France and England were signataries, anil wliich stated that the
present war could not in any case lead to territorial diminutions
or modifications of the Russian Empire. He had been told in
reply by Lord Clarendon, that the language quoted might be
the wUl of Austria or of Prussia, but that it was not the will of
England or of France. Lord John had gone even farther. He
had denounced the conduct of the Russian Emperor and his
Minister as fraudulent and false, and when the warm weather
arrived, his blood warmed with it, until in the month of July
he " revealed the secret policy of the profound Cabinet of which
he was a member, to the House of Commons, and we then
obtained the authoritative information that war was to be
carried on and peace obtained in no less a manner than by the
conquest of provinces, and the destruction of that stronghold
that threw its frowning shadows over the waters of the Black
Sea. . . . But these were not all the qualifications of the noble
Lord. . . . The noble Lord signalized himself by another
exploit before he went to make peace for the country. . . . He
tripped up the Prime Minister because he was not earnest
enough in prosecuting the war. . . . This was the dove sent
out upon the troubled waters of Europe." Then with an irony
which must have made the subject of it wince, he went on to
explain why it was that the Vienna negotiations had been
fruitless, tracing their failure primarily to the acknowledgment
by Lord John Russell, of a right on the part of Russia to
exercise a protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Porte
— a right which was recognized by a confidential despatch to
Sir G. H. Seymour from Lord John himself, during the three
or four months of his tenure of the seals of the Foreign Office,

438 The Public Life of the Eatd of Beaconsfield.
This was followed by an indignant denunciation of "the ex
traordinary mistakes, the fatal admissions, the disgraceful
demeanour of the noble Lord," who had displayed such " con
summate ability" at Vienna, but yet had returned unsuc
cessful after aU, That want of success he traced by quotations
from the papers then before the House, to the admission of
the English plenipotentiary, that "the best and only ad
missible conditions of peace would be those . , , most in
harmony with the honour of Russia." This phrase having been
used by their appointed Plenipotentiary, and Ministers having
refused to submit the question to discussion in the House, the
leader of the Opposition naturally and rightly charged upon
the Government, not merely the failure of the negotiations, but
general " ambiguity of conduct and uncertainty of language."
He had been told, he said in effect, that he had no right to
fall foul of the Government, seeing that they were, as they
boasted, carrying on the war with vigour; but he protested-
against the notion that it was possible to negotiate for peace,
and at the same time wage a vigorous and effective war.
Nor was it fair, he argued, to double and triple the income
tax, to draw men away from their homes for military service,
to darken the hearths of England with ensanguined calami
ties upon such questions as whether there should be four
Russian frigates in the Black Sea or eight. A war upon such
petty matters of detail could never be a popular war, and he
for one was not surprised that the mUitary spirit which the
embodiment of the militia had aroused should have completely
died out.
He was severe also upon the mistake of mixing up an ag
gressive war with a protective diplomacy. "A conference at

ylmendments to the Motion. 439
Vienna may cope with such questions as tho government of the
Danubian principalities, as the course and free navigation of a
river, or the rights of the Christian subjects of the Porte. But
conferences at Vienna cannot cope with such subjects as the
invasion of Russian provinces, the destruction of Russian
fortresses, or the fortunes of accumulated hosts on the im
patient territoi-}' of a proud foe. Wasting your time at Vienna
in this protective diplomacy, all that you can do is to devise
schemes which will apply to the objects of protective war. But
the evil consequences upon the objects of aggressive war are
daily traceable, because, by this chronic diplomacy, you not
only check and destroy the spirit of the nation, upon which
after all you must rely, but by these very conferences you are
paralysing your allies, and preventing that energy and exer
tion on the part of the European powers which may be
necessary to enable you to carry on your aggressive warfare,
and to extricate you from the dangers you must meet."
In a House of Commons constituted as was this, it was a
matter of course that the motion — which practically amounted
to one of censure upon the Ministry — should be lost by a large
majority. Sir Francis Baring brought forward an Amendment,
five lines of which were taken from the original motion of
Mr. Disraeli, and the debate was adjourned to the 4th of June.
Again the leader of the Opposition returned to the charge, and
on the second night of the debate, in a very brief but very
vigorous speech, urged the House to place upon record once and
for aU the axiom that "if. Russia rejects the principle of a
diminution of her naval force in the Black Sea, the means of
negotiation are exhausted." On the Thursday night he spoke
again on a proposed amendment by Mr. Lowe, pointing out that

440 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
the question before the House was not one of confidence or no
confidence, but simply one of approval of a particular act of the
Government. He complained somewhat strongly of the way in
which the Government treated this subject, no member of the
Cabinet having risen to support its policy, and he complained
also of the indistinctness of that policy itself " The noble Lord
(Viscount Palmerston) ... is too able a man not to be con
vinced that the irresistible course of European events will baffle
all mere party politicians, and that no party support can sustain
a Minister whose policy will not stand the test of time and the
scrutiny of an impartial public, and prove to be a policy the
result of study, meditation and an anxious desire to attain the
truth. The noble Lord, though he may defy for a moment the
words of those who sit opposite to him in this House, and though
he maybe sustained by a majority collected God knows how and
voting God knows why, may rest assured that if he and his col
leagues are pursuing a course without sufflcient knowledge,
without sufficiently clear ideas, without a resolution sufficiently
fii-m — that if there is any wavering in their councils, which is
the natural consequence of an ignorance of the subject with
which they have to deal — if there is any hesitation — if at this
moment, when they are about to vote, they have not a definite
idea of the objects for which they are struggling and of the
means by which they are to accomplish the avowed purpose
which we have agreed in this House is the object which we wish
to achieve — namely, the preservation of Constantinople to the
Ottoman Porte ; then, I say, the noble Lord may rest assured
that the utmost confusion and consternation will fall upon the
Cabinet of which he is a member, and that no parliamentary
power can sustain a Ministry dealing with great transactions to

A Peace Minister in a War Cabinet. 441
which they are not competent ; and that if they are conducting
our foreign affairs as they have hitherto conducted our home
affairs — I speak now of preceding as well as of present govern
ments — living from hand to mouth, adopting merely the whim
of the moment, not influenced by any principle founded on
knowledge, and acting upon no matured system, and for no
determined purpose — then the noble Lord may rest assured
that his Ministry must fall, or if it continue, the future of this
country is a gloom too terrible for imagination to con
template," The most extraordinary performance of this extraordinary
period had yet to be seen. On the night of Friday, the 6th of
July, Mr. MUaer Gibson asked for some further explanations as
to what had been done at Vienna, and for a frank and candid
avowal of the opinions of the Administration, and for an explana
tion of their Eastern policy and of their ultimate designs. He,
as a representative of the peace party, had understood that
Lord John Russell had gone to Vienna in order to make peace,
but his colleagues seemed to have thwarted him. And yet he,
a Peace Minister, retained office in a War Cabinet. Lord John
made his explanation, which drew down upon him the wrath
of Mr. Cobden, whereupon Lord Palmerston resorted to a
favourite weapon of the Whigs, and declared that the critics of
his Government, having views of their own, and wishing to
form a party that might place them in a position to administer
the affairs of the country, did all that they could to reahze their
assertions. Mr. DisraeU brought back the discussion from
personalities to facts, and in a forcible speech denounced the
conduct of Lord John RusseU. " We have had to-night," said
he, " an admission from the noble Lord the Secretary of State

442 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
for the Colonies,* . . . that, after having given great care and
anxiety to the prosecution of his labours, he arrived at a
favourable solution of the difficulties with which he had to
contend, and had in his own mind accomplished measures
which would secure peace to his country." All that remained
for him to do was to communicate those measures to his col
leagues in the Cabinet. That he had done, and finding no
sympathy amongst them, he had quietly pocketed his own
opinions, and remained "in a Cabinet of War a Minister of
Peace." The reason for this singular course was as extra
ordinary as the course itself — that it was his duty not to
weaken the Government by removing himself Whether the
country would be satisfied with this explanation was another
matter. The question of peace or war was a vital one, and
could not be an open one in the Cabinet, which, in any case,
must be unanimous if there were to be vigorous or efficient
action. That night's debate must produce an e-vil effect. All
over the Continent the impression must remain, that when the
Plenipotentiary of England accepted the proposals of Austria,
he represented the mind and policy of his own Cabinet. Why,
then, did not his colleagues ratify his labours ? When a
Minister of the Cabinet was sent to negotiate a peace and
succeeded, and, although his labours were not ratified, re
mained in the Cabinet, the House had a right to expect from a
Government so situated a frank explanation of their motives in
not accepting the result of his labours. " How are you to ex
tricate yourselves from the peculiar difficulties in which you
are now placed ? How are you to remove all those disad-
* This post had been offered to and accepted by Lord John Eussell whilst on
his way to Vienna.

The Demoralized Cabinet. 443
vantages except by coming forward frankly and speaking to
the House and to the country after this fashion: — 'Our
eminent colleague exerted himself for a great object. We are
of course, as all are, favourable to peace, but our colleague was
too zealous for the good cause in which he embarked — he made
admissions which we consider fatal to the interests of this
country, and we could not support him in the course he took.
We do not think he showed that prescience, that acquaintance
with the subject, that statesmanlike sagacity that are neces
sary. It is painful for us to make these admissions, but we
must do our duty to our country, and we tell you that the
noble Lord entered into arrangements which we entirely dis
approve. Our policy is different. The policy which we intend
to pursue is one of great vigour, which aims at great results,
which will not be satisfied unless the power of Russia is
materially reduced, and it is entirely opposed to the policy
which the noble Lord pursued.' But then unfortunately, under
such circumstances, the noble Lord would probably find it
necessary to quit the Cabinet of which he is so important
a member. Well, then, has it come to this ? Is this to be
the end of this important Session ? the end of breaking up so
many Governments ? the end of our great efforts — of our
great disasters — of the struggle in which the nation has en
gaged ? of that Government, at the head of which we were to
have a Minister of surpassing energy and, no doubt, transcen
dent experience ? is this the end of the Ministry which was
to put the right man in the right place ?. is this the end, that
even peace and war have become mere party considerations,
that the interests of the country are sacrificed to the menace of
a majority, and that the turbulent assembhes of Downing

444 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Street are to baffle aU the sagacity of all the Conferences of
Vienna ? "
The extraordinary state of things which the debate disclosed
and which Mr. Disraeh's speech so boldly laid bare could not of
course continue very long. The country recognized the fact,
that it was simply intolerable that there should be in the Cabi
net, which was wholly responsible for the continuance of the
war, a Minister of great consideration in whose eyes the war
was wholly unnecessary. It was felt not less that when all
possible allowances had been made for the tenacity with which a
Whig naturally clings to offlce ; there was something rather
humiliating to the country generally, in retaining the services of
Lord John Russell, when his colleague M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who
had carried a similar message to Paris, had been compelled to
resign on finding that message rejected. At once therefore such
a fire of epigram and sarcasm was opened upon the veteran
Whig, that he found it impossible any longer to pretend
indifference to public opinion. Accordingly, on the 12th of July
Lord John Russell again resigned his post, explaining matters
on the 16th in the House. The explanation did not tell the
world much that was not already perfectly well known. Lord
John resigned for two very excellent and all sufficing reasons.
One was that if he had stayed in office, he would in all
probability have fouud himself the object of a direct vote of
censure : the other was that his candid friends very strongly
recommended him to perform the operation of "happy
despatch." Prominent • among those friends was Mr. Bouverie,
who described what he had done amidst shouts of laughter.
Mr. Disraeli, whose speech of the week before had unquestion
ably had an enormous influence on the course of events and on

Lord John Russell's Resignation. 445
the decision of Lord John -RusseU, again spoke with great effect.
Referring to the course pursued by Mr. Bouverie he said : — ¦
" There have been many instances of friends and friendships.
Friendship is the gift of God, and the most precious to man.
It has long occupied the thoughts and consideration of
philosophers. There is the devoted friend who stands by one
like the noble Lord (Palmerston) ; but there is another kind of
fdend, immortalized by an epithet which should not be men
tioned to ears polite. We all know that friend. It was I
beheve a brUli.ant ornament of this House who described that
kind of friend, and I must say, that although as the devoted
friend, the Prime Minister must after to-night be allowed to
take the highest position, still, for a friend of the other descrip
tion — candid and not bad-natured — commend me to the Vice
President of the Board of Trade." *
Turning from that sarcastic comment of which he is so
consummate a master, Mr. Disraeli then addressed himself to
the great question before the House, and dilated in grave and
appropriate terms on the injury sustained by the country
through the secret sympathy with the peace party which he
believed to exist in the minds of the principal members of the
Cabinet. Then, referring to the equivocating and evasive speech
which Lord Palmerston had contributed to the debate, he wound
up by complaining that the Government perpetually asked
* " But of aU plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend."
Canning's New Morality.
Bangle. . . But you are quite right, Sir Fretful, never to read such nonsense.
Sir Fretful. To be sure, for if there is anything to one's praise, it is a foolish
vanity to be gratified at it ; and if it is abuse— why one is always sure to hear of
it from one damned good-natured friend or another. Sheridan's Oritic, Act I., So. 2.

446 The Public Life of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
members to abstain from discussing their acts, and as constantly
betrayed those who trusted them by the adoption of a policy
the consequences of which, when called upon to defend, they
evaded by a timely resignation. " The foremost of your states
men dare not meet the controversy which such questions pro
voke. He mysteriously disappears. With the reputation of a
quarter of a century, a man who has reformed Parliament, who,
as he has told us to-night and often before, is the successful
champion of civil and religious liberty, in the cause and name
of which he has accomplished great triumphs — he who has
met the giants of debate^ — he who has crossed his rapier with
Canning — and even for a term shared the gi'eat respect and
reputation which this country accords to its foremost men, with
no less a person than Sir Robert Peel — he dare not meet the
debate. But who dares meet it ? The first Minister of the
Crown, who has addressed this House to-night in accents and
in language utterly unworthy of his position, and utterly un
worthy of the occasion, and who has shown to-night, by his
language and by the tone of his mind, that if the honour and
interests of the country be any longer entrusted to his care, the
first will be degraded and the last I believe will be betrayed."
Fortunately for the Ministry, the Prorogation came in time
to stifle disagreeable and dangerous discussions on the con
duct of these Vienna negotiations, and before the House
reassembled, the bases of an honourable peace were already
in sight. Parliament adjourned on the 14th of August. Lord
Palmerston was in the midst of an earnest speech on the
determination of the Government to prosecute the war with
vigour during the recess, when Black Rod summoned the
" faithful Commons " to hear Lord Cranworth read the Queen's

Prorogation. 447
Speech — a manifesto which is ehiofly remarkable for tho
amazing number of capital letters with which Mr. Hansard has
decorated it. There was, in truth, very little to say. The war
was stiU going on with but small prospect of coming to an end ;
England had had to find money as well as mon for Turkey and
the Vienna negotiation had collapsed. At home all that had
been done, was to abolish the newspaper stamp, and to establish
tho principle of Limited Liability in Joint Stock enterprises —
two changes of the law about which it was not easy to get up
any great amount of enthusiasm — whilst the concession of
constitutional Government for the colonies, though in itself an
important matter, was not of overwhelming interest.

END OP VOL r.

EEAEBDEY, AGNOW, & CO , rEIKTEUS, WIiraEMIiBB, T.OKnoIT.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01288 6959

.&ilSi**l»w.,

¦•^¦¦*

'?^iS

:K£i« V.