i» 
 
 
 I 
 
m. 
 
1 
 
r • 
 • / J 
 
 Ol / 
 
 
 ^ \: 
 
 If 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.C. 
 
THE PUBLIC LIFE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BIGHT HONOURABLE THE 
 
 EARL OF BEACONSFIELD', K.G., 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 BY Y\\0<AJ>^^ 
 
 FKANCIS jHITCHMAK 
 
 /^ V^ OK THE ' 
 
 SECOND AND BE VISED EDITION, 
 
 "But as for Lycurgus, they thought of him thus: that he was a man borne to 
 rule, to commaunde and to geue order, as hauing in him a certaine naturall grace 
 and power to drawe men willingly to obeye him." 
 
 ^Plutakch (North's Translation, 1579.) 
 
 "Who breaks his birth's invidious bar 
 
 And grasps the skirts of happier chance, 
 
 Who breasts the blows of circumstance. 
 And grapples with his evil star; 
 Who makes by force his merit known. 
 
 Who lives to clutch the golden keys. 
 
 To mould a mighty State's decrees 
 And shape the whisper of a throne ; 
 And, moving up from high to higher. 
 
 Becomes on fortune's crowning slope 
 
 The pillar of a people's hope. 
 The centre of a world's desire." 
 
 Tennyson, In Memoriam, Ixii. 
 
 LONDON: 
 SAMPSON LOW, MAKSTON, SEAKLE, & EIYINGTON, 
 
 CROWN _BUILDINQS, 188 FLEET STREET. 
 
 1881. 
 
 [All Rights reserved.'] 
 
,\ 
 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
 [\ 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The absorption of an unusually large edition of this work in a 
 very expensive form leads me to hope that a reissue, continued 
 to the date of the death of its noble subject, may not be un- 
 acceptable. 
 
 In all important respects the book remains unaltered, but 
 some notes and illustrations have been cancelled, not because 
 they were uninteresting in themselves, but because they ap- 
 peared, to a certain extent, to obstruct the course of the narra 
 tive. The space thus obtained has been utilised for the purpose 
 of giving a sketch of the period between 1876 — with which 
 year the former issue of this work ended— and the present time. 
 In the new matter, as in the old, I have striven to present a 
 fair and impartial account of the career of the great statesman, 
 whose death all Englishmen alike lament, excluding, on the one 
 hand, panegyric of the kind which Lord Beacon sfield himself 
 would have been the last to desire, and, on the other, criticism 
 of that ungenerous sort with which the students of contemporary 
 history are but too familiar. My own opinions will be found in 
 the preface to the first edition, written now nearly three years 
 ago. My critics have often counselled its suppression, but on 
 looking back over the events of the period which has elapsed 
 since that preface was written, I do not see any reason for 
 altering a word of it. I then recognised Lord Beaconsfield as 
 the one man of political genius whom this century had 
 produced. Nothing that has occurred since that time has 
 changed my opinion. But whatever I may have said in my 
 preface I trust my narrative will be found sufficiently impartial. 
 My object has been to show Lord Beaconsfield as he was, and 
 not to demonstrate how much wiser I should have been in his 
 place. Thus, for example, I am personally an upholder of the 
 principles of Free Trade, but I do not on that account feel 
 myself called upon to denounce Lord Beaconsfield because at one 
 period of his life he accepted what some are pleased to consider 
 
IV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 the " economic heresies " of Protection. Another word of ex- 
 planation may find a place here. Two or three of my critics in 
 the daily and weekly press have censured me somewhat severely 
 because my book does not contain a complete history of England 
 since 1830. I can only say that it makes no pretension to be 
 anything of the kind. All that I have attempted has been to 
 tell as much of that history as was necessary for the due under- 
 standing of the share which Lord Beaconsfield had in making it ; 
 anything more would have been outside the plan of the book. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the execution of the work, I am 
 glad to have reason to believe that the principal object I had in 
 view when writing it, has been to a great extent attained. A 
 more just and generous view of the character and work of its 
 subject now prevails alike in England and on the Continent, 
 and in the creation of that new public opinion this book may 
 fairly claim to have had a share. Since its publication several 
 journals of unquestionable Liberalism have had the candour to 
 confess that many of the current stories of Lord Beacon sfield's 
 early days are malignant slanders, which it is a shame for an 
 honest antagonist to repeat, and have given what is substantially 
 the version of such stories which I have put forward. More 
 than this, I have had the pleasure of seeing the ideas, the facts, 
 the suggestions and the illustrations of this book quoted — almost 
 invariably without acknowledgment— in the speeches of some 
 public men and in the pages of many more or less important 
 journals. The example set by English journalism has been 
 liberally followed on the Continent. One ingenious German 
 gentleman has boldly appropriated many pages of the earlier 
 edition of this book with the faintest possible acknowledg- 
 ment, and the editor of the Gonstitutionnel, M. Cucheval Clarigny, 
 has freely translated its substance in a series of articles 
 published at the close of 1879 in the Bevue des Deux Mondes. 
 It is true that in the volume into which M. Cucheval Clarigny 
 has collected his detached essays he admits that he has received 
 des renseignements from this work, but I would humbly submit 
 that "hints" is a somewhat euphemistic description of some 
 hundreds of pages of free translation. 
 
 With this brief explanation, I leave my work to the judgment 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. V 
 
 of the English people. The national Borrow during the last 
 week has proved that, however tardily, they have learned to 
 appreciate the great statesman who spent a lifetime in their 
 service, and I cannot but hope that there will be many who will 
 be gratified to possess a biography of him written from the 
 sympathetic point of view. I need only add that this edition 
 was, except as regards half a dozen pages or thereabouts at the 
 end, prepared for the press rather more than a year ago. 
 
 The portrait which faces the title-page is from a photograph 
 taken by Messrs. W. and D. Downey, at Balmoral, in 1868, by 
 it is presumed, the special desire of Her Majesty, on whom 
 Lord Beaconsfield was then in waiting. It is generally acknow- 
 ledged to be the most truthful portrait of the noble Lord in 
 existence. 
 
 St. George's Square, Eegent's Park. 
 April 2o, 1881. 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 Loud Beaconsfield, the course of whose public life I have 
 here attempted to trace, is the greatest 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 — 
 " irresponsible, 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 
 that the one man of commanding political genius whom this 
 century has produced was the incarnation of all that was mean 
 and despicable. Even as 1 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 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. VU 
 
 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- X 
 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 
 genius compelled them to follow him ; and more than once, in 
 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 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 Emancipation had just 
 been carried and when Eeform was the question of the hour. 
 He found the great national party in— to quote his own words V 
 — " 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 difficul- 
 ties all but overwhelming, to eventual triumph. He has com- 
 pleted 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 adoitness, his wit, his marvellous 
 command of temper, his reticence, his patience and his cheerful- 
 ness in adversity, have passed all but unrecognised. 
 
 In the midst of all this detraction, calumny and misapprecia- 
 
Vlll PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 tion, however, there have been some who held their faith in 
 the leader of the Tories ; some who recognised 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 
 intelligible to Whig financiers. He was assured that there 
 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- i^ 
 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 
 speedily 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 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX 
 
 than belie liis 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 pro- 
 gramme. High-mindedness is not, however, the only claim of 
 Lord Beaconsfield to the admiration of his followers. He 
 possesses every quality which can fascinate the rising genera- 
 tion of public men. He was the apostle of Young England — pc 
 the leader of that generous, helpful, hopeful, kindly and sympa- 
 thetic party whose very existence was a protest again&t what 
 Mr. Carlyle was wont to call " Whig laissez-faire, and Ben- 
 thamee utility." And he was something more. He was not 
 one of those dilletante philanthropists who content themselves 
 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 sympathiser 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 incurring 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 
 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 
 
X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION^. 
 
 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 antithesis and epigram. 
 Lady Blessington plagues him for a cop}'' of verses for one of 
 those ' Annuals ' which she manufactures, and he gives her 
 lines 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 imdeviating 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 
 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 s-potless 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 
 
PREFACE To THE FIRST EDITION. Xi 
 
 Beaconsfield's followers should claim for him the merit of con- 
 sistenc}^ Did not the Edinburgh Beview 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 
 the electors of High Wycombe, he 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. Eoebuck'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 Eadical 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 him 
 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 triennial Parliaments, and 
 that, in view of the corruption and pressure consistently exer- 
 cised upon voters in those Whig nomination boroughs, which 
 the Eeform 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 
 
Xll PBJEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 every 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 acci- 
 dental." His opponents have failed to make the same distinc- 
 tion and to see that acceptance of or acquiescence in a few 
 matters of detail does not necessarily 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 
 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 
 oflScered by gentlemen from the Sister Isle." The Globe and the 
 Morning CJironicle never ceased their vituperation, and when 
 Punch 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 allowed his assailant to see the 
 efiect 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. 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XIU 
 
 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, may be 
 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 hj a brilliant youth and a much belauded middle age 
 and sees the end approaching in the midst of neglect, obscurity, 
 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 toN^ 
 defend a policy, he will strengthen his position by an appeal to 
 the immutable principles of right and wrong, or by a quotation 
 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 hist©ry 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 
 
xiv PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 those references to classical and other literature which bespaek 
 the man of culture, but his main reliance is upon the constitu- 
 tional history of his countiy. 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 younger Pitt negotiated the treaty which 
 established our commercial relations with France for well nigh 
 half a century. 
 
 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 Eussia. 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 Heligoland 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 18G8 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 Beacons- 
 field is in every way the reverse of this character. Mr. Glad- 
 stone is an Englishman of ancient family : the Premier comes 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. XV 
 
 of an alien race; but, as with tlie 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 conso- 
 lidation of the national power. In his eyes British interests 
 are the first interests to be studied ; British possessions those 
 which need to be most carefully guarded and most lovingly 
 developed. Whilst Free Traders, pushing their political faith 
 ahnost 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 first 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 
 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 profoundobt distrust, but of Mr. Cobden himself he spoke 
 with unvarying respect, did his utmost to provide him with a 
 
ivi PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 permanent seat for the West Eiding, and on his death delivered 
 himself of a very touching elegaic 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-Eadical 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 
 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 Man- 
 chester 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 
 Bubject, from egg-flip to Papal decree, with which Mr. Gladstone 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XVU 
 
 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 
 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, 
 Avhich 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 Eussell 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 summarised, no pains 
 have been spared to produce an accurate epitome, still in the 
 speaker's own phraseology as far as possible. Over the period 
 of his life which ended with the death of Lord George 
 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 u|)on all critical occasions ; and 
 to afford the necessary materiuls 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 
 
 h 
 
xviii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 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- 
 paration, and that my personal relations with him have been 
 confined to a formal 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 
 A'cars 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 G-arnett — a gentle- 
 man whose encyclopaedic 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 HISTORY AND EARLY YEARS. 
 
 By descent a Jew — The Sephai-dim — 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 " — Bru- 
 nei's opinion of them — Controversy with Bolton Corney — 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 Representative — Lord Beaconsfield 
 never connected with it — Mr. Macknight's attack — The Star Chamber — 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 ir. 
 
 A CANDIDATE FOR PARLIAMENTARY HONOURS. 
 
 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 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 Coercion 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 Times — 
 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 ..,.., 32 
 
 I 2 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 
 MEMBER FOR MAIDSTONE. 
 
 Meeting of the New Piu-liament— 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 plana 
 
 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 — Un- 
 popularity of the Queen — •Chartism — AttwoodVlpeeeTT 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 — 
 
 ^QiTftftn's speecl^— Lord Melbourne and Robert Owen— Mr. Disraeli speaks 
 """"^T^S^ss— Peel 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 Char- 
 tists 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 to stand for 
 Wycombe — Elected for Shrewsbury . . . . . .71 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MEMBER FOR SHREWSBURY PROTECTIONISM. 
 
 The Conservative Majority — Lord 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 — Mr. 
 
 '* Disraeli on Irish questions — Session of 1844 — Speech on Lord John Russell's 
 Irish motion — On Maynooth — On Coercion — Becomes lieutenant to Lord 
 
 1 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 office a Free Trader — Disgust of his party — Session of 1846 — Queen's 
 Speech — Intrigues concerning the Coercion Bill — Resignation of Peel — Lord 
 "^trtiir' again sent for — Prorogation of Paidiament 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 
 
CONTENTS. XXI 
 
 ^he Session — Mr. Disi'aeli 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 Athenaium . . ' 98 
 
 PHAETEK V. 
 
 LEADER OF THE TORIES. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli speaks on the Address (Nov. 1847) — Je\yish_disabilities — Speech of 
 Mr. Disraeli — Lord George Bentinck retires 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. Disraeli on the subject — Speech on intrigues in Ital y-— Rfiviews 
 the conduct and policy of the Governmen t — Attacks on Lord John Russell — 
 DeatliTof Lora George Bentinck — The Queen's Speech — Mr. Disraeli on the 
 Address — Moves resolutions on the burdijnroh 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 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. Disraeli on agricultural distress — Returns 
 to the subject— Criticises the budget — Agricultural interests — Papal aggres- 
 sion — The Durham letter — Mr. Disraeli's remarks upon it — Opening of Tar- 
 liaraent — 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- 
 ti'ation 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 Bucking- 
 hamshire 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 
 Bill — 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— 7" The Rupert of 
 Parliamentary Discussion " . . . . , . , . 133 
 
 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 
 
 h 3 
 
V 
 
 Xxii CONTENTS. 
 
 opposition of Lord John Russell and the Whigs— Budget— Renewal 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— 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 Russell— Mr. Disraeli's reply— Import duty on corn no longer possible- 
 General Election— Address to the electors— Result of the elections— Convoca- 
 tion restored— The New Parliament— Queen's Speech— Debate on the Address 
 — Mr. Villiers's 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 Whigs— 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 — Out of office . 178 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AGAIN IN OPPOSITION. 
 
 The Coalition 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 Bill 
 — Palmerston's resignation — Absurd reports about the Prince Consort — 
 Opening of the Session — Ministerial explanations — Speech on the Address — 
 Lord John's Reform 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 Russell "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 — Retirement 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 — Aggi-essive 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 ... . ..... 200 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 STILL IN OPPOSITION. 
 
 Death of Lord Raglan — Fall of Sebastopol — Austrian Intrigues — Re-opening of 
 Parliament — The Mercantile Marine Bill — Peace — The Budget of 1856 — 
 Italian Affairs — The American Difficulty — End of the Session — Mr. Disraeli's 
 
CONTENTS. XXIU 
 
 Review — Chinese War — The Lorcha Arrow and Sir John Bowriug — Indian 
 Mutiny — Foreign Policy of the Coalition Government — The Secret Treaty — 
 Discomfiture of Lord Palmerston — Debate on the China War — Mr. Disraeli's 
 Speech — Defeat of the Government — The Dissolution — The General Elec- 
 tion — Mr. Disraeli's Address — Parliament Re-opens — Indian Mutiny — Mr. 
 Disraeli's Speech — Lord Granville " taken by surprise " — A bold and states- 
 manlike Policy — Parliament adjourned — Commercial Panic — Parliament 
 hastily summoned — Debate on the Address — Indian Mutiny — Unpreparedness 
 of the Government — Attempt to assassinate Napoleon III. — Count Walewski's 
 Despatch and the Addresses of the French Colonels — Lord Clanricarde's Case — 
 The Conspiracy to Murder Bill — Mr. Disrae lr|s _ Actio n — Defeat of the 
 Government — Lord Derby sent for — The New Ministry . . . 232 
 
 CHAPTER IX. i 
 
 IN OFFICE, 1858-1859. 
 
 Lord Derby reluctant to take Office — Mr. Disraeli's Address— Speech from the 
 Hustings — Foreign Policy of the Government — Reform— The French Alliance 
 — Lord Malmesbury's Despatch — The Emperor's Pamphlet — The Cagliari 
 Business — Mr. Disraeli's Speech— General Business of the House — Reform — 
 The India Bill — First reading — Compromise — Resolutions — The New Bill — 
 Rebellion in Oude — Lord Canning's Proclamation — Censure by the Govern- 
 ment — Loi-d EUenboi-ough's Retirement — Montalembert's Pamphlet — The 
 Slough Dinner — The " Cabal " Debates on the Speech — Mr. Disraeli on his 
 Defence — Financial Policy of the Government — The Budget — Reduction of 
 the Income Tax — Equalisation of the Spirit Duties — Budget well received — 
 Cost of Whig Foreign Policy — State of the Thames — A Government Mea- 
 sure — Prorogation — Speech from the Throne — The Recess — Impending War 
 between Austria and France — England the Mediator — Reform — Retirement 
 of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley — Difficulties of the Government — Session of 
 1859 — The Queen's Speech — Debate on the Address — Mr. Disraeli on Italy — 
 Reform — The Government Bill — Fancy Franchises — Redistribution — The 
 Bill unpopular — Debate on the Second Reading — Tactics of the Opposition — 
 Lord John Russell's Amendment — State of Europe — Defeat of the Govern- 
 ment — Ministerial Statements — The impending Dissolution — Statement on 
 Condition of Europe — The Dissolution — Mr. Disraeli in Buckinghamshire — 
 The ** enormous lies " of the Opposition press — Results of the Election — The 
 Queen opens Parliament — Lord Hartington moves an Amendment to the 
 Address — Sir James Graham's Accusations against the Government — Mr. 
 Disraeli's Reply — On Foreign Policy — On Reform — How can a New Govern- 
 ment be formed — The Division— Out of Office once more . . . 261 
 
 CHAPTER X. ^^ 
 
 ONCE MORE IN OPPOSITION. 
 
 The new Administration — The Willis's Rooms Intrigue — Lord Granville sent for 
 — ^The Queen's reasons — Lord Granville fails to form a Ministry — His letter 
 to the Times — Lord Palmerston returns to office — Without a Policy and 
 
XXiy CONTENTS. 
 
 witho^it a Party— The Banquet at Merchant Taylors' Hall— Mr. Disr£\eli-s 
 Speech— State of the Exchequer— A Deficit of Five Millions— More Addi- 
 tions to the Income Tax — Mr. Disraeli's criticism — Foreign Policy — Lord 
 John Russell's Statement— Why should England join the Conference? — 
 Prorogation — Speech from the Throne — A barren Session — The Session of 
 I860 — The Queen's Speech— Debate on the Address — French Commercial 
 Treaty^^^^^TKe 4teHan-^^t[?sllon— A February Budget— More Income Tax- 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Pitt— No more concessions to precedent — Objection 
 to Mr. Cobden as Negotiator of the Treaty— Mr. Disraeli's criticism of the 
 Budget— and of the Treaty — The Annexation of Savoy and Nice— The New 
 Reform Bill^Unpopular from the first, and speedily withdrawn— Financial 
 Adjustment — ^^Paper Duty— :Church Rates — Prorogation — Mr. Disraeli at 
 Amersham— Session of 1861— Debate on the Address — Mi*. White's Amend- 
 ment — Mr. Disraeli on Lord Russell's " candid foreign policy " — Public 
 business — -The Budget — ^Mr. Disraeli's criticism — Prorogation — Ministers 
 and the Confederate States — -Death of the Prince Consort — Parliament opened 
 by Comniissjon— ^The Legislative Prograrnme — The Budget-^No remission 
 of Taxation^Mr. Disraeli's indictnient of Liberal Finance — A "Penurious 
 Prodigal " — Resolutions on Retrenchment — Not a vote of want of confidence 
 — Mr. Cobden on Liberal Economy — ^The Position of the Government — Foreign 
 Aflfairs — The Colonies — Close of the Session ..... 306 
 
 PHAPTER XT. • 
 
 STILL OUT OF OFFICE. 
 
 The Recess — Queen's Speech — No Amendment to the Address — Mr. Disraeli's 
 ^ Speech — Earl Russell's Foreign Policy — Poland and Austria — Brazil — Italy — 
 The Budget — Earl Russell at Blairgowrie-^Speech from the Throne — 
 Mr. Disraeli on the Address— Condition of JEurope — Denmark — Lord Russell's 
 promises — ^Government by Under Secretaries— The Budget of 1864-— A Penny 
 oflf the Income Tax^Prorpgation-^tate of Europe — " On the side of the 
 Angels "—<:;ommencement of the Refoi-m Agitation — Session of 1865 — 
 Canada and the United States — Death of Mr. Cobden^ — Mr. Baines's Reform 
 Bill— The Westbury Scandal— The General Election— The falling Ministry 
 — Mr. Disraeli's Address^ — Results of the Elections--Death of Lord Palmerston 
 — -The Queen opens Parliament— Suspension of Habeas Corpus in Ireland — 
 The Budget— The New Reform Bill— -Mr. Lowe's Opposition to it— -Agitation 
 out of doors— Mr. Disraeli's criticism of the Bill — Mr. Gladstone's reply — 
 Ministers practically in a Minority — The Redistribution Bill — Absurd in 
 practice — Referred to Committee — The Government going to pieces — Lord 
 Dunkellin's Amendment-^Ministers defeated — Lord Russell resigns — Lord 
 Derby sent for — Popular excitement — Mr. Disraeli once more elected for 
 Buckinghamshire , . , , . , . , , 346 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE REFORM MINISTRY. 
 
 Lord Derby unwilling to accept office, but consents— The New Administration 
 a strong one — Mr. Disraeli begins with a supplementary vote of credit— 
 
CONTENTS. XXV 
 
 End of the Session — The Royal Speech — Reform agitation — Mr. Stuart 
 Mill's speech — The Hyde Park riot — The Reform League — Mr. Bright on 
 the House of Commons — Leicester, the glass-blower, and " Constructive 
 abdication" — Lord Beaconsfield's unpopularity — The Session of 1867 — 
 Queen's Speech and debate on the Address — Work of the New Adminis- 
 tration — Reform — Not a question to decide the fate of Ministries — Lord 
 Beaconsfield's speech on the Resolutions — The Resolutions — Boroughs and 
 Counties — The Conservative sacrifice — The House and the Speech — Opposi- 
 tion to the Resolutions — "Forcing the hand "of the Government — Cabinet 
 dissensions — Resignations of Lord Carnarvon, Lord Cranborne and General 
 Peel — The Cabinet " reverts to its original policy " — The New Reform 
 Bill — Details — Popular privileges and democratic rights — The policy of the 
 Opposition — Opinions of the Press — Mr. Bright and the Hesiduum — Not 
 numbers, but fitness, the principle of the Bill — Mr. Gladstone's opposition 
 —The Budget of 1867— Popular opinion of it— The Reform Bill again— The 
 Liberal instruction — Its collapse — The Reform Bill in Committee — Mr. 
 Beresford Hope and his " Batavian Grace " — Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions — 
 The Division — The Recess — The Compound Householder — Mr. Gladstone's 
 charge of "fraud and dissimulation" — "The invective of Torquemada and 
 the insinuation of Loyola " — The Scotch Reform Bill — Mr. Disraeli's rebuke 
 to Mr. Gladstone — The reply of " Atticus " — Mr. Bernal Osborne's opinion 
 of Lord Beaconsfield — Extinction of the Compound Householder — Lord 
 Cranborne on the Conservative leaders — Lord Beaconsfield's last speech on 
 the Reform Bill — Third Reading of the Bill — Conservative opposition to 
 Reform — End of the Session — The Mansion House banquet — Lord Beacons- 
 field's speech — A quiet autumn — Lord Beaconsfield at Edinburgh — His letter 
 to the Times — The " Conservative surrender " — On the Irish Church — The 
 new Session — The Queen's Speech — The Abyssinian War — The Fenians at 
 Clerkenwell prison>=©rTbery "'"aiil corruption — Lord Derby retires— ^Mr. 
 )israeli Premier — The Press on the event — The Chelmsford incident — 
 
 Welcome ot Mr. Disraeli in Westminster Hall — Opening speech — Mr. 
 
 Maguire on Ireland — Mr. Neate's amendment — Mr. Disraeli closes the 
 Debate — The Church and the Nation — Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions on the 
 Irish Church — Mr. Disraeli's letter to Lord Dartmouth — Lord Stanley's 
 amendment — Lord Beaconsfield on Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe — Result 
 of the Debate — Lord Beaconsfield attacked by the Press — Appeals to the 
 country — Mr. Ayrton as censor morum — Mr. Bright's personal attack — The 
 
 tactics of the Opposition — Mr. Gladstone's letters — Dinner at Merchant 
 Taylors' Hall — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Factious opposition to the Govern- 
 ment — Lord Beaconsfield and John Leech's family — Prorogation and the 
 Queen's Speech — Lord Mayo's appointment — Address to Bucks electors — 
 Tory finance — Organisation of the War Office — Religion and civilisation — 
 Fenianism and English Liberalism — The elections and their results — Mr. 
 Disraeli's speech at Aylesbury — Mrs. Disraeli becomes Lady Beaconsfield — 
 Results of the elections — Mr. Disraeli retires — Mr. Gladstone is sent for — 
 The spoils to the victor . . , . . . . 375 
 
Xxvi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII.l 
 
 MR. Gladstone's government, 1868-74. 
 
 The new Administration— Meeting of Parliament— Queen's Speech— The debate 
 on the Address— Mr. Disraeli's speech— Opinions of the Press— Dangers to 
 private property— Debate on the Irish Church Bill— Speech on the third 
 reading— Trinity House banquet— Mr, Lowe rebuked— Prorogation— Session 
 of 1870— Queen's Speech— Irish Land Bill— The Irish policy of the Govern 
 ment— Irish Land Bill— The Ballot—'' Lothair "—The critics— Mr. Goldwin 
 Smith— The fables of the Udhiburgh— The Saturday i^ezjjcw- Coincidences — 
 Public demand for the book — Speech on the State of the Continent — 
 Lord Granville's "surprise" — Buckinghamshire manifestoes — Session of 1871 
 —Queen's Speech— Debate on the Address— Mr. Disraeli's speech— Apprecia- 
 tion of Lord Clarendon— Fenianism and the United States Government — An 
 incompetent Administration — On the Declaration of Paris — Mr. Lowe's 
 Budget— The Match Tax— The Leader of the Opposition and his criticism— 
 The Charge of " hounding on the country " — War Taxation in time of Peace 
 — Direct v. Indirect Taxation — Military reform — The Abolition of Purchase — 
 Mr. Gladstone's coup d'etat — Mr. Disraeli's comment — Appeals to the Preroga- 
 tive of the Crown — Ballot — The Government determined to force the Bill 
 through the House — Tactics of the Government — A Pythagorean system of 
 legislation — Prorogation — A Confession of Failure — Mr. Disraeli at Hughenden 
 — The Health of the Queen — Telegraph absurdities— Ministerial Apologies 
 and Explanations — The~new Session — Debate on the Address — The Collier 
 "" scandal — The Ewelme Rectory job — Personal Government in excelsis — The 
 Washington Treaty — Mr. Disraeli in Manchester — The Pomona Palace demon- 
 stration — Speech in the Free-TVade Hall on Reform — On the improved 
 condition of the working classes — The policy of the Government — The Treaty 
 of 1856 — A Policy of Sewage — No sign of a return to office — Constitutional 
 dinner at the Crystal Palace — Mr. Disraeli's speech — A Wasted Session — 
 Session of 1873 — The San Juan award — The Geneva award — The debate on 
 the Address — National indignation — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Irish University 
 education — The Government Bill — Why the Tories opposed it — Mr. Disraeli's 
 speech — What the Government had done — The Fate of the Government sealed 
 — In a Minority of three — Resignation of Ministers — Mr. Disraeli summoned — 
 Refuses to take office without a dissolution of Parliament — Mr. Gladstone's 
 ingenuous explanations — Mr. Disraeli's reply — His letter to the Queen — 
 Position of the Tory party — ^The Burials Bill — Mr. Lowe's last Budget — 
 Amendment on the Report — Close of the Session — The Bath Election — Lord 
 Beaconsfield at Glasgow — Speech as Lord Rector — Banquet in the City Hall 
 — The Tories not anxious to be rid of him — Rest and retirement — Mr. Glad- 
 stone dissolves Parliament on the eve of its meeting — His manifesto to 
 Greenwich — Mr. Disraeli's address to the Electors of Bucks — The Election of 
 1874 — Speech at Aylesbury — Foreign Policy — The state of the Elections — 
 The Liberal Government abandons its intention of Meeting Parliament — 
 Mr. Gladstoae gives up the seals of office — The Session opens on the 19th of 
 March 435 
 
CONTENTS. X.^V]1 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 The New House and the New Ministry — A late Session — Deputations — Mr. Glad- 
 stone's Eetirement — The " Five Million " Surplus — The Queen's Speech- 
 Debate on the Address — The Budget — Licensing Act Amendment — Irish 
 Fisheries — The Factory Acts Amendment Bill — Public Worship Regulation 
 Bill — " Mass in Masquerade " — Home Rule — Patronage in the Scotch Kirk — 
 
 i' Mr. Disraeli at Merchant Taylors' — Prorogation — The Queen's Speech — A 
 quiet Autumn — The Lord Mayor's Dinner — Lord Beaconsfield on English and 
 Continental liberty — Mr. Gladstone's final retirement — Is reiDlaced by Lord 
 Hartington — The Session of 1875 — Debate on the Address — John Mitchel's 
 Return for Tipperary — The Regimental Exchanges Act — Privilege and petitions 
 — Dr. Keneal}"- — The Foreign Loans Committee — Mr. Disraeli at the Mansion 
 House — Lord Hartington on public business — The Prorogation — Accomplished 
 Legislation — The Ninth of November — The Prince of Wales in India — Mr. 
 Disraeli's Indian Policy — S uez Canal Shares — The Se s sion_ _of 1876 — 'The 
 explanation of the Government — Em£ress__of, India— A p opular idea — A 
 ludicrous episode ; Mr. Lowe at Retford — The Eastern Question on ce more — 
 Bulga rian Atrocities — Newspapers v. OfficialjReports — Mr. Disraeli's " levity " 
 — Sir Henry Elliot's despatches — Mr. Ashley's motion on the Appropriation 
 Bill — The defence of the Government — Sir W. Harcourt's "Rhodiaa Elo- 
 quence " — Mr. Disraeli's last words in the House of Commons — Earl of 
 j^ Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden ...... 489 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 partial retirement — Speech from the throne — Mr. Gladstone on *' Bulgarian 
 Horrors" — Accusations against the Government — Liberal sympathy with 
 Eastern Christians — LqrdBfiaamsfieldji -defence of his policy — Speech at Ayles- 
 l^uryj:::rj^^-hc aecopted -apeeitage — The state of the country — Work of the 
 Government — A Policy of peace — Mr. Gladstone's " bag and baggage " policy — 
 A silent Minister — Russian pressure on the Porte — At the Lord Mayors' dinner 
 — Why the Berlin N otg_ffias rejected — The Andrassy note— A Policy of j ^eace 
 — Russia defiant — Lord Salisbury at the Conference — The Turkis h Consti- 
 tution — Collapse of the Conference — The Session of 1876 — The Queen's Speech 
 — Debate on the Address — Speeches of the Duke of Argyll and Lord Granville 
 — Lord Beaconsfield's reply — Ri;ssinn negotiatiotts— Declaration of war — 
 Mr. Cross's explanation — Mr. Pigott's case — A declaration of policy — Pro- 
 rogation — The Government misrepresented — At the Guildhall — England's 
 policy a patriotic one — Speeches of Sir Stafford Northcote and Lord Sihsbury — ■ 
 The patience of the Government— Surrender of Plevna — Mr. Layard's appoint- 
 ment — Opening of Parliament — Lord Beaconsfield's Speech — The Fleet ordered 
 
XXVlll CONTENTS. 
 
 to_Besika_JBay — Retirement of Lords Carnarvon and Derby — The vote of 
 £6,000,000— Trea ty of San St efano— Calling out the Reserves— The Queen's 
 Message — Indian troops brought to Malta — The Congress decided on — The 
 Cyprus Convention — LorJlBeaconsfield's statement — Th e Congr ess at Berlin — 
 Return of the Plenipotentiaries — Speech in the Lords — Banquet at~!Knights- 
 bridge — Lord Beaconsfield on the "sophistical rhetorician" — Freedom of the 
 City — Trouble in Afghanistan — Session of 1878— An Amendment to the 
 Address — Division in the Lords — Zulu War — Sir Bartle Frere — Why not 
 recalled — At the Guildhall — Imperium et Lihertas — Mr. Gladstone in Mid- 
 Lothian— Session of 1880 — A Meagre Programme — Home Rule — Letter to the 
 Duke of Marlborough — The "elections" of 1830 — Out of office once more — 
 Rural retirement — " Endymion" — On the abandonment of Candahar — Failing 
 strength — Last weeks — Conclusion . . . . . . 524 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield's Will . . 562 
 
f ^ OF THE ^r 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 THE PUBLIC LIFE 
 
 » OF 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 FAMILY HISTORY 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 Corney — 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 Eeprcsentative — Lord Beaconsfield 
 never connected with it — Mr. Macknight's attack — The Star Chamber — 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." 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, as all the world knows, was by descent a Jew. 
 Unlike the majority of Hebrews, however, he was at no time ashamed of 
 the race from which he sprang, but always manifested a certain amount of 
 pride in the fact that he belonged to the most ancient nation on earth. 
 And well might he do so. In the graceful and touching memoir which he 
 prefixed to the edition of his father's works published in 1849, he tells 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 sprang 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 
 
 B 
 
2 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 succeeded them were at first as tender and 
 considerate, 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 exterminated the Albigeuses and desolated 
 Languedoc," obtained the supreme power in every Spanish kingdom. 
 " The Cortes of Ai^gon appealed to the king and to the pope ; they organised 
 an extensive conspiracy ; the Chief Inquisitor w^as assassinated in the 
 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 procession, 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 remarked, 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 Spain speedily discovered. The gloomy fanatic, 
 Ferdinand, under the 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 
 
IN EXCITU ISRAEL DE HISPANA. 3 
 
 exterminate a race whicli 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 vei ns, 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 genera- 
 tions 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 the following day wear- 
 ing 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 the exodus was at its height ; and among 
 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, in- 
 duced many Jews to settle in this country. Amongst them was the grand- 
 father of Lord Beaconsfield — Benjamin Disraeli the first. With his settle- 
 ment in England began the gradual but steady and continued 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 
 drifted 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 consider- 
 able may be judged from the fact that when in 1815 Russia wished to 
 raise an enormous loan, the contract for it was offered to him. He refused, 
 and the offer was transferred 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 whose grandfather was a rival of the Roth- 
 schilds in 1815, and who was, as appears from a recent letter in the Times, 
 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 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELU 
 
 of her family's sufferings is taken into consideration. Ketired from 
 business, Benjamin Disraeli settled at Enfield,* where, in the words of 
 his illustrious grandson, *' he formed an Italian garden, entertained his 
 friends, played whist with Sir Horace Mann, who was his great acquaint- 
 ance, and who had known his brother at Venice as a banker, ate macaroni 
 which was dressed by the Venetian Consul, sang canzonettes, and, notwith- 
 standing a wife who never pardoned him for his name, and a son who dis- 
 appointed 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 his " Anglo- Jewisli 
 History," it appears that his finta or synagogue tax rose gradually from 
 10s. per annum to £22 13s. id. in 1813, at which figure it remained until 
 his death. Beyond this, the only share which he took in the public business 
 of the Hebrew community was to accept in 1782 the ofiBce 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 ofiBce — 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 
 w.is 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 occupied himself with the composition of bad verses. In their 
 Ic'sure hours he talked what he was pleased to consider philosop)hy, and 
 
 * The house was standing until within a very recent period. After various 
 vicissitudes, it became the station of the Great Eastern Railway, and when the 
 extension of the town rendered an enlargement of the station necessary it was 
 jnilled down. The fa9ade v/as, however, so beantiful a specimen of English 
 architecture of the early part of the eighteenth century, that it was bought by 
 the authorities of the South Kensington Museum and placed in the Construc- 
 tion Court of that establishment. A very full account of it may be found in the 
 " History of Enfield " by Mr. E. Ford. J.P., of Old Park. 
 
ISAAC DISRAELI. 5 
 
 the result was that his pupil returned to England at eighteen, saturated 
 with Eousseauism, 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 
 occupied himself, during his voyage home, in idealising his interview with 
 his mother, " which was to be conducted on both sides with sublimo 
 pathos." The boy's absurd dress, gaunt figure, long hair, and " Batavian 
 graces," 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 Isnac 
 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 entertained for him an astonishing 
 amount of respect and afTection, is constrained 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 the 
 convulsion of 1789, " with some little knowledge of life and a considerable 
 quantity of books." Here he commenced the career of a man of letters, 
 making his first appearance as — it is said — an assailant of that redoubtable 
 literary gladiator, Peter Pindar, on doubtful authority — 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 conspicuous 
 success, though Sir Walter 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-known " 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 Eomance." 
 
tf THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 
 walls. He disliked business, and he never required relaxation ; he was 
 absorbed in his pursuits. Jn 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 impres- 
 sion 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 and superficial 
 in their character. His " Literary Romance " bore for title " Film Flams, 
 or the Life and Errors of my Uncle and his Friends, with illustrations and 
 obscurities by Messrs. Tag, Eag, and Bobtail. A Literary Romance in 
 three volumes, with 11 plates. London, Murray, 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 some- 
 what 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 proving his opponents in the wrong. Of the 
 famous "Curiosities" and their kindred, Brunct, in the "Manuel de 
 Libraire," expresses a rather contempt aous 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 " dis- 
 covery," 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. 
 
 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 
 
SECESSION FROM THE SYNAGOGUE. 7 
 
 not altogether easy to account, seeing that it is, as a whole, infinitely 
 better in style than anything which he acknowledged. 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 (otherwise 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 late Earl of Beaconsfield, on the 21st 
 of December, 1804 ; f Ralph in 1809, and James in 1813. The year of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's birth is generally given as 1805 or 1806, and with 
 that carelessness about personal details which always was eminently 
 characteristic of him, he never condescended to correct it. As, how- 
 ever, 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 office 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 
 
 * Basevi survived until 1845, when he was killed by a fall from the lantern of 
 Ely Cathedral, which he was engaged in restoring. 
 
 t On the authority of Lord Barrington (^Times, 20th April, 1881), it may be 
 added, that Lord Beaconsfield was born in the Adelphi. Various places have 
 been named as those in which he first saw the light, notably a certain house in 
 Islington now occupied by a branch of the National Provincial Bank. According 
 to his own story, however, as given by Lord Barrington, his father at the time of 
 his birth lived in chambers in the Adelphi, and, being in but moderate circum- 
 stances, was compelled to place a portion of his books in his bed-room, to which 
 circumstance is due the expression of which he more than once makes use that he 
 was " born in a library." 
 
8 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 obsolete tradition had made it impossible for men of education and refine- 
 ment to join in their worship. 
 
 The form of religion which Isaac Disraeli had adopted was, in short, an 
 enlightened and cultivated Deism, free from virulence and animosity on 
 the one side as on the other, but still with a certain amount of intelligible 
 13ride 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 quarrel with the 
 Mahamad (Wardens) of the Synagogue. As regards the initiatory rite, 
 all that is known is that it was performed by one David 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 oftice of Farnass, 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 fi7ita to this 
 year, though he positively refused to recognise 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, 
 Holborn — 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 antiquarian predilections that 
 Lord Beaconsfield was baptised at 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 statements the entry in 
 the books of St. Andrew's, Holborn, 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 
 
EARLY DAYS. 9 
 
 by tliG 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 influ- 
 «ice of the Pye family and their relations Isaac Disraeli next sought a 
 rural home in the valley of the Thames. What he wanted was not to he 
 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 connection never after- 
 wnrds 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" were uniformly dated until after his marriage, when the words 
 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. He seems to have been brought up in his father's 
 
 * The following epitaph is in the parish church of Bradenham : — 
 
 TO THE MEMORIES 
 OF 
 
 ISAAC DISRAELI, Esquire, D.C.L., 
 
 OP 
 
 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 FOR FORTY-FIVE YEARS. 
 
 vShe 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, 
 diffused amongst the multitude that elevating taste for literature whicli, 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 Shjre," 
 
10 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 mani- 
 fested at all times an acquaintance with the spiiit of classical authors 
 which minute verbal scholarship does not always imply, and he besides 
 displayed an amount of general information 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 respects, as was evidenced by 
 the skill with which he utilised 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 in accordance with the rule which made of 
 St. Paul a tent maker as well as an advocate. 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 Beaconsfield, 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 
 ytory has sprung the fable that Lord Beaconsfield's first novel was written 
 when its author "was a copying clerk in a lawyer's ofiice." Nothing, 
 however, could be more absurd. That Lord Beaconsfield rose from the 
 ranks, and that he did so by dint of his genius and statesmanlike 
 qualities, is unquestionably true. It is, however, childish to make out his 
 position as having baen lower than it really was. From the first, Isaac 
 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 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 absolutely a poor man. That one 
 fact will suffice to clear away the majority of the fables which have 
 gathered round his reputation, and which he was 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 property of John Murray 
 the publisher, and to be written by the leading members of the staff of the 
 Quarterly Eevieio. It bore the name of the Bepresentative ; it was 
 equally flippant and dogmatic in tone, and some of its articles were 
 
THE "REPRESENTATIVE" AND "EDINBURGH REVIEW." 11 
 
 characterised 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 
 liands 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 greatly about what they said. The editor was supposed 
 to be John Gibson Lockhart, and it is believed, on good authority, that he 
 held that position for about six weeks, but other hands were certainly 
 einployed, all about equally unskilful. When the paper was dead, and 
 Lord Beaconsficld had made his reputation with "Vivian Grey," it 
 became a commonplace of Whig i^arty warfare to assert that he had been 
 the editor and founder of the Eepresentaiive, 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 
 in the Edinburgh lieview, which, had the tale first from Lord Brougham. 
 That learned and versatile Chancellor notoriously hated Lord Beaconsficld 
 most cordially, and as notoriously 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 considera- 
 tion 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 share he had in getting 
 up the Bepresentative 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 enterprising 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 Beview, noticing " Vivian Grey,'* 
 says the plot " was understood (by Brougham presumably) to be founded 
 on the getting up of the Bepresentative, and on the incidental intrigues, 
 literary, social, and political." As regards this latter charge, 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 Bepresentative, it is hardly 
 likely that he would expose all the " intrigues, literary, social, and 
 political," which 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 appearance in tho 
 Bsason of 1826, before the Bepresentative had ceased to exist. Furthermore, 
 
12 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 it is not very easy to believe that a staunch Tory like John Murray, the 
 proprietor of the Quarterly lieview, 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 Athenceum 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 w?s 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 hopeless 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 u pleased to call "A Literary 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 print, which 
 Brougham boldly asserted to have been started for the purpose of puffing 
 " Vivian Grey." This was the Star Chamber, which was born on the 19th of 
 April, and died on the 7th of June, 1826. The paper was never acknow- 
 ledged by Lord Beaconsfield, but from internal evidence an impartial 
 observer will probably be disposed to conclude that he was 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 probably have claimed 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, consistedmainly of extracts 
 and once in a semi-satirical article, which purports, in a confused sort of 
 way, to give a " key " to the persons satirised 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 
 
«'THE DUNCIAD OF TO-DAY." 13 
 
 had been destroyed, and that that particular one sold in 1827 for £1 15s., 
 nearly eight times the original price. 
 
 It would seem that the Star Chamber was a speculation of Colburn s — a 
 fact which renders the assumed connection of "Disraeli the younger" with 
 the Representative of John Murray still more incredible, — but it was pub- 
 lished by an obscure printer of Oxford Street, named Marsh. The adver- 
 tisements 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 dog- 
 matism 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 promised 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 suc- 
 ceeding 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 
 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 judgment 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 for- 
 gotten now save, perhaps, the last, who lives embalmed in the " Rejected 
 Addi-esses. Crabbe, Campbell, Rogers, Wilson, Montgomery (Jas.), Gary, 
 (of Dante fame), Mitchell (the translator of Aristophanes), Sheridan 
 Knowles, Keats and Wolfe, are and will be remembered. It speaks well 
 for Lord Beaconsfield's critical acumen that at three-and-twcnty he should 
 have been able to classify the poets and the mere versifiers with so much 
 accuracy. No. 8 of the Star Charriber 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 
 
14 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 production 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 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 diflerent 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 idealised 
 account of the rise and progress of the Bepresentative 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, 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 opposite 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 unsettled, 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 bo ex- 
 pected 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 
 
"VIVIAN GREY." 15 
 
 above the level of mere cleverness. It is full of tliouglit, 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 production 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 
 scribble," is undoubtedly 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 adven- 
 turer, 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 countenance from him- 
 self, indirectly if not directly. Mr. N. P. Willis, perhaps the most hope- 
 lessly 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 (sic) with talent but very 
 soigne {sic) of his curls, and a bit of a coxcomb." This delicious sentence^ 
 so characteristic of its author, undoubtedly represents an opinion very 
 
 ♦ It should be remembered that " Vivian Grey " was written half a century 
 ago. There had then been no public schools commission, no Dr. Arnold, no 
 Mr. Thomas Hughes, Q.C., to prove to the world that nobody could be a 
 gentleman or a Christian without tlie Rugby imprimatur — or failing that, the 
 trade mark of gome inferior school such as Eton, or Harrow, or Winchester. 
 
16 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 prevalent in London society, which is, moreovei", confirmed as well by the 
 " Keys " to " Vivian Grey " as by the testimony of Mr. E. K. Madden in 
 his Life of Lady Blessington. 
 
 There werp, 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 gibbetad 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 difiQcult to recognize the fine Boman hand of the great statesman and 
 orator who — by his own account — founded the Edinburgh Beview, carried 
 the Keform 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 attempting 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 Eepresentative 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 Beacons- 
 field's command of temjxjr that he declined to take notice of the infamous 
 calumnies of this review, and that he disdained to enter into an argument 
 with 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 was probably regretted in after days 
 by Lord Beaconsfield as strongly as by any one. It may be doubted, for 
 example, whether the liveliest of political satirists would wish to be re- 
 sponsible for nicknaming Mr. Canning "Mr. Charlatan Gas," but such 
 blunders are, to say the truth, very few. Most of the characterisations are 
 simply unsurpassed, and the portraits are etched with a truth and power 
 of which the epigrammatic names afi"ord only an indication. One of the 
 heroines of the book is Mrs. I'elix Lorraine — the character is that of 
 the eccentric, clever, foolish, brilliant, risquee woman who 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 recognisable under the 
 name of Mrs. Million, and the Miss Berrys, the friends of Horace AValpole, 
 cannot be mistaken when they are spoken of as the " Miss Otrantos." The 
 
■• . ■• '-^ < 
 THE CHARACTERS IN « VIVIAN GREY." ' 17 ^ 
 
 \ - ^ -4 c 
 
 amiable Lord William Lennox, whose love of the theatre and of theitridfl-^ -^ 
 people is almost proverbial, appears as Lord Prima Donna, and thereas nb^i y^ 
 authentic record of his having objected to the title. The appropriateness y^ 
 of calling the Marquis of Clanricarde the " Marquis of Carabas," Prin(^^ . . 
 Esterhazy " Prince Hungary," Theodore Hook " Stanislaus Hoax," tlio^ 
 Marquis of Hertford the " Marquis of Grandgoilt," and Prince Leopoli^ 
 (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 poHtical history of the early part of this century 
 endures. 
 
 It may be convenient to group together the principal personages 
 satirised 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 some- 
 what savage aversion, is "Vivacity Dull;" Abernethy figures as "Dr. 
 Spittergen ; " and John Wilson Croker as *' Vivida Vis." The " Grand 
 Duke of Iveisenburg," 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 recognised without difficulty 
 in the thin disguise of the " Prince Xtmnpqrtosklw," and Sismondi under 
 the name of "Von Chronicle." Lord Burghersh 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 ISTash, the architect, appears as "Mr. 
 Stucco ; " Macculloch, the political economist, as " Liberal Snake ; " 
 Robert Southey 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 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 thanm ere 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 
 
 
 
18 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of its production. It is full of wit and genius, and its wit— to use 
 Johnson's happy phrase— has " kept it sweet.' 
 
 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 Kobert 
 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 Chamher, 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 reviews 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 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. 
 
 " 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 evidences 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 remem- 
 bered, however, that fifty years ago the studious simplicity 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 evening dress. Shawl-patterned dressing-gowns lined with 
 richly coloured silk were constantly worn by men in their own homes, and 
 when they paid morning calls in winter, frock-coats elaborately trimmed 
 
IN SOCIETY. 19 
 
 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 were 
 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 " everyone 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 brilliant 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 closely on the watch. 
 When a subject of more than common interest was started, his enthusiasm 
 would kindle, and his marvellous 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 — 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 aad lying-in-wait sort of expression 
 conceivable. His mouth is alive with a kind of working and impatient 
 nervousness, and when he has burst forth, as he does constantly, with 
 a particularly successful cataract of expression, it assumes a curl of 
 triumphant scorn that would be worthy of a Mephistopheles. His hair is 
 5^3 extraordinary as his taste in waistcoats. A thick heavy mass of jct- 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 winning 
 post, and the utmost energy of expression flung out in every burst." The 
 last sentence is not particularly intelligible, but the description of the per- n 
 sonal appearance of " Disraeli the younger " is borne out by a portrait of 
 him by A. E. Chalon, which is still extant. The fashionable but forgotten 
 painter of prettinesses made a species of Brummagem Don Juan of his sub- 
 ject, and if not very successful with the face, depicted the ringlets with an 
 admirable truth to nature. A few years later another witness bears testi- 
 mony to the brilliancy of his conversation. The late Henry Crabb 
 Robinson, in his diary, mentions 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 recognise 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 England, 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 England 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 the first-named island stands for Ireland ; that Vraibleusa is England ; 
 and that Hubbabub is, of course, London, the nature of the satire will 
 probably be sufficiently clear. The idea is admirably carried out ; the hits 
 at society, manners, and politics numerous and most skilfully delivered, 
 and the wit unimpeachable. In style, " Captain Popanilla " is a worthy 
 mate for Captain 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 Gazetle, 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 
 
« THE MYSTIC EAST." 81 
 
 economist, is banished, and arrives at Hubbabub (London), where varioua 
 extraordinary inconsistencies and follies are presented to his study. The 
 volume displays so much ingenuity and talent that we may probably yield 
 it a longer notice ; but at present we must dismiss it as a jeu cfesprit 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 clever- 
 ness, faded into forgetfulness. The Edinburgh Beview once indeed deigned 
 to admit that the book " deserves to be remembered as an admirable 
 adaptation of Gulliver 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 later. 
 
 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. 
 His travelling companion on this occasion was Mr. James Clay, afterwards 
 M.P. for Hull, for whom he retained a lifelong attachment, in spite of 
 their pronounced political differences. Leaving London early in the 
 autumn of 1829, he went direct to Constantinople, where he spent the 
 winter — a winter of mingled toil and pleasure, which was memorable on 
 many accounts. From Constantinople he journeyed into Albania, where 
 he passed a part of the year 1830. In 1831 he was in Syria. 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 steamboats, 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 numerous. 
 When at Janina, the Albanians broke out into revolt, and it was with 
 difficulty that he could extricate himself 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 exploring the ruins of Kome ; 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 
 threefold, and the first place must be given to the poem which is more 
 distinctly attributable to Eastern influences — the " Eevolutionary Epick." 
 
22 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 A fragment only, consisting of three books, has appeared. It was first 
 published la 1834, and thirty years later, a second edition, dedicated to 
 Lord Stanley— the present Earl of Derby— made its appearance. In the 
 l)reface 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 
 public 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 controversy should not be recurrent and interminable." To end all 
 controversy, therefore, Lord Beaconsfield put forth this corrected version 
 from the one copy of the original which he had preserved. The changes, 
 lie 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 " Revolu- 
 tionary Epick " in his original preface, that he first 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 pro- 
 duced 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 ol 
 this majestic fragment occupied its author during the greater part of liis 
 stay in the East, and was partially resumed after his return to London. 
 It is so frequently, 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 
 
"THE REVOLUTIONARY EPICK." 23 
 
 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 corrupted 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 con- 
 cerning 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 telia 
 of what that aristocracy is to be composed : — 
 
 " He who is bred 
 Within an honoured place, and from the womb 
 Unto his grave nought sordid views ; bvit tauglit 
 By all the glories of his ancestors 
 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 wi>d<mi 
 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 his drooping hour. 
 The man thus honoured, set apart, refined, 
 Serene and courteous, learned, thoughtful, brave, 
 As full ot 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 very a remarkable illustration of the line " hrevis esse lahoro 
 obscurus fio" In its original form it was a piece of beautifully pellucid 
 
24 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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," 
 
 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 improve- 
 ment on the direct words 
 
 " Who gives the leisure Law hath given to hira 
 To make that law move 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 fail, 
 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 Agri- 
 culture, Commerce, the Arts, Architecture, Poetry and Painting alike 
 flourished, and that the same benevolent protection wrs 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 developed his character amply and securely. To Chivalry, in 
 itself distinctly the outcome of the Feudal system, is due the elevated 
 position of women amongst Christian nations. Then follows a very fine 
 passage descriptive of the French Eevolution, and of the fatal effects of 
 its plea of equality as exhibited 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 
 Becures the naturalness of its individual members. Art, he urges, is man's 
 
"THE REVOLUTIONARY EPICIv." 25 
 
 "nalufe, and Society is by no means composed of philosophers, whilst a 
 national character cannot he manufactured, hut must he formed hy 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 
 hy 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 demon- 
 strating 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 corrupted by Tyranny and Super- 
 stition — 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. From 
 Greece he turns to Rome, and describes the corruption of that empire by 
 Asiatic influences. When Nero had gained an ascendency 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 Know- 
 ledge 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. Summoned 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 fulfil- 
 ment 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, 
 Upon the undrawn curtain of whose brain 
 No phantoms flit ; deep is the huntsman's dream ; 
 
26 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The sailor in his giddy hammock slung, 
 
 Rocked by the ocean, revels in repose 
 
 The couch of kings may envy ; and the star, 
 
 The trembling star, that from the sunset springs, 
 
 And bids the homeward 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 the wearied 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 
 
 All past and wearied by the hot pursuit 
 
 Whose 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 'J'urin and Milan, and causes Magros to arouse the King 
 of Sardinia, which brings about the battle of Mondovi, where the French 
 are repulsed by the Sardinian cavalry. Murat is introduced as reviewing 
 the fight ; the story of the conquest ot 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 description 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 critics received 
 it very coldly, and the public were so little stimulated by it, that there was 
 no necessity for printing more the than fifty copies, which formed the first 
 edition. It is possible that the 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 Beacons- 
 field was at this time extremely unpopular in the world of journalism. 
 " 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 
 surprising in the fact that the reviews of the " Revolutionary Epick " 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 Athenseum, then just rising into power 
 and influence, gave two notices of the poem ; and in the second, remarked 
 
« THE YOUNG DUKE." 27 
 
 that " the poet certainly grows stronger in his song as he proceeds, but wo 
 have our fears that it will be all in vain." And, finally, the Gentleman'i 
 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 to 
 say, it was as well that he should do so. His genius never was dis- 
 tinctly poetical, and the fragment of the Epic which has been given to the 
 world, though full of splendid and most eloquent passages, wants some- 
 thing of that divine afflatus, which alone can make a poem immortal. 
 The subject, moreover, is hardly adapted for poetical treatment. Modem 
 politics do not fit in with sounding blank verse, and denunciations of the 
 theory of Equality or of the Eadicalism of 1830, however well deserved, 
 read much better in prose than in poetry. 
 
 Besides the " Eevolutionary Epic," Lord Beaconsfield's Eastern tour pro- 
 duced three works which, unlike the poem, have survived till to-day. 
 These were the " Young Duke," " Contarini Fleming," and " Alroy." The 
 first of these novels was somewhat 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, and on 
 the whole 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 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 portray 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 bo 
 conceited until he is successful." 
 
 " Contarini Fleming " has for its second title " The Psychological 
 Romance," which the author assures his readers, in the later editions, " is 
 of bibliopolic origin and means nothing." His own account of the woik is 
 
28 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 discouraged 
 from further effort. . . . Gradually 'Contarini Fleming' found sympa- 
 thising 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 Beaconsfield 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 and restless, and that, 
 although it contained passages of great beauty, the general effect was the 
 reverse of pleasing. The Athenxum, in May, 1832, gave a long and careful 
 review of a type very different from the feeble and flatulent prefaces to 
 a sheaf of extracts which passed for reviews in the columns of the Literary 
 Gazette. The writer of that article complained 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 hair-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 far — 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 dances about embracing all opinions and abiding by 
 none. ... In short," concludes the reviewer, " a work so wild and so 
 wise, so grotesque 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. 
 
HP 
 
 " THE WONDROUS TALE OF ALROY." 29 
 
 "Alroy" — the Wondrous Tale of Alroy — was the last of the three 
 romances, for which the world is indebted to Lord Beaconsfield'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 afterwards eclipsed it so marvellously. The book is written in a 
 style of its own, a sort of rhythmical prose which from time to time be- 
 comes 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 Fraser'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 supernatural fictions, will do him the 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 Jerusalem 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. Eoused 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 similar position, but achieving a happier 
 
80 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 end. In later editions this work is usually omitted. 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 contri- 
 butor 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 called " The Consul's Daughter," of greater length and greater preten- 
 sion, but not really remarkable. 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 ihe 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, 
 The glance that tells a secret tale. 
 
 The spirit hushed yet glad ; 
 These weave the dream that maidens prove 
 The fluttering dream of virgin 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 ; 
 V/ho wakes to love awake but knows 
 Love is a dream without repose." 
 
 The volume in which these verses were published contains also a frag- 
 ment " by the author of * Vivian Grey ' " with the title " Calantha." I 
 is supposed to expound the meaning of a sentimental plate from a drawinf^ 
 
LADY BLESSINGTON'S ANNUALS. 31 
 
 by Mrs. Scayiforth, 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 following 
 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 Wel- 
 lington, were 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, — 
 
 The breath ordained of Nature. Thy calm mien 
 Recalls old Rome 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 POETRAIT OF LADY MAHON. 
 (now Countess Stanhope). 
 
 " Fair Lady ; thee the pencil of Vandyke 
 
 Might well have painted ; thine the English air, 
 
 Graceful yot 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 stateman's wife." 
 
32 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A CANDIDATE FOR PARLIAMENTARY HONOURS. 
 
 Abandons literature for politics — Stands for High Wycombe in opposition to 
 Colonel Grey — Is attacked for his Toryism — Nominated by a Tory an J 
 seconded by a Radical — The Reform Bill 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 Coercion 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 Times — 
 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/' I^ord Beacons- 
 field speaks, as we have seen, of a certain " discouragement 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 travels which served so remarkably to mature his intel- 
 lectual powers, and to convert him from the curled darling of fashionable 
 drawing-rooms into the cool, steady, and earnest statesman he so early 
 became. He 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 constituency became vacant, it was natural that 
 the son of its owner should solicit the suffrages of his neighbours. He did 
 BO accordingly upon independent grounds, allying himself neither with 
 Radicals nor with Tories, and professing little by way of political creed 
 
STANDS FOR HIGH WYCOMBE. 33 
 
 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 uniutelligible ; his political friends and sup- 
 porters an anomalous faction, united in nothing save their o^Dposition to the 
 beneficent party which was bestowing upon the country the blessing of a 
 £10 franchise. The Bucks Gazette stigmatised him from the first, how- 
 ever, as a Tory. It was true that he enjoyed Kadical support, but he was 
 also patronised by the Tories, and that fact Avas quite enough for the 
 Whig organ — which, by the way, might have served the author of " Pick- 
 wick " 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 de- 
 testable in Bucks." 
 
 Nomination day was fixed for the 30 th 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 per- 
 sonally, 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 Parliament one of the most 
 popular measures ever passed, and that he enjoyed the countenance and 
 support of the " great fimilies " 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. Disraeli, in spite of interruptions 
 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 
 ihera as an independent man, and that he wore the badge of no party. 
 Pveform had come, but he did not consider the alteration of the franchise 
 
34 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 
 feWf 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." Keferring to the candidature of his opponent, he 
 spoke with the utmost courtesy of Colonel Grey personally, but he pro- 
 tested against the notion of electing him a member of Parliament out of 
 " gratitude," or because his father was at the head of a popular administra- 
 tion. As soon as the nomination was concluded, the polling commenced, 
 and in so small a constituency it naturally lasted but a very short time. 
 "When at 5 o'clock it became evident that the victory was on the side of 
 the "Whigs, Mr. Disraeli withdrew from the contest, the numbers being. 
 Grey, 23 ; Disraeli, 12 ; — Majority, 11. Had all promises been fulfilled, 
 however, and had the out-voters come 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 Eeform 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 con- 
 sistency 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 sneers at .his Hebrew descent can be taken into 
 account. Anything more 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, bat 
 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 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION. 35 
 
 caricatures of him with the traditional " three hats " on his head. Of all 
 offenders in 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 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 Beacons field did affords the strongest 
 imaginable proof of his statesmanlike qualities and wonderful command of 
 temper. 
 
 With tl?o autumn came the long expected dissolution, and at the first 
 opportunity — October 1st, 1832 — Mr. Disraeli's address was issued. It 
 begins with an energetic protest against the system of nomination, which 
 was being used by the great families and by the Whig ofiScials 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 unblushingly 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 W3^combe 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 complete the work which the Eeform 
 Bill has begun. He sees that the enlarged franchise has opened the door 
 to terrorism, and so as the ballot promises to afford a bulwark against it, 
 he will support that proposal. He is anxious that the new parliaments 
 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 
 
 * " The bill substituting Septennial for Triennial Parliaments was, it is true, 
 aWhig measure, and it is also true that the Tories in the early Hanoverian poriod, 
 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 carried the 
 Septennial Act because they believed that a dissolution immediately after the 
 accession of George L and the revolution of 1715, would be of the utmost danger 
 to the dynasty which it was their great object to defend. . . . The Whigs, 
 when in otBce 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 Engla nd in the EigJdeenth Century (1878) 
 vol. i. pp. 5-6. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 a lepeal 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 " condition of England" 
 once more forces itself to the front, and he announces that he will withhold 
 his support from any administration which will not do something to 
 ameliorate the condition of the poor, rouse the energies of the country, 
 restore trade, and re-animate credit. Romilly was at this time labouring 
 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 to see slavery in our 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 commutation, desiring only to protect the 
 clergy w^ithout 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. " English- 
 men," says 'Disraeli the younger,' "behold this unparalleled 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 unite in forming a great national party which can alone 
 save the country from impending destruction." 
 
 In connection 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 bearing 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 
 
THE « NATIONAL PARTY." /| t^ <* ^ 
 
 space having, however, been made public, a gentleman recently preaeSj? ^ - 
 a volume of pamphlets with which it is bound up, so that I am abl*^ ^ \ 
 give a summary of its contents. The title is explained by a quotation t/5 
 from " a letter of an eminent personage " on the title page : — " I hear th^^ *^ 
 ******** is again in the field ; I hardly know whether we ought^ •^ 
 to wish him success. What is he ? '' The pamphlet is an answer to thi^L *^ 
 question. It is not, however, a personal explanation in any sense of the ^^^^i-s- 
 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 lleform Bill abandoned that principle, but put nothing in 
 its place, with the result of making the government weak where it should 
 be strong. The question thus is how to obtain a strong government ? 
 *' We must either revert to the aristocratic 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 stronger. It 
 is, however, split into two sections which find it impossible to coalesce, and 
 the Eeform 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 tho 
 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 govern- 
 ment whatever. A Tory and a Radical," he goes on, " I can understand ; 
 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 question arises, " What are the easiest and most 
 obvious methods by which the democratic principle may be made pre- 
 
38 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 dominant?" To these the writer answers, "The instant repeal of the 
 Septennial Act, and the institution of Election by Ballot, and the imme- 
 diate dissolution of Parliament." The effect of these changes would, he 
 thinks, be the election of a House of Commons the great majority of v/hich 
 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 independent, 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 tergiversation, that I 
 have been tempted to summarize it at some length. 
 
 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. In 1832 the idea was hopeless and 
 chimerical. The Whigs were the destined saviours of society in Bucking- 
 hamshire 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 vulgarity was employed for his especial benefit. The pretext 
 invariably was his Toryism. Two days before the nomination (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. Disraeli means his own party, the Tories . . ." When the 
 actual election came on, 10th Dec, 1832, 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 repre- 
 sentation. This the Bucks Gazette, Whig organ though it was, con- 
 sidered an ultra-Kadical theory. Mr. Treacher seconded the nomination, 
 and the candidate made a speech of a somewhat non-cominittal 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, " I will never lend myself to support those rapacious 
 
NEVER A RADICAL. 39 
 
 Whigs." The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Smith — a member of 
 a very influential \or"\l family — and Mr. Disraeli, but the polling reversed 
 tliis 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 Eadical, and as having turned his 
 coat so soon as he found Toryism likely to pay better. As a matter of 
 fact no charge could have had less foundation. That he was always a 
 Democrat 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 18G7 he "dished the Whigs" by 
 carrying household suffrage. 
 
 After his second defeat at High Wycombe, the gates of public life 
 seemed to be closed against Mr. Disraeli. With that persistency which 
 was one of his most striking characteristics, he waited and watched for an 
 opportunity. He kept up his connection 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, explaining 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 consistency of the remainder 
 of his career. 
 
 Early in 1835, High Wycombe once more afibrded 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 
 
40 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 every- 
 thing 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 Lords with the greatest diflSculty, and probably but 
 for the 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. The provisions of the Bill 
 savoured indeed rather of 1793 than of 1834. 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 civilisation. Nor were the govern- 
 ment 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 
 leadership 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, no 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 Melbourne 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. Viscount 
 Duncannon took the Home Office, vacant by the promotion of Lord 
 Melbourne ; Mr. Stanley (afterwards Lord Derby) was replaced at the 
 
LORD MEtBOlTRNE GOES OUT. 41 
 
 Colonial Office by Mr. Spring Rice ; the Duke of Richmond at the Post 
 Otfice 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 discon- 
 tented 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 answer was not long in coming. Lord Althorp went 
 to the Upper House on the 15th of October, 1834, 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. William lY. 
 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 
 vdthout surprise, therefore, that Lord Melbourne heard from the King 
 that he considered the change caused by Lord Althorp's translation 
 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 ob- 
 noxious, 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 con- 
 versation between the King and Lord Melbourne was long and anxious, but 
 before it was over the Minister had received his 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, 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 that 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. 
 
4-2 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 un- 
 successful candidate for parliamentary honours. Henceforward he was to 
 be known as one of the most brilliant orators of his time. The speech 
 wliich he delivered from the hustings he justly thought worthy of preserva- 
 tion. 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 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 regard 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 ! 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 man it would appear of any 
 decision of character among its members. Still it was a most * united ' 
 Cabinet. Lord Durham only withdrew on account of his ill-health. The 
 friends of this nobleman represent him as now ready to seize the helm of 
 the State : a few months back, it would appear, his frame was too feeble 
 to bear even the weight of the Privy Seal. Lord Durham retired on 
 account of ill-health ; he generously conceded this plea in charity to the 
 colleagues he despised. Lord Durham quitted the ' united Cabinet,' and 
 very shortly afterwards its two most able members in the House of 
 
*' THE CRISIS EXAMINED." 43 
 
 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 Keform 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 Gre}^ 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.' Dehght- 
 ful 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 
 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 
 Liston in four successive farces. Lord Melbourne, whose claim to being 
 Prime Minister of England, according to the Whigs, is that he is a gentle- 
 man, Lord Melbourne flies to the King, and informs him that a plan of 
 * Church Reform ' has been proposed in the * united Cabinet/ and that 
 Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Spring Rice, the only remaining Ministers in the 
 slightest degree entitled, I will not say to the confidence, but to the con- 
 sideration of the country, have in consequence menaced him with their 
 resignations. I doubt not, gentlemen, that this plan of * Church Reform ' 
 
 * Lord Campbell, in his " Lives of the Chancellors," vol. vii. 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 
 kingdom gave deep offence to the King, who had a strong opinion that no 
 EngUsh Judge, aud a fortiori no Lord Chancellor, could lawfully go beyond the 
 realm of England, Avithout the express personal permission of the Sovereign. 
 "It was even said," writes Lord Campbell, "that his Majesty had declared to 
 others Avith 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 
 earlier in the volume is a story which partly explains the King's indignation. 
 
44 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 was ouly some violent measure to revive the agitation of the country and 
 resuscitate the popularity of the Whigs, a measure which they never meant 
 and never desired to pass. Perhaps feeling that it was all over with them 
 it was a wretched ruse, apparently, to go out upon a popular measure. 
 However, Lord ^Melbourne, with as serious a face as he could command* 
 informed his Majesty that the remains of the * united Cabinet/ Sir John 
 Hobhouse and Lord John 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 some- 
 how 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 ! 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 regiment, compared with which FalstafiTs 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 remained. Tou remember, gentlemen, 
 the story of Sir John Cutler's silk hose. Those famous stockings remind 
 me of this famous Ministry ; for really, between Hobhouse darns and Ellice 
 botching, I hardly can decide whether the hose are silk or worsted. The 
 
 When Brougham was at Rothiemurchus, 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 children 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. MacPherson over a 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 TimeSy " that the 
 downfiiU 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 generah Thus in the " Greville Memoirs,' 
 vol. iii. p. 120, I find, '* Wynford told me that Brougham is undoubtedly mad 
 and so I really believe he is." *' My own impression that day," says Harriet 
 IMartineau (" Autobiography " vol. i. p. 132), " was that he was either drunk or 
 insane. Drunk he was not, for he had been publicly engaged in business until the 
 last moment." 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." 
 
ONCE MORE DEFEATED. 45 
 
 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 have 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 slippers. The whole town is 
 mad to see Ducrow riding at the same time upon six horses ; but now two 
 more of the steeds are seized with the 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 amphitheatre, the spangled jacket thrown 
 on one side, the cork slippers on the other. Puffing, panting, and perspir- 
 ing, he pokes one sullen brute, thwacks another, cuffs a third, and curses 
 a fourth, while one brays to the audience, and another rolls in the sawdust. 
 Behold the late Prime Minister and the Eeform 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 
 whicli he sought the suffrages of what may almost be called his native 
 borough. He shook oif 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 cheei'- 
 ing. 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 agricultural 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 practi- 
 cal measure. That impost he declared to be extremely costly in its col- 
 lection 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 
 
46 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 beer-shop. He gave vent to much the same sentiments when he went Aown 
 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 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 civilisation. Their 
 bitterest contempt had been unsparingly 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 w^as pledged. The existence of the 
 compact was notorious, but it was made in such a way that Lord Mel- 
 bourne 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, 1 cannot tell. And lastly, on what 
 terms ? I answer, I have made no terms with him whatever." 
 
 Most people will have their own opinions as to the morality of such a 
 compact, and few will dispute the right of a Tory candidate to comment 
 upon it. This Mr. Disraeli did, and in no very 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 
 
THE "LICHFIELD HOUSE COMPACT." 47 
 
 this hard language. I am. myself his admirer, so far as his talents and 
 abilities are concernecl, but I maintain him to bo a traitor — and on what 
 authority? On the authority of that very body (the Whigs) a dis- 
 tinguished 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 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 Litera- 
 . lure.' He then professed Eadical 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 
 Disraeli. Well, 1 believed the fellow on 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 Olobe, seized 
 eagerly upon it, and used it to point its arguments in favour of the settle- 
 ment 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 with regard to the old and 
 historical voters in the organs of Whiggism. They were " paupers and 
 pot-wallopers," while the 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 against this 
 line of argument, and, whilst defending their proteges, 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 
 Olohe was perhaps the most conspicuous. It was conducted with a good 
 
48 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 deal of ability, and a still larger amount of personal rancour. Its princi- 
 ples 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'ConnelFs 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 corrup- 
 tion was repeated once more, " with a circumstance," and words were 
 attributed to Mr. Disraeli which he had never uttered. Called upon by him 
 to retract and apologise, 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 misrepresentation wrote to the 
 Times in explanation, declaring the Whig organ to be " accused of false- 
 hood 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 that his answer had been sufficiently notorious. " I 
 believe," he says, " 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 Association — 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 vitupera- 
 tion. "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 disgrace to his species. What state of society must that be that 
 could tolerate such a creature, having the audacity to come forward with 
 one set of principles at one time and obtain political 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 degraded of his species and 
 kind, and England is degraded in tolerating or having upon the face of her 
 society a miscreant of his abominable, foul, and atroicous 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 
 
THE QUARREL WITH O'CONNELL 49 
 
 terms that would be descriptive of a wretch of his species. ... He has 
 falsehood enough, depravity enough, and selfishness enough to become 
 the fitting leader of the Conservatives. He is Conservatism personified. 
 His name shows that he is by descent a Jew. His father became a con- 
 vert. He is better for that in this world, 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 (sic). 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 
 miscreants 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 
 O'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, however, is a 
 parallel case to O'Connell's. Some time before, he had fought a duel, in 
 which he had been fortunate or unfortunate enough to " kill his man " — 
 a circumstance which he carefully turned to account in the future. In 
 Mrs. O'Connell'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 com- 
 munion ? " O'Connell 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 
 Redeemer." 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 con- 
 troversies. With O'Connell the effect was very different. As ho 
 advanced in life, his attacks upon his adversaries grew more virulent, 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, 
 
50 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 stung by one of O'Connell's accustomed pieces of insolence, called him " a 
 bloated buffoon." It is not necessary to defend the propriety of the 
 epithet or to plead the provocation. 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 satisfaction of a gentleman " 
 for the insult to his father. The pair met and exchanged shots twice 
 Morgan O'Connell being imfortunate 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 convenient 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 w-as 
 couched in the following terms : — " Had Mr. O'Connell, according to the 
 practice observed among gentlemen, appealed to me respecting the 
 accuracy of the reputed expressions before he indulged in offensive com- 
 ments 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 impunity upon his political 
 opponents." Morgan O'Connell had apparently had enough of fightings 
 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 insulted 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. 
 
 The letter was carried by Mr. Ffrench, who took back a note in reply 
 to the effect that the challenger had no intention of xiicking a i)ersonal 
 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 responsihle 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 mo more 
 
LETTER TO O'CONNELL. 51- 
 
 successfully express them now to you. I shall take every opportunity of 
 holding your father's name up to public contempt, and I fervently pray, 
 that you or some of his blood may attempt to avenge the 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'Connfell 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, 1825. 
 
 " Mr. O'Connell, 
 
 " Although you have placed yourself out of the pale of civili- 
 sation, still I am one who will not be insulted even by a Yahoo without 
 chastising it. When I read this morning in the same journals, your 
 virulent attack upon myself, and that your son was at the same moment 
 paying the penalty of similar virulence to another individual on whom 
 you had dropped your filth, I thought that the consciousness that your 
 opponents had at length discovered a source of satisfaction might have 
 animated your insolence to unwonted energy, and I called upon your son to 
 reassume his vicarious office of yielding satisfaction for his shrinking sire. 
 But it seems that that gentleman declines the further exercise of the 
 pleasing duty of enduring the consequences of your libertine harangues. 
 I have no other means, therefore, of noticing your effusion but this public 
 mode. Listen then to me. 
 
 "If it had been possible for you to act like a gentleman, you would 
 have hesitated before you made your foul and insolent comments upon a 
 hasty and garbled report of a speech which scarcely contains a sentence or 
 an expression as they 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, how, if the word " apostate " 
 could be used with propriety, of any living man, O'Connell was the 
 person to whom it most accurately applied. In 1831 he had anathematized 
 the Whigs " with all the peculiar graces of a tongue XDractised 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. Eeferring to O'Connell's sneers at his 
 rival's nationality, Mr. Disraeli says : — " 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 
 
 £ 2 
 
52 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF 6EAC0NSFIELD. 
 
 clamours for toleration, and it labours for supremacy. I see that you ar^ 
 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 before the Kepeal of the Union* 
 We shall meet at Philippi, and rest assured that, confident in a good 
 cause, and in some energies which have been not altogether unimproved, 
 I 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 Disraeu." 
 
 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 falsehood, 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 assures 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 political career on the hustings of Wycombe. I am prepared to 
 prove this assertion. I was absent from England during the discussions 
 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 democracy. 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 recognised a repetition 
 of the same oligarchical coups d'etat from which we had escaped by a 
 miracle little more than a century before ; therefore I determined to the 
 utmost of my power to oppose the Whigs. Why then, it may be asked, 
 did I not join the Tories ? Because I found the Tories in a state of 
 ignorant stupefaction. The Whigs had assured them that they were 
 annihilated, and they believed them. They had not a single definite or 
 intelligible idea as to their position and their duties, or the character of 
 Uieir party. They were haunted with a nervous apprehension of that 
 
O'CONNELL, THE "GLOBE," AND THE "TIMES.'* 53 
 
 great bngbear * 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 themselves on the 
 eve of a reign of terror, when they were about to sink under the sove- 
 reignty 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 
 Eeform 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 neighbourhood. 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 1833. The 
 Globe, which historically informs us that in 1832 I was to become a 
 member of Mr. O'Connell's tail, forgets that at that period Mr. O'Connell 
 had no tail, for this was previous to the first general election after the 
 Reform Act. Mr. O'Connell was not then an advocate for the dismember- 
 ment of the Empire, the destruction of the Church, and the abolition of 
 the House of Lords. His lips overflowed with patriotism, with almost 
 Protestant devotion to the Establishment, with almost English admiration 
 for the Constitution. Our contest at Wycombe was a very warm one, 
 every vote was an object. A friend of mine, interested in my success, 
 knowing that I was supported by that portion of the constituency styled 
 Radical, applied to Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hume with whom he was 
 intimately acquainted, to know whether they had any influence in 
 Wycombe, and requested them to exercise it in my favour. They had 
 none, and they expressed their regret in letters to this gentleman, who 
 forwarded them to me at Wycombe, and my committee, consisting 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 
 
54: THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 
 produce a single proof of his Eadicalism from any line of his speeches or 
 writings. He admits that at Wycombe he had supported Triennial Parlia- 
 ments 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 practical confession that he had not appreciated 
 the singular incapacity of the Whigs for power, and the skill which they 
 invariably display in " going to pieces " after they have been in office a 
 short time. " More than three years after," the letter goes on, " came mj'- 
 contest at Taunton against the Master of the Mint, to which the Editor of 
 the Qlobe has alluded. I came forward on that occasion on precisely the 
 same principles on which I had offered myself at Wycombe, but my situa- 
 tion was different. I was no longer an independent and isolated member 
 of the political world. I had felt it my duty to become an earnest partizan. 
 The Tory party had in this interval roused itself from its lethargy ; it had 
 profited by adversity ; it had regained not a little of its original character 
 and primary spirit ; it had come to remember or to discover that it was 
 the national party of the country ; it 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 profoundcst sources of political and constitutional 
 wisdom ; under the guidance of an eloquent and able leader the principles 
 of primitive Toryism had again developed themselves, and the obsolete 
 associations which form no j)ortion of that great patriotic scheme had been 
 effectually discarded." Under such circumstances Lord Beaconsfield 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 fanati- 
 cally 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 contro- 
 versy which was all on one side. Lord 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 tlie 
 god to veil his glory with a cloud, but we can only view with con- 
 temptuous lenity the mischievous varlet who pelts us with mud as we are 
 
FEESH POLITICAL EFFORT. 55 
 
 riding along, and then bides behind a dusthole/' It is true that in the 
 course of the attacks on Lord Beaconsfield, one or two little facts came out 
 not altogether confirmatory of his version of the case. They were, how- 
 ever, 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 Eadical, and who himself believing 
 in Tiiennial Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, and the Eepeal of the Taxes on 
 Knowledge, appears to have jumped to the conclusion that because Mr. 
 Disraeli supported the same things he was therefore an ardent Eadical 
 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 falsehood of the " Liberator's " statement, and the utter truthful- 
 ness of that of his opponent, are fully established in spite of the vehement 
 onslaughts of the Whig organ. 
 
 Eeverting to the Taunton election — which has been overshadowed 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 accounted for, by the lateness with which he came into 
 the field, and partly also, no doubt partly by the slanders of which he was 
 the victim. Not merely was this stale and stupid 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 war." Another 
 rumour very industriously circulated on this as on a future occasion, was 
 to the effect that he was a member of the "Westminster Eeform 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 connection with it consisted in paying his entrance fee and subscrip- 
 tion, and asking that his name might be taken off the books forthwith. 
 The ostensible plea was the multiplicity of his engagements : the real 
 reason was presumably his unwillingness 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 consoled 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 representation entirely into their own 
 hands, and saying that the Tory is the only democratic party, inasmuch as 
 
56 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 it surrounds the people with the power of the throne, and protects them 
 against a tyrannical aristocracy. 
 
 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 communication with Lord Lyndhurst, for whom he 
 always entertained a warm aifection 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, 1834, 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 poli- 
 tical principles must, however, be in abeyance, for he said that Durham 
 was doing all he could to get him by the offer of a seat and so forth ; if, 
 therefore, he is undecided and wavering between Chandos and Durham he 
 must be a mighty impartial personage. I don't think such a man will do, 
 though just such 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 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 English Consti- 
 tution, in a Letter to a Noble and Learned Lord." The noble and learned 
 lord was, of course, Lyndhurst, to whose " political courage, versatile ability, 
 and masculine eloquence," as well as to his " tenderness of disposition, 
 sweetness of temper, and ripe scholarship," Lord Beaconsfield had 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 performance — brilliant in style, full of wit, full too of some- 
 thing better than wit in the form of sound and statesmanlike insight. 
 When in the course of time a complete edition of Lord Beaconsfield'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 undeviating 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 utilitarian 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** 
 sirgues first on the ground that they have not yet succeeded in defining 
 
THE " VINDICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION." 57 
 
 what lliey mean by the principle of self-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 cannot 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 empha- 
 tically the creature of precedent, prescription, and antiquity. The barons 
 who wrested Magna Carta from an unwilling 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. 
 'J'hey lavished all their learning in proving its perfection and complete- 
 ness. They never condescended to argue ; they offered evidence. They 
 were ever ready with their abstract of title, and with very slight altera- 
 tions the language of the famous Petition of Eight itself might be 
 transformed into a humble request to a sovereign for the restoration of 
 some real estate ; some patrimony long withheld from a defrauded pos- 
 terity. In short, all our struggles for freedom smack of law." These 
 words strike the key-note ot 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 goverment is used as a primary illus- 
 tration 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, 
 however, 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 
 metropolis at a stated season of the year." He 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 with 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 
 patioijal reverence J that the vast institiitioii of the t*oor Laws alone con- 
 
58 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 nected the thoughts and feelings of the unrepresented peasants and 
 populace of England with the Parliament 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 will live, to frame a political assembly a priori iha.t 
 shall represent all, or even a majority, of the interests of a complicated 
 society.'* So with other states, the Peninsula, the two Sicilies, 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 all 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 publication the colonies of England herself, in 
 the Southern Hemisphere, have fully proved the impossibility of trans- 
 planting 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 his 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 considered 
 a "vulgar and ignoble oligarchy," and he proceeds in the succeeding pages 
 of his work to demolish its pretensions. In his view the Commons are 
 essentially an equestrian chamber — ^an historical point which is incon- 
 trovertible, 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 TV. 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 
 perceived by the aristocracy of this country caused the great convulsion 
 of 1640-GO, and brought about incidentally the Restoration, which Lord 
 Beaconsfield here very aptly and very truthfully describes as the Nation 
 taking refuge from the People. 
 
 Leaving the domain of history, the author of the " Vindication " 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 
 
HEREDITARY LEGISLATORS. 59 
 
 him entirely in the hands of the Upper House, to whose ranks he was to 
 be forbidden to make any addition whatever. That monstrous proj^osal 
 was, as he points out, rejected by the Tory House of Commons. Since 
 then, the ranks of the Upper House have been liberally strengthened by 
 the infusion of new blood, and it has in consequence retained its 'prestige 
 and influence. For the hereditary character and irresponsibility of the 
 Upper House he has a Avord of defence, and for Brougham — his persistent 
 opponent — "Disraeli the younger" has something more than a rebuke. 
 " The authorised 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 argu- 
 ment is that they are not in reality less responsible than the Commons, 
 but that the responsibility takes a different form. In the case of the 
 Lords we have an hereditary Legislature ; in that of the Commons wo 
 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 institutitions must be 
 judged by their results, and the hereditary peerage of England can well 
 stand this test. It contributes largely to the stability 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 produced not dissimilar effects. 
 As regards the question of heredity, this treatise then goes on to show 
 that the Constitution of England, unlike the manufactured constitutions 
 of other countries, is impregnated throughout 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 an 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 
 difterence between English and French Constitutionalism — which makes 
 
60 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 West- 
 minster reviewer himself." 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 an 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 Parliament — ^a harmony which even the Eeform Act of 1832, 
 factious though it was in essence, failed wholly to destroy. 
 
 The argument up to this point is then summarised 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 constitution of the other estate of the realm ; 
 that if it were as anomalous as it is regular 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 antici- 
 pated from an institution suited to the genius of the country, in harmony 
 with all its political establishments, 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 brilliancy 
 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 H. 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 might at the same time be glorious, Protestant, and pros- 
 perous," and 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 ujion 
 her deathbed to appoint the Duke of Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer, the 
 accession of the Elector of Hanover was assured. But George I. " ascended 
 the throne of England by the sufferance rather than the consent of the 
 nation." The Whig peers th^^s beQai?ie paramount, and hq,d it pot been 
 
THE NATIONAL TAUTY. 61 
 
 for the patiiotistn 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 Bill 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'etat 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 circum- 
 stance 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 aggrandisement, 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 IIL, 
 however — a far abler man in every respect than his grandfather — with the 
 help of the great democratic minister, Mr. Pitt, restored the Tory or 
 national party, " under 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 powerful, 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 oligarchical 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 Liberals, 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 Bolingbroke, to whom the author of this " Vindication 
 of the Constitution" renders a tribute of well-deserved praise. The 
 following passage is interesting, not merel}'', 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 commonplace imputa- 
 tion of insincerity and inconsistency, because in an age of unsettled parties 
 with principles contradictory of their conduct, he maintained that vigilant 
 and meditative independence which is the privilege of an original and 
 <ietermined spirit. In the earlier years of his career he meditated over 
 
62 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 the formation of a new party, that dream of youthful ambition in a 
 perplexed and discordant age, but destined in English politics to be never 
 more substantial than a vision. More experienced in political life, he 
 became aware that he had only to choose between the Whigs and the 
 Tories, and his sagacious intellect, not satisfied with the superficial 
 character of these celebrated divisions, penetrated their interior and 
 essential qualities, and discovered, in spite of all the affectation of popular 
 sympathy on one side, and of admiration of arbitrary power on the other, 
 that this choice was in fact a choice between oligarchy and democracy. 
 From the moment that Lord Bolingbroke, in becoming a Tory, embraced 
 the national cause, he devoted himself absolutely to his party : all the 
 energies of his Protean mind were lavished in their service ; and although 
 the ignoble prudence of the "Whig minister restrained him from advocating 
 the cause of the nation in the senate, it was his inspiring pen that made 
 Walpole tremble in the recesses of the Treasury, and in a series of 
 writings unequalled in our literature for their spirited patriotism, their 
 just and profound views, and the golden eloquence in which they are 
 expressed, eradicated from Toryism all those absurd and odious doctrines 
 which Toryism had 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 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 
 fii-st misrepresented as " insincere and inconsistent," and afterwards 
 maintaining a " vigilant and meditative independence," a likeness to Lord 
 Beaconsfield himself, nor will 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 author as could well have been desired. By it liord Beacons- 
 field would probably have been contented to be judged, and it will 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 demonstration of 
 the thorpughly democratic character of Toryism as understood by the- 
 writer ; with a vindication of his party from the charges of corruption,, 
 bigotry, and hostility to improvement ; and, lastly, with a general view of 
 the English Constitution, which is shown to be a pure and complete 
 democracy, differing, however, from that of France, since in England the 
 ruling principle is that every one is privileged. The equality of our 
 neighbours across the Channel is founded upon the assumption, " base,- 
 
THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. 63 
 
 terrestrial, Gallic, and grovelling," that no one shonld 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 Eoman soul, if the brilliant genius of feudal Italy, alike failed in 
 realising this great result, let us cling with increased devotion to the 
 matchless creation of our ancestors, and honour, with still 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 tlie 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 combines the durability of Rome with 
 the adventure of Carthage. It has, at the same time, secured us the most 
 skilful agriculture, the most extended commerce, the most ingenious 
 manufactures, victorious armies, and invincible fleets. Nor has the intel- 
 lectual might of England under its fostering auspices been less distinguished 
 than its imperial spirit, its manly heart, or its national energy. The 
 authors of England have formed the mind of Europe, and stamped the 
 breathing impression of their genius on the vigorous character of a nevv^ 
 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 compatibility of sectarian toleration and 
 national orthodoxy. It has made private ambition conducive to public 
 welfare, it has baffled the machinations of factions and of parties; and 
 when those more violent convulsions have arisen, from whose periodic 
 visitations no human institutions can be exempt, the English Constitution 
 has survived the moral earthquake and outlived the mental 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 adapted, and the reward to whicli he is entitled ; it 
 has summoned your lordship to preside over Courts and Parliaments, to 
 maintain law by learning, and to recommend wisdom by eloquence ; and it 
 has secured to me, in common with every subject of this realm, a right — 
 the enjoyment of which I w-ould not exchange for 
 
 * The ermined stole, 
 The starry breast and coronetted 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 genemtion later, Lord Beaconsfiekl commenced 
 
64 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 passages 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 consequently he learned very early to 
 reflect upon the strange chances by which " an oligarchy had been sub- 
 stituted 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 excellence 
 of a principle and its injurious or obsolete application. 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 govern- 
 ment. 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 establish 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 triumphantly 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 re- 
 quired regulation as much as property ; and all this rather by the use of 
 ancient forms 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, could 
 only, with all their faults and backslidings, be undertaken and accomplished 
 by a reconstructed Tory joarty." 
 
"THE RUNNYMEDE LETTERS." 65 
 
 The " Vindication of the Constitution " was not the only literary fruit 
 of this date. A few years before, Lord Beaconsfield had written to Lady 
 Blessington expressing his " horror of journalizing of all descriptions," but 
 when opportunity offered he still 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 " Eunnymede Letters " appeared 
 in the Times in 1836, and were afterwards 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 brilliant 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 all his favourite Sultana Queen 
 was sauntering." The quotation was most happy as applied to Lord 
 Melbourne, who notoriously, in the phrase of Eunnymede, "sauntered 
 away the destinies of a nation, and lounged away the glory of an empire." 
 It may be doubted, however, whether of all 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 laissez /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 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 " hetero- 
 geneous and Hudibrastic elements of that party which fate, in a freak of 
 fun, had called upon his Lordship to regulate." Eunnymede then goes on 
 to say that " we are all going into the country," and he therefore recom- 
 
 V 
 
66 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 mends the Cabinet to " take to cricket," wherein " with their peculiarly 
 patriotic temperaments and highly national feelings they might venture 
 to play against * all England.* Lord Palmerston and Lord Glenelg with 
 their talent for keeping in would assuredly secure a good score. Lord 
 John, indeed, with all his flourishing, will prohably 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 OflBce, and the agile Mr. Ellice to climb a greasy pole for the 
 Colonial portfolio, I think you will 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 content 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 Lord," says Kunnymede, " 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 established a new colony in Australia : it 
 wants settlers. Let the Cabinet emigrate ... there your Lordship may 
 hide your public discomfiture 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 irregular, 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 
 feel assured that you will subdue this unnatural and unnational monster ; 
 and that we may yet see sedition and treason and rapine, rampant as they 
 may have of late figured, quail before your power and prowess." The 
 contrast between Peel's noble resignation of office and the ignoble clinging 
 of the Whigs to place and power is very powerfully 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 aud 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 on the 
 
THE "RUNNYMEDE LETTERS.'* 67 
 
 bcnclies 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. Eescue your 
 sovereign from an unconstitutional thraldom — rescue an august senate, 
 which has already fought the battle of the people — rescue our national 
 Church, which your opponents hate — our venerable Constitution, at which 
 they scoff; but above all, rescue that mighty body of which all these 
 great classes and institutions are but some of the constituent and essential 
 parts — rescue The Nation." 
 
 lu happiness of epigram the " Runnymede Letters " are unrivalled. 
 Thus, for example, " Lord John Eussell was born with a feeble intellect 
 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 Catiline ; " 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 lord- 
 ship 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 politics, cajoling France with an airy compliment, 
 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 flat- 
 tering portrait of that curled darling of London society. It is purely a 
 love story, and is in many respects one of its author's most delightful 
 works. The splendour of the author's later career has eclipsed the reputa- 
 tion which he won in youth as a novelist, but had he written nothing else 
 than this novel he would have won for himself an imperishable reputation. 
 
 It was followed after no long time by another novel. Lord Beacons- 
 field's literary activity at this period, and for some time to come, was in- 
 deed something astonishing. Not contented with the role of an active 
 politician, he was an exceptionally industrious writer. Novel after novel 
 poured from his pen, and though the critics of the day sometimes com- 
 plained of the rapidity of his production, it is worthy of remark that, for 
 all his work, there is still an intelligent reading public. In the novel 
 which followed " Henrietta Temple," Lord Beaconsfield broke new. 
 ground. " Venetia" was published in 1837, and was dedicated to Lord 
 
 F 2 
 
G§ THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIEta 
 
 Lyndhurst. In the preface the author says that it had heen his intention 
 whilst inscribing it with Lyndhurst's name, " to have entered into some 
 details 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 renowned and refined spirits that have 
 adorned these our latter days." That intention Lord Beaconsfield, never 
 very communicative respecting himself or his intentions, early abandoned, 
 leaving the work to stand or fall by its own merits. It has maintained 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 " Eecollections of Lord Byron," a very curious criticism on this 
 book. The Countess has obviously read it, but she fails to see the like- 
 ness between the " Mr. Herbert " of the novel and the jjoet Shelley. " He 
 (the author) has given Byron two individualities. Lord Cadurcis repre- 
 sents 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 philo- 
 sophy, however, it may be doubted whether the notion ever really entered 
 Lord Beaconsfield's head — it certainly never entered the heads of his 
 critics. 
 
 Peel's tenure of office had not been prolonged, and when on the 20th of 
 June, 1837, William IV., in the words of his chaplain, "exchanged an 
 earthlj'- for a heavenly crown," Melbourne was once more in office, though 
 assuredly not in power. His government was about as weak as an 
 administration could be, and it was kept together rather by reason of the 
 prehensile 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, how- 
 ever, 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. Eobarts 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 w^ere hardly disposed again to 
 bestow upon a Whig the power of nullifying his vote iu the House. A 
 
THE MAIDSTONE ELECTION. G9 
 
 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 
 Constitution 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 outlines of his address. He was entertained at dinner^, and after 
 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 Eates, 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 laissez /aire 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 harshness. Complaints were 
 universal, not merely from the poor, who were the principal sufferers, but 
 from magistrates, 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 Beacons- 
 field 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 were, in fact, if 
 not in name, the property of the poor, and if they were alienated for the 
 aggrandisement of the " great families," the duty of maintaining the poor 
 fell upon those families. How this view was afterwards enforced in his 
 literary work, and how it influenced his political action, will 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'Connell 
 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 
 circumstances of the contest of 1832, " when there was not a Conservative 
 gentleman in the neighbourhood but was my supporter, not a clergymnu 
 
70 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 but wished me success, not a farmer of respectability but was found in my 
 j)rocession." 
 
 The election was carried on with great enthusiasm, and the 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 practised on a very large 
 scale, the Liberal employers of labour putting stringent pressure on their 
 workpeople 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 popular feeling was too strong, however, and the event 
 proved that Mr. Eobarts, 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 Thompson 
 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 inflaence as editor of the Westminster 
 lieview would have insured him a respectful hearing in the House when- 
 ever he chose to speak. But the country was weary of Whig domina- 
 .tion and Whig mismanagement, disgusted with the incompetence of the 
 Melbourne 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 considei'- 
 able 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. 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 
 MEMBER FOB 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 plan 
 — 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 — Retirement 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 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 Owen — Mr. Disraeli speaks 
 on the Address — Peel 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 Char- 
 tists 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 to stand for 
 Wycombe — Elected for Shrewsbury. 
 
 " We shall meet at Philip pi," 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 commission in the usual way. Mr. Abercromby was 
 re-elected Speaker, and on the 20th the Queen made the accustomed 
 declaration, and delivered the usual speech. Debates on the Address fol- 
 lowed, but no opportunity was afforded for an encounter with O'Connell 
 until the 7th 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 contributed some- 
 what largely. Smith O'Brien was naturally extremely indignant, and 
 presented a petition of his own on the subject. After a somewhat 
 
72 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 excited speech, he moved "that a Select Committee be appointed to 
 inquire into the allegations 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. Bulwcr 
 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 sub- 
 scription on the ground that Smith O'Brien was " as much a representa- 
 tive of the people of England as of the electors of Limerick," — a plain con- 
 stitutional doctrine which it would seem to be impossible to induce the 
 Irish mind to appreciate. Then followed O'Connell, who, having soldered 
 up his feud with the Whigs, turned his kindly attention 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 lies which have clustered around the reputation of the late 
 Premier, none is more commonly accepted than the statement that his maiden 
 speech was 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, cat- 
 calls, 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 4isorderly 
 Irishmen chose to behave in a more unmannerly fashion than a " Boxin«' 
 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 holding 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 speech, too, is full of points. The first part was a protest 
 against the terrorism exercised by the Eoman Catholic clergy, and a vindi- 
 cation 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 ques- 
 tion more immediately at issue, Mr. Pisraeli pointed out that this much 
 
AN IRISH DEBATE. 73 
 
 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 notorious was asked for only for 
 the sake of whitewashing certain particularly disreputable transactions. 
 In the close of his speech, after a little banter about " the noble 
 Tityrus of the Treasury Bench, and the learned Daphne of Liskeard;" 
 and after an allusion to the supposed affection of the Whigs for 
 the Eoman Catholics, which was received with tremendous clamour, Mr. 
 Disraeli wound up in these words : — " Now, Mr. Speaker, we see the 
 philosophical prejudices of man. [Laughter and cheers.] I respect 
 cheers, even when they come from the mouth of a political opponent. 
 [Renewed laughter.] I think. Sir, [Hear ! Hear ! and repeated cries of 
 Question !] 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." Hansard 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 Chronicle gives the additional information that " the hon. 
 member resumed his seat amidst cheers from the Opposition, and much 
 laughter from the Ministerial benches,"— a sj)iteful commentary which it 
 is not difficult to understand when the strength of the Irish clement in the 
 gallery of the House of Commons is considered. 
 
 Temper has been said to be the half of religion : it is assuredly consider- 
 ably more than the half of statesmanship, and Lord Beaconsfield's temper 
 had 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 Beacon- 
 field, 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 still. 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 remem- 
 bered 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«t^ 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 special 
 amount of courtesy and consideration, thus aflbrding the means of settling 
 
74 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 pretty accurately the claims of the Irish Brigade to the character of gentle- 
 men. 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 copyright. 
 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 considered 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 booksellers. 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. ViUiers made his annual motion 
 on the Corn Laws on the 15th of March. His speech was very short, and 
 was directed mainly to enforcing the point that there was no proof what- 
 ever 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 Bill 
 (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." Thus ended the 
 first session of the first parliament 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 abihty of the much abused 
 Tories. 
 
 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 desirable that during Lent no greater restric- 
 tions should be placed upon theatrical entertainments in the city of West- 
 minster 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 public of their amuse- 
 ments on those days. Lord Eussell followed with one of those acrid, 
 forcible-feeble orations with which his name is indissolubly associated, and 
 
IRISH MUNICIPAL COEPORATIONS. 75 
 
 Mr. Disraeli made a short, but very liberal and sensible, speech in support 
 of Mr. Buncombe. The result was sufficiently satisfactorily. The resolu- 
 tion Avas carried by a majority of twenty, and thus a death-blow was given 
 to that piece of medieval religionism, which doomed so many meritorious 
 and hardworking people to fast against their will. On the 8th of March 
 Mr. Disraeli spoke again — very shortly but much to the j)urpose — on the 
 Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. This was another of the attempts of 
 the Whigs to secure a long tenure of ascendency 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-wallopers," had 
 thrown 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 govern- 
 ment but centralization, and he argued that under a system so managed 
 the real rights and liberties of Ireland — ^her true measure of civil 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 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 taxation 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 representation (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 Eeform 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 unquestionably characteristic and consistent. It probably helped 
 Mr. Hume ; but the country was not prepared for another settlement of 
 
76 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Constitution, 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 
 20tli of June, when he spoke on the Education question, in protest against 
 the excessive interference of the 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 desirabilty of the individual subject 
 being strong and the Government weak. He would have the Government 
 encourage private effort in every possible way, but he objected to the 
 State taking the place and assuming the functions of the parent. For 
 paternal government 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 immediate 
 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 provided 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 worthily. It was a great 
 effort and a brilliant 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 wing, and thoroughly fit 
 for the great position he was so soon to assume. 
 
 The time was rapidly approaching when the young member for Maid- 
 stone 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, had always 
 been marked and earnest. And at this time the country was in sore 
 need of a statesman with a heart as well as with brains, for discontent was 
 rife in every quarter ; the spirit of rank rebellion was abroad, and the 
 Government under the faineant 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 well 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 revol'i- 
 
The new poor law. 77 
 
 tionary 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 dis- 
 content and rioting, but that it did not produce a sanguinary revolution. 
 Until the philosophical Liberals came to the front in political matters, the 
 assumption 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 objection- 
 able. The poor were not very well or very wisely taught, and they were 
 apt to rely more than was desirable on the help of the races. Some 
 fell into idle habits ; many expected pay from the parish for performing 
 he commonest offices of filial duty ; frequently the rates were adminis- 
 tered with reckless profusion, and some gross cases of abuse were know 
 to have occurred. Still the fact remains that the system was a kindly 
 one, that the relations 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 philosophical school. 
 The disciples of those Liberals who had applauded the French devolution 
 even in its excesses, and who fancied that a brand-new paper constitution 
 was more valuable than the ancient constitution which had grown 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 per- 
 formance 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 Brougham, has been good enough to vouch. What Mr. 
 Malthus's view of the subject was may be guessed from the following sen« 
 tences. 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 
 
78 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 subsistence 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 bitsiness 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 stigmatise these views very harshly — probably 
 it will suffice to quote them. They have an interest, however, inasmuch 
 as they were notoriously the views which animated the Whigs when they 
 proposed the famous commission of inquiry into the working of the Poor 
 Law system, and sent deputy commissioners all over the country in search 
 of evidence against it. Before long the Eeport appeared with the signa- 
 tures of the Bishop of London (Blomfield), the Bishop of Chester (Sumner), 
 Sturges Bourne, Nassau Senior, Henry Bishop, Henry Cawlor, W. Coulson, 
 James Traill, and Edwin Chadwick. The Keport did not give unqualified 
 satisfaction. Richard Oastler — one of the idols of the w^orking 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 ! 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 charac- 
 terised 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 pre- 
 mises. 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 
 enormity of the rates. The Commissioners made much of it in their 
 Report, and every 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 a very difierent 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 containe.1 101 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, 
 
THE NEW POOR LAW. 79 
 
 and before the New Poor Law was passed, Cholesbiiry 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 complete idleness, that they were wont to draw their boats up in the 
 autumn and to refuse to work until the summer had begun again. Unfor- 
 tunately 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 land. Three AVhigs of unimpeachable character and ardent 
 prepossessions — Messrs, Frankland Lewis, J. Gr. Shaw-Lefevre, and George 
 Nicholls — 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 hap- 
 pened. The poor had been robbed of their birthright by an Act of Par- 
 liament. The duty of " keeping down the rates " was considered the first 
 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 ; any attempt at com- 
 munication was punished as an offence against discipline ; children were 
 taken from their parents ; the daily routine was one of hard, cold, unre- 
 mitting toil ; its reward the scantiest and poorest food, and imprisonment 
 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 " Oliver Twist," 
 the Quarterly Review (June, 1839) actually wrote thus : — " The besetting 
 sin of white-waiscoated guardians is profusion, not parsimony, and this 
 always must be the case where persons have to be charitable out of funds 
 
80 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OB* BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to which individually they are small contributors. After all, the proof 
 of the pudding is in the eatinc^ ; 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." 
 
 •In these years the spirit of discontent was reaching dangerous and even 
 frightful proportions all over the country. The advocates of the Ecform 
 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 
 ix)wer, the New Poor Law. They had promised that when rates were 
 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 Qs. or 7s. a-week, but in every parish 
 the farmers met and agreed upon a scale of relief which was practically a 
 rough adjustment 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. 6d. a-week for the wife, and Is. or Is. Gd. for each child 
 unable to earn its own living. The system was rude and unscientific it 
 may be, but at the least it saved the peasantry from the dreadful alterna- 
 tives of the hated workhouse or starvation without its walls. AVhen the 
 new law came into operation, it was found not to give unmingled satisfac- 
 tion, for the simple reason that though rates were lower, rents were higher, 
 and wages were consequently incieascd to only a trivial extent. The 
 peasant had had Qs. a-week with the rates to help him ; he now had 7s. 
 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 " — 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 : — " 1 wish the people were as well off in 
 every part of the country as they are on my estate. They get here their 
 eight shillings a-week, always at least seven, and every hand is at this 
 moment in emi)loy, 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 wnges is nothing: cerlainty 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 
 
GROWTH OF AGRARIAN CRIME. 81 
 
 miicli complacency as Lord Mariiey, or even as the philosopliical gentle- 
 man 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 1830-1, when the Whigs 
 openly encouraged insurrection for political ends, and agrarian criiilo 
 speedily assumed alarming proportions. Kick 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 suflerings, 
 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 intoxi- 
 cated on the stage at Liverpool one night, he came down to the footlights 
 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 exaggeration 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 York- 
 shire and Lancashire, was simply horrifying. Atrocities as grievous as 
 any ever perpetrated on an American cotton plantation were matlers 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 abilities, 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 detestable intrigue, the Bed- 
 chamber Plot. Peel was, however, not wholly without blame in the 
 matter. He had an opportunity, as Lord Beaconsfield has sagaciously 
 pointed out, of re-asserting that Eoyal 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 decision 
 of character as would have been afforded had Sir Eobert bowed gracefully 
 to the Eoyal 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, "fhould have vindicated his natural position and availed 
 
 a 
 
82 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 himself of the great occasion ; he missed it ; and as the occasion was inevi- 
 table 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, retain- 
 ing po^ver 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 unworthily 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. Mean- 
 while 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 espscially from those in the Black 
 Country and the manufacturing districls. 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 Con- 
 vention removed its head-quarters to Birmingham. The chief attention of 
 the leaders was given to the preparation of the so-called " national petition," 
 a document demanding the redress 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 Avc;e fictitious or duplicates. It was, in any case, how- 
 ever, a striking document, and deserved more attention than it received. 
 Mr. Attwood — the Radical member for Birmingham and the " Kino- Xom " 
 
THE CHARTIST PETITION. 83 
 
 of Cobbett's Register — presented it, and succeeded in obtaining the 12tli of 
 July for its consideration. On that night he opened the debate in a speech 
 of great moderation and excellent taste. He protested his unwillingness to 
 do anything that did not become a patriot and a man of honour. He com- 
 plained that in the Eeform Act the representations of " the people " had 
 been slighted. Still he thought there must be some virtue left in the 
 House of Commons, which had passed the Eeform 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 Bill — the ingenious appendix to the Beform 
 Act tacked on by the Whigs for the sake of securing ascendency in the 
 boroughs — had bitterly disappointed the orator, but he preferred to say 
 nothing more about it. But he had hoped that after the Eeform 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. Unhappily 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 petitioned. The petition he presented bore 1,200,000 sig- 
 natures. There might be the signatures of a few women, but there were 
 those of at least a million of men, the elite of the working classes. These 
 men, in the presence of a stagnation of trade, which was daily making life 
 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 Universal 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 re- 
 markable and instructive — and they wished for the payment of members 
 so that men of their own order might fgo 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 con- 
 dition 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 
 denaands. Lord John Russell made on their behalf an angry— almost 
 
 o 2 
 
84 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 signatories 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 100,000 men should come from Birmingham 
 to London to " demand Eeform." Then Eeform was the Whig nostrum, 
 and the emissaries of the party expounded all over the country the won- 
 derful benefits which would inevitably follow the reduction of the franchise, 
 and the transfer of political ascendency from the freemen and " pot- 
 wallopers," to the frugal and industrious £10 householder. So again with, 
 the Municipal Corporations 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 Eussell 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 num- 
 bered 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 economical 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 responsibili- 
 ties went hand in hand, under the new order of things a great portion 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. Especially 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 
 Corn Laws. So far from that being the case the wh«>le tenor of the 
 
 ♦ The orator in question was undoubtedly Lord John Russell, who on the trial 
 of W. Smith O'Brien, in 1848, was subpoenaed and, but for a legal quibble, would 
 have been examined as to whether he had not in 1831-32 secretly devised and 
 arranged a popular resort to arms. — Vide Sullivan's "New Ireland" (6th ed.) 
 pp. 100-10^ / 
 
THE WRONGS 01* THE PEOPLE. 85 
 
 spceclies of the so-called National Convention was hostile to those middlo 
 classes upon which the government placed most reliance and who were 
 leading the attack on the landed 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, wlmtever 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 debate languished. The government treated the petition 
 with great nonchalance, and the non-official Whigs followed the lead of the 
 Administration. The division was taken at as early a period as possible, 
 the result being the prompt and immediate rejection of Mr. Attwood's 
 motion for taking the complaints of the petitioners into consideration. 
 
 The result of the debate was a bitter disappointment to the workingclasses. 
 They had hardly hoped, indeed, that the 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 nought, 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 infinitely 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 under such cir- 
 cumstances the party which from the first had advocated an appeal to 
 physical force triumphed over their more cautious and more moderate 
 colleagues ? 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 weaiaons of the discontented. Demonstia- 
 
86 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 tions were held in all parts of the country, and the military and police 
 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 Bed- 
 chamber plot — and to place the King of Hanover (George, Duke of Cum- 
 berland) 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 
 massacred 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 King. 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 magistracy, a magistracy elected not under the Great Seal, but 
 by the Home Secretary." Five days later there was a riot almost as 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 the assembled 
 Chartists was for blood. Banners were exhibited with such mottoes as 
 "Tyrants, believe and tremble;" "Liberty or death;" "Ashton 
 demands universal suffrage or universal vengeance;" " fob 
 CHILDREN AND WIFE, we'll WAR TO THE KNIFE." The crowuing 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 foundation, 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 Chartist ** National Convention," shrank to the 
 
LORD MELBOURNE HISSED. 87 
 
 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 seditious conspiracy. This fact did not, however, check the 
 movement in the smallest 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 poorest classes against those 
 whom they deemed their immediate oppressors. Now the rebellion was 
 distinctly political 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 imprvacticable proposals must fade, and now the upper section of 
 the working class came in. On the 4th of November, Newport in 
 Monmouthshire was the scene of a terrible riot. Matters had been 
 organised beforehand by the leaders with the skill of experienced 
 generals. A vast mass of men marched in from the hills in orderly 
 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 organiser of the out- 
 break, 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. Others who were known to have 
 taken part in 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 tech- 
 
88 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 nical 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 especially unsatisfactory in its references to the 
 condition of the people. Lord John Eussell had announced, as we have 
 seen, that the country was " on the verge of civil war," but the only notice 
 of the matter was in the last paragraph, which congratulated Parliament 
 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 relied 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 all. No 
 inquiry into the allegations of those who complained was promised ; no 
 redress of admitted grievances, seems to have been thought of ; laissezm 
 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 personally 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 admitted that he had been indiscreet. 
 It is impossible to apply so mild a term to some other acts of his Govern- 
 ment. 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 posi- 
 tion greater moderation in pohtics might be expected from them — an 
 anticipation which was, it is hardly necesssary to say, never fulfilled. The 
 most flagrant case of all was, however, an appointment which was made at 
 Birmingham. The Dissenters Marriage Act rendered the appointment of 
 a chief registrar necessary, and with a perversity which it is almost 
 impossible to understand, the Government chose to confer that ofiice on a 
 person who was notoriously a Chartist and a Socialist of the most pro- 
 nounced type. 
 
 No long time elapsed before the Government was put upon its trial. On 
 the 28th of January, 1840, Colonel Ward Buller moved a vote of want of con- 
 fidence, which was not indeed carried, but which contributed materially to 
 shake the position of the administration. Mr. Disraeli spoke on the first night, 
 very characteristically. " He was not afraid or ashamed to say that he wished 
 more sympathy had been shown on both sides towards the Chartists (Minis- 
 terial cheers). He would repeat, notwithstanding the cheers of the gentlemen 
 
SYMPATHY WITH THE CHARTISTS. 89 
 
 opposite, that he was not ashamed to say that he sympathised with millions of 
 his fellow subjects, and if those who advocated Liberal principles, the leaders 
 of the Reform administration, did not agree with that sentiment, he was per- 
 fectly 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 
 inflammatory speeches of " the incendiary Oastler," the well-known oppo- 
 nent 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 not a " knife and fork question," for the insurrection had 
 broken out in a district where labour was well 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 Department ? The noble Lord would indeed tell us 
 that the insurrection was in a moment quelled ; he would dilate 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 Govern- 
 ment itself, Mr. Disraeli denounced its culpable weakness in forcible terms. 
 Partizans of the administration had claimed for it that it was the Govern- 
 ment 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 traversed. Strong measures are the sign of a government 
 which does not enjoy the confidence of the people. It is only a weak 
 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 administration, 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 
 
90 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 Government, 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 
 Eeform Bill and Municipal Corporations Bill ; he declared that by what 
 they had then done they had sown the seed of all 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 countenance 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 Socialists, as evidenced by the 
 presentation 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 
 Eussell replied in his accustomed 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, 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 27tli Mr. Liddell brought forward a distinct vote of censure on the 
 rather scandalous job by which Mr. Spring-Eice 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 
 
LOVETT AND COLLINS. 91 
 
 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 tool of the Duke of Wellington and 
 the party with which he acted. 
 
 During the latter part of the session Mr. Disraeli spoke but seldom, 
 though always to the purpose, and always in the interests of those who 
 had suffered most severely from the tender mercies of the Whig Govern- 
 ment. When, in July, Lord John Kussell hurriedly brought in a bill for 
 the establishment of district and county constabulary, Mr. Disraeli 
 opposed it in a brief but pungent speech, accusing the noble Lord of 
 " leying 5000 troops against his former allies," and of practically entering 
 upon a civil war without explaining in any way the necessity for what 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 years, and afterwards protested, in 
 the interest of the poor, against the extraordinary and inquisitorial powders 
 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 sami cottages in the day-time to see if mutton were boiling on the fire, 
 if it happened that a 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 spolcen 
 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 approving himself the 
 friend of the oppressed by a speech which he made on the cases of Lovett 
 and Collins. Under the Whig administration 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 
 
92 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 respect to the Birmingham riots. One had written and the other had 
 carried to the printer the MS. of a Radical article, rather strong it is true, 
 but no whit stronger than may be read every Sunday in these days. Mr. 
 Buncombe brought their case before the Hoase 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 Parliament 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 Bir- 
 mingham people had been attacked in an unconstitutional way by a force 
 from London — which was quite true ; that the people of Birmingham had 
 a right to meet in the Bull Ring if they chose — which is equally undeni- 
 able ; and that the arbitrary arrest of one of the Chartists without warrant 
 br 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 bad 
 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 convicted of passing bad money." Other persons 
 were in equally evil case, and when Mr. Buncombe presented these 
 memorials he adverted in stringent terms to the cases which had been 
 brought before the House from persons confined at Fisherton Gaol, llchester 
 Gaol, Wakefield Gaol, York Castle, and Oakham Prison. Mr. Wakley 
 seconded Mr. Buncombe's motion, and Mr. Bisraeli, in a speech of remark- 
 able power, supported the resolution. He urged that there had obviously 
 been a change in the punishment for political ofi'ences. 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 punishment,. Now 
 it was thought necessary to deal with political off'enders in a way in- 
 finitely less tolerant than that adopted by the Star Chamber itself. If all 
 ofi^enders were treated alike, the feeling of those who objected to the 
 policy of the Government 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 en- 
 gaged in it ? " — a home-thrust at the monstrous alliance between the Whigs 
 and O'Connell, which could hardly fail of effect. Finally he begged the 
 Opposition not to refuse to support Mr. Bimcombe'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 peojile, for the 
 aristocracy and the labouring population formed the nation, and it was 
 only when gross misconception and factious misrepresentation prevailed 
 
SEDITION, PRIVY CONSPIRACY, AND REBELLION. 93 
 
 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. Naturally 
 enough the sympathies of the great mass of the people were with the un- 
 fortunate Chartists, and the Government grew daily more unpopular. 
 Strong in the possession of a Parliamentary majority, however, it retained 
 its hold upon office, and defied popular feeling with impanity. Meanwhile, 
 the agitation out of doors attained very grave proportions. The Kadical 
 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. 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 
 liaw 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 Parliament poured in all through the Spring of this year, until by the 
 ]5th of June, as many as 3918 had been presented, with 1,144,830 sig- 
 natures. The other side had not been idle, but the 1758 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 9997 
 signatures ; one from Newport, with 5300 signatures, and 37 others from 
 different places with 48,884 signatures ; making in all 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 w^ere 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 evening, he announced his intention to propose a fixed 
 duty upon wheat of 8s. per quarter ; upon rye, 5s. per quarter ; upon barley, 
 4s. Qd. per quarter ; and upon oats, 3s. M. 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 move a vote of want 
 of confidence in the Ministry, and on the 27th the debate began. It was a 
 yery animated one, and lasted until the 4th of June. Peel's indictment of 
 
94 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 i\iG 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 oftice as on his behaviour in 
 it. He especially commended his avoidance of factiousness, and his in- 
 difference to the sweets of power. Turning to the Government, he com- 
 bated 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 Upi^er 
 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 rapa- 
 cious oligarchy," consistent only in systematically slighting Parliamentary 
 institutions. He reproached 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 Commons, 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 and the poor ; and now in their last moments, at one fell swoop, 
 made war upon the colonial, the commercial, and the agricultural 
 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 Kussell 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 statement 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 miglit possibly 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 stopping 
 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 pro- 
 rogued by the Queen in person, and dissdved by proj amation on the 
 following day. 
 
 With this Parliament Mr. Disraeli's conneclioii with the borough of 
 Maidstone came to an end. There was no unfriendly feeling on either 
 
MR. AUSTIN'S PRIVILEGED LIBEL 95 
 
 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 connection with the borough. "When he was first elected in con- 
 junction 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. Disraeli 
 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." Naturally enough Mr. Disraeli construed this as imputing to 
 him the double infamy of promising bribes and of failing to carry 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 substantiation 
 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 privilege 
 of circulating falsehoods with impunity is delicately described as doing 
 your duty towards your client ; which appears to be a very different pro- 
 cess from doing your duty towards your neighbour. This may be the 
 usage of Mr. Austin's profession and it may be the custom of society 
 to submit to it in practice ; but for my part it appears to be nothing better 
 than a disgusting and intolerable tyranny, and I for one shall not bow to 
 it in silence. 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 hireling, 
 availing 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 was not the only person who could complain of the 
 license of counsel, but he was probably the only one who had 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 impunity. The matter was, however, 
 
9ti THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 speedily cleared up. Mr. Austin proceeded by way of criminal informa- 
 tion ; his opponent allowed judgment to go '^^ 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 
 him 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 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 com- 
 munity, 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 them slaves to the em- 
 ployers of labour. The rich saw their rights and privileges recklessly 
 invaded, and political power torn from the grasp of those Avho 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 appre- 
 ciate 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 millions and three-quarters, but under the ten years of Whig 
 ascendency — 1831-1840 — it had increased by five millions ; whilst the 
 expenditure had increased 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 election was 
 over in time to allow Parliament to be opened at the close of August, and 
 it was then seen that the doom of the Whigs was sealed. Mr. Disraeli 
 had received a requisition from Wycombe, but declined 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 vilified in the columns of the Whig press in a way which in 
 these days would be thought something more than scandalous. His 
 
MEMBER FOR SHREWSBURY. 
 
 97 
 
 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 
 everybody 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 contra- 
 dicted. The efforts of his opponents were, however, wholly vain. Mr. 
 Disraeli professed 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 abolition 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 the tyranny of the manufacturing class even in Shrewsbury, who 
 although they would let the Liberal candidates canvass their hands, abso- 
 lutely 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 ; Parry, 604 ; and Temple, 
 579. There was the usual chairing, congratulatory banquet, and so forth ; 
 and when all was over, Mr. Disraeli returned to London "Member for 
 Shrewsbury." 
 
98 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MEMBEE FOR SHREWSBURY — ^PROTECTIONISM, 
 
 The Conservative Majority — Lord 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 — 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 foi- — Fails to form a government — Peel returns 
 to office 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 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 
 — ^^ 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 Athenteum. 
 
 "When Mr. Disraeli entered Parliament as member for Shrewsbury he 
 foimd the Conservative party with a splendid majority. The general 
 election had returned 368 Tories as 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 only were declared void. On the whole, 
 then, Peel saw a fair prospect before him with the opening of Parliament. 
 Q'he Whigs, however, died hard. Parliament was opened by Commission 
 on the 24:th 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 wa§ 
 
THE NATIONAL DISTRESS. 99 
 
 wasted over tlie 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 interest in Parliament, it is 
 true, and as late as 1848 voted for the Whigs, but his influence departed 
 with his resignation of office, and from this moment he practically 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 Eobert 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 Wharnclifife, Presi- 
 dent of the Council ; Sir James Grraham went to the Home Office ; Lord 
 Aberdeen took the Foreign Office ; Mr. Gladstone, then a Tory, the 
 Board of Trade ; while the Duke of Wellington consented to accept the 
 leadership in the Upper House without a portfolio. 
 
 When the Government had fairly settled itself into harness, Parliament 
 was prorogued, and an interval of comparative quite succeeded. The calm 
 was, however, of but very short duration. Ten years of unbroken AVhig 
 ascendency 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 agiicultural 
 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 incen- 
 diarism made itself felt. All through Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire, 
 Warwick and Yorkshire the firebrand was carried. Night alter night 
 farmers lay down to sleep uneasily, conscious that before morning dawned 
 there was something more than a chance that their outlying 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, 
 
 H 2 
 
100 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 pro- 
 duced nothing. There was a fancy 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 2Gtli of 
 May there was a ball at Willis's Rooms " for the benefit of the SpitalfielJs 
 Weavers," and on the 30th of the month poor Francis made a despairing 
 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 history of the country is but one long 
 record of agitation, rioting, and discontent. The Ministry made a noble 
 effort to meet the difiSculties of the case, and on the 24th of June a Royal 
 Proclamation formall}'' authorised 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 organisations of all 
 kinds, the dangerous character of which it was impossible to ignore. 
 
 Parliament made some feeble efforts to cope with the national distress 
 but did not succeed in doing much. On the 1st of July, 1842, 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 
 people were willing to work, hundreds of thousands of them were con- 
 demned to idleness. He concluded with a string of resolutions, the gist of 
 which was to lay the blame of the existing state of things mainly upon 
 Peel's financial policy, which had interfered with the tariff, had imposed an 
 income tax, and had crippled industry. Sir John (then Dr.) Bowring fol- 
 lowed with a full admission of the popular distress, and a vehement ad- 
 vocacy of the repeal of the Corn Laws, which, as he argued, could not 
 co-exist with the new Poor Law. On behalf of the Government, Sir James 
 Graham expressed his hope that the modifications 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 
 
WHia COMMERCIAL POLICV. 101 
 
 (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 argued 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 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 dis- 
 turbance 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 ascendency — a policy, 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 some- 
 what 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 
 commerce 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 military achievements. The demand for British goods from 
 Persia, Tartary, and the countries beyond the Indus has entirely ceased. 
 So great is the depreciation of British goods in the Indian markets, that 
 Manchester manufactures may be purchased 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 
 depression of our trade." 
 
 The chord thus struck vibrated again a few months later. On the 13 ih 
 of February, 1843, Viscount Howick (the late 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 
 
102 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 extra- 
 ordinary 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 an- 
 nounced to 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 heard 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 misrepresenta- 
 tions 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 exercise the right of search. 
 These difficulties ought not, however, to have prevented this country from 
 being represented on such occasions as the attainment of his majority by 
 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 En voy, 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 unauthorised. In 
 the advance of arts throughout Europe he saw only a presage of the increase 
 of our trade. The population of France and of Central Europe was increasing 
 most rapidly, and in _^that increase he saw the continued elements of 
 
THE STATE OF IRELAND. 103 
 
 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 Commons. 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 jjarty 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 intercourse — had been the watch- 
 word of the Tory party, and had only given way to the cry for the Reform 
 Bill. The only step now to be taken was to give a trial to the financial 
 measures of the Government, which were based upon the principle of a 
 fair protection to native industry— a principle by no means incompatible 
 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 preponderance to the landed interest, believing it to be essential 
 to the welfare of the country and to the stability of our institutions. 
 
 All difiiculties 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 Eepeal of the Union, and 
 was extorting vast sums froni 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 beheved in O'Connell and his 
 nostrum. Lord Ffrench attended a Repeal meeting, and was forthwith 
 removed from the Commission of the Peace — a step which greatly strength- 
 ened the hands of O'Connell and his allies. A few days later a monster 
 
104 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL 0^ BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Kepeal 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 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'Connell exhorted his followers to peace, 
 and deprecated the employment of any but moral force. It was, however, 
 beyond all question that the general drift of his arguments was in the 
 direction of a moral force similar 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 Bill to prevent 
 Irishmen from carrying or possessing arms of any kind without a special 
 license 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 protracted 
 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 Kollin 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 ascendency, 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 
 bombastical and incendiary orations to an assemblage which was computed 
 by Somerville — " One who has whistled at the plough " — to number 
 1,200,000 persons. On the 1st of October another and a similar demon- 
 stration was held at the Rath of Mullaghmast, and it was intended to 
 repeat the performance within a week at Clontarf. The Government, how- 
 ever, 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 true bill 
 was found against him by the Grand Jury. His trial was, however, post- 
 poned, 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 contribnting, and on the 19th Nov. 
 £3490 was gathered in this way. On the 15th of January, 1844, O'Connell, 
 with eight companions, was brought to trial for conspiracy and misde- 
 meanour. 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 ascendency could havo 
 
THE TRIAL OF 0*C0NNELL. 
 
 desired. At the outset the blundering of the officials afforded an excellciig ^ 
 excuse for hostile critics of the Government to declare that the jury- 
 packed. In the course of the trial the Attorney-General for Ireland (] 
 Blackburn) chose to consider some expressions used by Mr. Fitzgibboi 
 who defended Dr. Graj^-, as a personal matter, and to send a challenge in^ 
 consequence. O'Connell defended himself, and on the 25th 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 
 on the 24th of May. The decision of the Court below was confirmed on 
 all points, and a sentence of considerable severity was pronounced upon 
 O'Connell on the 29th. He was to be imprisoned for a year, to pay a fine 
 of £2000 to the Crown, and to enter into recognisances in the sum of 
 £5000 to be of good behaviour for seven years. The trial was in itself a 
 mistake, and the sentence almost a crime. O'Connell 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 case 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 submitted 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 con- 
 fined 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 reversed. On a 
 division the Government were defeated, and, in the end, O'Connell and his 
 fellows were liberated — a result which afforded Mr. Buncombe an oppor- 
 tunity 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 families. The competition for land 
 was extravagant, and rents were in consequence enormous. Irish landlords 
 
106 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 con- 
 dition. 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 ordinary kind to contend with, but 
 the distress in Ireland was intensified by the indolence and carelessness of 
 the peasantry. In the spring of this year the potato disease first made its 
 appearance, and the staple food of the Irish people was thus destroyed 
 almost at a stroke. 
 
 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 governing them, as he says in the preface to his col- 
 lected 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 gen- 
 tlemen of England, those who were the descendants of the Cavaliers, 
 should in fact always be advocates for governing Ireland on the principles 
 of the Eoundheads," and he went on to denounce in burning words the dis- 
 sensions 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 intro- 
 duce 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 despair 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 which would 
 be advantageous both to England and to Ireland, and which would put an 
 end to a state of things that was the bane of England and the oppro- 
 brium of Europe." 
 
 The Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session of 1844 
 was mainly devoted to Ireland, and on the 13th of February (Parliament 
 having been opened on the 1st) Lord John Eussell moved that the House 
 should resolve itself into a Committee to take the condition of that coun- 
 try 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 
 
IRISH DISCONTENT. 107 
 
 a house of 549. Mr. Disraeli voted in tlie majority, and on tho fourth 
 night explained his reasons for so doing in a speech full of historical learn- 
 ing and illustration. He denied that there was any neces sary or irresistible 
 connection between Irish discontent and Protestant ascendency, pointed to 
 the Parliament of Charles I. and Strafford as an illustration of his theory, 
 and traced the first real Irish rebellion to its undoubted cause — the usurpa- 
 tions 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 ^dlich Toryism is not responsible be for- 
 gotten ; let the Government revert to " Tory principles, the natural prin- 
 ciples of the democracy of England. . . let them recur to the benignant 
 policy of Charles I., then they would settle Ireland with honour to them- 
 selves, with kindness to the people, and with safety to the realm." The 
 social system needed reconstruction, and it was necessary to begin " by 
 organizing a very comprehensive and pervading executive. AVhen they 
 have done 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 Adminis- 
 tration 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 con- 
 sider 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 China ; created solely by 
 agriculture, with none of those sources of wealth which are developed by 
 civilisation, and sustained consequently upon the lowest conceivable diet, 
 so that in case of failure they had no other means of subsistence upon 
 which they could fall back. That dense population in extreme distress 
 inhabited an island where there was an established Church which was not 
 their Church, and a territorial aristocracy the richest of whom lived in dis- 
 tant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristo- 
 cracy, 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 policy that which a revolution would 
 achieve by force. " The moment they had a strong executive, a just ad- 
 ministration, and ecclesiastical equality, they would have order in Ireland, 
 
108 THE PUBLIC LIFfi OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and the improvement of the physical condition of the people would follow 
 — not very rapidly perhaps, and they must not flatter themselves thjt it* 
 would — hut what were fifty years even in the history of a nation ? " 
 
 In the same spirit, when the Maynooth College Bill came forward for dis- 
 cussion in 1845, Mr. Disraeli made a somewhat striking speech against it 
 on the second reading. On principle, he objected to it as being the endow4 
 ment 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 
 subsidise the Free Church of Scotland or the English Methodists ? He 
 opposed the measure further, because it was brought forward by men who 
 had all their lives through existed, politically speaking, on their 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 grant — not because it was a recognition of the social and political 
 equality of the Roman Catholic jKipulation — 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 Eoman Catholic priesthood are to be edu- 
 cated by the State, it must be something greater than the difference 
 between £23 and £28, something higher than the difi"erence between three 
 in a bed and two." And then came one of those tremendous attacks on 
 Peel, on account of his concession on the question of Catholic Emancipa- 
 tion, 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 vehe- 
 mently opposed it ; first, because it was impossible to deal with Irish 
 disaffection without dealing also with its causes ; and secondly, because 
 he did not recognise the sincerity of the Grovernment in the matter. The 
 Bill had been " recommended " 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 Government 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 Pro- 
 tectionist 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 constructing railways. With a self-efface- 
 ment 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 connection, 
 and is content to leave the whole credit of this abortive but most states- 
 
THE IRISH RAILWAY SCHEME. 109 
 
 manlike 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. It is of course impossible to say 
 which of the twain was responsible for any special point, but by compar- 
 ing the speeches of Mr. Disraeli in the House with his account of the 
 matter in the 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 millionof 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 superintendence. 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 advan- 
 tages 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 un- 
 questionably 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 Eoyal Commission had recommended 
 that by the help of Government railway enterprise should be stimulated 
 in Ireland. Lord George Bentinck took up the question, and wdth 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 himself, 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 year." Lord John Eussell had 
 come into office, and in dealing with Ireland he proceeded from the first 
 upon the assumption that the landowners of Ireland had availed them- 
 selves of the system of Government relief to an extent far in excess of that 
 to which they were entitled. He accordingly cut down the relief some- 
 
110 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 what ruthlessly, and when inquiry came to be made, the name of Mr. 
 Disraeli was as usual to be found on the side of humanity. 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 debate 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 638,932 pounds of meal in two months as against 
 23,257,000 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 Govern- 
 ment 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 Eussell 
 had passed a Labour Eate Act, the first fruit of which w^as, as Lord 
 Beaconsfield has told us, that half a million of people, representing two 
 millions 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 Govern- 
 ment 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 produced annually for four 
 years by the Irish companies, the Imperial Government should advance an 
 additional four millions, insuring in Ireland for four years the expenditure 
 of six millions a year in works of a useful and reproductive nature," A 
 greater, nobler, and more statesmanlike 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 extraordinary 
 part of the story has, however, to come. Lord George Bentinck's scheme 
 
THE ANTI-CORN LAW MOVEMENT. Ill 
 
 liad been x)eremptorily rejected in February, and before April was out 
 Ministers were asking the House to sanction an expenditure of £620,000 
 for somewhat similar purposes. The difference was this : — The Tory chief, 
 had proposed to give employment to 110,000 men yearly with £6,000,000 
 of reproductive expenditure : tho 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 hailed 
 it as a proof of returning reason on the part of his opponents. The Bill 
 was read a second time on the morning 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 
 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 had 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 persistently 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 foundation. 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. 8d. when the home price was 61s., and under 62s. per quarter ; 
 16s. 8d. 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 like 
 most compromises, it failed to satisfy those most concerned. 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 interests most injuriously, and the labourers saw in 
 the change only another exemplification of that policy 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 country 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 
 
112 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 always wise. Mr. Bright's speeches were of the kind known as incendiaiy ; 
 Mr. Cobden used language which was at least liable to misconstruction, 
 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 hundred jjersons cast lots among them, and the lot 
 should fall upon him, he would take the lot to deprive Sir Kobert Peel of 
 life. ... He was persuaded of this that when Sir Ilobert 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. 
 
 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 the deplor- 
 able condition of Ireland, where the potato disease had already made its 
 appearance. In October 1845 the beginning 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 
 becoming very alarming. ... I foresee the necessity that may bo 
 impressed 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 distilleries. The 
 removal of impediments 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 pro- 
 gramme. In view of the situation, it is not surprising to find that Parha- 
 ment 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 or any matter connected with 
 a scarcity of food is a most important step. It compels an immediate deci- 
 sion on three questions : Shall we maintain unaltered ?— 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 consider- 
 able portion of the people on account of actual or apprehended scarcity, and 
 maintain in full operation the existing restrictions on the free import of 
 grain? I am bound to>ay my impression is that we cannot." It was hardly 
 likely that an expression of opinion such as this would pass without com- 
 ment 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 chano-ed 
 
1>EEL'S CHAi^aE Of* VIEW. 113 
 
 his views on the Corn Laws, predicting the coming break-ujp 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, not in consequence 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 all grain at a duty of one shilling per quarter. The order 
 produced a split in the Government. "The Cabinet," wrote Peel at 
 a later period, " by a very considerable 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 memorandum put forth at the end of the month, that " the continu- 
 ance of the Corn Laws was essential to the agriculture of the country in 
 its existing state, and particularly to that of Ireland, and a benefit to the 
 whole community." At the same time he considered " a good Govern- 
 ment for the country more important than Corn Laws, or any other con- 
 sideration," 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 Eoyal Speech would contain a reference to the Corn 
 Laws, and a recommendation for their immediate repeal. The Morning 
 Herald and the Standard — two newsjmpers 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 resig- 
 nation in the hands of the Queen. 
 
 Lord John Kussell 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 Eussell's letter to the electors of London. The state of things 
 was very serious. On the one hand the Leaguers were denouncing the 
 Tory aristocracy 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 
 
 I 
 
114 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 extenuated, though it certainly cannot be. wholly excused, and for a time 
 there seemed to be something more than a probability that the agitation 
 ■would assume a dangerous form. Meanwhile Lord John Eussell was 
 trying to form an administration, and as a prehminary 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 himself compelled 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 Beacons- 
 field 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 willingness to return to his place in the Cabinet, though at consider- 
 able 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 
 Poyal Speech was somewhat longer than usual, and contained, as well as 
 a reference to Irish aff"airs, 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 con- 
 sideration whether the principles on which you have acted may not with 
 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 state- 
 ment 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 53s. 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 move 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, 
 
LOKD GEORGE BENTINCK'S LIEUTENANT. 115 
 
 The history of the Anti-Corn Law agitation and of the movements 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, therefore, propose impertinently to retrace the ground 
 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 Bentinck'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, unquestionably 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 some- 
 times not the least powerful. Mr. Disraeli's at this period was of the 
 quiet order. Most of his work was done in association with his leader, to 
 whose service he brought that marvellous power of mastering detail, of 
 grouping facts, and of establishing principles, of which his career has 
 afforded so many examples. Outside the House, as well as within its 
 walls, 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 
 AVhig and Peelite section of the press. For these attacks there was, 
 indeed, some sort of excuse. We have seen how in the famous " Kunny- 
 mede 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 Lord Beaconsfield, who had ever prided himself upon 
 his consistency. The tergiversation of Peel may be explained, but it can- 
 not be explained 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 unscrupulously to carry measures 
 diametrically opposed to the principles upon which he had succeeded at the 
 general election. Small wonder, then, if the feeliugs 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 had 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 foi 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 
 
 I 2 
 
116 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 became one of liis most eager and pertinacious assailants. The so-called 
 biographers of Lord Beaconsfield, imiformly assert that the motive for this 
 change of front with regard to Peel, was the refusal of the latter to give him 
 a place in his administration. Of course it is easy to invent a bad motive 
 lor every action, but in this case it must be confessed that the ingenuity 
 of detraction has been exercised to but little purpose. If there was one 
 feature in Lord Beaconsfield's character which deserves remark more than 
 another, it is indifference to the emoluments of place. He had always, 
 indeed, been an ambitious man, but there is a noble as well as an ignoble 
 ambition, and his had 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 cer- 
 tainly showed in the course of his career that that sort of ambition had 
 never touched him. There is something more to be said. It must be 
 remembered that when Peel formed his Cabinet, Lord Beaconsfield 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 sur- 
 prising way, but he was still only one of the rank and file, and the 
 most that he could exjiect would be the post of a non-commissioned 
 officer. And yet we are called upon by his detractors to assume that 
 the man who gave to the world a thousand proofs of his high- 
 mindedness and disinterestedness broke with his chief and turned hi3 
 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 Govern- 
 ment as a Protectionist, and he repealed the Corn Laws ; he was nomi- 
 nally a Tory, and he governed the country on the principles of the Man- 
 chester 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 Parliamentary middleman, who had bam- 
 boozled 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 possessed 
 in so unrivalled a degree. Night after night Peel was condemned to sit 
 and listen, with an air of outward imperturbability, to attacks which 
 would have made the most pachydermatous wince, and which must have 
 been infinitely 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 Beaconsfield summed up the situa- 
 tion in February, 1845, have become commonplaces 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 
 
ATTACKS ON PEEL. 117 
 
 ol 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 
 sugh measures should be proposed by the hon. member for Stockport (Mr. 
 Cobden), rather than by one who, by skilful party mana3uvres, has tam- 
 pered 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 Par- 
 liament you have betrayed, and appeal to the people, who, I believe, mistrust 
 you. For me there remains this at least — the opportunity of expressing 
 thus publicly my belief that a Conservative government is an organised 
 hypocrisy." 
 
 After this, no opportunity of attack was neglected. When in April 
 1845 the second reading of the Bill for the Endowment of Maynooth 
 came on, Lord J3eaconsfield, as we have seen, opposed it on constitutional 
 and political grounds. His speech is, however, memorable chiefly on 
 account of the vivacity of his attack upon Peel in this connection. 
 " When I recall to mind," said he, " all the speeches, and all the motions, 
 and all the votes which have emanated from the occupants of the Trea- 
 sury Bench on this and analogous questions, — when I remember their 
 opposition to that system of education which they now seek to promote, 
 — when I recollect 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 are 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 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 protestations ? " 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 
 Constitutional 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 Opposi- 
 tion. " Let us in this House re-echo that which I believe to be the sove- 
 reign sentiment of this country; let us tell persons in high places that 
 
118 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 cimmng 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 des- 
 potism and Parliamentary imposture." 
 
 These were bitter words, but there were bitterer to come. At the 
 opening of the Session of 1846, after Peel had gone out of office only to 
 return to it when Lord John Eussell 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 invec- 
 tive 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 necessary 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 com- 
 pared to that of an apocryphal Turkish admiral, who took his fleet into 
 the enemy's port. Peel had said that he had "put down agitation." "Put 
 down agitation ? " cried Mr. Disraeli, with contempt. " Will he rise and 
 deny that he is legislating, or about to legislate, with direct reference to 
 agitation ? " Then, referring to Peel's dictum about registration, " We 
 went on registering, and the right honourable gentleman went on making 
 protection 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 Catholic 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 Virgilian quotations to command a cheer 
 — the moment that an honourable and learned gentleman was returned for 
 the County of Clare, then immediately we saw this right honourable 
 gentleman not ashamed to recall his arguments — not ashamed to confess 
 that he was convinced, but telling us on the contrary that he should be 
 'ashamed if he had not the courage to come forward and propose a resolu- 
 tion exactly contrary to his previous policy. And so it always is with the 
 right honourable gentleman." 
 
 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 honourable 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 
 
ATTACKS ON PEEL. 119 
 
 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 Parliamentary history of this country, I find that for between 
 thirty and forty years, from the days of Mr. Horner to the days of tho 
 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 ter- 
 mination 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 gentle- 
 man 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, met me and said : * Well, what do you 
 think of your Chiefs plan?' Not knowing exactly what to say, but 
 taking up a phrase which has been much used in this House, I observed, 
 * Well, I suppose it's a " great and comprehensive " plan.' * Oh,' ho 
 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 Wals- 
 inghams, by Bolingbrokes, and by Walpoles ; by a Chatham and a 
 Canning — will he go to it with this fantastic scheming of some presump- 
 tuous pedant? I won't believe it. I have that confidence in the common 
 sense — I will 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 the cheapest market, 
 and sold it in the dearest." 
 
 . Peel winced under this attack, and is even said to have sent a challenge 
 to his assailant, but he replied with calmness to the arguments of the other 
 side, reserving his reply to Mr. Disraeli to the last. When it came, it 
 amounted to an intimation that his opponent's hostihty to him was caused 
 by his having been a disappointed candidate for ofiice when the Cabinet 
 was first formed. He added a remark to the effect that at that time he 
 was the 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 misunderstood, and that he really had meant only that 
 his assailant had 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 com- 
 placently repeated it, wholly ignoring the indignant and explicit denial 
 which it at once called forth. 
 
120 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 Tremendous as was this castigation, no one will say that it was unde- 
 served, and Peel himself must have trembled as he recalled 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 certainly 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 appro- 
 priated — *' convey the wise it call," — Horner's proposition for the resump- 
 tion of cash payments. Piomilly, 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 Catholic Emancipation he spoke with horror, until 
 1828, 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 magna- 
 nimity to allow those who invented the panacea to have the honour 
 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, followed him " reluctantly and mutinously," or 
 if, when they could follow 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 all 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 unparalleled difficulties, he was laboriously 
 building up again, hardly recognised his greatness, but his opponents did, 
 and showed their appreciation of it by cordial abuse and perpetual detrac- 
 tion. 
 
 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 opportunities 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 
 
PEEL TAKES COBDEN'S LINE. 121 
 
 opp mciit on the hip, but he dealt with his adversary mercifully. 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. 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 elec- 
 tors 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 
 personal feeling of animosity to Mr. 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 
 t;peak on the repeal of the Corn Laws, he did not spare the Minister, 
 Replying to one statement of Peel with regard to the corn-growing 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 
 Stockport, 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 Eailway 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 Beacons- 
 field was, in fact, reserving himself for the third reading, on which occasion 
 he made that tremendous onslaught on Peel which has just been men- 
 tioned. Apart from the personal question, however, the 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 uijon 
 " exploded arguments and exhausted fallacies." Yet on the questioti 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 au 
 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 extensive 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 w^as ceasipg to be an agricultural country, and was becoming 
 
122 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. i 
 
 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 had opened 
 the eyes of the nation to the true character of the Manchester School by 
 disclosures in connection with the Ten Hours Bill. 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 manufacturing 
 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 Anti-Corn Law League, he went on to com- 
 plain 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 oppor- 
 tunity 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 reference 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, 34s. ; Brazil and 
 slave labour states, 63s. Lord John Eussell, 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 Council 
 for Sunday the 16 th, 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 honour- 
 able 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 extraordi- 
 nary — 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 PLANTERS AND THE AGRICURTURALISTS. 123 
 
 the feelings of his supporters. I do not think he ought to drag them un- 
 reasonably through the mire I really think to rescind one vote 
 
 during the session is enough. I dont 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 re- 
 tirement 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 his own share in that discussion to something less than a page — 
 rather a meagre summary, by the way, of a speech which, as reported by 
 Hansard, fills nearly twenty-four columns. The lieutenant of the Pro- 
 tectionist 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 con- 
 sumption ; secondly, that the calculations 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 speecli ; 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 lelieve that they thought that by not fighting the 
 battle then they might still gain time. It is the policy of the weak, and 
 it seems, by the admission of the right honourable gentleman, they might 
 have saved perchance a year. Perhaps it is better that the catastrophe 
 should be consummated. Perhaps it is better that if the system of 
 Protectionism is to be put an end to, it should be put an end to under 
 existing circumstances, and by this Protection Parliament, which was elected 
 
124 THK PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 virtually by the success of a motion, which j^ledged the Commons of 
 England to support the colonial interests." 
 
 "Those who throw their eyes over the debates of the session of '47, can- 
 not fail to be struC'C by the variety of important questions, in the discussion 
 of which Lord George Bentinck took a leading or prominent part." So 
 writes Lord Beaconsfield 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 admi- 
 nistration 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 intolerable 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 enter- 
 prise 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 consistent, being the natural 
 consequence of the principles which had secured him his seat for Shrews- 
 bury 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 re- 
 fused 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 him- 
 self not particularly anxious to maintain it, and he had now obtained so 
 high a position in the House that he might reasonably aspire to the 
 honours of county membership. The old requisition to stand for Bucking- 
 hamshire was revived, and as he had become a landed proprietor by the 
 purchase of Hughenden Manor, it was only natural that he should accept 
 the invitation to stand for that county at the approaching general election. 
 On the 24th of May, 1847, he accordingly put forth a preliminary address, 
 the following excerpts from which will prove of interest. " The temporary 
 high price," he wrote, "that is stimulated by famine is not the agri- 
 cultural prosperity which I wish to witness, while in the full j^lay of un- 
 restricted importation I already recognise a disturbing cause which may 
 
Elected for Buckinghamshire. 125 
 
 shake our monetary system to its centre, and which nothing but the happy 
 accident of our domestic enterprise has prevented, I believe, from exercis- 
 ing an injurious effect on the condition of the working classes of Great 
 Britain. Notwithstanding this, however, I am not one of those who would 
 abet or attempt factiously or forcibly to repe^il 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 
 commonplaces of faction. I am not the organ of any section or thd 
 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 parliamentary 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 allusions of which he was always 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 Constitu- 
 tion of England was established when Mr. Hampden rode up to West- 
 minster surrounded by his neighbours. Buckinghamshire did that for 
 England. It has done more. It gavo us the British Constitution in the 
 seventeenth century, and it created the British Empire in the eighteenth. 
 All the great statesmen of that century were born, or bred, or lived in the 
 county. Throw your eye over the list — it is a glorious one — from Shel- 
 burne to Granville. Travel from Wycombe to Buckingham, from the 
 first Lord Lansdowne, the most accomplished minister this country ever 
 produced, to the last of our classic 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 
 lime, 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 23rd of July, 
 1847, with a view to its immediate dissolution, and Lord Beaconsfield bade 
 farewell to the borough of Shrewsbury. The election for Buckinghamshire 
 was contested on the part of the Liberals by a Mr. Gibbs, of Aylesbury, 
 
126 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 Kadical 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. C. C. Cavendish, without even the formality of a show of hands. 
 There was something peculiarly appropriate in the leader of the Protection- 
 ists assuming the position of a county member, as there had been some- 
 thing incongruous in his sitting for a munufacturing borough like Shrews- 
 bury. 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 foundation 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 was 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 had written and spoken .were blotted out, would 
 yet place him in the first rank amongst Englishmen. M. Philarete 
 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," " Sybil," 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 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 fife. 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 characterising 
 them. An unfortunate and greatly misunderstood line in some verses by 
 Lord John Manners is, perhaps, at the bottom of much of the contempt 
 with which the party has been treated. When his Lordship expressed his 
 
•'YOU^^G ENGLAND." 127 
 
 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 Malthus, 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, 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, hj the way, to note that the party of "Young 
 England " and the influence of Mr. Disraeli appear to have been alike dis- 
 tasteful both to Lord Strangford (the sixth) and to the Duke of Eutland. 
 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 much as you can do the influence which Mr. Disraeli has 
 acquired over several young British senators, and over your son and mine 
 especially. 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 Beaconsfield himself, the other associates of their 
 sons. The learned and accomplished Henry Hope, son of the author of 
 " Anastatius ;" Monckton Milnes, the poet and the friend of poets ; Faber, 
 afterwards the Corypheeus of the Oratorians ; Why tehead, 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. 
 
 " Young England " was, as a matter of fact, one of the most striking 
 results of the Oxford movement. The religious fervour of the 16th and 
 17th centuries burnt itself out in the revolutionary period which ended 
 with the accession of William of Orange to the throne of England, and to 
 the exciting quarrels of Puritan and Catholic succeeded the comparative 
 lethargy of orthodox Anglicanism which enveloped the land for the greatest 
 part of the 18th century. The work of John Wesley, and of his great ally 
 Whitefield, produced but little effect for the time upon a people amongst 
 whom the tradition of Puritan severities was still fresh, and it was not 
 until the close of the 18th century that a real movement was made and a 
 real religious ]3rogress effected. The Evangelical leaders were the first to 
 trouble the stagnant waters of English religious life, and their influence 
 lasted unimpaired until the struggle for Catholic emancipation perturbed 
 the political world. Dissent was then a small and comparatively unim- 
 portant force in English society — the only religion of which anything was 
 
i2^ THE PUBLIC LIFE OF 'fHE EARL OF BEACOKSB'IELD. 
 
 practically known was Anglicanism either " high and dry " or " low and 
 slow." With the strife over Emancipation, however, the dry bones of the 
 Churcli hegan once more to live, and Anglicans discovered the richness of 
 the inheritance to which they had succeeded. The publicatiron of " Tracts 
 for the Times," and the advent of Newman, Pnsey, Manning, Ward, 
 Keble, and Hurrell Fronde as leaders of religious thought, naturally attracted 
 the men of genius and capacity of those days to the High Church party. 
 
 (Amongst them were the " Young England " school, who looked to the 
 Church as the destined agent for the salvation of society. For awhile 
 
 /' they clung to their hope, and if the Church had risen to the occasion it is 
 ix)ssib!e that some of their dreams might have been realised. It unfortu- 
 nately happened that the men were not equal to the occasion. They failed 
 to realise the fact that the Church is a society which forms a part of the 
 nation, and that it derives its reason for existence from that very fact. 
 
 \ And so whilst Mr. Disraeli and his friends were hoping that the Church 
 would rise to the height of her mission, the leaders of the great movement 
 within her borders drifted with an ever- increasing rapidity into purely 
 technical theological controversy, ending by a schism which shook English 
 fiociety to its centre, and which, for well-nigh five-and-twenty years para- 
 lysed the growth of the Church of England among the masses of the 
 l)eople. The disappointment of the " Young England " party was bitter in 
 the extreme, nor has the sting of that disappointment died out even now. 
 Lord Beaconsfield's independent support of the Public Worship Eegulation 
 Act — a Bill introduced, by the way, by a political opponent — bears witness 
 to the soreness which was left by the failure of his early hopes. 
 
 It was at the house of Henry Hope — Deepdene — that *' Coningsby " 
 was commenced, and it was to Hope that it was dedicated. Its author 
 tells us that *' the derivation and character of political parties ; the condi- 
 tion 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 
 ]irincipal 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 "Con- 
 ingsby," but the origin and condition of political parties, the first portion of 
 the theme, was the only one completely handled in that work." How mas- 
 terly that handling is it is now unnecessary to say. The political history of 
 England for the ten years or so preceding its publication is given with the 
 
 (most perfect art, and in the most agreeable fashion. The 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 
 
«« SYBIL" AKD "l^ANCRED.** 129 
 
 fiuthor had made in literature and in politics. It may, of cdui'se, "be ob- 
 jected that all these works from Mr. Thackeray's comical burlesque in 
 Punch down to the ponderous three volumes of malignant dulness pub- 
 lished 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 heavy 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 managed, though unsatisfactory as a novel." 
 The value of this last criticism may be estimated from the fact that this 
 "unsatisfactory novel " has enjoyed a steady and even large sale from the 
 time of its publication until the present day, and that too 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. 
 
 " Sybil" and " Tancred " which followed escaped this microscopical 
 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 
 late Thomas Buncombe " (with whom, Eadical as he was, the Tory chief 
 was constantly in alliance, 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 
 conductor 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 ex- 
 aggerated picture of a remarkable period in our domestic history, and of a 
 popular organisation, 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 poli- 
 tical, 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 
 
130 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 currious to observe how completely time has answered this 
 criticism, and confirmed the verdict which the same writer pronounces on 
 the pictures of political society which the book contains : — " We are not 
 sure," he says, " but that Mr. Disraeli understands more perfectly than 
 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 
 evidence 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 w^ere very real and very 
 terrible nevertheless. It is hardly necessary to say that he had no sym- 
 pathy 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 Eeform 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 
 unprincipled 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 real and appreciable effect. It must have required some courage to take 
 up the role of advocate for the Chartists in 1845, but neither courage nor 
 patience had 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 confine- 
 ment 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 
 
"TANCRED« 131 
 
 autobiograpliy lie lias described, in very striking terms, the singular and 
 general 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 
 indicative of the spirit and temper of Mr. Disraeli at that time, that it 
 was by his special 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 the Church should hold in the development 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 schooll 
 men ; 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 misfortune. The 
 tradition of the Anglican Church was powerful. Eesting 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 scceders 
 sought refuge in mediseval superstitions, which are generally only the 
 embodiments of Pagan ceremonies and creeds." The ethnological theories 
 upon which " Tancred " is based have never been either popular or wel- 
 understood in England. It is, therefore, not surprising that, as compared 
 with its predecessors in the " Trilogy," it should have been somewhat 
 coolly received. The critics scoffed at its theories, and either treated them 
 as beneath contempt, or showed that they failed to understand 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 expressed by the author at the spectacle of Apollo, Astarte and the 
 Olympian Jove in Syria, are absolutely identical in essence with the 
 theory which underlies Professor Max Mliller's " Lectures on the Science 
 of Peligion." Of course, it does not follow 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 oi3ponents were 
 compelled to admit the marvellous literary power of the work. The 
 
 K 2 
 
132 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Edinburgh, after devoting thirteen pages to attack, is, in common candour, 
 foreed to speak 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 Athenceum, 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 dismissed as an extravaganza." But even the Atlienceurriy 
 hostile though it has generally been to Lord Beaconsfield, is compelled to 
 own that it " is a brilliant book, abounding in entertainment 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 in- 
 dividuality, lacking which all other merits are but second-hand ones." 
 These bygone criticisms mean but little now. " Tancred " has outlived 
 them, and has passed into the domain of literature, where, with " Sybil " 
 and with " Coningsby," it holds a conspicuous 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 Beacons field's versatility and industry 
 at this period of his life remains to be given before returning to his 
 political career. In the letter to Lord Straugford, quoted a few pages 
 back, the Duke of Rutland says : " I will write to John to-morrow, and I 
 shall inquire of him whether there is any truth in the report of his having 
 engaged himself to a great dinner at Manchester under the presidency of 
 Mr. Disraeli." The letter was written, and the Duke appears to have at 
 first made great objectiona to his son appearing on the same platform with 
 the future leader of the Tories, going so far as even to offer a formal pro- 
 hibition. 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 soiree at the opening of the Manchestei 
 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. All 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 this 
 market-place as a sample. I have no desire to emulate him. 
 
133 
 
 CHAPTEK V. 
 
 LEADER OP 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 hira — Chartist disturbances — Irish disaffection— 
 Mitchel's case — State of the Continent — Sir Henry Bulwer 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. Disi-aeli 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 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. Disraeli on agricultural distress — Returns 
 to the subject— Criticises the budget — Agricultural interests — Papal aggres- 
 sion — The Durham letter — Mr. Disraeli'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 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 Bucking- 
 hamshire 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 
 Bill — 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." 
 
 The fifteenth Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland assembled for 
 business on the 18th of November, 184:7. A 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 diflBculties 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 
 
134 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that the suspension of the Bank Charter "might have led to an infringe- 
 ment 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. 
 ThCj condition of England was very far from being satisfactory, and 
 though, as the royal 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 and 
 statesmanlike speech, Mr. Disraeli reviewed the foreign policy of the Govern- 
 ment, and expressed the views of the Tory party on such topics as the 
 Spanish Marriages and the extinction of the free state of Cracow by Kassia 
 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 country, 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 Eussia in Germany. To suppose that great powers 
 like France and Eussia would not have their own ambition to develop as 
 England had hers, was to expect the impossible. But what was" tWtise 
 of the power of England except to combat those influences, whetner in 
 Spain or elsewhere, if they found them aiming at an inconvenient pre- 
 ponderance ? He had often heai'd that peace could only be maintained by 
 a cordial understanding between England and France, or a secret under- 
 standing between England and Eussia, but peace could be maintained 
 by England alone if she understood her position 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 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 
 
: JEWISH DISABILITIES. 135 
 
 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 Kussell introduced 
 a few days after the opening of the session. On a subsequent occasion 
 Lord Beaconsfield protested somewhat strongly against this way of dealing 
 with the matter, pointing out that it had obviously been the duty of Lord 
 John Eussell, as leader of the Opposition, to introduce this subject from 
 time to time, and so to take the sense of the country upon it at the time 
 of the general election. When the matter was formally brought forward, 
 however, Mr. Disraeli 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 
 not 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 Chris- 
 tian Church, whether Koman Catholic or Protestant — made the history of 
 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 in- 
 fluenced 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 considera- 
 tion: 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 
 
136 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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." 
 
 The results of this speech were important in no ordinary degree. Lord 
 George Bentinck felt himself out of liarmony with his lieutenant, 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. Lord George 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 Committee, 
 leaving the Parliamentary campaign in Mr. Disraeli's hands. 
 
 The year 1848 was a time of storm and stress in the political 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, 
 demonstration succeeded demonstration, Kennington Common, then an 
 open space, being the customary scene of these displays. Men like the 
 late Ernest Jones and Feargus O'Connor — sincere but violent and preju- 
 diced 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. Downing 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 recognised on all 
 hands that th^ agitation was to a great extent factitious, JTot merely 
 
IRISH DISAFFECTION. 137 
 
 were a large number of the signatures attached to the petition fictitious, but 
 the sympathies of those persons who, like Lord Beaconsj&eld, had pitied the 
 suffering people of England in the earlier years of the decade, were alien- 
 ated 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 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 propor- 
 tions. 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 fol- 
 lowed, 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. Eifle 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 grew too bad for even English for- 
 bearance. 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 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 opposition. He was, how- 
 ever, 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 recognised the essentially factious 
 character of the rebellion, and because he believed the disaffected spirit of 
 
138 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 con- 
 tinental 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 Parliament was familiar — but a movement 
 created 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 Philippe abdicated 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 proclaimed 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 popular reform. Prussia followed suit with a demand 
 or " 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 abolition of the Censorship and the establishment of a 
 National Guard. Italy shared in the changes ; for on the day that the 
 Censorship was abolished in Vienna, Pius IX. made his famous Constitutional 
 experiment in Eome. At Milan the people rose in insurrection against the 
 Austrian Government, and in spite of the most vigorous efforts 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 separa- 
 tion 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 Whigs pre- 
 vailed ; 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 dijilomatic 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 foreshadowed his later 
 
BREACH BETWEEN ENGLAND AND SPAIN. 139 
 
 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 Committee of Supply, a resolution : " That this House learns 
 with deep regret, from a Correspondence between the British Government 
 and the Government of Spain, that a proposed interference with the in- 
 ternal concerns of the Spanish Government, as conducted under the 
 authority and with the entire approval of Her Majesty's Ministers, lias 
 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 Govern- 
 ment deserved this censure and something more. Lord Palmerston, in 
 concert of course with his colleagues, had permitted himself to write to Sir 
 Henry Bulwer that, " The recent 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-disciplined army becomes an ineffectual 
 defence for the Crown when the course pursued by the Crown is at variance 
 with 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 Adminis- 
 tration is founded, aud by calling to her councils some of those men who 
 possess the confidence of the Liberal party." When remonstrance was 
 made, Lord Palmerston doubled his offence by telling the Spanish Govern- 
 ment 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 English counsels, the coun- 
 tenance of this country would be withdrawn from her. 
 
 It was not surprising that after this note the Spanish Government 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 
 to anything 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, either 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 Govern- 
 
140 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ment to serve her Majesty abroad who has done better service to the 
 Crown or who has shown more sagacity, more penetration, and — notwith- 
 standing 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 satisfaction at his consequent promo- 
 tion. 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 testimony of the sympathy of his fellow-countrymen. He then 
 went on to point out that, thanks to the policy of Lord John Eussell, 
 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 despatch, which had pre- 
 cipitated the mischief, he heaped an infinite amount of that exquisite' 
 ridicule of which he is so consummate a master ; ironically complimenting 
 Lord Palmerston on his "pure Castilian" style, his "sesquipedalian 
 sentences," and his " grandiose phraseology." The despatch he argued was 
 obviously intended for Spanish eyes, and though it was earmarked " con- 
 fidential," 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 hetise 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 conduct 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 con- 
 dition of the people, and 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 
 
THE WHIG FOREIGN POLICY. /IM "^ « 
 
 a mere expression of opinion as to foreign policy must necessariljr fc& ^ |_j 
 regarded as a vote of censure on the Government, and wound up by urging> VI 
 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 helr^^ 
 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 meddlesome- 
 ness in Italy, where the policy of England was generally believed to have 
 stimulated popular disaffection to no small extent. Thus the ajjpearance 
 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 Lans- 
 downe in the Upper House, and Lord Palmerston 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 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 reconquered her Lombard territory. Lord Minto was 
 despatched 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 principle 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 Kepublic in their stead. 
 " What is to be done," he asked, " if Lombardy be relinquished by 
 Austria ? Is it to be given to Charles Albert in 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 ? 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 invading Italy. Against any such notion Mr. Disraeli protested 
 energetically, pointing out that France was at that moment governed only 
 
142 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 
 LordPalmerston " 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, what- 
 ever 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 a review of 
 the conduct and policy of the Grovernment, which he delivered on the 26th 
 of August on the motion for going into Committee of Sujoply. 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 per- 
 mission to borrow a couple of millions for the purpose of making up the 
 deficiency in the revenue. Four days later, 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 accord- 
 ingly seized the opportunity which it afforded him of delivering a sarcastic 
 criticism of all that the Grovernment had done and left undone since 
 Parliament had resumed its sittings on the 3rd of February. He showed 
 convincingly ihat it was not the garrulity of members, but the incompe- 
 tency 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 compli- 
 mented 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 pien 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 Eepeal of the Naviga- 
 tion Laws, which, like everything else, had failed, and finally upon that 
 
WHIG BLUNDERING. 143 
 
 Sugar question wliicli Lord George Bentiiick had made liis 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 in without any provision for 
 refining in bond, thus placing the British producer at an infinite disad- 
 vantage as compared with his foreign competitor. A second Bill was 
 accordingly prepared and brought in, which shared the fate of the first. 
 "Will it be believed," said Mr.'Disraeli, "that it was found necessary to 
 withdraw the second Bill and also 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 character 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 emanations of administrative genius 
 — this skeleton Bill and its companions." 
 
 Two passages of this speech are especially worthy of attention, as illus- 
 trating the love of literature by which Lord Beaconsfield had always been 
 distinguished, and his singularly happy faculty of satiric illustration. 
 Speaking of the conduct of the Government 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 Enghsh fleet, an annual cere- 
 mony takes place, when the whole population 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 liquefaction 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 disappear, everbbody returns 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 
 
144 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSPIELO. 
 
 reference has been made is to be found in the denunciation of tlie 
 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 timet 
 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. 
 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 imme- 
 diate 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 
 sallied forth so triumphantly ; but just at that moment when everything, 
 though melancholy, was becoming — though sad was in the best taste — 
 Sancho's wife rushes forward and exclaims, * Never mind your kicks and cufis 
 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, tfue to his nature, to his vocation, and to his career, he 
 finds instead of a surplus a deficiency, and instead of reducing 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 Beaconsfield were ever 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 Whiors. 
 Lord John Eussell 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 forward. Lord John 
 devoted himself to the task of proving that not merely were Peel's clothes 
 
THE NEW COMMERCIAL SYSTEM. 145 
 
 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." Naturally 
 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 recognised by his opponent — a 
 condition of things which offers a striking contrast to the course pursued 
 when Lord Beacon sfield 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, 1848, and there was no one whose 
 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 sufficiently complacent. The Whigs — or rather Lord 
 Palmerston — had interfered considerably in the affairs of Southern Italy 
 — even to the extent of supplying the insurgent forces with the materia 
 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 Parliament ; 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 
 Pievenue, 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 that Ireland was, if 
 somewhat more tranquil, still not a little disaffected, and that the Govern- 
 ment 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 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 
 
 L 
 
146 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 system you are pursuing is one quite contrary : 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, sarcastically, 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 behove, if not actually expelled, has been treated almost 
 with personal indignity: a second-rate rebel colony of Spain, imitat- 
 ing the mother country, and sending away our Minister." Then, changing 
 the subject, he went on ; " Great changes have occurred since I last had 
 the honour of addressing this House. Empires have fallen. The Pope no 
 longer reigns in Eome. 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. 
 Eeferring to the Liverpool Financial Association, to whose influence he 
 traced these dealings with finance, he protested once more against supple- 
 
THE BUEDENS ON LAND. 147 
 
 menting tlie wisdom of the Senate by the proceedings 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 of the working classes, and the reconstruction of our 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 
 manceuvres of the Jacobin clubs. These are stakes not likely 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 aggravated by the 
 fact that more ihan one- third of the Revenue derived from the Excise, 
 is levied upon Agricultural Products, exposed by the recent changes in 
 the law to direct competition with the untaxed produce of foreign 
 countries : the home producer being thus subjected to a burden of taxa- 
 tion, 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 com- 
 menced 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 unwillingness to undo the work of 1846 by appealing to the pas- 
 sions of any suffering class. Turning then to the main question, he showed 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 by figures that the annual budget of ten millions required for local purposes 
 was raised almost exclusively ujon 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 con- 
 tribute 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 local charges, and 
 that many burdens cast upon the general expenditure of the country ought 
 really to be borne by local rates, if this principle of localisation be 
 adopted. 
 
 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 committed a murder at Salthill in Buckingham- 
 shire, 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 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. He would have accom- 
 panied that proposal with measures of relief, to a considerable 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 Laws, but not to give any relief to the occupiers of 
 land. The appeal to Lord John was consequently doubly cogent. Turn- 
 ing 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 Government ao-ainst 
 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 years ago in tlie 
 most precious legacy of political science that has descended to us. I 
 daresay it may be said of them that the agricultural class is the least 
 given to sedition. I doubt not that is as true of the Englishman of the 
 
MR. HUME'S AMENDMENT. 149 
 
 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 refused to pay ship money is not to be trifled with. Their conduct to 
 you has exhibited no hostile feeling, notwithstanding the political 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 convincing 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 pro- 
 duced by the prosperity of all classes. You prefer to remain in isolated 
 splendour and solitary magnificence. But, believe me, I speak not as your 
 enemy when I say that it will be an exception to the principles which seem 
 hitherto to have ruled societj', if you can succeed in maintaining the success 
 at which you aim without the possession of that permanence and stability 
 which the territorial principle alone can afford. Although you may for a 
 moment 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 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 only 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 
 abolish 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 diminution of the burdens on land 
 tvould be simply putting so much money into the pockets of the landlords 
 
150 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 beneficial; and 
 answered the question by pointing out that that increase had been caused 
 by the distress amongst that manufacturing population which Mr. Cobden 
 had said were ki the receipt of high wages, and by the destitution of 
 Ireland, ruined by Corn Law repeal. Of Mr. Cobden's other argument he 
 disposed by pointing out that it would take five-and-twenty years 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, Peelites, and 
 Irish members coalescing against the representatives of the landed interest. 
 Such a denial of their rights naturally stimulated the country party, and 
 the Protectionist agitation renewed itself. Protectionist meetings, quite 
 as largely attended as those of the Free Trade party before the repeal of 
 the Corn Laws, were held under the guidance of the Duke of Eichmond, 
 and the complaints of the agricultural interests 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 something 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 
 on the state of the nation. He painted in striking colours the contrast 
 between the situation of England at that moment and when the Kussell 
 Cabinet came into office — showed how all interests had suffered, how the 
 exports had fallen ofiF, 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 de- 
 spairing. 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 
 
COUNTERVAILING DUTIES. 151 
 
 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 English producer for the benefit of his foreign 
 rival. Then quoting from Professor Jones's work upon " Eent," he jDointed 
 out that the great reduction in the price of corn — 26 per cent. — left the 
 agricultural class with less money — in homely phrase — " to go to market 
 with," and that the result showed itself in the depression of the manufac- 
 turing 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 illus- 
 trated by what was going on in Ireland — which, in striking phrase, he 
 delared 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 peacemaker, her hands 
 were tied for the simple reason that she was everywhere regarded as the 
 handmaid and colleague of the discontented 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 prin- 
 ciple 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 principle is fallacious — that its inMlible consequence is to cause 
 the impoverishment and embarrassment of the people, as proved by the 
 dark records to which I have had occasion so much to refer. But the 
 impoverishment of the people is not the only ill consequence which the 
 new system may produce. The wealth of England is not merely material 
 wealth — it does not merely consist in the number of acres we have tilled 
 and cultivated, nor in our havens filled with shipping, nor in our unrivalled 
 
152 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 indefatigable 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 dis- 
 content 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 perplexity. That English 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 con- 
 front 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.' " 
 
 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 Kates and pauperism, the falling off of the foreign trade, and the 
 general stagnation in the manufacturing 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. Koebuck 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. Eoebuck's proposition, that there 
 was no distress amongst the agricultural labourers, by giving the work- 
 house statistics for his own constituency, which disclosed a very terrible 
 state of matters. There was a little farther discussion 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." 
 
 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 
 
fEEE TRADE VERSUS PROTECTION. 153 
 
 debate was resumed, the Whigs had things all their own way. Mr. 
 Hume, who had announced his intention to move an amendment to the 
 effect that the relief sought must be obtained by a reduction of the 
 national expenditure, withdrew it and made a speech full of statistics 
 designed to prove that the national distress arose from " bloated establish- 
 ments." Peel made a speech so great that he considered it worthy after- 
 wards 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 Eussell 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 taxation of raw materials. " A duty on the raw 
 material," said he, " renders British labour less efficient ; a duty on corn, 
 on the contrary, would protect British labour and maintain its exchange- 
 able value." The advocates of protection, in short, did not wish to restrict 
 the supply of the raw material of English 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 recog- 
 nise the fact that the interests of England are the interests of peace, 
 order, and civilisation 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 184:8 
 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 in an empty and exhausted exchequer ... in an 
 
154 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 endangered Colonial Empire ... in Danish, blockades and Sicilian insur- 
 rections ... 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 accusa- 
 tions and silence your complaints." The time was indeed not yet ripe for 
 releasing England from the burden of Whig ascendency. 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 through- 
 out the country during the autumn. One at Castle Hedingham, where 
 Lord Beaconsfield made a speech to the assembled agriculturists, 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 sug- 
 gested, might take the form of a sinkicg 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 recom- 
 mended Lord Beaconsfield to do. He tried a little agitation on his own 
 account, and went down to Aylesbury to proclaim to the farmers of Bucking 
 hamshire the beauties of Free Trade and the absurdity of their demand for 
 an equalisation of local taxation. An invitation was sent to Mr. Disraeli to 
 attend, but instead of doing so he dined on the day preceding the soiree 
 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 soiree^ 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 down and 
 delivered a rather long speech, in which he gave valuable and interesting 
 information concerning the management 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 series of free fights during his address. 
 
 Before Parliament opened there were many Protectionist meetings in 
 
THE LANDED INTEREST 155 
 
 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- 
 interrupted, were held at Penenden Heath, Lincoln, Northampton, Stepney, 
 Aylesbury, and other places. The discontent of the agricultural class was 
 deep and abiding, and some strong 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 
 Keform Bill of 1832. 
 
 Parliament was opened on the 31st of January, 1850, by Commission. 
 The Speech from the Throne contained little that was of permanent interest 
 — a paragraph about the Navigation Laws, another about the cholera, and 
 another about the Queen's recent visit to Ireland served to introduce one 
 congratulating the country on the improved condition of commerce and 
 manufactures. With regard to the prevailing agricultural distress, the 
 Queen was then made to say : " It is with regret that Her Majesty has 
 observed the complain ts which, in many parts of the kingdom, have pro- 
 ceeded from the owners and 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 TroUope, who moved the Amendment to the Address, com- 
 plained of the almost contemptuous indifference with which the agricul- 
 tural classes 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 proprietors of England, with their 
 families and dependants — the owners of the land — and the 700,000 farmers 
 with their families and their dependants, 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 acknowledge those millions are in a state of 
 great distress in consequence 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 adroitly 
 of Mr, Cobden's admission that land is a "raw material,'* he made his 
 
156 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 second point by calling upon the Government either to reconstruct the 
 English 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 politico- 
 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 Eussell in replying professed himself 
 unable to understand what it was that his opponent wanted, and complained 
 that Mr. Disraeli had "involved 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 Government 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 agricultural 
 interest, and praying for relief from local burdens and for equality with 
 the foreign agriculturist. Supported by this petition, and by another 
 bearing upwards of a thousand signatures (which, however, he did not 
 present, on the ground of an informality), Mr. Disraeli delivered an argu- 
 mentative speech, dwelling once more on the injustice of throwing the 
 burden of local administration exclusively on the land, and wound up with 
 a motion for a Committee of the whole House to consider such a revision 
 of the Poor Laws as might alleviate agricultural distress. There was an 
 animated debate for a couple of nights, in the 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 worth}'- 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 supporters 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 Ptadicals, 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. 
 
THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. 157 
 
 When the financial policy of the year came to he discussed, Mr. Disraeli 
 found another opportunity of advocating the cause of the agriculturists. 
 The Budget was brought in hy Sir Charles Wood on the 15th of March. 
 It was, as one of its critics observed, pas grand' cJwse, but it was more 
 satisfactory than the wonderful muddling of 1848. Income was estimated 
 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 in- 
 dulgence 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 numerous blockades vin- 
 dicates 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 policy of the Government was to be, now" that after 
 three failures the Stamp Ace had apparently been abandoned, he asked 
 Ministers to consider the claims of the agricultural interest — to which, in- 
 deed, a promise had already been made. It was a matter of course that 
 that relief should not be afforded. Lord John Kussell 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 pr,ess 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 
 
158 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 moment would have reUirned a Protectionist majority, and it was well 
 known that the depression of agriculture 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 readjustment 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 conse- 
 quently 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 condition 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 Corn Laws, and therefore 
 called upon the Government to complete its work. On this question of 
 malt, however, the Tory party have not always been united, and Lord 
 John Kussell 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 defi- 
 ciency might be made good." 
 
 The autumn of 1850 will be memorable in history chiefly on account of 
 the establishment of the Koman 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 objec- 
 tionable form. Up to 1850 the affairs of the Roman Church in this country 
 had been managed by a vicar-general, and a tacit 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 forbearaace 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 ecclesiastical rank of Roman Catholic prelates in Ireland 
 and the Colonies. Even that choice specimen of the theological firebrand, 
 
THE DURHAM LETTER, 159 
 
 Dr. MacHale — "the Lion of St. Jaiiath" — was constantly addressed as 
 " your Grace," and spoken of as the " Archbishop of Tuam," and in a 
 Eoyal Commission Archbishop Murray had been placed before the Protes- 
 tant bishops. There had been many protests from the Tory party, but all 
 had been unheeded, and the Whig policy 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 Administration at this 
 time, the Papal scheme was drawn up. Lord Minto — Lord John Eussell's 
 father-in-law — was in Eome 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 return to England. 
 That he was unoflBcially 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 fisher- 
 man," 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 virtues have made England illustrious," had taken council with the 
 Cardinals of the Congregation de Propaganda 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 bishopis 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 con- 
 firmed by a " Bishop of Amycla in partihus i7ifidelium" or by a " Bishop 
 of Liverpool," in the Kingdom of England. But this " Papal Aggression " 
 roused all the Protestantism of the country, and an agitation 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 accustomed forcible feebleness, Lord John Eussell 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 official character 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 insidious;" 
 
160 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 Eoman Catholic times. ... No foreign prince or potentate 
 will he allowed to fasten his fetters upon a nation which has so long and 
 so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion, civil, political and 
 rehgious." He promised that the law should be examined, and steps taken 
 to vindicate its supremacy. Then followed a tremendous philippic against 
 the Puseyites, and the letter ended with a delicious bit of clap-trap about 
 " the glorious principles and immortal martyrs of the Eeformation," " 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, — especially 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 Buckingham- 
 shire, he expressed himself with his usual calmness. " After the recogni- 
 tion given by the Government to the Irish hierarchy," said he, " his Holi- 
 ness might well deem himself at liberty to apportion England into dioceses, 
 to be ruled 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 recognised the pseudo Archbishop of 
 Tuam as a peer and a prelate, cannot object to the appointment of a pseudo 
 Archbishop of Westminster, even though he be a Cardinal. On the con- 
 trary, the loftier dignity should, according to their table of precedence, 
 rather invest his Eminence with a still higher patent of nobility, and per- 
 mit 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 bo 
 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 Kussell, with his usual impetuo- 
 sity, had published this famous letter without consultation with any of his 
 colleagues and that when it appeared it created great dismay and confusion 
 amongst them. Lord Lansdowne, in an interview with Sir Georgo 
 Bowyer, expressed his " deep regret," and his distress at the state of tho 
 country. In spite of this expression of opinion, however, the agitation 
 ■went merrily on through the winter. AVorks on the Papal controversy poured 
 in shoals from the j)ress— seventy-eight separate books and pamphlets wxre 
 published in one month in London alone — and deputations from the Cor- 
 
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. 161 
 
 poration of London and from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge 
 waited on the Queen to expound their loyalty, and to protest against the 
 aggressions of Kome. Bishops and Archbishops sent in memorials to the 
 same effect, and petitions to Parliament were adopted at enthusiastic meet- 
 ings 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 re- 
 cent assumption 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 addresses to me, expressing at- 
 tachment 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 God's blessing, to main- 
 tain 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 Catholic 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 in- 
 troduction of free trade. Mr. Disraeli replied with a sarcastic comment on 
 the obvious despair felt by the Government of improving the condition 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 West- 
 minster. "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 mind, he felt that a very great change must 
 take place in the relations which must hereafter subsist between the 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 ho had long meditated. 
 
1G2 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 .... I cannot suppose that the noble Lord only contemplates the 
 bringing in of a Bill to prevent Roaian Catholics from styling themselves 
 Bishops or Archbishops 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 stimng up the passions of a 
 mighty people — in exciting their highest and holiest feelings, and in raising 
 in this country a spirit of controversy and polemical dispute which recalls 
 the days of the Stuarts, and the end of which none of us may live to wit- 
 ness. . . . 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 re- 
 putation and the character 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 thought it important that the people, the 
 community in general, should see what is the result of that remarkable 
 agitation which has been fostered by the Government, and which has led, 
 I admit, to a national demonstration seldom perhaps equalled." 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 Chancellor 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 a,nd corporations of England met? Was it for 
 this that all our learned and religious societies assembled at a period the 
 most inconvenient, in order, as they thought, to respond to the appeal of 
 their Sovereign, and to lose no time in assuring her Majesty of their 
 determination to guard her authority and her supremacy? Was it for 
 this that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge — that the great City 
 of London itself— went in solemn procession to offer at the foot of the 
 Throne the assurance of their devotion ? Was it for this that the electric 
 telegraph conveyed her Majesty's response to those addresses, that not an 
 instant might be lost in re-assuring the courage of the inhabitants of the 
 metropolis ? And what are these remedies ? Some Roman Catholic priests 
 are to be prevented from taking titles, Avhich they had already been 
 
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S INCONSISTENCIES. 163 
 
 prevented to a very considerable extent from taking by the existing law ; 
 the only difference being that they are now to be prevented from taking 
 a territorial title which has not been assumed by a prelate of the National 
 Church ; while it seems that to that provision there is to be attached a" 
 penalty. But a penalty of what amount ? One of 40s. perhaps. That is 
 not yet stated, but a penalty of that amount would, in my opinion, be 
 worthy of the occasion." 
 
 Then, with a good deal of sarcasm, be dwelt upon Lord John's incon- 
 sistencies, 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 Eoman Cathohc 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, moreover, 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 
 Koman 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 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 
 
 * It is somewhat curious to note that in all the debates in Parliament and in 
 all the public meetings Avhich preceded them, the real point at issue was never 
 mentioned. There was plenty of Protestantism of the combative sort, plenty of 
 denunciation 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, but in every country which officially recognises 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. 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONS'PIELD. 
 
 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 superfliipns ? "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 Eomish 
 Church, but against the ascription of titles of honour and dignity to them 
 by her Majesty's Ministers. AVhat 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 ! " 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 argument, and 
 it is not a little interesting to note that on this occasion he was cordially 
 seconded by his staunch antagonist, Mr. Eoebuck. In the further debates 
 in Committee on this most unfortunate measure, he spoke several times, 
 and invariably in the same sense— expressing his belief that the excuse for 
 the Bill 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 
 all know. Lord John Eussell 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 ignominous 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 Queen's Speech which related to 
 agricultural distress should be read at the table once more, called the atten- 
 tion of the House to the effects of recent legislation on the agricultural 
 interest, and to the unequal jDressure 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 
 
MR. LOCKE KING'S REFORM BILL. 165 
 
 returning, and that in proportion as other interests improved, the agri- 
 cultural must improve also. It was urged also that in many ways expen- 
 diture 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 all social ills. 
 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 very palpably to 
 affect the position of the Government. Four days later. Sir Charles Wood 
 brought in the Budget, which was received with a storm of disapprobation. 
 A surplus of nearly two millions was anticipated, and one million it was 
 ])roposed 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 Keform with a proposal to reduce the qualification for the county fran- 
 chise to the same amount as that for the boroughs — a £10 occupation. 
 Lord John Eussell 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 Kussell 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 agricultural 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 dropped from 961 to 95|-. 
 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 Adminis- 
 tration 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 
 
16G THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 Peelites had a protracted inter- 
 view 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 even- 
 ing 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 reconstruction of the Government, with the additional 
 strength of two 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 consequently 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 Government had so far failed, and that Lord John 
 still clung to his abortive Ecclesiastical Titles Bill with more than parental 
 fondness, on which account principally the Peelite members refused to 
 serve. The Queen had thereupon sent for the Duke of Wellington, 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 3rd 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, some- 
 what modified by the omission of the second and third clauses, which 
 related to the collation and induction of priests in L-eland and the succes- 
 sion to bequests, thus reducing the proportions of the measure to a declara- 
 tion 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 9c?. in the pound on dwelling- 
 houses, and M. on shops substituted ; the duty on colonial cofifee was to 
 be reduced one-fourth, and the protecting duty on foreign coffee altogether 
 removed, making all kinds pay a duty of 3df. The timber duties were 
 
THE PROPERTY TAX. 167 
 
 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 atteutionof 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 £-100,000 less, that sum 
 having just been claimed from the Government by the East India Com- 
 pany. 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. 
 
 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 themselves, 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 a proposition that the renewal 
 should be for one year only. Mr. Disraeli supported the amendment on 
 the ground that the 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 tlie 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 ground 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 Trader 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 
 
168 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAllL OF BEACOKSFIELO. 
 
 * security for the cOQtinuance of Free Trade ! ' 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 sense and spirit of the nation that 
 under such influences they can still generally act rightly and think 
 justly." 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that in the course of this speech Lord Beacons- 
 field constantly spoke of the duty upon foreign corn as an " abrogated 
 tax " — an " obsolete impost," from 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 laboured 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 prin- 
 ciple which we apply to direct taxation shall virtually be the same as that 
 which we apply to indirect, and that in its application we should attempt to 
 make it general, not to say universal." The Income Tax itself he de- 
 scribed as " a tax false, 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 provisional, 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 religious 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 Association of 
 Buckinghamshire on the 17th 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, 
 
ACCEPTS THE CORN LAW. 169 
 
 " 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 the ' Protec- 
 tive system,' can never be brought back unless it is the interest of all 
 classes — at least of all classes of importance — that that should be the 
 principle which should regulate the national industry, and unless the 
 nation speaks out upon the question in an unmistakable manner. But 
 knowing as I do, the difficulties in which the question is involved, am T, 
 as the representative of an agricultural constituency, to sit still, and to say 
 that those Avhose 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 Pro- 
 tectionists 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 possibility of reverting to the ancient 
 state of things existed he had fought undauntedly, but when that consum- 
 mation became 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 
 Eussell, 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 was not 
 unfrequently reproached by some of his colleagues, who, without consider- 
 ing 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 liad 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 inter- 
 ference in the internal policy of the country, was disposed to think that 
 very great latitude within the sphere of his own attributes should be 
 
170 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 allowed to him. His notion was that a Foreign Minister ought to he 
 strictly honnd to pnrsue the policy of the Cabinet he belonged to, hut that 
 he ought to be left free to follow out that policy in the ordinary details of 
 his ofiice, without having every despatch he wrote subjected to criticism 
 and comment. This view commended itself neither to Lord John Eussell 
 nor to the Prince Consort^ wh o took a far more active part in the govern- 
 ment of the country than is commonly 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 Stockraar — and forbid- 
 ding him, in peremptory terms, to alter any document after it had received 
 the Hoyal sanction. Such a step, he was warned, would be followed by 
 his dismissal. He was also required to place before her Majesty all 
 despatches received, and to submit all drafts of replies. There can be no 
 reason for doubting that this memorandum was addressed to Lord John 
 Eussell at his own request, and that it really 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 awhile Lord Palmerston appears to have obeyed those instructions 
 to the letter, but always unwillingly — principally because of the loss of 
 time which this system occasioned. The Queen and the Premier main- 
 tained 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 Eussell to com- 
 municate 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. He 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. There was no inter- 
 ference so long as he chose to stay, but he was given to understand very 
 distinctly 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 liberation of the " illustrious patriot and 
 exile." Li 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 assas- 
 sins," 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 COUP D'ETAT. 171 
 
 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 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 coniplaint 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 Palmers ton'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 coup 
 cVetat 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 remain 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 Palmerston wrote to Lord Normanby, desiring him to make no 
 change in his relations with the French Government, and there the 
 matter 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, who informed him that he had 
 heard from Count Walewski that the English foreign secretary "bad 
 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 complete contradiction to the line of strict neutrality 
 and passiveness 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 ofi&cial despatch to Lord Normanby expressing his satisfaction 
 at the result of the coup d'etat. 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 
 
172 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.' 
 
 in France, and of his conviction tliat 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 Eussell 
 wrote back to the effect that his colleague had misapprehended the ques- 
 tion at issue, which was not Avhether the President was justified in what 
 he had done, but whether he, as an English Minister, was justified in 
 expressing 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 which ought to 
 have followed from a sound policy and able administration " — ^■.e., his 
 own. He therefore came to the conclusion that he could not safely allow 
 Lord Palmerston to remain 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 announced, and on the 27th Lord Granville was sworn in 
 as his successor. 
 
 The change most assuredly did not strengthen the Government. 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 guidance 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 family connections of the 
 Queen, the result being that, as Mr. Asbley 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, Kussia, Saxony, and Bavaria, and in some degree of the 
 present Prussian Government." i 
 
 Parliament met on the 3rd of February, 1852. The Queen's 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, aff"orded 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 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. 173 
 
 mentioned her Majesty's name far too often. Lord Palmers ton 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 oa 
 the matter, and for himself he declared that greatly as he had disapproved 
 the policy of Lord Palmerston, he had never separated 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 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 pecu- 
 liarly 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 in- 
 formed were drawn up by a personage 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 ... of conduct on his 
 part of an urgent not to say precipitate nature." 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 Eeform, 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 whether, 
 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 
 the noble Lord's exposition of the reasons which induced him to believe 
 that his own Eeform Bill had failed to achieve all that was promised as the 
 result of it, and that he would regard without 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 Eeform 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 
 
174 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 nothing but the Bill." And yet these quondam admirers of the settlement 
 of twenty years ago were now calling for further change. If their 
 proposals should turn out to be directed against the landed interest he 
 promised his most determined opposition, even at the risk of being stigma- 
 tized as an anti-Eeformer. After commenting on the Colonial Office and 
 upon the way in which the Colonies generally were dealt Avith, the speaker 
 turned to the "great measure" of the preceding Session — the Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Act — and taunted the Government with its failure. " Has it vindi- 
 cated 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 
 Avhich 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 agricultural 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 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 Avith 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 McCnlloch'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 wdiose faith in Free Trade no doubt can be entertained, 
 "gives it as his deliberate opinion that the jiroper, just, and scientific mean, 
 by which a fair adjustment can be arrived at are countervailing duties, but 
 he adds, just as these duties would be, the opportunity for applying them 
 has been lost, and the cultivators of the soil in the present temper of the 
 country must submit to the injustice Avhich is oppressing them. That is 
 the political morality of a political economist."* That morality he pro- 
 ceeded to impugn. He declared the essential immorality and injustice of 
 confiscating the property of the largest body of employers of labour in this 
 country, and pleaded that in the reconstruction of the financial system the 
 agricultural classes should have the compensation which was legitimately 
 and admittedly their due. 
 
 * See " A Treatise on the principles and practical influence of Taxation and 
 the Funding System," by J. R. McCulloch. 2nd Ed. Longman, 1852 ; pp. 
 195-202. 
 
A MILITIA BILL. 175 
 
 He was soon to heave an opportunity of trying his hand at something of 
 the kind. The Government was ah^eady shipwrecked, and was rapidlj' 
 going to pieces by its own acts. The first was Lord John Russell's new 
 Magna Charta, which he brought in on the 9 th 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 
 ];aying 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 proposed before the second reading — a fortnight — was much 
 too short. Before the fortnight was over, however, the Government was 
 out of ofSce, and the waters of Lethe had engulfed the Bill — that Bill 
 which its author declared to be the result of long years of study and' 
 observation, but which 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 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 courageous 
 men, like the late Sir Charles Napier, to improve matters had brought 
 upon them official snubbings and loss of promotion. 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 com- 
 bined forces of Russia and Austria had been imminent, and the ambassa- 
 dors 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. Some- 
 thing 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 popular in any quarter. At Court it appears to have been accepted 
 
J 76 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 Eussell, 
 however, stuck to his text, in spite of remonstrance from the Crown and 
 the Duke of Wellington alike, and on the 16tli 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 word "local." The Government went to a division, and found 
 itself in a minority of 11 — upon which Lord John Russell at once an- 
 nounced 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 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 unquestionably 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 him- 
 self 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 ascendency 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 Lo^d Derby had to begin the 
 task of government 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 simply suicidal, but when the sesaion was over 
 
Address to cONSfiTuENts. 177 
 
 it was Imdei'stood that the Grovernment would take the sense 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 be completed. Mr. Disraeli having accepted 
 the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer — which by the way had been 
 ofiered 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 formal 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 per- 
 nicious an influence over the welfare of this kingdom ; to accomplish those 
 remedial measures, which great productive interests, suffering from unequal 
 taxation, have a right to demand from a just government ; to cultivate 
 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 contained 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 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 Kupert of Parlia- 
 mentary discussion," adding that " his chaise 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. / , 
 
 ^^" ;-* 
 
 I— ^ . '■ , 
 
178 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPa?EIl VI. 
 
 CHAXCELLOE OF THE EXCIIEQUEPv. 
 
 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 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 — 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 Russell — Mr. Disraeli's reply — Import duty on corn no longer possible — 
 General Election — Address to the electors — Result of the elections — Convoca- 
 tion restored — The New Parliament— Queen's Speech — Debate on the Address 
 — Mr. Villiers's attempt to hamper the Government — The resolutions — Mr. 
 Disraeli's amendment — Speech thereon — Mi*. 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 misrepre- 
 sentations — General characteristics of the scheme — The debate — Mr. Disraeli's 
 reply — The division — Not a minister on sufferance — Out of office. 
 
 The new Chancellor of the Exchequer took his seat on the ISih of 
 March, 1852, and at once assumed the Leadership of the House of 
 Commons. He was supjiorted by a body of colleagues of more than 
 ordinary capacity, but with the misfortune already hinted at of being 
 almost wholly new to official life. Mr. Walpole was at the Home OfSce ; 
 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 ; Mr. Christopher, Chancellor 
 of the Duchy of Lancaster ; Major Beresford, Secretary at War ; and 
 amongst other members of the Government occui^yiag 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 cate- 
 chising speech from Mr. Villiers, who expressed the greatest possible 
 anxiety to know whether the " glorious boon " bequeathed to the people of 
 England " by a statesman v/hom the nation now deplores," was to be with- 
 drawn ; 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 declaration on the part of the Government that they 
 have not any intention to disturb the policy of Free Trade." The Chan- 
 
MR. VILLIERS'S CATECHISM. 173 
 
 cellor of the Exchequer thus called upou was equal to the occasion. 
 Mr. Villiers had described the condition of England as one of distrust, oi 
 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 Government in- 
 tended to put a 5s. 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, of course, not difiicult 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 Protection 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 ! and Mr. Villiers explained that what he wished to 
 know was, whether the Government " intended to introduce any scheme 
 of fiscal kgislation before the dissolution of Parliament, in order that 
 members iight go to the country on the question of Free Trade v. Protec- 
 tion." M'.' Disraeli's answer was brief and to the purpose; "It is not the 
 intention jbf 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 wis 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 proposition 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 Government pledged itself to do all that could be done to 
 redress the grievances of the agricultural interest, but declined 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. Honourable members had 
 asked, as they had a right to do, upon what principles the Government 
 had been formed : he wished to know upon what lorinciples her Majesty's 
 Opposition had been formed. Lord John Kussell, he had been informed, 
 " within a fortnight of resigning the Government of the country, from 
 avowed inability to carrv it on, — within a fortnight of having communi- 
 
 H 2 
 
180 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOKSPIELD. 
 
 cated 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 imperative 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 Kussell, and the more extreme members of the 
 Liberal party, under the guidance of Mr. Cobden, for the purpose of break- 
 ing up the Government, and of obstructing legislation. The effects of this 
 coalition — which was not denied by Lord] John Kussell 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. 
 "Walfjole, and was very cordially received by the House. The scheme was 
 simple enough, and it has worked 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 instalments, 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 Kussell, 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. Tho 
 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 difiiculties 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 militaiy authority was the venerable Duke of 
 Wellington, who supported the Bill most warmly in the House of Lords, 
 and whose latest public utterances dealt with it. 
 
 The Budget was brought in on the night of the 30th of April, and was 
 necessarily 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 con- 
 tinue 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 surveying the whole 
 system of finance, with an attempt, if possible, to induce the House of 
 
MR. DISRAELI'S BUDGET. 181 
 
 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, while 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 consider- 
 able, and an amount of time which I am sure no member of the Grovernment 
 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 gener- 
 ally unfortunate in his financial policy — was good enough to express his 
 entire concurrence in the proposals of the Chancellor, and to explain that 
 he did so because they afforded a proof that the finance of the "VVhigs 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 career." 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, well-arranged, clear, and well-delivered, but," he adds, " it 
 made out the complete success of the financial and commercial measures 
 of the last ten years of the Peel and of the Whig Administrations, which, 
 while they were in progress 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 Protection." It may be remarked in this place, 
 that the notion of Lord Beaconsfield having "made out the complete 
 success " of the Whig financial policy is based upon the fact that he 
 admitted the general prosperity of the country. As, however, that pros- 
 perity 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 develop- 
 ment of the national resources, it is evident that in writing thus Lord 
 Palmerston went rather too far. The remark about Protection simply 
 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 ex- 
 ception, 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 Patoerston had refused to enter the Cabinet bepause he found 
 
182 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD. 
 
 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 8 th 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 pro- 
 ducing class and the consuming classes. What he intended was not, 
 perhaps, very clear, but it was sufficiently so to create no little uneasinesis 
 amongst the more moderate of his own 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 office on sufferance. St. Albans and 
 Sudbury — hot-beds of political corruption for many years — had been dis- 
 franchised ; and at the opening of the Session, ministers had announced 
 that before the general election they intended to dispose of the four seats 
 thus set at liberty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accordingly came 
 forward with his proposal. Had he consulted his own comfort or the con- 
 venience of the Government, he would, he said, in eifect, have gladly 
 evaded the matter as one calculated 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 representation. 
 The Eoyal Society, the London 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 failed to see that they ful- 
 filled the conditions under which representation can be claimed as of right 
 He proposed, therefore, to allot the vacant seats to two great constituencies 
 which at that time were most assuredly imperfectly represented — the West 
 Eiding of Yorkshire and the Southern Division of Lancashire. With 
 regard to the former, he proposed to take the line of the Midland Eailway 
 as the basis of his division, the portion south and west of that line to be 
 called the South Division of the West Eiding ; 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 especially careful to speak of 
 Mr. Cobden — as, indeed, he always did — with the respect which his 
 abilities demanded. " If the result of this arrangement be that the honour- 
 
PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS, 183 
 
 nWe member for West Elding shall have a permanent seat in the House, 
 I cannot say that I shall regret it. I confess that I should be sorry to seo 
 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 
 responsibility 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 Salford, with about 12,000 electors, becoming 
 one electoral division, and that of West Derby, with 9500, the other. 
 Mr. Gladstone, in a verbose and uninteresting speech, 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. 
 
 Kebuffs such as this 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 Chancellor 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 by a recurrence to the laws which, previously 
 to 1846, protected them from such calamities. The spirit of the age tends, 
 to free intercourse, and no statesman can disregard with impunity the 
 genius of the epoch in which he lives. But every principle of abstract 
 justice and every consideration of high policy counsel that the producer 
 should be treated as fairly as the consumer, and intimate that when the 
 native producer is thrown into unrestricted competition with external 
 rivals, it is the duty of the 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. 
 
184 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 however, the Chancellor 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 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 Russell commenced a discussion of the general policy 
 of the Government in domestic as well as foreign affairs. Mr. Disraeli 
 replied, vindicating the conduct of his Government in this affair — a matter 
 perfectly uninteresting 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 Johi. Russell, he 
 vindicated himself from the charge brought against him of having main- 
 tained 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 had 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 willingly resign to them, 
 they derive all their credit from the measures of the last Government." 
 Even the Chancery Reform Bill 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 introduced 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 
 approbation of Parliament, and that they have done this in a manner 
 the most disingenuous and the most disgraceful, by procrastinating their 
 movements until Parliament has been betrayed into a generous vote of 
 upwards of £150,000, which has now to be distributed and applied 
 to a new system, which they have disingenuously established— -thus 
 
ACCEPTING THE SITUATION. 185 
 
 making the House of Commons an unwilling confederate with ns 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 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 mispresentations 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 protectionists 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 produc- 
 tive of great suffering both in Engbnd 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 things 
 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 will not pin my 
 political career on any policy 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 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 the 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. McCuUoch, Colonel Torrens and Mr. Mill — he went 
 on to urge that he, and those who worked with him, had during the pre- 
 ceding six years, constantly followed one line of policy. They had sought 
 to pomp^nsftte the interests which had been injured in 1846, with as little 
 
186 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 supported 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." 
 
 AVith 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 of measures — the Militia Act, Chancery Reform, 
 Extramural Interment, and Improved Water Supply had all been carried, 
 while in addition New Zealand had been provided with a Constitution, and 
 an act had been passed, rendering available for the serviceof the Australian 
 colonies, the portion arising within 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 tho 
 gold fields. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's re-election was practically unopposed. The Liberals put 
 forward a candidate in the person of that Dr. Lee of Hart well House, whof?o 
 name figures so conspicuously in the records of local politics, but his candi- 
 dature was from the first rather farcical. He had a certain amount of 
 support in Aylesbury 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 Pre, 1999 ; Disraeli, 1972 ; Cavendish, 1403 ; Lee, 
 656. These figures proved pretty plainly in which direction the sym- 
 pathies 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 attention. Mr. Disraeli's speech was not a 
 long one, and was greatly interrupted by the manifestations of the sup- 
 porters of Dr. Lee. It was, however, remarkable, inasmuch as he held on 
 the hustings the same language with regard to the revival of the 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?' 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. 
 
RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. 187 
 
 ISTo 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 pront)unced Liberals Sir George Grey and Mr. Horsman 
 shared their fate. Mr. Lowe, it may be noted, was first returned to Par- 
 liament 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 coali- 
 tion 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 of the autumn deserves to be chronicled. Acting doubtless 
 with the conciirrcuco of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose desire to 
 see the Church a real and living power, has more than once found ex- 
 pression in his writings and in his public addresses. Lord Derby advised 
 her Majesty to allow Convocation to resume once more its long suspended 
 Synodical functions. Those Churchmen, who in their ardent zeal for the 
 Greek Church and for union with Russian Christianity, sometimes forget 
 their duties to their own communion, should remember 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 preliminaries, 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 Parliament was recommended " dispassionately to con- 
 sider 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 Parliament 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 
 
188 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 institutions of the country, and that the Eeports of the Universities Com" 
 mission would be laid before Parliament at a very early date. The 
 abolition of transportation and Legal Eeform were also announced as 
 subjects for legislative consideration in the new Session. 
 
 The debate on the Address was unusually brief — the House 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 recognised unrestricted competition 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 
 numbers of the people of England, whose case certainly deserved as much 
 attention as the case of those merchants and shipowners of London, whoso 
 grievances, through the repeal of the Navigation Laws, Lord John Eussell 
 had taken in hand. The remainder of the speech was chiefly composed of 
 an appeal to Mr. Hume and Mr. Villiers to refrain from bringing 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 Hsten to the discussion. 
 They were brought forward on the 23rd of November. The first declared 
 that the improved condition of the working classes was the result of tho 
 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 consideration 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 competition having been adopted after due delibera- 
 tion 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 
 
Mr. DISRAELI'S AMENDMENT. 189 
 
 very little 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 little 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 party fight. Mr. Yilliers 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 liaws 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, 
 ihey 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-imposition of the duty on corn ? What had 
 they done with regard to sugar? 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 
 Eussell himself, when holding the office of 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 readjustment 
 of local taxation. Turning from himself to his parliamentary chief, he 
 claimed for Lord Derby credit for the same moderation. 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 
 
lyo Tin: ruDLio life or the eaul of deagoksfiklo. 
 
 the imiH)(fiitioii of an oquiiablo oouutervailtng (luty» auoh as was oallod for 
 by politiml oooiuniiiBts, niul puch as oonmiciukd itself even to a Freo 
 Tmdev like ho\\\ r»lnioi'Btuu. The new GoVomuiiont Imd come in with less 
 jittvty feeling than uny gvwennuont for tuRny yeai'< pnst, but scaitsely had* 
 Mtnistei'M taken their »m{» ufter it'-election, when " the hou. and kmrned 
 gt?ntlenuvn oi'poBlte, the stormy petivl of Protection" (Mr. 0. Villlers) rvso 
 to ask whether the (.h>verinuent was about to resort to a policy of Pivteetion, 
 Hy tinolations from the sjH'eehes of his opi^nents, and especially from those 
 of Mr. tllrtdptoue, Mr. Dismeli showeil that the complaints of the agrloultviral 
 interestt) t.a lo tlie inv:Hdonco of looiil taxation weitj entitled to conslderatitm, 
 tliat the cottilltlou of the agricuUuml Ubourer demamled the attention ot 
 tlie House, and that It was the most distinguisheil of the IVelites who had 
 ttskeil for reeiproelty in dealing with tlio Navigation Laws. Yet if we, 
 said Ui\ Disraeli In efleot, say a wovd on any of theso subjeots, we ai*o at 
 oace accused of wishing to itjvert to the exploded system of riMteotionj 
 fttkd that iu spito of an expresslou in the Queen's S^peooh which wo oon- 
 ildcred diivet and unambiguous. We are now met with what must b« 
 ©ftUed a vexatious motion. How have wo met this motion ? Seeing that 
 the financial statement is but two ulghts distant, it might have l^een en- 
 eountereil with the i>revlous question. Instead of taking that oourso the 
 Oovernnu^nt have accepto^l the oliallenge, and have bin^ught forwftfvl their 
 ametulinent fratikly and plainly, feeling that this motion Is i-eally one of 
 want of oonftdenw. " We neitlier seek to W, nor will we l)e, Ministers on 
 sulVerance^ We took upon ourselves the I'elns of government without in- 
 quiring whether the late i^arliament was hostile to our general policy or 
 not, but we took them at the general desire of the House of Commons and 
 ^ the country. Wo met the diffleultles of our |>o8ltlou fairly, and adminis- 
 kreil the gnvernmenfe of the cotmtry to the best of our ability, applying 
 ourselves diligi>ntly and assiduously to the affaiw that were bi\night under 
 our consideration, till such time as there had been an apiH?al to the country. 
 But whatever wejt> the exigencies of the ease in the old ix\rliament, we 
 aeltlier desire nor will we subndt in the new to carry on Uie gtwernment 
 under any Indulgenee whloh !• (breig& to the s^Mt of tlie British con- 
 natutiott.'* 
 
 It is unnceessary to u^y aauoh by wi^y of comment on those siieechos. 
 1\) all who do ftot ftpproadi tlkti sufejeot wl^ tholr minds made \\\\ they 
 will suthcient4^- pwve the eouilstttliov of the tpeftker*! OArcer. So long as 
 P»\>ttH3tion was jHssible, Lord Beaoonsfield Wfta A Protectionist, hut wheji 
 Free Titule i^inciples had triutn|[4ml he did not j^XifilSS to have biToine a 
 cotivert, but sin»ply to submit to the will of the majority aud to accept the 
 jiopular venlict. In principle, the agricuUuml intercut is, in the opinion of 
 all the greatest political eci>nonusts— Adam Sndth, Rioat\lo, and McCu\UM?h 
 —entitled to not a ** pn>tective," but a cv>antervaillng duty in onler that it 
 may Ihj placed on the same terms at starting as the foreign proilucer. 
 When, however, tlrn ii&pR^sentatiws of the nation had decided tliat no such 
 
AITACKS UVOH LORD BEACONSFlELt). 101 
 
 duty should be imposed, and when that decision had been ratified by a 
 general clfcction, Lord Beacon sfield, in what I venture to think the true 
 spirit of statesmanship, accepted the situation, and sought comjKjnsation 
 tor tlie agricultural interest in other ways — in the relief of local taxation 
 Hiid the readjustment of certain duties. It has lx.'en urged that he '* turned 
 Free Trader," and that just as he had a right to taunt Peel with using his 
 'Jury 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 pro- 
 gramme of his rivals, and kept himself in office by cairying it out. In the 
 case of Lord Bcaconsfield we find him professing himself still a Protectionist 
 ill principle and a supporter of the agricultural interest, but convinced that 
 a return to protective and restrictive duties was imi)0S8ible, and looking 
 for compensation elsewhere. That he ought, after this election, to have at 
 once resigned office was commonly said. Mr. Sidney Herbert in the 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 cir- 
 cumstances of the case. When Peel turned Free Trader ho did so to carry 
 a measure of Free Trade, and he retained office for the purpose of carrying 
 it. Lord Beaconsfleld submitted to the inevitable and bowed before the 
 storm, retaining office not because he was converted, but because he hoped 
 to seciue those compensations for the agricultural class to which the 
 Whigs admitted they were entitled, but which they obstinately refused to 
 concede. 
 
 The debate on these resolutions of Mr. Villiers 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 amend- 
 ment, 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 
 wjus 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 bur<len, and will thereby most surcly 
 promote the welfare and contentment of the people; and tliat the House 
 will be ready to take into consideration any measures consistent with those 
 ])rinciplcs, which, in pursuance of her Majesty's gracious siwech and recom- 
 mendation, 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 — hapi)ily for the last time 
 in the House of Commons — a division was taken, Mr. Villicrs's resolutions 
 were rejected by 330 votes against 256. Lord Palmerston's amendment 
 
162 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOJ^SFIEtfi. 
 
 was then taken and carried by a majority of 415 — 468 Ayes to 53 Noe^. 
 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, however, the debate was the funeral, 
 service over the grave of Protection. The principle was dead and buried, 
 and it is tolerably safe to predict that it will never be resuscitated in 
 this country. 
 
 On the 3rd of December Mr. Disraeli brought in his second Budget 
 "in a speech," says Mr. Theodore Martin, "of conspicuous 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 pro- 
 posed financial arrangement on the table, and he began his speech by 
 asking the House, under the peculiar circumstances 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 unre- 
 stricted competition had been unreservedly adopted as the principle of our 
 commercial 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 peculiar 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 agricultural interest. With regard to the first the Govenrment 
 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 process of lowering the duties on foreign sugar ; 2nd, the 
 reduction of the duty on sugar produced in British plantations ; 3rd, a 
 guarantee of additional loans for emigration and improvement ; 4th, per- 
 mission to refine bonded sugar ; 5 th, permission to use molasses in British 
 breweries ; and 6th, the equalisation of the duties on rum and on British 
 spirits. The first concession 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 fresh loans, mainly because the loans already sanc- 
 tioned had not yet been exhausted. 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 
 liad sanctioned. 
 
THE MALT TAX. 193 
 
 Turing 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 pre- 
 pared 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 
 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 competi- 
 tion had taken effect, and, secondly, what were the measures to be recom- 
 mended to Parliament, 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 taxation, its maintenance would be inconsis- 
 tent 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 especially 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 Government would be accom- 
 X^lished. 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 which the 
 Chancellor 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, 
 however, was constantly increasing, and had reached the enormous amount 
 of 71,000,000 lbs. The heavy duties checked the consumption, and of 
 
19:* THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 this amount only 54,000,000 lbs. came into use in this country. On tins 
 subject the Government had made veiy laborious calculations, and had 
 arrived at the conclusion that there was no prospect of a failure of the 
 supply of tea, while it was impossible to shut (Hie'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. 2ic?. per lb. to Is. ; the reduction 
 to take effect during a term of six years, beginning with a reduction of 4:id. 
 (which would make the duty Is. 10c?.), 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 2d. per lb. and 
 5 per cent, to Id. per lb. and 5 per cent., while the Customs duty on 
 foreign hops would be reduced from 45s. to 22s. 6d., or from 4(?. to 2d, 
 13er lb. 
 
 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 ter- 
 minate 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 believed that if we are to have recourse 
 to direct taxation, it must be made as general as indirect, and that a per- 
 manent 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. Sir 
 Eobert Peel, when he first introduced this tax in 1842, exempted Ireland 
 from its operation on the ground 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 
 fallen 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 principleSj 
 viz. first, that in constructing a direct tax it should be as general as an 
 indirect tax, and secondly, that a difference should be recognised 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 
 
Ways and means. 195 
 
 (Scliedule B)to he reduced from S^d. to lid. in the pound in England, and 
 from 2id. to lie?, in Scotland ; the tax on Schedules D and E (trades, pro- 
 fessions, and offices) to be reduced from Id. to 5hd. 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 
 reduced 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 £60,000 for Ireland, he 
 looked for £5,421,000 from this source. It would be his duty to lay before 
 the House a supplementary 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 calculated 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 
 probability 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 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 ho 
 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 limitation to £10 a-year. At present private houses paid dd. and shops 
 6d. in the pound ; he proposed that the former should pay Is. Qd. and the 
 latter Is. The amount of the tax would then be £150,000 a-year less than 
 the window duty. He would have half-a-year's income tax — £2,500,000 — - 
 to meet the extra expenditure 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, while 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 
 prepared at once 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 
 
 o2 
 
106 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAUt OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 for the simple reason that they are almost invariably misrepresented, an4 
 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 something better, did not care about the reduction 
 made 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 flourish of trumpets by the 
 last Liberal Government would have taken effect twenty years before ? 
 
 The Opposition, however, speedily found flaws to lay hold of. Mr. 
 Gladstone made the notable discovery that to make any distinction be- 
 tween 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 " preposterous," was criticised with a severity which 
 even the blundering 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 Irishman. 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 ho 
 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 estimating the amount of loss to the revenue 
 
THE HOUSE TAX. 197 
 
 througli the partial remission of the Malt Tax in the approaching October. 
 He went through his calculations again, and showed that the 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. 
 Disraeli 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 required 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 j^roviding 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 beneficial 
 measure, and that it would supply the necessary amount of direct taxa- 
 tion, they had to decide upon which group of indirect taxes they should 
 operate, and they came to the conclusion that they should act upon those 
 articles which came into 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 — 
 consequences not honourable to the Government, not advantageous to the 
 country, and net, in my opinion, conducive to the reputation 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 respecting the commutation of the Window and Houso 
 
198 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Dafcy, which- now I am obliged to attempt to readjust. . . .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. 
 1 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 
 really risen to the height of his great argument, and had recognised its 
 ruler. The hour had come and here was obviously the man. For a moment 
 even the mediocrities 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 le- 
 calling. In the course of his speech Mr. Disraeli had spoken with some 
 contempt of Sir 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 " re- 
 garded but did not respect them." No sooner had Mr. Disraeli sat down, 
 than ineffable virtue, in the person of Mr. Grladstone, rose to rebuke him. 
 With that air of superiority which he is so fond of assuming, Mr. Glad- 
 stone delivered himself 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 exaspera- 
 tion 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 con- 
 tempt 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 a chance of success. The Protectionists were angry at the appear- 
 
RESIGNATION OF LORD DERBY. 199 
 
 ance of the smallest concession to the principles of Free Trade ; the Whigs 
 were indignant that the imbecility of their leader had deprived them for a 
 time of those sweets of office which none appreciate more perfectly than 
 they ; while the Peelites had personal reasons for detesting the statesman 
 who had held their idol 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 parti-^ans 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 bo 
 Ministers on sufferance, were not likely to hesitate as to their proper 
 course when they found themselves in a minority in the House of Com- 
 mons. 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 announ- 
 cing 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 Administration of Lord Derby and 
 Mr. Disraeli had ceased to be. 
 
200 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AGAIN IN OPPOSITIO!T. 
 
 The Coalition Government — A strong administration — Clouds in the East — At 
 home — Ministei'ial indiscretions — The French alliance — Attacks on foreign 
 powers — Analysis of the situation — The Budget — Conceived in the spirit of 
 hostility to the land — Anti-Russian 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 Reform 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 Russell "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 — Retirement 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 Russell at Vienna — Retirement of Lord John 
 Russell — 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, which had 
 resulted from the disorganisation of parties since 1846." Her Majesty 
 determined 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 ignominiously that his 
 presence as Premier was wholly out of the question. It was known 
 moreover that Lord Palmerston would not serve under him, and Palmer- 
 ston'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 
 
LORD ABERDEEN'S MINISTRY. 201 
 
 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 willing to serve under him. Amongst those who were thus 
 coy was Lord Palmerston, to whom he made his first application. 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 public, 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 OfiSce, 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, " combined all the men 
 of talent and experience in the House of Commons, except Disraeli." 
 Truth to say, there was some reason for this exultation. Lord Palmerston, 
 the Duke of Newcastle, 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 
 Russell and Mr. Card well. 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 Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer. 
 
 The times certainly needed a strong and a discreet Government. In 
 the East the clouds had long been gathering, and the year 1853 was 
 barely a week old when the storm broke. On the 9 th of January, the 
 Emperor Nicholas held that famous conversation with Sir Hamilton 
 Seymour, which proved the prelude to the Crimean War — the first conver- 
 sation of a long series, which have been almost literally reproduced by 
 the late 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 
 responsibility of disturbing the status quo. The fitness of the Adminis- 
 tration 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, 
 whereupon Lord John directed Sir Henry Bulwer to interfere, in a des- 
 patch which has since been somewhat fiercely criticised. The crowning 
 evidence of the character of Whig foreign poHcy was, however, afforded by 
 Sir Charles Wood on the 3rd of February, when, addressing his consti- 
 tuents at Halifax, he said : — " Take our nearest neighbours. Such a 
 
202 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 despotism never prevailed 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 press, which alone dares to speak the truth." 
 With a Government whose members were capable of indiscretion such as 
 this, and with 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 friendly relations now 
 happily subsisting with her Government." 
 
 , 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 heredi- 
 tary 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 traditional policy of this country was really one 
 of alliance with our neighbours. Yet there now seemed to be a general 
 feeling of hostility between the two nations. Eevolutions and disturbances 
 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 curtailed 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 Parlia- 
 ment 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 result of a long-established habit of order, of freedom 
 of discussion, and of an absence of those causes which disturb the peace of 
 continental states. "Let us suppose that we had had in the com-se of a 
 few years great revolutions in this countiy — that the form of our Govern- 
 ment had been changed — that our free and famous monarchy had been 
 subverted, and that a centralised 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 
 
MR. DISRAELI'S CRITICISMS. 203 
 
 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 breakfast table every morning ? " Then, after paying a tribute to 
 Louis Philippe, he went on : — " After a reign of unbroken prosperity of 
 long duration, Avhen he was aged, when he was in sorrow, and when he was 
 suffering under overwhelming indisposition, 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 their 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 
 Ijeople are exact in their commercial transactions, and friendly in their 
 political 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 therefore asked for explanations 
 as to the policy of the Government with regard to France. He did so because 
 of certain declarations which had been made by members of the Adminis- 
 tration, 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 understandiug, 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 understand- 
 ing with France. . . . How are we to account for such a declaration ? I 
 will not be so impertinent as to suppose that 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 com- 
 mit 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 Govern- 
 ment tells us that they have no principles,— at least, not at present. Some 
 people are uncharitable enough to suppose that they have not got a policy, 
 but in Heaven's name why are they Ministers if they have no discretion ? 
 
204 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 That is the great quality on which I had thought this Cabinet was estab- 
 lished. 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 understanding with whom is the 
 cardinal point of sound statesmanship." 
 
 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 vile 
 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 unfailing judgment, and the 
 certainty that, under no circumstances, he would say or do anything that 
 could commit his colleagues." 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 illustrate that 
 importance he had said : — " I do not think there will be a regular war with 
 the French, but I tell you what you will have : you will have bodies of 
 five thousand men suddenly thrown upon the coast, and how would you 
 like that? How would j'our wives and daughters be treated?" And it 
 was for the sake of putting into office men who could be guilty of uttering 
 such ineffable follies as these that the Tories had been turned out, and a 
 Coalition Ministry brought in ! Small wonder if the leader of the Opposi- 
 tion 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 Opposition. 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 ? 
 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 dream 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 
 
MR. (SLADStONE'S BUDGET. 205 
 
 House who declares himself to be a Radical ? (A Voice : Yes.) Oh, no I 
 you would be afraid of being caught and changed into a Conservative 
 Minister. Well, how has this curious state of things been 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 every one stands still. We 
 never hear the word Eeform now : it is no longer a Ministry of Reform, it 
 is a Ministry of Progress, every member of which agrees to do nothing. 
 All 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 aJQfairs. 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 carrying out its policy. 
 The same course he pursued on all 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 gradual reduction of the 
 Income Tax ; the extension of the Legacy Duty ; equalisation of the spirit 
 duties ; abolition 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. 2ld. to Is. per lb. by successive stages of descent, the last to be 
 reached in April, 1856. All these changes were consequent upon the sig- 
 nificant fact that the financial policy of the late Administration had left in 
 the Treasury a surplus of nearly two millions and a half. The great feature 
 of the scheme was, of course, the retention of the Income Tax — that in- 
 quisitorial and odious impost which every financier had hitherto en- 
 deavoured 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 
 
206 THE PUBLIC tIPE Of tHE EARL OP BfiACONSFIELD. 
 
 in the shape of a conjunction of three measures — one, a tax of Gd, in the 
 pound on land, houses and visible property ; the second, a system of uni- 
 versal licenses on trade, averaging something like £7 ; and the third, a change 
 in the system of legacy duties. Knowings 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 provisions of this Budget, 
 points out its great defect — the " want of sagacity to discern the signs 
 of the times." It would doubtless have been a perfect Budget from Mr. 
 Gladstone's own point of view 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 in- 
 volved 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 Beaconsfigld spoke twice — first on Bulwer's amendment, and 
 afterwards on a minoF point. 
 
 The first was decidedly a great effort. Starting with the declarati( n 
 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 commercial 
 system." These words afforded an opportunity for a lively passage of 
 arms. Lord John Eussell cheered them, whereupon Mr. Disraeli reminded 
 him that when he had enunciated that principle, the noble Lord " instead 
 of crying * hear, hear,' rose in a spirit certainly of incredulity if not of 
 ridicule, and spoke of the idea of assimilating our financial policy to our 
 new commercial jx)licy 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 
 bn his own Budget, he showed that the supporters of the Government — 
 Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Lowe and Mr. Goulburn — were actually committing 
 themselves to principles which when in Opposition they had vehemently 
 opposed. On Mr. Lowe he was naturally severe. That gentleman had 
 censured him somewhat harshly for offering to the House a financial policy 
 for two yeai-s. " 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 
 
THE BUDGET HOSTILE TO THE LANDED INTEREST. 2a7 
 
 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 con- 
 tent with regulating our commercial arrangements and taxes for that time, 
 they are entering upon financial operations that fix the rate of interest for 
 nearly half a century." 
 
 Reverting then to the substance of the Budget, Mr. Disraeli went on to 
 urge the objectionable character of the proposal to continue the operation 
 of the Income Tax for seven years. When he had proposed fiscal arrange- 
 ments 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 Govern- 
 ment 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 Govern- 
 ment principle, a great injustice is done — not, as might have been antici- 
 pated, 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 realised 
 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. Disraeli 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 
 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 agricul- 
 tural interest. The principle he advocated was, in short, that the Govern- 
 ment 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, how- 
 ever, had taken a course precisely the reverse of this, and had said in efiect 
 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 
 
208 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF fat EARt OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 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 con- 
 dition 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 denun- 
 ciation of " this odious, this unjust, this inequitable, this inquisitorial tax,*' 
 Mr. Disraeli passed on to the projected license duty. Concerning that 
 matter, he had received, he mentioned, some 300 or 400 letters all condem- 
 natory of the proposal, and all declaring that a licence duty would be in- 
 finitely worse than the rejected scheme of a House Tax. Representations 
 of a similar nature had doubtless been made to the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, and the result was, that his opinion had already been shaken — a 
 fact which afforded the speaker an opportunity for some of those admirably 
 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 
 detail. 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 working 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 tell 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 corrupt administration of 
 affairs, and no class has a greater interest in the economical administration 
 of those affairs. Gentlemen are very apt to tell us of the weight and im- 
 portance of the great towns, and that this Budget was supported by 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 dififerences. I am loth to believe it. I cannot but believe 
 that it will be remembered that these great towns are situated 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 
 
/r.' ^' 
 
 ^■~i 
 
 THE EASTERN QUESTION. ' 209 
 
 great ? The national character of the country created by its institutions, 
 and by the traditionary influence impressed upon those instit|itions. 
 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 privileges to which his position entitles him, on condition that 
 he discharges 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 gentlemen who are the representa- 
 tives 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 representatives of towns take another 
 course, then of this I feel convinced, that if they are still alienated from 
 us — if they still proceed in their illusory progress, they may, perhaps, 
 arrive at the goal which they contemplate, they may perhaps achieve the 
 object they have set before them ; but I believe they will be greatly dis- 
 appointed in the result, and that they will only find that they have 
 changed a first-rate kingdom into a second-rate republic." 
 
 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 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 
 subsequent 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, meetings 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 Pal- 
 merston 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 
 
 P 
 
210 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 consent, clinging still to the vague and baseless hope that the form of con- 
 vention between Kussia and Turkey would be accepted and peace main- 
 tained. By the beginning of October, it was evident that all hope of this 
 solution was gone : by the 14th, the allied fleets were in front of Constan- 
 tinople, and by the 1st of November Russia had declared war. Still England 
 remained passive, though after the tragedy of Sinope — which unquestionably 
 would have been prevented, had Palmerston's bolder counsels prevailed — 
 public opinion had declared itself very forcibly. By the middle of Decem- 
 ber the country was startled by the news of Palmerston's retirement 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 Administra- 
 tion of which Lord Beaconsfield was an opponent. While this great Euro- 
 pean 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 really 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 conse- 
 quence 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 have retired on that account &nd 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 admitted 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 between the King of the Belgians and the English 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 that those rumours were put about 
 by the leaders of the Tory party, of whom Lord Beaconsfield was naturally 
 the most conspicuous. 
 
 The Session opened on the Slst 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 
 
SPEECH ON THE ADDRESS. 211 
 
 of Lords, and Lord John Eussell fulfilled the same duty in the Commons. 
 It was unnecessary 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 body of men 
 who believe that we are about to embark in such a conflict, 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 which 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 fall back — the example of Mr. Pitt, 
 who, having pledged himself 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 carefully, to 
 digest it as he would a Blue Book, and to criticise it in the same dis- 
 passionate way. But he protested against mixing up with that subject, 
 the question of suppressing bribery and corruption, with which the Speech 
 from the throne promised also to deal. He expressed a strong opinion of 
 the 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 small 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 £10 household franchise in counties, half-a-dozen 
 fancy franchises, and a rearrangement of seats. Lord Beaconsfield pro- 
 nounced 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 
 
 p 2 
 
212 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 reconstruction of the House of Commons being necessary had a tendency 
 to produce disaffection in the country, while its withdrawal had a danger- 
 ous effect on the strength of the Government. But he had greater and 
 stronger reasons than these for objecting to the course of the Whig- 
 Kadical party on this question of reform. The Government of Lord 
 Aberdeen had come into office upon it at a time when everybody believed 
 war with France to be imminent, and it had only withdrawn this — the 
 second attempt to deal with the question — after war with Kussia had been 
 solemnly declared. Such a course he did not hesitate to stigmatise as 
 levity, and, seeing that the country was really indifferent about Eeform, 
 to recommend that the subject should be allowed to drop. " You can never 
 obtain a change such as you desire unless a great preponderance 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 all 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 interesting 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 ambassador in Constantinople and the admiral in 
 command of the 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 peril 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 during the 
 previous five-and-twenty years, in the light of the papers then before the 
 
THE RUSSO-TUEKISH DISPUTE. 213 
 
 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 influence over the Greek populations of the 
 Ottoman Empire she would obtain all the authority that would result 
 from the possession of Constantinople. This design had been practically 
 avowed in a despatch of Count Nesselrode in January 1853. The policy 
 of Russia had been perfectly clear and intelligible; there was to be a 
 diplomatic movement peaceably to increase her influence over the Greek 
 population in Turkey by the friendly exertion? of English ministers at 
 Paris and at Constantinople. Inquiring 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 formal demand for 
 an explicit declaration from Russia of what was meant by " equiva- 
 lent compensation " when her forces were assembled on the frontier. The 
 Government had had these warnings — military declarations and demon- 
 strations 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 refonns, with a significant intimation that the conduct of the Porto 
 must be distinguished by the utmost moderation and prudence — all which 
 could bear only one interpretation — that the English Government was of 
 opinion that Turkey should comply with the demands of Russia. " Lord 
 Stratford de Redclitfe 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 Porto 
 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 tho 
 ambition of Russia, but * the unwise policy and reckless mal-administra- 
 tion 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. 
 Disraeli then read with a running comment a series of brief extracts from 
 the Blue Book from January to July, 1853, winding up with a strongly 
 worded complaint that in the Upper House Lord Clarendon had misrepre- 
 sented the object of Prince Menschikoff's visit to Constantinople. 
 
 One of the leading features of Sir James Graham's flippant and unman- 
 nerly 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 
 thQ Minister in his place in Parliament— which of all places in the world 
 
214 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 should animate a man to a noble performance of his duty — and we were 
 met by the usual answer that the inquiry was inconvenient; but informa- 
 tion 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 
 Menschikofif 1 I think that the Parliament of England have been treated 
 by a Secretary of State in a harder fashion than they were treated by the 
 Eussian 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 Eose's despatches — 
 and I ask you whether that representation made by Lord Clarendon was 
 influenced by credulity or connivance ? " The Vienna Note he described 
 as the greatest failure upon record, and eminently difficult to explain upon 
 the hypothesis of credulity. He could not believe that an administration 
 of " all the talents " could have made such a mistake. " But if from the 
 first 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 conni- 
 vance the affair might be settled by 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 Manchester, 
 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 conducted only on a policy of 
 *' conscientious connivance," it could, he urged, end only in an ignominious 
 peace. But, he concluded, if war should be found inevitable, the Oppo- 
 sition will cordially and sincerely support their Sovereign and maintain 
 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 how- 
 ever protracted may be the war, however unfortunate your counsels (to the 
 Ministry), at least we shall never despair of the Eepublic." 
 
 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. 
 
THE SUPPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. 215 
 
 to 4s. One of the special features of the Budget was a proposal to retain 
 the Income Tax at the increased rate (14c?. 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 reductions 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 country is compelled to look in the 
 event of war, with so disproportionate a ohare of the public burdens, and 
 he 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 
 successful. It is true that that notable device for swelling the unfunded 
 debt of the country had turned out a dismal failure ; the public, as Sir 
 Stafford Northcote has since pointed out, having refused, in an unmis- 
 . takable way, to adopt the proposal of the Government 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 conversion, 
 and pointing out that in consequence of this reduction so large an amount 
 had been withdrawn a-s 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 censured his successor still more 
 severely for having, in the unsettled state of politics in 1853, brought in a 
 Peace Budget — 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. 
 
 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 Kussell to state with 
 clearness and precision what the true objects of the conflict were and how 
 it was proposed to attain them. He commented in his accustomed vein on 
 the divisions in the Cabinet, as proved by the varying utterances of its 
 
216 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 members in the two Houses of Parliament, and by a process of elimination 
 succeeded in showing that the objects the Government had in view were 
 very small and somewhat 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 
 Coalition Ministry, by a declaration that it was solely owing to the reckless 
 ambition of one man, whose mind had been carried away by a course of 
 successes which had led him to over-rate the power of the country which 
 he governed. That the conflict into which England had so reluctantly 
 drifted might not have been averted by a bolder and more skilful diplo- 
 macy 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 credit — or otherwise — of which is wholly due to Lord Palmer- 
 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 com- 
 plain 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 naturally 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 con- 
 tinuing in the beaten track of routine. The Prince sketched out a plan of 
 what ought to be done, which is marked by no common foresight, and told 
 Lord Aberdeen that "the time had arrived for vigorous measures, and 
 the feeling of the country is up to support them if Government will bring 
 them boldly forward." Unfortunately boldness was not a marked charac- 
 teristic of Lord Aberdeen, and for a few days nothing was done. Mean- 
 while 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 of the Duke of Newcastle 
 and by placing Lord Palmerston at the head of the War OfiSce. This, 
 however, Lord Aberdeen refused to do, on the ground that although such 
 

 THE BREAKDOWN OF ADMINISTRATION. afl^-* _^ 
 
 an appointment might have been advisable in the first instance, it woulttd C ^ 
 now be unfair to the Duke, who had discharged his duties ably M^E ^' ^xj 
 honourably. ^ ^ 
 
 Matters were thus allowed to drag on, the nation exulting in the glorio' 
 feats of her sons in the Crimea, and chafing against the inaction and mal^V?' 
 administration of the Government at home. An opportunity was speedily' 
 afforded for it to make its voice heard with effect. In deference to the 
 Boyal 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 carry- 
 ing 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 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 commented upon the correlative circumstance that the Govern- 
 ment 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 
 consider, 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 1 ask the House to consider 
 
218 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOKSFlELD. 
 
 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 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 
 Eussia 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 bsen 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, without 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 magnanimity 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 
 that Austria would do more than stand by and watch the game. 
 
 But though Lord Beaconsfield fulfilled his duty of criticising the Ministiy 
 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 Peninsular War. When it was proposed to vote 
 the thanks of the House to the Army in the Crimea, he seconded the mo- 
 tion in a brilliant 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 
 
 ♦ This was literally the case with the fur coats sent out by Prince Albert to 
 his brother officers of the Guards. Dispatched in October they arrived in the 
 spring. See Kinglake. Vol. 6. 
 
MEW DIFFICULTIES. 219 
 
 scheme for raising a Foreign Legion. This scheme— which afterwards 
 turned out such a costly faikire — 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 19 th. To this measure Mr. Disraeli expressed a good 
 deal of repugnance, mainly because the foreigners whose services would be 
 obtained were hardly likely 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 condoUieri 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 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 Grovernment — this time 
 from within. The culprit was, of course. Lord John Russell. As a ban- 
 tering critic in the Quarterly Beview 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 Newcastle 
 should retire in favour of Lord Palmerston. That proposal 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 awhile, but Lord John intimated his intention of resign- 
 ing 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 liis threat, to replace him as leader 
 in the House of Commons by Lord Palmerston. When Lord John under- 
 stood 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 found vent in a notice of motion by Mr. Roebuck, for the appoint- 
 ment of a Select Committee " to inquire into the condition of our army 
 before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those departments of the Govern- 
 ment 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 might 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, with- 
 out notice or warning, on the ground that he " did not see how the 
 
220 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOKSFIELD. 
 
 motion was to be resisted." The Duke of Newcastle, seeing that a Jonah 
 was wanted, entreated Lord Aberdeen to accept bis resignation and to 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. Eoebuck's Motion should 
 have concluded. 
 
 Lord John Kussell 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 termination 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 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 all 
 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 unconstitutional, he 
 refuted by reference to the Walcheren expedition and its results ; and the 
 third, that it implied a want of confidence 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 terms of strong 
 reprehension the conduct of Lord John Russell, whose explanation of 
 Friday night he compared to a page of Bubb Dodingtou. " Such an all- 
 unconscious admission of profligate intrigue is not to be matched in that 
 record which commemorates 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 Coalition. " AH that the country requires of 
 public men when they act together, is that they should idem sentire de 
 repuhlicd .... but with regard to the 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." 
 
 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 
 
COLLAPSE OF THE COALITION. 221 
 
 Government, 157. " This startling 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 best-read historical student to pro- 
 duce a more complete case of political collapse than that which it is Eng- 
 land's ill-fate, sore cost, and we had almost said 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. Lord 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 followers in the House of Commons, he explained to 
 the Queen, could not avoid voting for Mr. Eoebuck'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 Administration, and 
 though he did not concur in the popular opinion as to Lord Palmerston's 
 fitness for the War Office, he Avas anxious to take him into his Govern- 
 ment, 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 repre- 
 sentative Peelites. He was, however, disappointed. Lord Palmerston 
 would give his independent support " 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 Lans- 
 downe 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 ; Mr. Gladstone, to whom he first applied, refusing to 
 serve under him — a step which Mr. Gladstone himself has declared to be 
 that one in his political career which he regretted most. Lord John was 
 therefore appealed to once more, as having been the principal cause of the 
 collapse of the Government, and in the letter summoning him the Queen 
 expressed a particular desire that Lord Palmerston should take part in the 
 Government. The Whigs — Lords Clarendon, Grey, and Lansdowne — 
 peremptorily refused to take any part in a Cabinet of which Lord John 
 was to be the head. The party was, in a word, heartily sick of the forcible 
 feebleness of the author of the Reform Bill, 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 
 
222 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Prussia found their hands strengthened to an extent which in their wildest 
 moments they had never dreamed of, and even the prospects of the Anglo- 
 French Alliance were for the moment obscured. In the emergency the 
 Queen sent for Lord Palmerston, who succeeded in forming a new Ministry 
 out of the debris of the old, retaining the services of Lord John Kussell as 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the approaching 
 Congress at Vienna. 
 
 It cannot be said that Lord Palmerston's first act as a Minister was one 
 of consummate wisdom. He gave his Ministerial 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 mismanage- 
 ment of the Crimean army, pledging the G-overnment to make a stringent 
 inquiry into the conduct of the war, and stating that Colonel TuUoch and 
 Sir John MacNeill had been sent to the Crimea. Mr. Koebuck's reply 
 was very brief. The illness under which he laboured when moving 
 for his Committee still 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 allusion 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 he scouted at once. " No, Sir. The First Minister of tho 
 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 
 been just eulogised by the First Minister on the Treasury Bench, a man of 
 such qualities that, though he had intentionally destroyed his late col- 
 leagues, they have already employed him upon an august mission — this 
 eminent person comes down to Parliament 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 Parliament, declared that an inquiry is the first duty of those, 
 whoever they may be, who may be entrusted with the Government of tho 
 
SPLITS IN THE CABINET. 223 
 
 country — ^that an Inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons is 
 the only mode in which the necessary improvements can le indicated — 
 and then we are told to-night that the House of Commons is to stultify 
 itself ! — that this House of Commons, which only ten days ago, under 
 circumstances of such unmistakable conviction and sanctioned by the high 
 authority of the leader of the House, arrived 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 
 inflict 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 Vienna Conference, and reminded 
 the Government that the country would never consent to a peace upon 
 unworthy terms. Then, reverting to the reconstituted 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 realised 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 predecessors 
 received ; and I doubt not that, if disaster be their lot, if mal-administra- 
 tiou 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 wkiek the couutry 
 at this moment is most in need." - .: . . 
 
 It was not to be all plain sailing for the reconstituted Ministiy 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 be- 
 came 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 wliich had been emphatically condemned 
 by a ministry which merely presented the same men in different offices. 
 What the country wanted, he said, was " not septuagenarian 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. Koebuck'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 Her- 
 
224 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 bert at the War Office by Lord John KusseU. 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 Palmerston 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 alike for admistrative ability, 
 political sagacity and sufficient liberalism," and now behold three of its 
 members are already gone. What again are the principles of the Govern- 
 ment ? 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 administra- 
 tion 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, Mr. Disraeli would only say that he hoped the instructions to 
 Lord John Russell on his mission to Vienna were conceived 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 chiefly remarkable as 
 adding sixteen millions to the National Debt — Mr. Disraeli passed by with- 
 out 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 Russell came back from the abortive Vienna Conference there 
 was some delay in placing the papers on the table. Mr. Disraeli accord- 
 ingly asked on the 4th of May— the Conference 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 promptitude of Lord 
 Malmesbury 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 
 opportunity of discussing what had been done. There were still delays, 
 but after some 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 contrary to all usage that Mr. Disraeli considered 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 
 
AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 225 
 
 motion, Mr. Disraeli again protested against the course which had 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 that 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 following resolution : — 
 
 " That this House cannot adjourn for the recess without expressing its 
 dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of her 
 Majesty's Government in reference 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 prosecution 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 peace : on the other it was intended to 
 checkmate an unprincipled coalition which had been hatched up between 
 the partisans 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. Eoebuck'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 Kussell ever had to listen. The latter was the greatest 
 sufferer. Mr. Disraeli set out by saying that the appointment of the Pleni- 
 potentiary 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 remark- 
 able ; but I know nothing by which the noble Lord has more distinguished 
 himself 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 inflammatory harangues to the Parlia- 
 ment 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 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 rasli, but which all must at least respect as great.*' Lord Lyndhurst had, 
 in the other House, asked how these professions could be reconciled 
 with the protocol of the 5th of December, 1853, to which France and England 
 were signatories, and which stated that the present war could not in any 
 case lead to territorial diminutions or modifications of the Kussian Empire. 
 He had been told in reply by Lord Clarendon, that the . language quoted 
 might be the will 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 de- 
 nounced the conduct of the Kussian 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 qualifi- 
 cations 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 prosecut- 
 ing 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 protec- 
 torate over the Christian subjects of the Porte — a right which was recog- 
 nised by a confidential despatch to Sir Gr. H. Seymour from Lord John 
 himself, during the three or four months of his tenure of the seals of the 
 Foreign Office. This was followed by an indignant denunciation of "the 
 extraordinary mistakes, the fatal admissions, the disgraceful demeanour of 
 the noble Lord," who had displayed such " consummate ability " at Vienna 
 but yet had returned unsuccessful 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 admissible 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 Govern- 
 ment, 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 calamities 
 
AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION. 227 
 
 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 w^as not surprised that the military- 
 spirit which the embodiment of the militia had aroused should have com- 
 pletely died out. 
 
 He was severe also upon the mistake of mixing up an aggressive war 
 with a protective diplomacy. " A conference at Vienna may cope with 
 such questions as the government of the Danubian jDrincipalities, as the 
 course and free navigation of a river, or the rights of the Christian sub- 
 jects 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 impatient territory 
 of a proud foe. Wasting your time at Vienna in this protective diplomacy, 
 all that you can do is to devise schemes which will a^jply to the objects 
 of protective war. But the evil consequences upon the objects of aggres- 
 sive 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 exertion 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 all the axiom that " if Russia 
 reject 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 the ques- 
 tion before the House was not one of confidence or no confidence, but 
 simply one of approval of a particular act of the Grovernment. He com- 
 plained somewhat strongly of the way in which the Government treated 
 this subject, no member of the Cabinet having risen to support its polic}', 
 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 i)olicy 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 may be sustained by a majority collected God knows how 
 
 q2 
 
228 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and voting God knows why, may rest assured that if he and his colleagues 
 are pursuing a course without sufficient knowledge, without sufficiently 
 clear ideas, without a resolution sufficiently firm — that if there is any 
 wavering in their counsels, which is the natural consequence of an ignor- 
 ance of the subject with which they have to deal — if there is any hesi- 
 tation — 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, tlie pre- 
 servation of Constantinople to the Ottoman Porte ; then, I say, the noble 
 Lord may rest assured that the utmost confusion and consternation will 
 iall upon the Cabinet of which he is a member, and that no parliamentary 
 power can sustain a Ministry dealing with great transactions to 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 governments— living from hand to mouth, adopting 
 merely the whim of the moment, not influenced by any jjrinciple 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 region is a gloom too terrible for 
 imagination to contemplate." 
 
 The most extraordinary performance of this extraordinary period had yet 
 to be seen. On the night of Friday, the 6th of July, Mr. Milner 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 explanation of their Eastern policy and of their ultimate designs, 
 He, as a representative of the peace party, had understood that Lord John 
 Eussell 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 realise their assertions. Mr. Disraeli 
 brought back the discussion from personalities to facts, and in a forcible 
 speech denounced the conduct of Lord John Eussell. " We have had to- 
 night," said he, " an admission from the noble Lord the Secretary of 
 State 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 
 
 * This post had been offered to and accepted by Lord John Russell whilst on 
 his way to Vienna. 
 
The demoralised Cabinet* 229 
 
 measures to his colleagues 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 extraordinary 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 
 evil 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, remained 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 extricate your- 
 selves from the peculiar difficulties in whicli you are now placed? How 
 are you to remove all those disadvantages 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 tbat are 
 necessary. It is painful for us to make these admissions, but we must do 
 our duty to our countr}'', and we tell you that the noble Lord entered into 
 arrangements which we entirely disapprove. 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 tbe policy which the 
 noble Lord pursued.' But tlien 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 engaged ? of that Government, 
 at the head of Avhich we were to have a Minister of surpassing energy and, 
 no doubt, transcendent experience? is this the end^f 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 majcrity, and that the 
 turbulent assemblies of Downing Street are to baffle all the sagacity of all 
 the Conferences of Vienna ? " 
 
230 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The extraordinary state of things which the debate disclosed, and which 
 Mr. Disraeli's speech so boldly laid bare, conld not, of course, continue 
 very long. The country recognised the fact, that it was simply intolerable 
 that there should be in the Cabinet, 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 than when all possible 
 allowances had been made for the tenacity with which a Whig naturally 
 clings to office ; there was something rather humiliating to the country 
 generally in retaining the services of Lord John Eussell, when his col- 
 league, 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 pro- 
 bability have found 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 unques- 
 tionably had an enormous influence on the course of events and on the 
 decision of Lord John Eussell, 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 con- 
 sideration of philosophers. There is the devoted friend who stands by one 
 like the noble Lord (Palmerston) ; but there is another kind of friend, im- 
 mortalized by an epithet which should not be mentioned to ears polite. 
 We all know that friend. It was, I believe, a brilliant 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 description— candid 
 and not bad-natnred — commend me to the Vice-President of the Board of 
 Trade." 
 
 Turning from that sarcastic comment of which he was 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 sus- 
 tained 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 com- 
 plaining that the Government perpetually asked members to abstain from 
 
PREROGATIVE. 231 
 
 discussing their acts, and as constantly betrayed those who tnisted 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 youi 
 statesmen dare not meet the controversy which such questions provoke. 
 He mysteriously disappears. With the reputation of a quarter of a cen- 
 tury, 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 great respect and reputation 
 which this country accords to its foremost men, with no less a person than 
 Sir Eobert 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 
 unworthy 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 dis- 
 agreeable and dangerous discussions on the conduct of these Vienna 
 negotiations, and belbre 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 determina- 
 tion of the Government to prosecute the war with vigour during the 
 recess, when Black Eod summoned the " faithful Commons" to hear Lord 
 Cran worth read the Queen's Speech — a manifesto which is chiefly remark- 
 able for the amazing number of capital letters with which Mr. Hansard 
 has decorated it. There was, in truth, very little to say. The war was 
 still going on with but small prospect of coming to an end ; England had 
 had to find money as well as men for Turkey, and the Vienna negotiation 
 had collapsed. At home all that had been done was to abolish the news- 
 paper stamp, and to establish the 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 constitu- 
 tional government for the colonies, though in itself an important matter, 
 was not of overwhelming interest. 
 
232 THE Public life of the earl of BEACONSFlELt) 
 
 CHAPTElR VIII. 
 
 STILL IN OPPOSITION. 
 
 I)eath of Lord Raglan — Fall of Sebastopol — Austrian Intrigues— Re-ope ning of 
 Parliament — The Mercantile Marine Bill — Peace — The Budget of 1856 — 
 Italian Affairs — The American Difficulty — End of the Session — Mr. Disraeli's 
 Review — Chinese War — The Lorcha Arrow and Sir John Bowring — Indian 
 Mutiny — Foreign Policy of the Coalition Government — The Secret Treaty — 
 Discomfiture of Lord Palmerston — Debate on the China War — Mr. Disraeli's 
 Speech — Defeat of the Government — The Dissolution — The General Elec- 
 tion — Mr. Disraeli's Address — Parliament Re-opens — Indian Mutiny — Mr. 
 Disraeli's Speech — Lord Granville " taken by surprise " — A bold and states- 
 manlike Policy — Parliament adjourned — Commercial Panic — Parliament 
 hastily summoned — Debate on the Address — Indian Mutiny — Unpreparedness 
 of the Government — Attempt to assassinate Napoleon III. — Count Walewski's 
 Despatch and the Addresses of the French Colonels — Lord Clanricarde's Case — 
 The Conspiracy to Murder Bill — Mr. Disraeli's Action — Defeat of the 
 Government — Lord Derby sent for — The New Ministry. 
 
 The beginning of the end of the war gradually became visible. Now 
 that the era of Vienna conferences and abortive negotiations had come to 
 a conclusion, Kussia was beginning to understand that England was really 
 in earnest, and she made her preparations accordingly. But by the 8th 
 of September Sebastopol was in the hands of the Allies, and England's 
 difficulties in that quarter were practically at an end. A few weeks 
 before, the news had reached England of the death of her faithful servant 
 Lord Kaglan — one of the best soldiers and truest gentlemen this country 
 has ever boasted. His last days were without doubt grievously embittered by 
 the attacks which the newspapers and certain not too well informed M.P.'s 
 had made upon him, and by the feeling that many people in England cast 
 upon him the blame of all the disasters which befell the English army in 
 the Crimea. The failure of the attack upon the Kedan was the finishing 
 stroke, and a five days' illness terminated in death. Lord Beaconsfield 
 found an opportunity for redeeming his pledge that English generals 
 should not find the Opposition as insensible to their merits as the Whigs 
 had been to those of Wellington ; and when the Queen's message, asking 
 the House to make provision for Lord Raglan's family, came before the 
 House (3rd July), he not merely seconded the resolutions of the Govern- 
 ment, but delivered himself of a brief eulogy of the departed general, 
 as exquisite in its literary finish as honourable to the heart of the orator. 
 
 The fall of Sebastopol stimulated the energies of those who fancied that 
 a peace was immediately practicable, and Austria at once opened fresh 
 
RUSSIA ACCEPTS THE SITUATION. 233 
 
 negotiations with France and England. The former state she found much 
 more pliable than the latter. As is their wont, the French people had 
 gone into the conftict with a light heart, but when they found it was not 
 to be a mere military promenade, they grew tired, and sought how best 
 they might escape from it. They had too an uneasy suspicion that some 
 of the highest personages in the Empire — possibly even the Emperor 
 himself — were using the information which they possessed for the purpose 
 of speculating on the Bourse, and that suspicion undoubtedly created 
 enormous dissatisfaction. In England the feeling was different. So much 
 blood had been spilled and so vast a treasure had been expended, that the 
 nation was almost unanimous in its determination to insist on continuing 
 the war until a satisfactory conclusion should be attained. This deter- 
 mination was not very acceptable to France, which power, in conjunction 
 with Austria, actually made proposals for peace which England was 
 expected to accept without modification. Nothing of the kind could, of 
 course, be tolerated, and Count Walewski had to be told, through Count 
 de Persigny, that although the English nation would be enchanted with 
 an honourable peace, " rather than be constrained to sign one with unsatis- 
 factory conditions, it would prefer to continue the war with no other allies 
 than Turkey." 
 
 A month later Austria returned to the charge ; still in the interests of 
 Russia, and proposing that the question of the Black Sea should be settled 
 by a separate treaty between Russia and Turkey — a suggestion which the 
 Queen aptly described as "too naif." The negotiations consequently 
 went on, England always insisting upon the point for which she had stood 
 out in the first instance — the neutralization of the Black Sea. The 
 Emperor Napoleon, though anxious to bring the war to a close, and 
 though tampered with by Russian influences, adhered loyally to the 
 English alliance, and on the 17th of January, 1856, the Times was able 
 to announce, in its second edition, that *' Russia had unconditionally 
 accepted the proposition of the Allies." On the 1st of February the Pro- 
 tocol was signed at Vienna by the representatives of the five Powers ; the 
 armistice was extended to the 1st of March, and the arrangements for the 
 Congress at Paris decided upon. 
 
 Parliament had been opened by the Queen in person on the 31st of 
 January, the greater part of the speech from the Throne being of course 
 devoted to the approaching peace. The debate on the Address was very 
 short, and Mr. Disraeli's contribution to it was a brief speech, in which he 
 explained why he refrained from criticising the action of the Government, 
 and expressed a hope that the negotiation now commenced would result 
 in a durable peace. He closed with a patriotic assurance that " if Her 
 Majesty fails in the negotiations which are now about to be carried on — 
 if the conditions of peace of which the noble Lord is cognizant, but with 
 which we are unacquainted, may not effect that great result which is now 
 generally expected and generally desired — we have the satisfaction of 
 
234 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELO. 
 
 knowing that Her Majesty may appeal with confidence to her Parliament 
 to support her in a renewed struggle, and that there is no sum which 
 Parliament will not cheerfully vote, or her people cheerfully raise, to 
 vindicate her honour and maintain the independence and interests of her 
 Kingdom," — language and a temper which drew from Lord Palmerston an 
 emphatic and cordial recognition. 
 
 Although, however, he abstained from factiously harassing the Go- 
 vernment during the negotiations for peace, Mr. Disraeli did not fail 
 to exercise his right of criticism when other matters called for it, and an 
 opportunity was speedily afforded by a blunder of the Ministry. Amongst 
 the measures promised in the Queen's Speech was one for redressing the 
 grievances of shipowners in the matter of local dues. The Bill was 
 accordingly brought in, but when the time came for the second reading, 
 Lord Palmerston withdrew it with the ingenuous admission that "in 
 regard to the cases of the towns which would be affected by the measure, 
 there were a far greater variety of different circumsta,nces and complicated 
 interests than Her Majesty's Government had been led to suppose." In 
 other words, a most important and far-reaching measure had been brought 
 in without any proper inquir3% Mr. Disraeli expressed his satisfaction at 
 the result, but delivered himself of a pungent criticism of the way in 
 which Ministers brought forward and withdrew their hasty and imperfect 
 measures. " I have been most anxious," said he, " that we should not 
 give foreign nations the idea that the Government of Great Britain was a 
 weak Government, a Government that had no resources upon which it could 
 permanently rely. I had hoped that whatever there might be to repre- 
 hend in the general tone of our Parliamentary proceedings, that whatever 
 may be the rumours of political strife in the Parliamentary world, we 
 should at least show Europe that an English Minister, having to fulfil a 
 great duty to his country, might rely with confidence upon the sympathy 
 and forbearance of a patriotic House of Commons. Such, Sir, was 
 the hope I fondly cherished. But what has happened? Ever since 
 Parliament commenced its sittings for the present session — a period of 
 about a month — feebleness, blunders, misfortunes, defeat and discomfiture 
 have been the lot of Her Majesty's Government. And who has defeated 
 them? Who has discomfited them? Who has reduced them to this 
 state of perplexity and humiliation ? Not the Opposition ; not their own 
 supporters. Themselves alone are the authors of their misfortunes, them- 
 selves alone have brought about a state of afiairs which at the present 
 moment is most deplorable and most earnestly to be deprecated. . . 
 What a piece of business you have made of it with your Life Peerages 
 (Lord Wensleydale's case), your Crimean reports and your Boards of 
 Generals to investigate the conduct of men you were bound in honour and 
 policy to support. . . . Parliament has only sat for about a month ; on 
 both sides of the House there has been but one anxious desire to veil the 
 weakness of the Government, if unhappily they are weak ; and yet, at a 
 
THE TREATY OF 1856. 235 
 
 most important crisis in the history and fortunes of the country, Her 
 Majesty's Government have so skilfully managed their affairs that they 
 have secured for themselves a startling defeat in both Houses of 
 Parliament." 
 
 Before many weeks had passed over other opportunities for criticism of 
 the Government presented themselves. Concerning the peace which had 
 been signed at Paris on the 30th of March, he maintained a dignified and 
 patriotic silence, albeit there were many points in which the policy of the 
 Government might have been questioned and criticised. On general ques- 
 tions, however, he felt himself under no such restraint, and accordingly, 
 when Lord John Russell, after bringing in a string of resolutions, twelve in 
 number, on the subject of education, withdrew seven of them, he censured 
 the levity of purpose thus displayed in somewhat strong terms, urging 
 that Lord John should withdraw the whole series as out of harmony with 
 the temper of the House of Commons rather than put the House to the 
 humiliation of a division, not upon the great question of education, but 
 upon a trumpery matter of detail, such as the appointment of sub-inspec- 
 tors of schools. 
 
 When the details of the Treaty of Peace came on for discussion. Lord 
 Beaconsfield, as we have seen, held generously aloof. Truth to say, that 
 peace was not very popular. The Prince Consort wrote to Baron Stockmar, 
 " here it was received with moderate satisfaction," but the satisfaction was 
 very moderate indeed. People were glad, of course, that a costly and 
 wearying struggle was over, but there was a very general feeling that the 
 enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure which the country had cheerfully 
 made was very ill repaid by the Treaty of Paris — a Treaty which was very 
 well so far as it went, but which, it was obvious, did not effectually curb 
 the power and the aggressiveness of Russia, and which would assuredly be 
 set aside as soon as that state had recovered herself and the other signatory 
 powers should be otherwise occupied. " Lord Palmerston himself," says 
 Earl Russell, in his " Recollections and Suggestions," did not expect that the 
 Treaty of 1856 would last fourteen years, which was the actual time of 
 its duration." But whatever Lord Palmerston expected, the people of this 
 country certainly had hoped that the sacrifices they had made would be 
 rewarded by the removal of the Eastern Question from the domain of 
 politics. That end had most certainly not been obtained, and the fact was 
 perfectly well known in England. The surprising point is that the popu- 
 lar discontent did not find a louder voice, and there can be little question 
 that if Lord Beaconsfield had put himself at the head of the malcontents 
 he would haveiiad a large following. Patriotism was happily stronger than 
 party feeling, and if Lord Beaconsfield did not wholly approve of the terms 
 cf the Peace, he offered no public evidence of his feelings. When the 
 House of Commons solemnly voted its thanks to the Army ho seconded 
 the resolution of Lord Palmerston in his character as leader of the Opposi- 
 tion in a brief but most eloquent speech, wherein he took occasion to 
 
236 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 express his opinion " that when the verdict — I will not say of posterity— 
 but that when the calm and unimpassioned verdict of the time in which 
 we live is given upon these events, it will be acknowledged that in the 
 late struggle our country has shown all those qualities which maintain a 
 nation's greatness and which prevent the decline and fall of Empires." 
 
 The Budget of 1856 was brought in on the 19th of May, and was 
 received without any marks of open hostility by Mr. Disraeli. He had not 
 approved the guarantee of the Turkish Loan in the preceding year, nor had 
 he willingly consented to the advance of two millions to Sardinia, regard- 
 ing, naturally enough, both operations as symptomatic of an intention to 
 revert to that system of subsidies which had proved so unpleasantly 
 expensive at the beginning of the century. He did not, however, fail to 
 recognise the fact that the war had been a prodigiously costly business, and 
 that the Government of the day had a right to the loyal support of the 
 Opposition in its attempts to deal with the financial difficulties with which 
 it was environed. The war had added forty-two millions to the National 
 Debt, and had cost altogether £77,588,711. Nothing, therefore, could 
 have been more natural than that Mr. Disraeli, speaking on the Budget of 
 the year, with its new loan to make up the large deficit" which existed 
 in the national accounts, should have considered it his duty to impress 
 upon the Government the necessity for a " wise but at the same 
 time rigid economy." He said : — " 1 am convinced that that is 
 the only spirit in which we can confirm the principles of finance 
 upon which our system is now generally established, and that will 
 enable us to prepare those resources for the future which, whenever an 
 emergency arises, will enable us to show the same power we have recently 
 displayed." He dwelt with some earnestness on the mistake of supposing 
 that the misfortunes and disappointments which had characterized the 
 opening of the late war would by any means be prevented in the future by 
 tlie maintenance of an army during the time of peace larger than the needs 
 of the country required, and urged that the only effect of an excessive 
 military establishment in the time of peace would be that we should go 
 into the next war crippled for want of those resources which a wise economy 
 wouhl have accumulated. On the question of the gift to Sardinia, he 
 asked for fuller explanations than the Government had vouchsafed, in view 
 of the execution of that tripartite treaty which practically made England, 
 France, and Austria arbiters of the destinies of Europe. An alliance with 
 Austria might, he admitted, be wise and politic, but if such an alliance 
 were entered into it could not be right " to enter into relations with the 
 King of Sardinia which stimulate him to a policy utterly op^wscd to the 
 Austrian and Imperial policy, utterly opposed to the retention of the 
 Italian provinces by Austria, and utterly opposed to the solemn policy 
 which has produced the Tripartite Treaty. ... If for the sake of ex- 
 citing the unreflecting applause of the mob, and in order to obtain for the 
 existing Government the reputation of being devoted to those vague entities 
 
COMPLICATIONS WITH AUSTRIA AND ITALY. 237 
 
 called * Liberal opinions,' we are again to be in the position of stimulating 
 Italian liberalism, while at the same time we rivet the letters of Austrian 
 despotism, I foresee for this nation consequences most fatal to her just and 
 legitimate influence, and to that high character which, notwithstanding the 
 mistakes we sometimes commit, and which, despite our party conflicts, it 
 is our happiness to think that our country has hitherto maintained." 
 
 Italian affairs came before the House once more, on the night of the 
 14th of July, upon a motion for an Address " for copies or extracts of any 
 recent communications which have taken place between Her Majesty's 
 Government and the Governments of Austria, Eome, and the kingdom of 
 the Two Sicilies, relating to the aifairs of Italy." The motion was brought 
 forward by Lord John Kussell — now out of the Ministry — and was resisted 
 by Lord Palmerston, on the ground that the production of the papers 
 would be detrimental to the interests of the public service. Mr. Disraeli 
 followed Lord Palmerston with an elaborate criticism of the Whig policy 
 in Italy, pointing out that meddling in the affairs of the Italian kingdoms 
 stimulated the insuiTectionary movements and created a feeling of great 
 distrust of our intentions on the part of Austria. At the same time we 
 were not very consistent, seeing that whilst the English Government was 
 urging on the anti- Austrian movement in the north of Italy, it was actually 
 looking to an Austrian intervention at Naples as the best if not the only 
 means of restoring peace and good government. He protested, too, against 
 the notion that it was the duty of England to interfere perpetually in the 
 domestic politics of the smaller foreign states. Non-intervention is the 
 golden rule of English foreign politics, and it could not be well to discard 
 it even in the case of a power like that of the Two Sicilies. Granting 
 that all the tales of misgovernment told of the sovereign of that country 
 were true, the same things had been told of Austria in her dealings with 
 the states of Northern Italy, and as we had not interfered in their case, it 
 was hardly fair for us to interfere now. Lord John Russell had brought 
 forward his great panacea — constitutional Government — as the remedy for 
 all the evils of despotism in Southern Italy. Mr. Disraeli reminded him 
 that the uprising of the people was not in favour of Constitutionalism, but 
 was the work of those secret societies, whose object was not reform, but 
 destruction. An English Minister had boasted — not very wisely — that he 
 had only to hold up his hand and there would be a revolution in Italy to- 
 morrow. Such a thing was quite possible, and what would happen ? You 
 would have a Red Republic. The Poioe would be driven out once more, 
 and all his Cardinals with him. France and Austria would at once 
 interfere and overrun the peninsula, and the last state of Italy would be 
 worse than the first. Happily for Italy, happily for the peace of Europe, it 
 was clear that Lord Palmerston, in spite of protocols and in spite of Cavour's 
 despatches, intended to do nothing. " I believe that the noble Viscount 
 profiting by the past, remembering the experience of the years 1847 and 
 1848, has made up his mind not again to be seduced into a position so 
 
238 THE PL'BLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 difiScult and so dangerous as that which he then encountered. This, also, 
 I will say, that I have such confidence in the wisdom of the Emperor of 
 the French that I feel persuaded that, as regards the affairs of Italy, he is 
 of the same opinion and determination as the noble Lord, the first Minister. 
 .... I can feel for the condition of Italy as keenly as any gentleman in 
 this House — ^be he a first Minister or an ex-first Minister. I hope and be- 
 lieve that the time will come when there are in Italy neither secret societies 
 nor crowned despots. But these are questions for the closet, not for a 
 practical and popular Assembly. We have to deal with the facts before 
 us, and if we raise up an agitation against Austrian rule without having n 
 distinct conception in our minds of the objects at which we aim and the 
 line of conduct w^hich we intend to pursue, we shall be arresting the pro- 
 gress of Italy and aggravating every misfortune which has been brought 
 
 under our notice I hope," said Mr. Disraeli, in conclusion, " that 
 
 if we agree to interfere in Italy, it will be a real interference ; or, on the 
 other hand, if we are not prepared to act — if we are not prepared to give 
 effect to our policy by force, then the best thing for us will be to remain 
 silent ; not to seek to rouse the passions of the population ; not to upset 
 thrones — a policy which can only end in aggravating the thraldom of Italy, 
 and may lead to consequences still more fraught with disaster — not to 
 Italy only, but to Europe." 
 
 When in the course of this Session the conduct of the United States 
 Government in turning Mr. Crampton out of Washington, on account of 
 what he had done for the promotion of enlistment for the Prince Consort's 
 especial hobby, the "Foreign Legion," came to be canvassed. Lord 
 Eeaconsfield urged that the English Minister at Washington had but 
 carried out the instructions of his Government, and entreated the House to 
 declare that he was not to be made the scapegoat for Ministerial sins. As 
 for the jealousy of the United States, of which he saw so many illustrations 
 in England, he would only say that that jealousy was greatly to bo 
 deplored. The United States might obtain all that they had a right 
 fairly to expect without injury either to Europe in general or to England 
 in particular ; and it is, he insisted, " the business of a statesman to 
 recognise the necessity of an increase in their power, and at the same time 
 to make them understand that they will most surely accomplish all the 
 objects they propose, by accepting those principles of international law 
 which in civilised communities have always been upheld, and to impress 
 upon them that, instead of vaunting that they will build their greatness on 
 the Monroe doctrine — which is the doctrine of isolation — they should seek 
 to attain it by deferring to the public law of Europe, and by allowing their 
 destiny to be regulated by the same high principles of policy which all tho 
 European communities that have a political system have invariably recog- 
 nised." The Ministry escaped a vote of censure by a majority of 194 in a 
 House of 354; but it seems probable, from the tone of the debate and the 
 great exasperation against the United States which prevailed out of doors, 
 
CLOSE OF THE SESSION. 239 
 
 that tlio result would have been very different had the leader of the 
 Opposition chosen to make this a party question, and to use it as a lever 
 for turning the Government out of office. 
 
 The Session came to an end on the 28th of July. It had been a singu- 
 larly barren one, all the energies of Parhament appearing to have been 
 absorbed in the Peace and in the not very fruitful discussions which 
 originated out of the Report of the Crimean Commission, which the 
 Government ungenerously placed on the table of the House without 
 allowing those whom it censured an opportunity of defending themselves. 
 Of actual legislative work there had been scarcely any. The Police Acts 
 had been amended ; some of the recommendations of the University Com- 
 mission had been embodied in an Act ; the principle of Limited Liability 
 in Joint Stock undertakings had been recognised ; the powers of the 
 County Courts enlarged; and the Coast Guard placed under the Admiralty. 
 With that the meagre list of measures upon which Parliament was congra- 
 tulated in the speech from the Throne terminated. As might have been 
 expected under such circumstances, the House did not separate without 
 listening to a review of the Session from the leader of the Opposition. He 
 moved for a return of all the Bill§ which had been introduced and dropped 
 during the Session, and began his speech by drawing a parallel between 
 the prolonged but fruitless Session of 1848, and the shorter but equally 
 barren Session of 1856. The House was reminded how in the earlier year 
 the Government had attempted to throw the responsibility for its failures 
 upon the loquacity of members, and how not merely had that charge 
 been disposed of in his speech, but a Committee of the House had actually 
 reported that no change in the forms of procedure was either practicable 
 or desirable. In the same way, as in 1848, Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to 
 contrast the promises of the Queen's Speech at the opening of the year with 
 the amount of legislative work actually performed. The miserable result 
 he attributed to the fact that Lord Palmerston and his colleagues could not 
 command a Parliamentary majority. " In the general conduct of afifairs 
 the greatest respect is paid to gentlemen who occupy their position — a 
 position which they obtained in my opinion with all honour, and in a 
 manner which as far as the noble lord is concerned does, I think, the 
 utmost credit to his spirit and promptitude ... All the money which 
 is wanted for the public service is cheerfully granted to the noble lord 
 when we are at war — if troops are wanted they are at once given to him, 
 and when he is engaged in negotiations and requires forbearance, that for- 
 bearance is yielded with equal readiness. Whether he prosecutes a war 
 or makes a treaty he can count on the support of the House. But when 
 Her Majesty's ministers . . . submit measures to the consideration of 
 Parliament they do not meet with that confiding support which can only 
 exist in this House when it is founded on a traditionary connection or identity 
 of principle." This state of things, he argued, produced two evils, each of 
 which re-act^d on the other. On the one hand ministers were unable to 
 
240 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 legislate with success ; on the other the certainty of their inability to do 
 so produced carelessness on their parts in the preparation of their measures. 
 He denied that the want of ParUamentary sympathy was owing to the 
 cfiects of the Eeform of the representative system or to the extinction or 
 dislocation of parties, and he justified his position by an analysis of the 
 principles and opinions of parties with reference to foreign as well as to 
 domestic politics, maintaining that there were distinct opinions in this 
 country as regarded the policy of the Government with reference to 
 llussia, to Austria, and to the United States. It was idle, then, he con- 
 tended, to pretend that parties have ceased to exist. " I apprehend that 
 there is a Conservative party and a Conservative policy, and if the noble 
 lord and his colleagues are pursuing that policy the inference is erroneous 
 that the Conservative party is extinct. What party is really extinct it is 
 not for me now to say. . . I know it will be said that it would be more 
 straightforward and more in accordance with the genius of the people of 
 this country that the Conservative policy should be carried out by those 
 who are avowedly Conservatives ; but what I say is that we who maintain 
 Conservative opinions . . . and who deplore the consequences of a 
 Parliamentary Session like that now closing, have two sources of consola- 
 tion in the present state of affairs. In the first place we have what I think 
 should be and what 1 have no doubt will be the greatest consolation to us 
 — to see our opinions prevalent in high places. The second, which is 
 scarcely less important, is that the inevitable consequence of the existing 
 system will be an injurious influence upon our rivals, the Liberal party. 
 No party can long exist where its chief and selected men are in power and 
 continue to hold office, not only without carrying their principles into efiect, 
 but without even frankly avowing their profession, I see before me many 
 members of the Administration who obtained their seats in the House by 
 their protestations to their constituents — by their Liberal engagements to 
 the great Liberal party — but who, having adopted a Conservative policy, 
 still retain their seats in that Administration. It is for them to explain 
 their position to their constituents and to the party in the country whom 
 they are supposed to represent. . . . The people of this country will 
 find upon reflection that from the competitive emulation of great political 
 parties has sprung that wise and temperate system of Government which 
 has so long characterised the history of this country ; they will cherish 
 with still greater interest and they will value still more highly the distinc- 
 tive principles which form parties. At any rate when we are told . 
 that the present lamentable state of public affairs is occasioned by the 
 break up of parties, we at least can say, ' That allegation does not apply 
 to us; we are a Conservative party; we hold Conservative opinions; we 
 are prepared to maintain them, and if a Minister who has no opinions 
 cannot pass his measures he has no right— and those who defend him have 
 no right — to libel the constitution of the country to which we owe all our 
 reputation and all our greatness.' " 
 
THE LOKCHA « ARROW.'* 2^1 
 
 I' wo great convulsions abroad in the course of the autumn were to 
 Ao for the Government that which the eloquence of its opponents was in- 
 sufBcient to accomplish. For a considerable time a practice had obtained 
 in China of allowing Chinese vessels to take out English papers, and to 
 place themselves under the protection of the English consuls. It is obvious 
 that such a custom was one eminently liable to abuse and one which 
 needed the greatest care and reserve on our part to prevent its being made 
 an engine of mischief. Unfortunately consuls are not invariably the wisest 
 of men, and to entrust them with such a power as this practice implied was to 
 run great risk of endangering our relations with the Chinese Government. 
 The crash came at the beginning of October. A lorcha — the word is 
 Portuguese, and is explained by Lacerda as " a sort of ship of India " — 
 called the " Arrow " was lying in the Canton Eiver. She had been built 
 by a Chinese ; she was owned by a Chinese ; her captain and crew were 
 Chinese, but she had had an English registry, which had expired early in 
 September. Nevertheless she still flew the English flag, and chximed English 
 protection. Why such protection should have been given it is not easy 
 to understand. The lorcha had a most evil reputation. She was noto- 
 riously used for smuggling purposes, and to the evasion of the Chinese 
 revenue laws she added a little piracy. Her right to use the English flag 
 at all was, to say the least, questionable, seeing that the Act of the Colonial 
 Legislature of Hong Kong was framed for the benefit of ships of a totally 
 diflerent class. In any case the position was a doubtful one, and there was 
 nothing surprising in the fact that the Chinese authorities should have 
 boarded her and taken out her master and crew. It was said that the 
 English flag was hauled down, but of that there is little or no evidence, and 
 the Chinese officials emphatically denied that anything of the sort had 
 been done. A demand for reparation was made, to which the Chinese 
 Commissioners afterwards assented, but Sir John (formerly Dr.) Bowring 
 — 0. great pet of several Whig Governments in succession — thought the 
 opportunity a favourable one for increasing British influence at Canton. 
 He accordingly wrote to Sir Michael Seymour, the naval commander on the 
 station, calling upon him to enforce the fulfilment of treaty obligations as 
 regarded the city of Canton. Sir Michael Seymour complied with Sir John 
 Bowring's wishes, and began by destroying the forts on the river. England 
 was thus plunged into a costly and embittered war for the sake of a 
 piratical Chinese trading boat, and placed in an essentially false position by 
 the action of her Whig representatives abroad. 
 
 To complicate matters, a mutiny broke out amongst our troops in India. 
 In the spring of the year 1856, Lord Dalhousie had left Calcutta for Eng- 
 land worn out with toil and the efiects of the climate. The last official 
 act he performed was to receive a farewell addi-ess, and in the course of the short 
 and touching speech which^he then delivered, he warned his hearers against 
 relying on a long-continued peace in India. By January 1857, his fore- 
 bodings were realised, General Hearsey reporting to the Government that 
 
 B 
 
242 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OP BEACONSFIELO. 
 
 at Dum-Dum, near Calcutta, there was a very uneasy feeling amongst the 
 Sepoys, who had been told that the new cartridges which had been servf d 
 out to them were greased with the fat of pigs and of oxen, and that the 
 object of making them bite them was to destroy their caste. Immediately 
 on this becoming known, it was observed that all the traces of a wide-spread 
 insurrectionary organisation were visible in India ; that chupatties (cakes 
 of unleavened bread) and lotahs (earthenware pots) were passed from hand 
 to hand, from house to house, from village to village, and that wherever 
 the native soldiery were to be found, disaffection was sure to manifest 
 itself. Old Indians looked gloomy and younger men felt uneasy. To add 
 to the complication, English diplomacy had created for us a little war in 
 Persia, where, on the 27th of January, General Outram landed with a 
 small force to avenge the Persian occupation of Herat in Cabul. 
 
 In the midst of all this turmoil. Parliament was opened on the 3rd of 
 February. The Queen's Speech was almost wholly taken up with the 
 details of Lord Palmerston's " spirited foreign policy," which had thus 
 landed the country in a war with China, a war with Persia, a quarrel with 
 the King of the Two Sicilies, and a misunderstanding with the United 
 States on the subject of Central America. The Indian Mutiny was not 
 referred to, and the legislation for the year was vaguely mentioned in the 
 Speech. "Bills will be submitted for your consideration," said her 
 Majesty's representatives, " for the consolidation and amendment of im- 
 portant portions of the law." When the debate on the Address came on, 
 Mr. Disraeli delivered himself of an elaborate and minute indictment of 
 the Government. He pointed out that at the close of the late struggle, 
 the condition of the Great Powers of Europe afforded a fair prospect of 
 peace. How was it then that wars and rumours of wars pervaded the 
 whole of the Speech from the throne ? The seeds of difficulty in our diplo- 
 matic relations had been, he contended, sown immediately after the Treaty 
 of Peace ; first with reference to Italy, our intermeddling with the affairs 
 of which country had for six months diverted the mind of England from 
 the consideration of her domestic policy, and he created an enormous sen- 
 sation, by the declaration that at that time a secret treaty was in existence, 
 by which France guaranteed to Austria with the assent of the English 
 Government, the whole of her Italian dominions. Was a minister, he 
 asked, justified in holding out to Italy and to Europe under these circum- 
 stances, that he was determined to change the aspect of social and political 
 life in the Peninsula ? He insisted that the people of this country were the 
 victims of an imposture — that time was wasted and expense unnecessarily 
 incurred. Then came the Russian difficulty. What was the reason, he inquired, 
 for our being on the point of losing one of the principal objects for which we 
 had gone to war ? The reason was that our plenipotentiary, himself a member 
 of the Cabinet, had blundered over his work. Yet, instead of the mistake 
 being avowed and rectified, every means was taken to excite the popular 
 mind against Russia and to create an impression that she \\ished to back 
 
LORD PALMERSTON "EXPLAINS." 243 
 
 out of the Treaty. All these difficulties in foreign affairs wliich had 
 occupied nearly a year, were, he argued, attributable to ministers who, 
 when the question about Bolgrad and the Isle of Serpents was adjusted — 
 a question, by the way, which arose out of an extraordinary blunder con- 
 cerning maps in our own Foreign Office — had advised a course in the 
 Keuchatel dispute, which but for the prudence of the Swiss would have 
 involved them in war, and embroiled the entire continent. Happily the 
 tranquillity of Europe was so well established, that even a " firebrand 
 minister " could not subvert it, but in another quarter of the globe we had, 
 not rumours of wars, but actual war, and he thought it was the duty of 
 the House to inquire what was the cause of these perpetually recurring 
 difficulties. Kecollecting the war in Afghanistan, he intended to examine 
 with the utmost care the papers relating to the dispute with Persia as soon 
 as they should be presented, and he pointed out, that when the position of 
 that country with regard to India and. to our own great rival in the East 
 was taken into consideration, it was obviously our duty to strengthen her 
 by all possible means. The Chinese war he believed to be the result of 
 certain instructions sent out from home some time before ; and if it were 
 so, it would be for the House to consider whether the power of the Minister 
 so to compromise his country should not be controlled. After some 
 reference to finance — to which Sir Gr. C. Lewis refused to reply until he 
 brought forward the Budget — he concluded by giving notice of his intention 
 to move for a committee of the whole House with the view of proposing 
 certain resolutions. 
 
 Lord Palmerston replied to this speech pleasantly enough. Mr. Disraeli, 
 he said in effect, was a writer of fiction ; this story of the Secret Treaty 
 was only another of his romances, and if there were such a Treaty it was 
 so very " secret " that Ministers had never heard of it. Accordingly on 
 the night of Tuesday 10th of February, the leader of the Opposition made 
 a personal explanation, in which he re-affirmed that engagements had been 
 entered into by France and Austria with the main object of guaranteeing 
 the Austro-Italian dominions : that those negotiations were successful, and 
 had taken a pennanent shape in a Secret Treaty executed on the 22nd of 
 September, 1854. As to the allegation that Her Majesty's Government 
 knew nothing of them, he had evidence in his possession that the proposal 
 had received Ministerial concurrence and approval, and that the archives of 
 the Foreign Office contained abundant evidence of the facts. Lord 
 Palmerston denied that he had accused Mr. Disraeli of falsehood, assured 
 him that he had thought him guilty of nothing worse than credulity, and 
 wound up a lame defence by the assertion that the outcome of the negotia- 
 tions had been merely a Convention which had never been signed. Two 
 days later the noble Lord had to come down and to admit " that, on further 
 inquiry, he found that in point of fact the Convention," which he chose to 
 represent as " more of a military than a political Convention," had been 
 signed exactly as Mr. Disraeli had represented it. He added, however, 
 
 a 2 
 
244 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 that althougli signed the Convention had become a dead letter, and had 
 never been acted upon or " had any application or effect whatever." This 
 drew down from Mr Disraeli a reply, in course of which he pointed out 
 that the noble Lord had given him the lie direct though he was right 
 from first to last, and that so far from the Convention never having been 
 acted upon, it was in consequence of it that Austria had withdrawn her 
 troops from Italy. 
 
 The foreign policy of the Government was, in spite of its costliness, 
 exceedingly popular, and it served to carry down a Budget which would 
 have been otherwise very unpalatable. Sir Gr. C. Lewis made his financial 
 statement on the evening of the 13th of February. It was remarkable for 
 only two things — first, the evidence which it afforded of the rapidly 
 growing prosperity of the country ; and next, the determination of Liberal 
 financiers to rest ever more and more upon the Income Tax. That impost it 
 was proposed to continue at the rate of Id. in the pound for three years. At 
 the moment Mr. Disraeli made no sign, but on the 20th he brought 
 forward a resolution " for adjusting the estimated income and expenditure 
 in the manner best calculated to secure the country against the risk of a 
 deficiency in the years 1858-9 and 1859-60, and to provide for such a 
 balance of revenue and charge respectively in the year 1860 as might place 
 it in the power of Parliament at that period, without embarrassment to the 
 finances, to altogether remit the Income Tax.'* The debate was long, but 
 on the part of the leader of the Opposition it mainly resolved itself into a 
 demand for economy and for a return to the estimates of 1853. Strangely 
 enough, for the first time for many years Mr. Disraeli found a supporter in 
 Mr. Gladstone, who, as usual, turned upon his former colleagues with 
 intense acrimony, and brought sundry charges against them, couched, as 
 Sir Charles Wood remarked, " in terms hardly fit to be used by one gentle- 
 man to another." The end of the debate was that the principle of the 
 Budget was affirmed by 286 to 206. 
 
 Nemesis — in the form of a defeat on the China war — was, however, on 
 its way. On the 24th Lord Derby brought the matter forward in the 
 Upper House in a speech in which he emphatically condemned the policy 
 of Sir John Bowring and the support which had been given to it from 
 home. He was strongly supported, but on a division his resolutions were 
 lost by a majority of 36 votes— mainly proxies. In the Commons the 
 result was different. The debate commenced on the 26th of February — 
 the second night of the debate in the Lords — and lasted during four nights. 
 The gravity of the situation was fully appreciated by both sides, and 
 meetings were held under the presidency of Lord Derby and of Lord 
 Palmerston respectively, to decide on the course to be adopted. The 
 debate itself was one of the most remarkable of the present century. 
 Men of all shades of political opinion attacked the Government, and all 
 upon pretty much the same ground. Mr. Cobden began and Mr. Milner 
 Gibson seconded the motion. Sir Buiwer Lytton, in a speech of striking 
 
DEBATE ON THE CHINA WAR. 245 
 
 eloquence, warned the House that trade could not prosper if traders made 
 themselves an object of detestation to those they traded with. Sir John 
 Herbert strongly condemned the conduct of the Consuls and of Sir Michael 
 Seymour. Mr. Warren thought that there were both blindness and 
 obstinacy in the way in which the supporters of the Government refused 
 to enter upon any question other than that of the honour of the British 
 flag. Mr. Whiteside condemned the bombardment of Canton as au 
 "onslaught upon old men, women and children, based upon a miserable, 
 contemptible and cowardly quibble." Lord Robert Cecil argued that 
 honour, justice and truth, were likely to do more to induce the Chinese to 
 open their ports than any force that we could send against them. Viscount 
 Goderich thought what had been done inconsistent with the character and 
 contrary to the interests of England. Sir James Graham considered the 
 operations at Canton utterly indefensible from every point of view, and 
 announced his intention of voting against the colleagues whom he had so 
 recently quitted. Mr. Phillimore reviewed the circumstances of the war at 
 some length, and finally pronounced it on every ground "unjust in its 
 origin and unblest in its continuance." Sir John Pakington thought 
 the war "disgraceful and disastrous." Sir Frederick Thesiger 
 considered the papers before the House a lasting monument of the 
 bad faith and cruelty of England. Mr. Sidney Herbert expressed the 
 deepest sorrow at seeing "force exercised with so little mercy upon a 
 pretext so transparent — he would not say so transparently fraudulent." 
 Mr. Roundell Palmer (now Lord Selborne) denounced the policy of the 
 Government " as discreditable in itself and utterly unlikely to increase 
 our commerce or our influence, or to exalt the reputation of this country 
 amongst Western or Oriental nations." Mr. Henley announced that he 
 supported Mr. Cobden's motion, because " he could not consent to share 
 the responsibility of a downright public falsehood, or the unnecessary 
 shedding of innocent blood." Mr. J. G. Phillimore would not be an 
 accomplice in national dishonour, or support " the act of an upstart and 
 arrogant Minister." Mr. Baillie Cochrane thought the conduct of the 
 Government " consistent neither with truth nor with humanity." Mr. 
 Eoebuck put the case of a Chinese man-of-war bombarding Westminister 
 because certain men in Downing Street did not do exactly as they desired, 
 and declared that the action of the Enghsh in China, being parallel, " was 
 indefensible, ungenerous, unchristian and deserving the reprobation of the 
 House." Mr. Gladstone supported the resolution, and made an earnest 
 appeal to send out " a message of mercy and peace, and also a message of 
 British judgment and British wisdom, to the farthest corners of the world." 
 The defenders of the Government were its official members, and perhaps 
 half-a-dozen of the least influential of the Whig party, whose cue it was 
 to represent the attack on the policy of the Chinese war as an unprincipled 
 and factious combination to drive the Ministry out of office. To this 
 taunt Mr. Disraeli replied in the speech with which he practically wound 
 
246 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 up the debate, by an assertion that of course every move in the House of 
 Commons must be a party move, since a party is but a body of men, " who 
 have a policy which they recommend, and who do not shrink from the 
 responsibility of putting that policy in practice." As the whole question 
 of the war itself had been thoroughly canvassed, Mr. Disraeli turned to 
 its relation to politics at home, and speedily disposed of Lord Palmers ton's 
 " weak and shambling case," in a speech which recalled the days of the 
 diatribes against Peel. " The First Minister is, of all men," said he, " the 
 man who cannot bear a coalition ! Why, Sir, he is the archetype of poli- 
 tical combinations, without avowed political principles. See how his 
 Government is formed. It was only last year that every member of his 
 Cabinet in this House, supported a Bill, introduced, I think, by a late 
 colleague. It was opposed in the other House by a member of the 
 Government, who, to excuse his apparent inconsistency, declared that 
 when he took office the First Minister required no pledge from him on any 
 subject whatever. Yet the noble Lord is alarmed and shocked at this 
 unprincipled combination ! The noble Lord cannot bear coalitions. The 
 noble Lord has acted only with those amongst whom he was born and 
 bred in politics ! That infant Hercules was taken out of a Whig cradle ! 
 And how consistent has been his political life ! Looking back upon the 
 past half century, during which he has professed almost every principle 
 and connected himself with almost every party, the noble Lord has raised 
 a warning voice to-night against coalitions, because he fears that a 
 majority of the House of Commons, ranking in its numbers some of the 
 most eminent members of this House, may not approve a policy with 
 respect to China, which has begun in outrage and which, if pursued, 
 will end in ruin. . . . Let the noble Lord not only complain to the 
 country — let him appeal to the country. I hope my constituents will 
 return me again ; if they do not, I shall be most happy to meet him on 
 the hustings at Tiverton. ... I should like to see the programme of 
 the proud leader of the Liberal party, — * No Keform ! New Taxes ! 
 Canton blazing ! Persia invaded ! ' That would be the programme of the 
 statesman who appeals to a great nation as the worthy leader of the cause 
 of progress and civilisation." 
 
 The division was taken at 2 o'clock in the morning and Lord Palmerston 
 found himself in a minority of 16. On the following Thursday he 
 announced, as a consequence of the decision of the House, that as soon as 
 temporary arrangements could be made a dissolution would take place 
 The leader of the Opposition expressed his approval of this course, and 
 promised to facilitate public business as much as possible. The proroga- 
 tion took place on the 21st of March, and the new writs having been at 
 once issued, its results were pretty well known by the end of the month. 
 As Mr. Ashley reminds us, " There never perhaps was a general election 
 which turned more completely than this one of 1857 on the personal 
 prestige of a Minister and the national confidence in one man." Mr. 
 
ADDRESS TO CONSTITUENTS. 247 
 
 Ashley might at the same time have added that there never was an 
 election which was characterised by so large an amount of what has some- 
 times been called "Elijah Pogramism " — a quality of which Palmerston,witli 
 all his admirable tact and unquestionable capacity, was the greatest living 
 exemplar. Somehow or other the bunkum which was talked at this time 
 had a wonderful effect on the voting power of the people. Palmerston's 
 name was a name to conjure with, while his principal opponents were 
 nowhere, especially those who had opposed him on the question of the China 
 War. Messrs. Bright and Milner Gibson were rejected at Manchester to 
 make room for Messrs. Potter and Turner ; Mr. Cobden, fearing to attempt 
 to retain his seat for the West Kiding, fled to Huddersfield, and was igno- 
 miniously defeated there ; Mr. Cardwell was rejected at Oxford by a narrow 
 majority, and Mr. Layard lost his seat for Aylesbury. Altogether 189 
 new members were returned, and of the whole House 371 were set down as 
 supporters of Lord Palmerston, while only 284 were described as Conserva- 
 tives. The Peelites, as a party, practically disappeared at this election. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield's address to the electors of Buckinghamshire appeared 
 on the 17th of March. It is a little more bitter in tone than usual, and 
 comments with some force on the practical acknowledgment of the justice 
 of the vote of the House of Commons, to be found in the supersession of 
 the English agents in China. The real object of the Dissolution he 
 declares to be the waste of a year, and of Lord Palmerston he says that 
 '' he is an eminent man whc has deserved well of his country, but who, as 
 Prime Minister, occupies a false position. He is," the address goes on, 
 *' the Tory chief of a Radical Cabinet. With no domestic policy he is 
 obliged to divert the attention of the people from the consideration of their 
 own affairs to the distraction of foreign politics. His external system is 
 turbulent and aggressive that his rule at home may be tranquil and nn- 
 assailed. Hence arise excessive expenditure, heavy taxation and the 
 stoppage of all social improvement. His scheme of conduct is so 
 devoid of all political principle that when forced to appeal to the people 
 his only claim to their confidence in his name." Mr. Disraeli's own policy 
 is announced in six words : — " Honourable Peace, Eeduced Taxation and 
 Social Improvement " — while the address winds up with a reference to the 
 attempts which were being made to obscure the great questions at issue by 
 references to Lord Palmerston's much vaunted ecclesiastical appointments 
 and to his known opposition to Tractarianism. There was no attempt at 
 opposition to Mr. Disraeli's return, and the only speech he found it neces- 
 sary to make to the electors was at the nomination, when he reviewed tho 
 course of political events since he last stood before them on his re-election 
 after taking office.'' ^ In the course of his address he vindicated himself from 
 the charge of inconsistency, which had been brought against him because 
 of his having approved the dissolution in the House and condemned it in 
 his address. He urged that if Lord Palmerston had, at the beginning of 
 the China debate, announced that the English representatives would be 
 
248 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 recalled, there would have been no division against the Government, and 
 that when he approved the dissolution no such announcement had been 
 made. Called upon to express himself on the subject of reform he delivered 
 himself of an earnest disclaimer of the notion that he in any way distrusted 
 the nation, but he condemned any scheme which, like the Reform Bill of 
 1832, would have a tendency to throw more power into the hands of the 
 Whigs, and he protested against the Ballot and equal electoral districts as 
 political nostrums which could only degrade the House of Commons and 
 deprive property and rank of their legitimate influence. 
 
 The House reassembled on the 30th of April, and a few days having 
 been spent in preliminaries — the election of Mr. Denison as Speaker and 
 the swearing in of members — the Queen's Speech was read by the Com- 
 missioners on the 7th of May. The document affords a curious practical 
 commentary on the criticism of the Palmerstonian policy in Mr. Disraeli's 
 address to the electors of Buckinghamshire. Eight paragraphs are devoted 
 to Foreign Affairs ; no word is uttered concerning India, though the 
 IMutiny was notoriously making way somewhat rapidly, and, after a vague 
 paragraph promising "measures for the consolidation and improvement of 
 the law," it is stated that " Bills will be submitted to you for improving 
 the laws relating to the testamentary and matrimonial jurisdiction now 
 exercised by tlie Ecclesiastical Courts and also for checking fraudulent 
 breaches of trust." And that was the whole programme of domestic 
 legislation offered to the new Parliament of 1857. Mr. Disraeli made no 
 remark upon it. The Address was voted and the House adjourned by ten 
 minutes past six o'clock. ' 
 
 By the middle of June Lord Palmerston's Government became aware of 
 the existence of the Indian Mutiny. Other people had been uneasy about 
 our relations with that country for some time previously, but the Govern- 
 ment, absorbed in the important business of revenging the insult offered to 
 the " Arrow," and in punishing Persia for her presumption in the affair of 
 Herat — a little expedition which cost the country about a million of money 
 and served mainly to exasperate the Persians in India against our rule — 
 had neglected to take adequate precautions against the spread of the dis- 
 afiection. When at last the news of General Anson's death arrived, all 
 was confusion and haste. On the night the news was brought Lord 
 Palmerston had an interview with Sir Colin Campbell, who started the 
 next day for the seat of war, and on the 1st of July the first of the eighty 
 ships despatched to India with troops and ammunition left these shores. 
 The news of the Mutiny speedily brought the leader of the Opposition to 
 the front with a demand that the Government should supply fully and 
 frankly the necessary information as to the causes of what had occurred, 
 and also as to the steps taken for the repression of the Mutiny. He 
 reminded the House that the foreign policy of the First Minister of the 
 Crown had involved this country in a war with Russia ; that that war was 
 hardly over when we were involved in a war with Persia ; that the ratiQ- 
 
THE INDIAN MUTINY. 249 
 
 cation of the peace with Persia had hardly been laid on the table when the 
 news of our conflict in China reached this country. And now, after all 
 these costly Eastern wars, the existence of our Eastern Empire was found 
 to be endangered from within. Whilst asking for information, however, 
 he protested on his own behalf, and on that of all who acted with him, 
 that there was " one predominant sentiment to which all others, however 
 important, must be subordinated, and that is a determination to support 
 the Sovereign and the Government in all those measures which so grave 
 and critical an emergency may require. I am quite sure," said he, 
 " that the spirit of this country is so high, its resources are so great, that 
 there is nothing the people are not prepared to endure, no expenditure 
 which they are not prepared to incur, and no effort which they are not 
 prepared to make in order to maintain that Empire which it is the boast 
 of this country so long to have possessed, and which is one of the chief 
 sources of our wealth, our power and our authority." Referring then to 
 the notorious fact that the air had for twelve months been thick with 
 rumours of Indian discontent, Mr. Disraeli asked how it was that the 
 Government had not taken warning in time : whether it was not true that 
 representations had been made by military men as to the state of the army 
 and the notoriously deficient number of European officers ; whether the 
 Governor-General had not complained that the civil and military autho- 
 rities were not agreed ; and whether that high official had not expressed a 
 wish to retire. Mr. Vernon Smith — of whom it was once said that " you 
 might call him a great Minister, but you could not prevent the public 
 from reading his speeches " — was put up to reply, and according to his 
 version of the matter the Mutiny was a very small affair, almost exclusively 
 confined to the Bengal army, and certain to be repressed in good time by 
 Lord Canning. 
 
 Strange to relate, the leader of the Opposition was not satisfied with this 
 reply, and persisted in asking for further information. It was not, however, 
 until the 27th of July that he was able to formulate his position, which he 
 did in a speech of considerable length, introducing two motions for papers— 
 the first calling for a Despatch by General Anson, dated in or about March, 
 1856, on the state of the Bengal Army, and the second for a Report by 
 General Sir Charles Napier on the organisation of the Indian Army. In 
 opening his speech he complained that his former questions had not been 
 treated with the gravity which their importance demanded. Mr. Vernon 
 Smith in the Commons had scoffed at the Mutiny, on the ground that the 
 Funds had not fallen, and Lord Granville " in another place " had *' ingenu- 
 ously informed the country that the Government were utterly taken by 
 surprise, both here and in India ; that twenty-four hours before these events 
 occurred they did not even suspect that anything was wrong." * The Govern- 
 
 * Lord Granville has a happy knack of being surprised. The reader will 
 remember how cooipletely he was take» by surpjise whew the war of 1870 
 broke out, 
 
250 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ment had said that the matter was a " mere military mutiny," and that 
 when it was put down it would be easy to settle what should be done with 
 the army. To himself, however, the question was whether it was really a 
 military mutiny, and not something much more serious — a national revolt, 
 in fact. Is the conduct of the troops, he asked, the consequence of a 
 sudden impulse, or is it the result of an organised conspiracy ? He, 
 personally, was disposed to imagine that the latter was the explanation, 
 and that the Bengal Army, in consequence of its indiscipline and dis- 
 organisation, had been drawn into the vortex of rebellion. That this was 
 probable he proceeded to show by a brief critical survey of the English 
 rule in India. He pointed out that all our great Indian statesmen — men like 
 Malcolm, Metcalfe, Elphinstone, and Munro — had upheld the principle of 
 maintaining inviolate the rights and privileges, the laws and customs, the 
 property and religion of the people whose affairs we were about to 
 administer. Our Empire in India was indeed founded on the principle of 
 Divide et impera ; but that principle was put into operation by no Machia- 
 vellian devices, but by availing ourselves of the natural circumstances of 
 the country. There were in India so many independent states, so many 
 princes of diflferent races, so many religions, and even so many languages, 
 that if you honestly performed your engagements, it was totally impossible 
 for a fatal combination to be formed against you. " Why did the Ma- 
 homedans and the Mahrattas fail in India ? " he went on to ask. " The 
 two principal causes of the downfall of those dynasties were — first, that 
 they persecuted the people whom they had conquered on account of their 
 religion ; and secondly, that when their treasuries became empty they 
 confiscated the land of the chief proprietors. England, on the contrary, 
 always came in with a guarantee of their lands and a solemn engagement 
 not to tamper with their religion." Of late years a new principle appeared 
 to have been adopted in the government of India— the principle of destroy- 
 ing nationality and of revolutionising everything in the country. 
 
 The orator ranged under three heads the various causes which in his 
 opinion had led to the obvious discontent of all classes with our rule. 
 First came the forcible destruction of native authority in India ; second, 
 the disturbance of the settlement of property ; and, thirdly, tampering 
 with the religion of the people. Directly or indirectly all present difficulties 
 were traceable to one or other of these causes. Under the first head he 
 referred to what he considered to be the new policy of annexing States on 
 the ground of the failure of natural heirs, though adoption was distinctly 
 countenanced by Hindoo law. That he might not be thought to be 
 speaking in too general terms he specified particular instances, the most 
 prominent of which were that of the well-known Kajah of Sattarah, and; 
 the equally notorious case of the Rajah of Berar. Violations of Hindoo 
 law such as these were sufficient, he contended, not merely to shake the 
 confidence of princes, but to raise up large and powerful parties against our 
 rule. This led to the second head, under which he argued that, as the law 
 
TAMPERING WITH RELIGION. 251 
 
 of adoption applied to landed proprietors, our new system applied to every 
 jaghedar or enamdar — copyholder or freeholder as these words may he 
 roughly translated — in the country. Inquisitions had also been prosecuted 
 into the titles to landed estates, and he believed that the amount obtained 
 by the resumption of such property was in Bengal not less than £500,000, 
 and in Bombay £370,000 a-year. The Government had further reduced 
 guaranteed pensions by curtailment and by conversion into annuities. 
 Some of these cases were notoriously flagrant, as for instance that of the 
 Nabob of Arcot, who, having ceded the Carnatic with its enormous revenues, 
 had been guaranteed a pension of £40,000 a-year. His descendant had been 
 told that he must forego this pension, and the Indian Government had 
 actually paid to this prince, under the name of charity, a sum in rupees 
 which amounted in pounds sterling to £150. " Conceive," exclaimed 
 Mr. Disraeli, " conceive a hundred and fifty pounds being offered to a man 
 who had a right to receive, according to what we have just heard, £40,000 
 a-year." 
 
 Turning now to the third point, the tampering with the religion of the 
 people, he admitted the delicacy of the questions which might be raised 
 under this head, but for his own part he was not prepared to believe that 
 the difiSculties had arisen from missionary effort. He did not believe that 
 the Hindoo looked with any particular suspicion on the missionary, but 
 thought on the contrary that he would be ready to discuss religious 
 questions. What the Hindoj looked at with uneasiness and suspicion was 
 the union of missionary enterprise with the power of the Government. 
 He was much misinformed if the Government had not furnished ground 
 for suspicion in relation to native education ; but there had been two Acts 
 passed within the last few years by the Legislative Council of India which 
 had greatly disquieted the religious mind in Hiudostan. One enacted that 
 no man should lose his property on account of a change of religion ; the 
 other permitted a Hindoo widow to marry a second husband. Both these 
 Acts had created the greatest alarm and disturbance amongst the Hindoos. 
 Leaving the Hindoos and their grievances for the moment, Mr. Disraeli 
 directed the attention of the House to the treatment of that great Maho- 
 metan feudatory prince, the King of Oude, the annexation of whose territory 
 and the plunder of whose treasury had alienated all the Mahometan princes 
 of India, and disposed them to an alliance with the Hindoos against oui 
 power. He had been informed besides that in our Bengal regiments there 
 were no fewer than 70,000 natives of Oude who, in returning to their 
 villages, would find them in the possession of the East India Company, 
 and those who were owners of the land would be subject to the harsh 
 system of our land revenue. 
 
 It was after these events that the circulation of cakes and lotahs (oddly 
 enough misprinted " lotus flowers " by the reporters) throughout the whole 
 of Bengal began. That fact might be held to prove a general and wido 
 5pread conspiracy. He thought it impossible that the Indian Government 
 
253 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 could be Ignorant that the whole of the Bengal troops were in a state of 
 chronic insubordination, and it was their duty solemnly to impress upon 
 the Government at home, and they had no doubt done so, that the time 
 had come for a serious inquiry into the state of our Indian army. The 
 greasing of the cartridges Mr. Disraeli considered a mere pretext, and he 
 expressed a hope that the rising generation of public men would not allow 
 themselves to be deceived by it. The latter half of the speech was devoted 
 to a consideration of the measures of the Government — what they were 
 and what they ought to be. A great deal had been said of what had been 
 done, but that after all amounted to very little. Vast figures had been 
 mentioned, but deducting reliefs and the per-centages of men who might 
 be expected to be disqualified by illness, the change of climate and the 
 casualties of war, the total reinforcements did not amount to more than 
 15,000 men. Such an army, he contended, was insufficient. Not only 
 should there be an advance from Calcutta through Bengal, but there should 
 be an expedition up the Indus, the latter being, in his mind, by far the 
 most important undertaking. 
 
 To accomplish these ends he would employ every available soldier, and 
 if necessary would call out the militia and embody them for the purposes 
 of home defence. But having done so much, he would go to India, not as 
 an avenger only, but also with a message of hope. India was not to be 
 conquered with an army of 100,000 or even 200,000 Englishmen. Nor 
 could the country be governed solely by means of an English bureaucracy. 
 " The course I recommend is this : You ought at once, whether you receive 
 news of success or of defeat, to tell the people of India that the relations 
 between them and their real ruler and sovereign Queen Victoria shall be 
 drawn nearer. You must act on the opinion of India on that subject 
 immediately, and you can only act upon the opinion of Eastern nations 
 through their imagination. You ought to have a Koyal Commission sent by 
 the Queen from this country to India immediately, to inquire into the griev- 
 ances of the various classes of that population. You ought to issue a Royal 
 Proclamation to the people of India, declaring that the Queen of England 
 is not a sovereign who will countenance the violation of treaties — that the 
 Queen of England is not a sovereign who will disturb the settlement of 
 property —that the Queen of England is a sovereign who will respect their 
 laws, their usages, their customs and above all their religion. Do this, and 
 do it not in a corner, but in a mode and manner which will attract universal 
 attention and excite the general hope of Hindostan, and you will do as 
 much as all your fleets and armies can achieve." It was a mere matter of 
 course that in a newly-elected House of Commons, the majority of which 
 had for their sole article of political faith belief in Lord Palmerston and 
 his foreign policy, such a notion as this of Lord Beaconsfield's should have 
 produced nothing more than a rather flatulent debate, which ended in a 
 resolution expressive of the determination of the House to support the 
 Government in whatever measures might be thought necessary for vindi- 
 
PARLIAMENT RE-OPENS. 253 
 
 eating the honour of the Crown. Tlie speech which has here been sum- 
 marised is, however, of no small interest, inasmuch as it proves with 
 tolerable clearness that twenty years before the Queen of England was pro- 
 claimed with all solemnity Empress of India, the political theory which 
 lay at the root of that important manifestation of policy had been elabo- 
 rated by the chief of the Tory party, who only awaited an opportunity for 
 acting upon it. It was characteristic of the spirit in which the arguments 
 of the leader of the Opposition were met at this time that in a subsequent 
 debate on the conveyance of troops to India, Lord John Russell seized the 
 opportunity of replying to this speech, and actually found the courage to 
 say that the meaning of it was " that this is a just and righteous revolt, 
 inspired and animated by a desire to get rid of a tyrannical Government " 
 — a statement which brought Mr. Disraeli to his feet with an indignant 
 denial of the charge, and a declaration that the Indian Mutiny was "a foul 
 rebellion, not a just revolt ; but that, as he did not think a foul rebellion 
 could occur without a cause, he had endeavoured to describe with accuracy 
 the causes which have led to the disasters we all deplored." 
 
 No farther opportunity for expressing opinion on the questions arising 
 out of the Indian Mutiny was afforded in the Session of 1857. Parliament 
 was prorogued on the 28th of August by Commission, the only measure of 
 any real importance upon which the Government could congratulate the 
 country as having been successfully carried through Parliament, being 
 the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act. In the politico-theological 
 discussions of that measure the member for Buckinghamshire took no 
 part, contenting himself with an occasional word or two on questions of 
 detail. 
 
 When the House adjourned at the end of August, it was not anticipated 
 that any necessity would arise for its re-assembling before the usual time 
 in the early spring of 1858. In the course of the autumn, however, a 
 monetary crisis of extreme severity — more severe in fact than any since 
 1847 — had set in, owing to the failure of several banks and important 
 mercantile houses in the United States. As usual the Bank rate of discount 
 was raised from time to time, until on the 9th of November it reached 10 
 per cent., whilst the stock of specie in both departments of the Bank had 
 sunk as low as £7,17 1,000. The usual remedy was sought. An urgent 
 application was made to the Government to suspend the operation of the 
 Act of 1844, which was acceded to subject to the usual condition of a Bill 
 of Indemnity, to be afterwards sought from Parliament. The House was 
 consequently called together on the 3rd of December, and opened by the 
 Queen in person. The Speech from the Throne began with a long explana- 
 tion of the necessity for an indemnity for the Government ; three paragraphs 
 were given to the Indian Mutiny ; one to congratulations on the general 
 peacefulness of Europe ; one to the treaty with Persia, and in two short 
 paragraphs was explained the legislative programme of the Session — a new 
 Reform Bill and two Bills for "simplifying and amending " the laws 
 
254 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 relating to real property, and for " consolidating and amending " certain 
 portions of the criminal law. If Lord Beaconsfield had needed a justifica- 
 tion of his criticism of the Palmerstonian domestic policy, he could hardly 
 have found a better than that afforded by this Speech. 
 
 In the debate on the Address, the only speech of the smallest consequence 
 was delivered by the leader of the Opposition, who dwelt at some length on 
 the inconsistency of Ministers with regard to the commercial and monetary 
 system of this country, and who spoke with some severity of the levity 
 with which a Bill of Indemnity for the suspension of the Bank Charter 
 Act was usually treated. He also entered somewhat minutely into the cir- 
 cumstances under which such a suspension had lately been necessary, and 
 pointed out that it had been the work not of the Bank, but of the Govern- 
 ment itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed an inquiry 
 into the working of the Bank Charter Act. For his part he deprecated 
 these frequent inquiries. It was for the Government to say whether it 
 would uphold the Act or not. If it would, he should feel inclined to demur 
 to the Act of Indemnity ; if not, it was the duty of the Government to 
 introduce a measure for redressing acknowledged grievances, and for bring- 
 ing about a settlement of this great question. 
 
 Passing over, with a little gentle banter at the expense of Lord Palmer- 
 ston, the paragraph of the speech relating to the peace of Europe, Mr. 
 Disraeli turned to the far more important one which related to the state 
 of India, and found an opportunity for making sarcastic reference to the 
 amazement and incredulity with which his allusion in the preceding 
 Session to the annexation of Oude as a cause of the Indian Mutiny had 
 been rece'ved by the Government. Three months ago the Government 
 had laughed him to scorn on the subject : now it was universally recog- 
 nised that that nefarious transaction was one of the principal causes of the 
 Indian Mutiny. On the general policy of the Government with respect to 
 India, their unreadiness, their want of knowledge and of foresight and 
 their general incapacity, he was severe, though not more so than tte case 
 deserved, and he expressed a hope that India would not be referred to a 
 Select Committee, since in that case the only Bill which the Government 
 would pass would be the Keform Bill. As for that measure, he begged 
 that the Government would bring it in at once, so that members might 
 consider it during the recess. " Nothing is more unwise," said he, " and 
 nothing can keep public feeling in a more fretful state than the constant 
 idea of a Parliamentary Reform Bill being held over the heads of the 
 people of this country. . . . Now that we have a Reform Ministry, a 
 Reform Minister and a Reform Bill, we should have the Bill at once." 
 
 The opinions expressed in this Speech on the Bank Charter Act, Mr. 
 Disraeli found an opportunity of reiterating in the debates on the Indem- 
 nity Bill, and when a vote of thanks to the Array and Navy in India was 
 proposed, he found occasion, whilst saying everything that was gracious 
 and generous of those who were engaged in the task of suppressing the 
 
THE INDIAK MUTINV. 253 
 
 rebellion, to strike once move at the Government on account of its apathetic 
 neglect of duty in failing to prepare for this outbreak. With regard to 
 Lord Canning, whom the first resolution of the series was designed to 
 thank, he expressed himself as somewhat uncertain, and with great 
 moderation proposed that whilst agreeing to the main body of the reso- 
 lutions, that relating to the Governor-General should be postponed until 
 the House had a better opportunity of forming an opinion as to the value 
 of his services. A memorial had notoriously been sent to England from 
 Calcutta bearing the signatures of 2000 of the most conspicuous of the 
 English residents there, and praying for his Excellency's recall. Until that 
 memorial was disposed of — and it was not on the table only because of a 
 technicality — he thought it would be as well to postpone the Resolution. 
 His suggestion was seconded by seveml of the more conspicuous members 
 present, but Lord Palmerston refusing to agree, Mr. Disraeli withdrew his 
 opposition rather than divide the House ungraciously. 
 
 It is now perfectly well known that throughout this unhappy business 
 Lord Beaconsfield was right, and the Government wholly misled. They 
 were of course to blame for allowing themselves to be so deceived, and the 
 responsibility must in the first place be held to fall upon the ofiicials in 
 India, who, from the beginning of the struggle to its close, failed to 
 appreciate the magnitude of the work before them ; but the Government 
 cannot hope to escape censure. Sir John Kaye has apologised for Indian 
 mismanagement in the way in which a Whig official might be expected 
 to apologise for his brother bureaucrats, but Colonel Malleson, who has 
 undertaken to continue Sir John's " History," is so dissatisfied with the 
 conduct of the Indian Administration, that he has re-written one of his 
 predecessor's volumes. We have seen in what manner and in what spirit 
 the warnings of the leader of the Opposition were received by Lord 
 Palmerston's Government. Except for the papers since published, the 
 tone of those speeches would be wholly inexcusable, but one can look 
 upon them with more leniency when an official of the Indian Government 
 could write in the following terms to the French residents in Calcutta, 
 declining their offer to form themselves into a volunteer force for the 
 defence of the capital : — 
 
 " Everything is quiet within 600 miles of the capital. The mischief 
 caused by a passing and groundless panic has already been aiTested, and 
 there is every reason to hope that in the course of a few days tranquillity 
 and confidence will be restored throughout the Presidency." ' 
 
 This was written on the 25th of May, 1857 — five days before the rising 
 at Lucknow ; eleven before the rising at Allahabad, and the same time 
 before the commencement of the siege of Cawnpore by Nana Sahib. The 
 author of the letter was Mr. Cecil Beadon, who, having served his country 
 in India, obtained the honour of knighthood, and has latterly distinguished 
 himself in connexion with joint stock and co-operative enterprise at home. 
 Lord Canning's policy more than justified the tone of suspicion with which 
 
256 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the leader of the Opposition spolce of it. He it was who most Strenuously 
 opposed the formation of volunteer corps in Calcutta, until overborne by 
 the persistency of Mr. (now Sir J. P.) Grant ; he it was who was re- 
 sponsible for gagging the European press by a measure, the restrictions of 
 which were, says Colonel Malleson, "so galling that compared to them 
 the restrictions on the press of France during the darkest days of the 
 reign of Napoleon III. were light and easy," and he alone was responsible 
 for the Disarming Act, which took away from Europeans as well as from 
 natives the right to carry arms. 
 
 It was not, however, upon his Indian policy that Lord Palmerston was 
 destined to lose the confidence of the country. On the 14th of January, 
 1858, the Emperor Napoleon was on his way to the Opera with the 
 Empress, when the famous attcmpt»upon his life was made by Orsini and 
 his friends. It was tolerably notorious that the would-be assassins had 
 found shelter in the same country as the Emperor himself in the days of 
 his misfortune, but England's hospitality to him did not prevent a great 
 display of hostility towards her, both privately and officially. The 
 Emperor opened the Chambers three days later with a fine speech, crammed 
 with classical and historical allusions, but making no reference to the fact 
 of the assassin's domicile in England. His Minister of Foreign Affairs 
 (Walewski) supplied the omission by writing a despatch to Count 
 Persigny, directing him to bring the matter under the cognizance of the 
 English Government. " Ought the right of asylum," he demanded, " to 
 protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? The 
 English legislation serves to favour their designs and their manoeuvres, and 
 can it continue to protect persons who place themselves by flagrant offences 
 without the pale of the common law, and expose themselves to the law of 
 humanity?" Count Persigny bettered his instructions, and not content 
 with communicating with the English Government, made a theatrical 
 speech to the Corporation of London, calling for exceptional measures 
 against assassins and conspirators. Meanwhile the Colonels of the French 
 army presented congratulatory addresses to the Emperor full of attacks on 
 England, and asking permission " to demand an account from that land 
 of impurity," that " infamous haunt." These addresses were published in 
 the Moniteur, and created so much irritation that the French Ambassador 
 thought it advisable to make, in the name of the Emperor, a formal 
 apology for their appearance. 
 
 The threats of the French colonels and the pressure of French diploma- 
 tists were, however, not without efifect. Lord Palmerston yielded to them 
 so far as to bring in a Bill to punish Conspiracy to Murder. The popular 
 indignation was intense. No living Englishman had the smallest sympathy 
 with Orsini and his accomplices, and had it been possible to bring them to 
 trial in this country they would have met with small mercy. But the 
 people were indignant that the Minister, whose "spirited foreign policy'' 
 was their boast, should be willing to change the law at the bidding of the 
 
DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. 257 
 
 French ambassador, and after the insolent menaces of the French officers. 
 It was not as if the laws of England were insufficient to punish the offence 
 of conspiring against the life of a foreign sovereign. Lord Campbell had 
 authoritatively declared that they v/ere, and whatever may be thought of 
 Lord Campbell as a biographer, there was no doubt of the general sound- 
 ness of his legal knowledge. It was known too that this proposed law was 
 brought in at the express instance of Count Persigny, and there were not 
 wanting those who remembered that even weaker Grovernments than that 
 of Lord Palmerston had refused to allow France to dictate in any way to 
 this country. There were some historical students who recalled the fact 
 that in 1802 the Government of the First Napoleon had made somewhat 
 similar demands, and that Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury had re- 
 fused them in energetic terms. One brilliant writer quoted the famous 
 despatch which told the Emperor " that our Government neither has nor 
 wants any other protection than the laws of the country afford, and that 
 although they are willing and ready to give every foreign Government all 
 the protection against offences of this nature which the principle of their 
 laws and constitution will admit ; they never can consent to remodel their 
 laws or to change their constitution to gratify the wishes of any foreign 
 power." The inference was obvious — that " Lord Palmerston, of whom 
 it has been boasted that ' he is not the Minister of Russia, of Austria, or of 
 France, but the Minister of England,' has shown himself incapable of the 
 firmness of Addington, and that in English spirit he is far below the level 
 of Lord Liverpool." 
 
 The temper which these words denote was the temper of the country 
 generally, and for the first time in his life Lord Palmerston found himself 
 thoroughly unpopular. He had indeed contrived to affront public opinion 
 by ostentatiously selecting for high ecclesiastical appointments a number 
 of clergymen who were distinguished by nothing but their Ultra-Evan- 
 gelical theological views, and he had traded upon his popularity by 
 nominating to the office of Lord Privy Seal the Marquis of Clanricarde, 
 whose personal profligacy had been exposed only a short time before in the 
 trial of a most scandalous will case in the Dublin Court of Chancery. All 
 these blunders might, however, have been condoned had Lord Palmerston 
 acted with common courage and spirit in the matter now in question, but 
 truckling on such a point was not to be forgiven. 
 
 Lord Palmerston brought in his Bill on the 8th of February. It was 
 opposed on all hands, and men of all parties vied with each other in 
 denouncing the insolence of the French colonels and the menaces of Count 
 Walewski. So matters went on through almost the whole of two long 
 evenuags, until Mr. Disraeli rose to put the debate upon a reasonable 
 footing. , He pointed out that the case was an exceptional one, and that 
 there were abundant precedents for exceptional legislation. The question 
 was one really between England and France. A great crime had been 
 committed in a country whose Sovereign was our intimate ally, the plot to 
 
258 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 assassinate the Emperor had unquestionably been hatched here, and there 
 were consequently nothing surprising in the Government of the day making 
 an effort to check the growth of similar plots for the future. He did not 
 defend Count Walewski's despatch, which was "not written with that 
 tact, good temper, and good sense which generally characterised his lucu- 
 brations." Nor did he deny that the observations of the French colonels 
 were " extremely impertinent," or that their publication in the columns of 
 the official journal was " an act of signal indiscretion." He pointed out, 
 however, that it was not for English Liberals to cast stones in this matter. 
 Their representatives had repeatedly insulted the French nation as grossly 
 as the French colonels now insulted England. He called upon the House 
 to " remember that in 1853, under a Government of which the noble Lord, 
 the Member for London, who feels that this country would be so much 
 humiliated by the adoption of the present Bill, was the leading member of 
 the House ... we had statesmen of the greatest eminence in this country 
 denouncing the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, usurper, and perjurer ; 
 we had a Cabinet Minister fresh from a Cabinet Council proceeding to the 
 hustings and amusing his constituents by depicting to them the danger of 
 their country from the impending piratical invasion of the French people ; 
 we had a Cabinet Minister asking the peojjle of England what protection 
 they could have for their wives and daughters with such neighbours as the 
 French, and such a ruler as the present French Emperor." What was now 
 to be considered was, however, not the foolish and insulting speeches made 
 on either side, but the maintenance of the French alliance, and in the hope 
 that the Bill of the Government would tend towards that end he should 
 vote for bringing it in, subject to such revision and reconsideration on the 
 second reading as might be thought desirable. " What the Emperor of 
 the French really required, I apprehend, was a plain demonstration on the 
 part of this country, which would have dissipated the apprehensions that 
 have unfortunately proved so considerable in France, but I cannot believe 
 that the Bill which the noble Lord has proposed will at all tend to that 
 most desirable consummation. So far as I am concerned, I consider it the 
 most unfortunate part of the position in which we are j)laced that this 
 opportunity has been so mismanaged by Her Majesty's Ministers as to have 
 alarmed England without pleasing France. Still, I cannot think that we 
 ought to take a course which might lead to prolonged and mischievous 
 misconceptions, because we disapprove of the clumsy and feeble manner 
 in which the Government has attempted to deal with this difficulty. We 
 must not seize upon this opportunity because we wish to inflict a check 
 upon the Government, or do that which might be misconstrued as an insult 
 to that Prince who, I think, deserves well of this country, and therefore it 
 is my intention to vote for the bringing in of this Bill, though I am not 
 prepared, asat present advised, to take any further part in its defence." 
 
 The Bill came on for second reading on the night of the 19th of Feb- 
 ruary, and was encountered by an amendment from Mr. Milner Gibson (whg 
 
4?5 
 
 THE NEW MINISTRY. /^ ^ 
 
 had succeeded in getting a seat for Ashton) which turned the question 
 practically into one of confidence in Lord Palmerston's foreign policy^ an^ 
 round that subject the whole discussion of the evening revolved. M^t 
 Disraeli wound up the debate on the side of the Opposition byacarisful • - 
 and argumentative speech, designed to show that whereas the first readi'Bg,.; 
 had been carried by a large majority (200, in a House of 299), in ordeK 
 that the House might manifest its sympathy with the people and the 
 Government of France, there was no reason now why members should bo 
 prevented from offering a criticism on the conduct of their own Govern- 
 ment. The despatch of Count Walewski, which had been found so 
 obnoxious, remained unanswered ; and yet upon it Lord Palmerston was 
 actually asking the House to legislate. Such a policy he stigmatized as 
 " perplexed, timid, confused, and unsatisfactory," and of the Government 
 he declared that they had totally " forgotten what was due to their own 
 dignity ; that they were never recalled to that self-respect, which they 
 ought at once to have displayed, till they found that the House of Com- 
 mons turned round upon them and demanded that that should be done 
 which the Ministers of England — those to whom the preservation of the 
 honour of their country was entrusted — had failed to accomplish." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone had spoken in the same sense, and Lord Palmerston,. 
 conscious that the feeling of the House was against him, made but a lame 
 defence. The House divided, and to their extreme astonishment Ministers 
 found themselves in a minority of 19. Mr. Ashley says that " Ministers, 
 when they went down to the House of Commons on the afternoon of this 
 19th of February, did not anticipate even a narrow division, much less a 
 crisis ; " and he adds that " many of those who voted in the majority did 
 not wish to overthrow his (Lord Palmerston's) Government ; and had he 
 thought fit to appeal to the House of Commons for a vote of confidence, 
 it would probably have accorded it." To this belief there will now, how- 
 ever, be few adherents. The popularity of Lord Palmerston had long 
 been waning, and his was essentially a " one man Government." It 
 needed, indeed, all the prestige of his name and character to cover the 
 blunders of his subordinates, and even that did not always suffice. The 
 country was deeply and bitterly disgusted with the incapacity which had 
 been shown in crushing out the Indian mutiny ; it was not enthusiasti- 
 cally delighted with those little wars of which Lord Palmerston generally 
 contrived to have one or two on hand, and sundry recent appointments, 
 political as well as ecclesiastical, had created a great deal of ill-feeling. 
 He exercised, therefore, a wise discretion in at once placing his resignation 
 in the hands of Her Majesty, who, sending for Lord Derby, entrusted him 
 with the formation of a Government. The fact was notified in both Houses 
 of Parliament on Monday the 23rd, and four days later Lord Derby's 
 arrangements were completed. 
 
 Lord Derby's new ministry was strong in its individual members, though 
 it could not command an absolute majority in the House. Tlie divided 
 
 s 2 
 
260 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and disorganized condition of parties effectually prevented that result for 
 some time to come ; but there was good reason for believing that a fair 
 amount of support in general matters might be looked for from the 
 Peelites, who still exercised a certain amount of influence, though as a 
 corporate body they had long ceased to exist. There was, however, reason 
 to hope that by force of personal character the Cabinet might exercise a 
 greater power than at first seemed probable. Lord Derby was supported 
 in the Upper House by the Marquis of Salisbury and Lords Chelmsford, 
 Hardwicke and Malmesbury, whilst Mr. Disraeli in the Lower shared the 
 Treasury Bench with Sir John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, General Peel, 
 Lord John Manners, and Mr. Henley. Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Sir Hugh 
 Cairns were respectively Attorney and Solicitor General, and Mr. 
 Gathorne Hardy made his dehut in official life as Under Secretary at the 
 Home Office. The greatest accession to the strength of the Government 
 was, however, the acceptance of office by Lord EUenborough as President 
 of the Board of Control — an appointment which afforded a promise, not 
 afterwards disappointed, of a wise, strong and statesmanlike policy for 
 India. The Whigs, following the lead of Lord Macaulay, have, it may be 
 remarked, uniformly depreciated the powers and character of this states- 
 man. It may be admitted that he was not always conspicuous as the 
 wisest of men — especially when manifestoes designed for Oriental eyes 
 came to be measured by the cut and dry rules of Whig officialism ; but that 
 he was a great and capable statesman is a fact concerning which there can 
 hardly be two opinions. His conduct at the Board of Control during his 
 unfortunately too brief tenure of office, certainly affords no reason for 
 impugning this verdict. 
 
( 261 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 « In office, 1858-1859. 
 
 Lord Derby reluctant to take Office — Mr. Disraeli's Address— Speech i*rom the 
 Hustings — Foreign Policy of the Government — Reform— The French Alliance 
 — Lord Malmesbury's Despatch — ^The Emperor's Pamphlet — The Gagliari 
 Business — Mr. Disraeli's Speech — General Business of the House — Reform — 
 The India Bill — First reading — Compromise — Resolutions — The New Bill — 
 Rebellion in Oude — Lord Canning's Proclamation — Censure by the Govern- 
 ment—Lord Ellenborough's Retirement — Montalembert's Pamphlet — The 
 Slough Dinner — The " Cabal " Debates on the Speech — Mr. Disraeli on his 
 Defence — Financial Policy of the Government — ^The Budget — Reduction of 
 the Income Tax — Equalization of the Spirit Duties — Budget well received — 
 Cost of Whig Foreign Policy — State of the Thames — A Government Mea- 
 sure — Prorogation — Speech from the Throne — The Recess — Impending War 
 between Austria and France — England the Mediator — Reform — Retirement 
 of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley — Difficulties of the Government — Session of 
 1859 — The Queen's Speech — Debate on the Address — Mr. Disraeli on Italy — 
 Reform — The Government Bill — Fancy franchises — Redistribution — The 
 Bill unpopular — Debate on the Second Reading — Tactics of the Opposition — 
 Lord John Russell's Amendment — State of Europe — Defeat of the Govern- 
 ment — Ministerial Statements — The impending Dissolution — Statement on 
 Condition of Europe — The Dissolution — Mr. Disraeli in Buckinghamshire — 
 The " enormous lies " of the Opposition press — Results of the Election — The 
 Queen opens Parliament — Lord Hartington moves an Amendment to the 
 Address — Sir James Graham's Accusations against the Government — Mr. 
 Disraeli's Reply — On Foreign Policy — On Reform — How can a New Govern- 
 ment be formed — The Division — Out of Office once more. 
 
 Had such a step been possible, there can be no doubt that Lord Derby 
 would have declined to attempt the formation of a Government in 1858. 
 Seeing, however, that the effect of doing so would have been to confess the 
 annihilation of the Tory party, he was forced to go on in spite of the facts 
 that he could not command a Parliamentary majority, that Lord Palmer- 
 ston still enjoyed a considerable amount of what now appears a wholly 
 unwarranted popularity, and that the relations of this country with 
 foreign powers, and especially with France, were in a state of tension of the 
 most perilous kind. In his address to the electors of Buckinghamshire, 
 Mr. Disraeli made special reference to the latter fact. " The circumstances 
 of the country are," said he, " in many respects critical. Painful miscon- 
 ceptions have arisen with the Government of that faithful and powerful 
 ally, who in so many instances has proved his good feeling and fidelity to 
 this country. Believing that a cordial alliance between England and France 
 
262 THE PUBLIC LIFE OP THE EARL OP BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 is equally conducive to the interest of both countries, I shall express my 
 hope and conviction, that by measures at once firm and conciliatory, these 
 causes of misunderstanding may be speedily and entirely removed." 
 
 In his address to the electors from the hustings, he enlarged on this text 
 at some length, pointing out the eminent desirability of maintaining the 
 Anglo-French alliance, both on our own account and in the general 
 interests of Europe. " It is," said he, " the essence of English policy, and 
 not only of English policy but of French policy also, that there should be 
 an alliance between England and France. It is an alliance founded upon 
 a principle totally independent of forms of government, totally indepen- 
 dent of dynasties, totally independent even of the character of the rulers of 
 that country. It does, iijdeed, so happen that the present ruler of France 
 is a man eminently gifted, who from a variety of circumstances naturally 
 exercises a great influence over events. The Emperor Napoleon is not only 
 a Prince, but he is a statesman. The Emperor Napoleon is a man who hns 
 not only a great knowledge of human nature generally, but he is a man 
 who has a great knowledge of English human nature, and it is clear that 
 when the Kuler of France is not only a statesman, but one intimately 
 acquainted with the character, the laws, the customs and the whole con- 
 dition of England, we have a security for the cultivation and maintenance 
 of that alliance which, under other and less favourable circumstances, we 
 
 might not have enjoyed You have found France and the Euler of 
 
 France a faithful ally in a great emergency — not a faithful ally of mere 
 courtly phrases expressed in a Queen's speech or in a diplomatic document, 
 but in the deeds of a nation sealed by blood and crowned by victory." 
 After dwelling at some length on the national character of the Anglo- 
 French alliance, as evidenced by the general feeling of the people, Mr. 
 Disraeli w^ent on to speak of the late attempt on the life of the Emperor, 
 which he very reasonably believed to have excited as much horror and 
 disgust in England as in France itself. It was, however, a subject for deep 
 regret that the French Government and French public opinion should in 
 their indignant consternation have visited that atrocity upon the land and 
 the people of England. And it was not less a matter for regret that the 
 complaints of France should have been treated as they had been by the 
 late Government. " An English Minister might at that moment, by frank- 
 ness and firmness, which are quite consistent with the most entire friend- 
 ship and friendliness, have indicated to the French Government, in a 
 manner which could not have been mistaken, the error of their ways, 
 which would have prevented them from pursuing a course of error, every 
 step of which rendered it more difficult for them to recede, and which 
 while it vindicated the honour of our country and the dignity of our 
 Government, might at the same time have respected with sympathy the feel- 
 ings of France, and have retained and even cherished that cordial friendship 
 which I think so invaluable. But I am bound to say, and indeed the Par- 
 liament of this country has ratified that opinion, that I perceive in the 
 
SPEECH FROM THE HUSTINGS. 263 
 
 Conduct of the late Government, with regard to this important transaction, 
 a total absence of those qualities which were adequate to the great occasion. 
 Instead of a public reply we have had private conversations. Instead of a 
 firm and frank exposition to France of our feelings, and of the false posi- 
 tion into which she was drifting, so far as we can form any opinion as to 
 the course which was then pursued on the part of the English Govern- 
 ment, there was vacillation, timidity, intrigue, manoeuvre, anything but an 
 open assertion of our rights, anything but a firm though friendly demon- 
 stration to the French Government of the error they were committing, 
 anything but those means which were requisite when the peace of two 
 great nations — when indeed the peace and future happiness of Europe — 
 were depending in the scale." 
 
 Entering then a little more into detail, Mr. Disraeli described how Lord 
 Derby had taken office at the pressing instance of Her Majesty personally, 
 with the express object of on the one hand maintaining the dignity of the 
 country, and on the other of maintaining — perhaps reviving — our cordial 
 alliance with France. For success in accomplishing this task, the new 
 .Chancellor of the Exchequer confessed that he looked mainly to the 
 . " sagacious and unimpassioned intelligence of the Emperor." When he 
 came to look at the affair, and to investigate the actual state of the Eng- 
 lish law as regarded conspiracies against the lives of foreign sovereigns, he 
 would not send insulting messages — " he would leave them to counts and 
 colonels," — but he would appeal to the justice of the English people. If — 
 as could hardly be the case — the English law should prove insufficient to 
 protect friendly sovereigns from conspiracies hatched in England, he would 
 ask whether it is really the wish of England that her faithful ally should 
 be subjected to such dangers, and there could not be much doubt what the 
 answer would be. It maybe remarked, by the way, that Lord Beaconsfield's 
 confidence in the English people was but ill-justified by the event. Dr. 
 Bernard's case, to which he made allusion, was tried out at the Old Bailey 
 a very short time afterwards, and resulted, as all the world knows, in a 
 grievous miscarriage of justice. Charged by the Crown with participation 
 in the Orsini plot, he was proved guilty beyond all moral doubt, but was 
 acquitted by an intelligent jury, who apparently thought that they might 
 in this way best revenge the insulting addresses of the French colonels. 
 
 On the question of Keform Mr. Disraeli addressed the electors of Buck- 
 inghamshire with no uncertain voice. He reminded them that it was to 
 the Whigs that they were indebted for the Act of 1832 ; that it was the 
 leader of the Whigs and the author of that measure who in 1851 had 
 brought forward the question once again ; and that it was to the Whigs that 
 the country was indebted for the delays which had arisen in the settlement 
 of the question. " On two occasions the new measure has been withdrawn, 
 not from any opposition on our side, but from a conviction among those 
 by whom it was introduced of its inadequacy or its imperfection, or in 
 consequence of a total disrelish to the article among the great body of the 
 
264 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELfi. 
 
 Liberal party, So we have gone on year after year. We have had an 
 inefficient Government ; we have had a Coalition Government ; we have 
 had a Government of pure elements and materials ; but we have never had 
 a Government that possessed a real hold on the confidence of the people ; 
 and whenever disturbance or distress arose the Government always said, 
 * Let us stay in a little longer, and you shall have a Reform Bill.' ... I 
 will ask you this common-sense question — is it decent, is it honest, is it 
 politic, is it honourable that a question of such a nature as this — a question 
 which concerns the representation of what we believe to be a free and en- 
 lightened people, eminent for their love of liberty, and for their progress in 
 knowledge — that a question like this should be made the stalking-horse of 
 faction ; that it should be hung up and taken down according to the 
 exigencies of a distressed Minister, and that the highest principles of policy 
 should be made part of the stock-in-trade by which a Government are to 
 shuffle through a disgraceful and discreditable existence ? " " The question," 
 he went on, " was one which could no longer be trifled with, and to it the 
 Government would give their sincere and earnest consideration. When the 
 Bill was to be brought forward was another question, and it was absurd for 
 the opponents of the Government to declare, as they were doing, that the 
 Government were not sincere in this matter because the Bill was not ready. 
 Much remained to be done before a great domestic question like this could 
 be opened. France must be pacified ; a system of government for India 
 must be settled, and the rebellion there must be put down. Tlien it would 
 be time enough to bring forward the measure for which the country was 
 supposed to have such a ravenous desire. After a vigorous denial that the 
 former Government of Lord Derby was or ever had been a Government 
 upon sufferance, Lord Beaconsfield concluded his speech by declaring, what 
 people in the " fifties " were very unwilling to believe, but what has since 
 been recognised as an indubitable fact, that the Whig-Radical intrigue 
 which drove Lord Derby from office in 1852 was the direct cause of the 
 Crimean War, of the Persian War, of the Eastern disturbances and of the 
 Indian Mutiny. " Mr. Cobden," he said, " is no doubt one of the most eminent 
 men that ever sat in the House of Commons. What did Mr. Cobden say ? 
 He was a strong opponent of the Government of Lord Derby in the year 1852. 
 He was one of tbemajority which virtually expelled that nobleman and his 
 colleagues from office. What did Mr. Cobden say two years after in the 
 House of Commons ? He said that of all the votes he had given in the course 
 political life, the vote which turned Lord Derby out of office in 1852 of his 
 was the one which he most regretted. He said that that vote had cost this 
 country millions of treasure and thousands of precious lives." 
 
 The first act of the new Administration was, of course, to make an effort 
 to bring about a better understanding with France. Lord Clarendon had 
 done his best, but he had most certainly failed. The famous despatch of 
 Count Walewski remained unanswered, and Lord Clarendon had written to 
 Lord Cowley that he thought it " very moderate in tone," while in the 
 
OVERTURES T^O FRANCEI. 265 
 
 itouse of Lords he had said that he " was totally unable to find in it any 
 insult to England ;" and further, that he considered it " impossible that one 
 Government could communicate with another in terms more temperate or 
 less offensive." The country, however, looked at the matter with somewhat 
 different eyes, and thought that for the Foreign Minister of one State to 
 accuse the Government of another of " favouring assassination by its legis- 
 lation" was rather stronger language than ought to be submitted to 
 especially since those words had been made public, and had been followed 
 up by the insolent demonstration of the French colonels in the Moniteur. 
 Lord Clarendon, it is beyond a doubt, was under an absolute obligation to 
 answer the despatch, and to do so in terms which would, of course, be per- 
 fectly courteous, but at the same time sufficiently decided to leave no doubt 
 in Count Walewski's mind of the meaning of England. Furthermore, with 
 the prosecution of Dr. Bernard going on. Lord Clarendon would have had a 
 very strong point in his favour, inasmuch as he would have been able to 
 point out that Count Walewski's main charge against this country was 
 wholly unfounded. In spite of all this, the late Government had gone out 
 of office, and Count Walewski's circular remained without an answer. 
 The English nation, it is true, had answered it. The Government, which 
 had weakly designed to change the laws of England at the bidding of 
 France, had been driven from office ; the nation had emphatically indorsed 
 their condemnation, and this answer had been practically accepted by Count 
 Walewski, who, in a second despatch, had assured the Government of the 
 day that nothing really disrespectful or unfriendly had been intended. 
 Lord Malmesbury forthwith wrote in conciliatory terms to Lord Cowley : — 
 ** Your lordship will remark to Count Walewski that his Excellency, in 
 stating that the attempt, which has just providentially failed, like others 
 which have preceded, was devised in England ; in speaking with reference to 
 the adejptes de la demagog ie established in England; of * assassination elevated 
 to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts,' and in asking 
 * whether the right of asylum should protect such a state of things or con- 
 tribute to favour their designs and their plans,' has not unnaturally been 
 understood to imjDly imputations, not only that the offences enumerated are 
 not recognised as such by the English law, and may be committed 
 with impunity, but that the spirit of English legislation is such as de- 
 signedly to shelter and screen the offender from punishment. Her Majesty's 
 Government are persuaded that had Count Walewski known, when his 
 Excellency held with your Lordship the conversation to which I have ad- 
 verted above, that such construction was put upon certain portions of his 
 despatch of January 20, he would have had no difficulty in adding to the 
 assurance then given — the assurance that nothing could be further from 
 his intention than to convey an imputation, injurious alike to the morality 
 and the honour of the English nation." 
 
 For awhile it seemed as though this despatch would produce no good 
 effect. A very strong feeling existed in this country, which was stimulated 
 
266 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 on the one hand by inflammatory caricatures — one of which, being especially 
 offensive, was posted to the Colonels of several French regiments — and on 
 the other, by the publication of a long indictment of England, bearing the 
 name of M. de la Guerroniere, but generally understood to be the work of 
 the Emperor himself. This pamphlet had for title, VEmpereur Napoleon 
 III. et VAngleterre. It recited the various attempts at assassination of 
 which he had been the victim ; argued that all of them were plotted in 
 England, and pointed out that the worst and most dangerous of the pam- 
 phlets of the " Reds," — those of the notorious Felix Pyat, the communard 
 — were printed and published here. An air of ridicule was, however, 
 thrown over the whole matter by the serious complaints which were made, 
 that at one of the Discussion Forums in Fleet Street the question whether 
 regicide was justifiable had been discussed in the preceding November, and 
 by a statement that at Wyld's Eeading Room in Leicester Square, Bernard 
 had declared that Napoleon III. and his associates were hors la lot. 
 
 Fortunately for both countries, the question was not left to the draughts- 
 men of the comic papers or to pamphleteers (Imperial or other) for settle- 
 ment. Had they had their way, in all human probability, France and 
 England would have drifted into such a state of feeling, that anything 
 approaching the old friendliness would have been impossible. Diplomacy 
 did, however, what journalism failed to do, and on the 12th of March the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had the satisfaction of announcing to the 
 House, at the opening of the sitting, that within the last hour a despatch 
 had been received from Lord Cowley, stating that all differences and mis- 
 understandings were at an end. 
 
 Tho evening upon which this announcement was made witnessed 
 another exhibition of the effects of Lord Palmerston*s "spirited foreign 
 XJolicy," for the accurate understanding of which it will be necessary to go 
 back for some little time. In the course of the year 1856, the noble Lord 
 was pleased to make one of those idle demonstrations against the Govern- 
 ment of the Two Sicilies in which he delighted. The Government of that 
 State was indeed so outrageously bad that, in the interests of public law 
 and European tranquillity, England would have been justified in active in- 
 tervention. To that, however, the Whig Cabinet was not disposed to 
 resort. Instead of taking such steps, a despatch of the usual hectoring 
 type was written, to which the Neapolitan Minister replied with exasperat- 
 ing contempt. Upon this nothing was done to vindicate the honour of 
 England, but the English Minister was withdrawn from Naples — a feat 
 which provoked the King to inform the other European powers that the 
 presence or the absence of an English ambassador was a matter of perfect 
 indifference to him. The practitioners and the admirers of a "spirited 
 foreign policy " had nothing to say to this matter, and Naples was ac- 
 cordingly triumphant. It was found, however, that although it was easy 
 to break off our relations with the Two Sicilies, the change was not with- 
 out its inconveniences, and one very serious case occurred during the latter 
 
THE CAGLIARI AFFAIR. 267 
 
 part cf Lord Palmerston's reign which excited general indignation. la 
 the month of June, 1857, the mail steamer Cagliari, which plied between 
 Genoa, Cagliari in Sardinia, and Tunis, sailed on its usual trip with thirty- 
 three passengers and a crew of thirty-two officers and men. When she 
 had been under steam for about an hour and a half, the passengers 
 suddenly rose upon the crew and overpowered them. The ship was then 
 steered for the island of Ponza, where a number of Neapolitan political 
 prisoners were confined. The insurgents went on shore, broke open the 
 prison, released the prisoners, 391 in number, took them on board the 
 Cagliari^ and steered for the mainland, where prisoners and insurgents 
 landed together, leaving the captain and crew to do their best. The 
 captain determined to go to Naples, where he could inform his Consul of 
 what had happened, and take what steps he might think advisable. On 
 the way, and while six miles at the least from any land, he fell in with 
 two Neapolitan men-of-war, which, having stopped the Cagliari, got her 
 captain out and took possession of her. She was taken in tow and steered, 
 not to Naples or to Salerno, but to a spot near Capri, where it was made 
 out that she was captured. Of course, the Neapolitan frigates were guilty 
 of an act of piracy in so seizing her. Her captain and crew had committed 
 no offence against the law of the Two Sicilies. If an offence had been 
 committed at all, it had been committed against the municipal law of 
 Sardinia, and to capture the ship on the high seas was an act of sheer 
 piracy. Hence the towing to Capri. The Government of the Two 
 Sicilies then chose to treat what had been done as an act of war — though 
 there was no war to justify anything of the kind — and had imprisoned the 
 whole of the crew in one of the horrible and pestilential prisons which 
 were the scandal of the kingdom. Amongst the crew were two English 
 engineers — respectable men, named Watt and Park respectively — and 
 these two men were actually kept in rigid custody and without trial from 
 June, 1857, to March, 1858, with the effect of making one desperately ill 
 and of driving the other out of his mind. Thanks to our having no 
 representative at Naples, nothing was known of the fate of these unhappy 
 Englishmen, until Cavour called the attention of Lord Palmerston to the 
 matter in December, 1857 ; and then the Government which boasted of its 
 " spirited foreign policy," and which had invented the Civis Eomanus sum 
 bit of braggadocio, made excuses for doing nothing. The Sardinian 
 Government were most anxious to obtain the release of their own subjects, 
 and begged for the moral support of England, which Lord Palmerston and 
 Lord Clarendon coldly refused to give. " We had no right to claim," the 
 latter had said, "of the NeapoUtan Government to depart from the 
 ordinary proceeding of their law. I firmly believe it was not the intention 
 of the Neapolitan Government to ill-treat them (the engineers) in any 
 way, and the treatment they have received has been such as caused them 
 to be objects of envy to many natives of that country." 
 Such was the substance of the case brought before the House of 
 
268 THE PlJBtlC LIFE Ot* THE EARL OF BEACONSFlELD. 
 
 Commons by Mr. Serjeant Kinglake on the evening of the 12th of March* 
 Mr. Disraeli's reply was, of course, to the effect that the late Government 
 having surrendered everything, having acknowledged the jurisdiction of 
 the King of the Two Sicilies in the matter, and having actually interfered 
 in the conduct of the trial, he could not now turn round and treat the 
 matter as a question of policy. The new Administration had not neglected 
 the case of these unfortunate men — in fact, one of the first acts of Lord 
 Malmesbury had been to communicate with a gentleman of ability and 
 influence at Eome, and direct him to repair immediately to Salerno, where 
 they were imprisoned, to investigate the whole of the circumstances from 
 first to last, and *' to do everything to comfort and sustain them in the 
 grievous trial to which they were subjected." It was only to be expected 
 that this line of action should excite the wrath of the more vehement of 
 the Liberals. Mr. Eoebuck, for example, who had not spoken on the 
 subject during the nine months that the men had been in prison, did not 
 hesitate to denounce Mr. Disraeli's avoidance of expressions of hostility to 
 the kingdom of the Two Sicilies as "wholly unworthy of a British 
 Minister." But though this kind of thing might not have been unnatural, 
 it was assuredly surprising to find Lord Palmerston rising in his place to 
 say, " It certainly was for a long time our belief that the Cagliari had been 
 captured within Neapolitan jurisdiction ; but at length it turned out, from 
 certain papers which were published by the Neapolitan Government in 
 connection with the trial of the prisoners, that the capture took place 
 beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Naples. Now that was a circum- 
 stance which I should certainly have thought would materially alter the 
 case as it had at first stood ; but in that also we should have been guided 
 by the opinion of those who were most competent to give an opinion. 
 However, the question thus raised was one which was still under our 
 consideration when we retired from office." So far Lord Palmerston. But 
 the truth was very different from his tale, and it is to be feared that he 
 knew it. One would imagine from this speech that some paper had un- 
 expectedly turned up a week or two before the Liberal Government went 
 out of office, which proved that the Cagliari had been taken on the high 
 seas and beyond the pale of Neapolitan jurisdiction. As a matter of fact 
 the truth was perfectly well known to the Liberal Cabinet two months 
 before the 5th of February, on which day Lord Clarendon made the speech 
 quoted above. 
 
 The 12th of March fell on a Friday. On the following Monday the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and reopened the 
 subject. In the most courteous terms he intimated his doubt of Lord 
 Palmerston's accuracy, but skilfully took advantage of the opportunity 
 which was afforded by his statement to escape from the false position in 
 which the country had been placed. " I am bound to say that a careful 
 examination of all the papers rendered that statement of the noble Lord 
 one for which we are wholly unprepared, and I feel it due to ourselves to 
 add that a minute, laborious and subsequent examination of these documents 
 
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE'S "WILD SHRIEK OF LIBERTY." 269 
 
 affords no clue whatever to the information which the noble Lord com- 
 mimicated to the House on Friday night. But I accept without hesitation 
 a declaration made in Parliament by the late First Minister of the Crown." 
 Lord Palmerston was fairly caught, and attempted an explanation which 
 was in substance a repetition of his speech of three nights before, winding 
 up with the following particularly candid sentence : — " I think the right 
 honourable gentleman will find — though I know not whether information 
 on this head be- before the Government or not — that we were expecting^ 
 so far as I am informed, further documents from the Sardinian Govern- 
 ment with respect to the claim they are making on the Government of 
 Naples." 
 
 The negotiation was carried on by the Government with perfect temper, 
 and without any of that bluster which Mr. Roebuck appeared to think 
 appropriate to the subject. The result was that on the 11th of June Mr. 
 Seymour Fitzgerald was able to announce that complete redress had been 
 afforded ia the case of the two engineers, who had some time before been 
 unconditionally released. A special messenger had been sent to the 
 Government of Naples bearing a categorical demand for redress, and with 
 instructions to wait ten days for a reply, and to return at once if no satis- 
 factory reply was given. Seeing that the English Government was 
 determined in this matter the King of the Two Sicilies submitted with a 
 good grace, and paid £3000 into the hands of an English mercantile firm 
 as compensation for the injury the engineers had sustained. 
 
 In the management of the general business of the House the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer at the opening of his official career was, as usual, 
 embarrassed by two difficulties — the first arising out of the fact that the 
 new Government had taken office when the session was about one- third 
 over, and the second because of the anxiety of various members to extort 
 from the Government confessions of political faith. The most persistent 
 of these catechists of the Ministry was Mr. Bernal Osborne, w^o interrupted 
 the debate on the Cagliari question with a vehement demand that the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain how the Government of the 
 country was to be conducted. That demand he repeated in a violent 
 speech on the bringing up of the Report of Supply on the Monday evening. 
 In his reply, Mr. Disraeli, after a little good-humoured banter at the 
 expense of Mr. Bernal Osborne's " wild shriek of liberty," explained that 
 the categorical enunciations of policy which he had demanded were 
 wholly contrary to precedent; that the head of the Government, 
 from whom alone such declarations could emanate, had made a statement 
 in another place, and that there would be some awkwardness in further 
 explanations in the Commons. Mr. Bernal Osborne had described the 
 accession of the Tories to office as brought about by a "discreditable 
 manoeuvre," and as the result of an " intrigue." Mr. Disraeli vindicated 
 his own position temperately and coolly, showing that the late Government 
 bad retired because it had found it impossible to pass its Conspiracy Bill, 
 
270 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and that when Lord Palmerston went out Lord Derby was his only possible 
 successor. Then taking up the charge that there were dififerences of 
 opinion in the Cabinet, he proved by reference to the proceedings of Lord 
 Palmerston's Government that the same charge applied with even greater 
 force to that which preceded it. Having done so much, he declined to be 
 drawn into the course which Mr. Bernal Osborne wished him to adopt — 
 " that a Minister should state a formal programme of measures which are 
 never carried, and elaborately develop a policy which a deluded people 
 afterwards find to be barren of all results." But he would not wholly 
 abstain from explanations. " We represent," said he, " the Conservative 
 party. We wish to support and maintain the institutions of the country,- 
 but we also wish to improve them. We believe that the best way to 
 maintain the institutions of the country is to improve them, and therefore 
 we can't permit the honourable gentleman to be such a monopolist of all 
 plans for the amelioration of society as he and his friends on all occasions, 
 in a manner so greedy and covetous, aspire to be considered." It was with 
 these views that the Government had brought forward its India Bill. 
 That of Lord Palmerston they had opposed on its introduction, because it 
 was unwise to weaken the influence of the Government in India at a time 
 of revolt and rebellion, but now that the House had by its vote destroyed 
 the power and influence of the East India Company it became a duty to 
 deal with the subject. A bill was therefore promised before Easter. As 
 regarded Ireland, the policy of the Government would be precisely that of 
 five years before. Lord Eglinton was then Lord-Lieutenant, and there 
 was reason to hope that under his rule the country would continue 
 peaceful and prosperous. 
 
 The great interest of Mr. Disraeli's statement centred, however, upon 
 his declaration with regard to Eeform, concerning which subject Mr. 
 Bernal Osborne had been unusually violent. " The honourable gentleman 
 seems extremely alarmed at the opinions which are prevalent on these 
 benches on the subject of Parliamentary Eeform. Nobody, it appears, 
 may poach upon that manor except the Liberal party. The honourable 
 gentleman in his profuse quotations — for which he was always remarkable, 
 though unfortunately they have not been on this occasion relieved by the 
 brilliancy which in the old days reconciled us to endless extracts from 
 Hansard — the honourable gentleman has fixed on the speech I made 
 recently at my county town as one of his texts ; and he says I stated that 
 the Parliamentary Eeform Bill of 1832 was a gross Whig job." At this 
 point a supporter of the Government cried out, " So it was," Mr. Disraeli 
 explained that he had never said so, but that he certainly had said, both 
 on the hustings and in the House, " that though it was a great statute' 
 which no doubt in its primary purpose had the welfare of the country and 
 the advantage of the State for its principal object, unfortunately from the 
 unreasoning excitement of the time, facility was given for perpetrating 
 gross jobs during its progress through Parliament, of which certain parties 
 had not been slow to avail themselves." Mr, Disraeli then reviewed the 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. 271 
 
 history of the question, showing how the Whigs had cried out for " the 
 Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," how many parts of the Bill 
 were speedily found to be defective, how the Tory party had been kept out 
 of office though the Liberal party were notoriously dissatisfied with the 
 Whig Ministers, simply because of the fear that the Tories would tamper 
 with Keform, and how in 1834 Sir Kobert Peel and his followers made a 
 compact with the country to accept the Keform Act as it stood — a compact 
 which had ever since been honourably kept. At last finality was deserted, 
 and the country was told that there must be a re-settlement of the 
 representation. 
 
 This movement came from the Whigs, and Conservatives naturally felt 
 that the old engagement was broken through, and that they were at liberty 
 to consider the Eeform question on its merits and to offer such suggestions 
 as might be advisable in the public interests. The question having been 
 twice mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, it was obviously one which could 
 not be much longer postponed. "If there is anything more likely than 
 another to poison the feelings of the people and to alienate their best 
 sentiments from the institutions of the country, it is the suspicion in the 
 public mind that schemes for reconstructing these institutions are used by 
 public men for party purposes. It is impossible that a question like that 
 of Parliamentary Eeform can be hung up or taken down at the convenience 
 of any statesman, so that when in Opposition he is to brandish it in the 
 face of those in office, and when a Minister to replace it in the dark corner 
 of forgetfulness. Under these circumstances we feel that it is our duty to 
 consider that question, and to consider it with the earnest determination to 
 make a settlement of it that will be satisfactory to the sober-minded people 
 of this country. The honourable member for Dover asked me what are 
 the principles upon which our Eeform Bill is to be founded. I do not 
 think that I am called upon to tell the honourable gentleman what are the 
 principles of a Bill which we do not propose to introduce to the House 
 during the present session ; but if the honourable gentleman asks me what 
 will be our Eeform Bill, I will tell him what it will not be. It will not be 
 a Bill devised to prop up a political party, or to uphold the interests of a 
 particular class. It will be founded on principles of general justice, and I 
 hope it will give universal satisfaction." 
 
 The Government of India Bill was brought in without delay. The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had sat in the House in that capacity for only 
 a fortnight, when on the 26th of March he rose to introduce this measure. 
 He began by assigning for its introduction the reason which he had already 
 given in reply to Mr. Bernal Osborne. The vote of the 18 th of February 
 had effectually destroyed the power of the East India Company, and after 
 that power had been taken away there was no possibility that that cor- 
 poration should continue to govern India. Under that conviction the Bill- 
 was introduced, the Government feeling that it was impossible to treat the 
 question otherwise than from the position in which it had been left by 
 their predecessors. Imputations of inconsistency were misplaced and 
 
272 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 unnecessary. The Government were but following the precedent esta- 
 blished by Lord Palmerston, when, after having opposed the Crimean 
 Committee, he found himself bound to accept the decision of the Hous», 
 and to nominate that Committee himself. On the subject immediately 
 under consideration Mr. Disraeli spoke with all his accustomed force. The 
 East India Company he likened to the Kepublic of Venice, "which it 
 rivalled and resembled. It has fallen," he went on, " in possession of a 
 gallant army, a powerful fleet, and a considerable territory. It has fallen 
 with all the semblance of authority, and it has met its end in the august 
 fulfilment of its duties. But when Venice fell under similar circumstances, 
 it was discovered that whatever was its outward show, it rested on a 
 foundation which had been sapped and was hollow for a long period of 
 time. Like Venice, however, the East India Company has left a legacy of 
 glory to mankind; and in treating to-night of a form of Government 
 which in our opinion ought to be substituted for that which has become 
 extinct, I hope the House will allow me to express my own feetings and to 
 speak of the Company with that respect which I think every right-minded 
 Englishman will always extend to its memory." 
 
 The scheme for the future Government of India consisted of —first, a 
 Secretary of State for India, who was to be President of the Council of 
 India, and to have the power of appointing a Vice-President. The Council 
 for India was to consist of eighteen persons, half to be nominated by the 
 Crown, half to be elected. Each of the Presidencies would furnish one 
 member of the Council — a civil servant, who had served for at least ten 
 years, five of which should have been passed as resident or political agent 
 at the Court of some native prince. The remaining members were to 
 represent the military service of the Queen in India and the armies of the 
 three Presidencies. The first Council would be appointed by Parliament, 
 the names of its proposed members being introduced into the Bill ; the 
 second and future members by royal warrant. The other portion of the 
 proposed Council was to be elective, the qualification for four of the mem- 
 bers being service for at least ten years in the army, the navy, the legal or 
 the civil service of India, or residence there for fifteen years, engaged in 
 agriculture, in commerce, or as a planter or manufacturer. The con- 
 stituency by which they were to be chosen would consist of about 5000 
 persons, a vote being given to every one who had borne the Queen's 
 Commission in India for ten years, or who had been in the civil service for 
 that time, to every registered proprietor of £2000 stock in Indian railways, 
 and to every hondfide holder of £1000 stock. The remaining five mem- 
 bers were to be elected by London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and 
 Belfast respectively. On the question of finance, India never having 
 produced a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Royal Commission was pro- 
 posed, to visit India and to report upon the necessities of the country. 
 
 The Bill was brought in and read a first time on the night of the adjourn- 
 ment for the Easter recess, but it was not very warmly received. Sundry 
 members expressed a preference for \hQ Bill of Lord Palmerston and Mr. 
 
Proceeds by resolutiok. 27^ 
 
 Vernon Smith, which was still "before the House; whilst outside the 
 House the provisions of the new scheme were stigmatised as crotchetty and 
 unpractical. Still it was liked better on the M^hole than Lord Palmerston's 
 proposals, which were very obviously designed to increase the power and 
 patronage of the Crown, irrespective of the needs of India. Both schemes 
 were canvassed during the Easter recess, and the objections to that of the 
 Government were stated and re-stated with considerable energy. No 
 surprise was consequently felt when, on the night of the reassembling of the 
 House, Lord John Eussell suggested a compromise, and proposed to 
 ] roceed by Kesolution. The Government frankly accepted the proposal as 
 conducing to a speedy and practical solution of the difficulty without party 
 feeding and factious animosities. 
 
 The Kesolutions — after some little bickering in which Lord Palmerston, 
 who was indignant at the neglect with which his own proposals had been 
 treated, took a rather prominent part — were introduced on the night of the 
 30th of April, and minutely discussed on that and the following evenings. 
 In substance they provided — 1st, for the transfer of the governing powers 
 in India executed by the East India Company to Her Majesty, acting 
 through one of her principal Secretaries of State ; 2nd, that those functions 
 of Government should be exercised by a Minister of the Crown, either 
 alone or with the approbation of the Committee for the affairs of India j 
 3rd, that a Council of not less than twelve, or more than fifteen, members 
 should be appointed ; 4th, that in order to secure knowledge and experi- 
 ence in the Council each member should be required to have served for a 
 term of years to be fixed by statute; and 5th, that the Council should 
 be partly nominated and partly elected. On the basis of these resolutions 
 a Bill was brought in and read a first time on the 17th of June. The 
 second reading was moved a week later by Lord Stanley, and, thanks to 
 the energy of the Government and to the absence of party spirit which the 
 course thus adopted produced, this vast work was accomplished before the 
 end of the session. 
 
 The Bill for remodelling the Indian Government was not the only 
 trouble of this year in connection with that Empire which befell the 
 Conservative Government. On the 14th, of March the Governor- General 
 issued a proclamation from Allahabad addr&sed to the chiefs and people of 
 Oude. Lord Macaulay, in his famous essay on Bar^re, compares Lord 
 Eilenborough's despatches to the Carmagnoles of that execrable Eepublican ; 
 this proclamation of Lord Canning's deserves the character infinitely more. 
 Its one idea is confiscation. The whole of the land of Oude is declared 
 to be forfeited, except that held by ^ix specified] personages, including two 
 Eajahs. When this proclamation was sent to Sir James Outram, the 
 Chief Commissioner of Oude, its severity so startled him that he resolved to 
 remonstrate, and accordingly directed his secretary to write. In his letter 
 that officer pointed out that there were probably not in the whole province 
 a dozen landowners who had not taken some part in the rebellion. The 
 effect of the proclamation would consequently be a general confiscation of 
 
274 THE PUBLIC LlI'E OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the land of Oude, which would be certain to produce a desperate resistance. 
 The Chief Commissioner begged, therefore, to remonstrate, pointing out 
 that the chiefs of Oude had ah-eady been very badly treated in the matter 
 of the settlement, and that even if they had not been, it would have 
 required more fidelity than is usually to be found in the Asiatic nature to 
 induce them to remain faithful to the English Government under the 
 shock to which they were exposed in Oude. Lord Canning was not con- 
 vinced by this reasoning. All that he would consent to do was to add 
 a sentence to his Carmagnole, hinting that if the rebellious landowners 
 would promptly come forward, and aid in the restoration of peace and 
 order, they would receive large indulgences. When the news of this pro- 
 clamation was received, no time was lost in censuring it. Lord Ellen- 
 borough, on the 19th of April, sent out a despatch, in which he declared 
 that the proclamation threw almost insurmountable difficulties in the way 
 of peace. The rebellion in Oude had been popular because of the summary 
 way in which so much of the land had been confiscated under the settle- 
 ment, and now the Indian Government was treating the people with 
 unj)recedented severity. " Other conquerors," said Lord Ellenborough, 
 " when they have succeeded in overcoming resistance, have excepted a 
 few persons as still deserving of punishment, but have with a generous 
 policy extended their clemency to the great body of the people. You have 
 acted upon a difi"erent principle ; you have reserved a few as deserving cf 
 special favour, and you have struck with what they feel as the severest 
 of punishments the mass of the inhabitants of the country. . . . We 
 desire that you will mitigate in practice the stringent severity of the 
 decree of confiscation you have issued against' the landowners of Oude. 
 We desire to see British authority in India rest upon the willing obedience 
 of a contented people. There cannot be contentment where there is 
 general confiscation. Government cannot long be maintained by any force 
 in a country where the whole is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong, 
 and if it were possible so to maintain it, it would not be a consummation 
 to be desired." 
 
 It might have been thought that so humane and rational an expression 
 of opinion would have commended itself to every class of society ; but, 
 strangely enough, it was attacked with much vehemence, and by the very 
 class who might have been supposed most anxious to deal with the Hindoo 
 races on the gentlest principles. In the Upper House Lord Granville led 
 the attack on the 7th of May, and on the 14th Lord Shaftesbury returned 
 to the charge with a direct vote of censure on the Government, on account 
 of the premature publication of Lord Ellenborough's despatch. On the 
 same evening Mr. Cardwell moved a resolution in the Commons to the 
 effect that the publication in question " must tend, in the present circum- 
 stances of India, to produce the most prejudicial effect by weakening the 
 authority of the Governor-General, and encouraging the further resistance 
 of those who were in arms against us." The debate was a very angry and 
 embittered one, lasting over "four- nights, and chiefly remarkable for the 
 
THE GOVERNMENT ON THE SIDE OF MERCY. 275 
 
 fact tbat several of the most ardent Eadicals in the House, amongst whom 
 were Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Bright, and Sir James Graham, supported the 
 Government. It was understood in various quarters that the Government 
 was to be turned out on this question if possible, but in the end the feeling 
 of the House against the Motion was so strong, that it was withdrawn 
 without its supporters venturing to take a division. Lord Ellenborough 
 had, indeed, insisted on resigning, but the Government caused it to be 
 very distinctly understood that that fact did not imply any abandoment of 
 His policy in dealing with India. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, of course, present during the 
 debate, but spoke little. Even when winding up the discussion, he con- 
 fined his remarks within a very small space, observing that the policy of 
 the Government in the matter had been to allow the defence of Lord 
 EUenborough's action to be conducted as much as possible by the inde- 
 pendent members. As regarded Lord Canning, he urged that the Govern- 
 ment had always afforded to him a sincere and cordial support, so long as 
 he adhered to the principles laid down in the " letter from the Secret 
 Committee " then before the House. Those principles he considered to 
 embody a wise and great policy, by which alone our Indian Empire could 
 be rebuilt. And when that policy was set aside and a policy of confisca- 
 tion substituted, no other course was, he urged, open to the Government, 
 but that of expressing disapproval. On the personal question the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer offered a few words of explanation. Lord 
 John Russell had sneeringly said that it was with great astonishment that 
 he " saw on the Treasury Bench the professors of a policy of mercy." 
 "i^Now, Sir," said Mr. Disraeli, " I should like to know what has been said 
 or done by Her Majesty's servants in this House which could justify such — 
 I will not call it an insinuation — but such a charge from the noble Lord. 
 When it was made I looked round me with amazement." Then, recalling 
 the speech, which he had made twelve months before when leader of the 
 Opposition, he reminded the House that he had then urged the Government 
 to deal with the mutiny, not as a mere passing military outbreak, but as 
 a national uprising, which could only be [met by seeking out the causes of 
 the disaster and prescribing remedies for them^> He had then been unable 
 to carry the House with him/v The House was for nothing but violent 
 action, and Lord John Russell's amendment to his motion, which, if it 
 meant anything, certainly did not mean a policy of clemency, prevented 
 the subject from being discussed sufficiently, and in a manner which would 
 have been just to the country. 
 
 Nothing is more interesting in connection with this debate than the 
 appreciation of it by M. de Montalembert, who sat it out, and who was so 
 much affected and interested by what he saw that he wrote the celebrated 
 pamphlet (" Un Ddbat sur ITnde au Parlement Anglais ") which brought 
 about his prosecution by the Government of Napoleon III. Having 
 analysed the debate with great care and intelligence, he describes the 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 closing scene. After mentioning the confusion which prevailed in the 
 ranks of the Opposition, and which Lord Beaconsfield afterwards described 
 with so much wit and vivacity, he says : " Every minute the certainty of 
 humiliating defeat for the Opposition becomes more apparent. To avoid 
 this disaster, Lord Palmerston takes his measures and decides on retreat, 
 to cover which he gives as a pretext the effect produced by the protest of 
 Sir James Outram, quoted in the discussion of the previous night, and 
 ofiicially published that day. He, too, in turn, begs Mr. Cardwell to with- 
 draw his motion of censure. Mr. Cardwell at length consents, amidst 
 derisive Conservative cheers. The day is won and the campaign finished 
 without bringing up the reserves. Ministers were victorious without one 
 of them having risen to speak. Nothing remained for the Cabinet save 
 to register its victory and determine its moral effect. This was done by 
 Mr. Disraeli with infinite address and a triumphant modesty." 
 
 Although Mr. Disraeli spoke with calmness and moderation in the 
 House, he did not fail to make it evident to the country in what light he 
 viewed the action of the Opposition in this matter, and on the 26th of 
 May, at a banquet given to him and to Mr. Du Pre at Slough, he 
 denounced the " Cabal " which had been formed against the Government 
 in energetic terms. He warned his hearers that the great object of the 
 Opposition was to get back into office and to " loot " the Treasury, that if 
 they returned to power the first-fruits of their policy would be a military 
 occupation of India, calling for an army four times greater than had ever 
 been employed there before ; that foreign wars of the type of those with 
 China and with Persia would pretty certainly follow, whilst at home a 
 strong, severe, and centralised Government on the model of those which 
 the " Cabal " admired in other countries would be forced upon the nation. 
 Turning then to the debate which had just terminated, the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer expressed his opinion that nothing had ever been more 
 scientifically managed. " The motion was brought forward in the House 
 of Commons by a gentleman of unimpeachable reputation. The * Cabal ' 
 — which has rather a tainted character — chose its instrument with 
 Pharisaical accuracy, and I assure you that when Mr. Cardwell rose to 
 impeach me, I was terrified at my own shortcomings as I listened to a 
 Nisi Prius narrative, ending with a resolution which I think must have 
 been drawn up by a conveyancer. In the other House of Parliament, a 
 still greater reputation condescended to appear on the human stage, 
 Gamaliel himself, with the broad phylacteries of faction on his forehead, 
 called God to witness in pious terms of majestic adoration, that he was not 
 like other men and was never influenced by party motives. Well, gentle- 
 men, what happened under these circumstances ? Something I am sure 
 quite unprecedented in the Parliamentary history of England ; and when 
 I hear of faction, when I hear of the arts and manoeuvres of parties — 
 when I hear sometimes that party spirit will be the ruin of this country, 
 let us take a calm review of what has occurred during the past fortnight, 
 
ATTACKS UPON THE GOVERNMENT. 277 
 
 and I think we shall como to the conclusion that in a country free and 
 enlightened as England, there are limits to party feeling which the most 
 dexterous managers of the passions of mankind cannot overpass, and that 
 in the great bulk of Parliament as I am sure, whatever may be their 
 opinions, in the great bulk of the people of the country, there is a genuine 
 spirit of patriotism which will always right itself." These latter words 
 were an allusion to the way in which the defence of the Government had 
 actually been undertaken and carried out by members who were " not con- 
 nected with them in politics ; not professing the same general principles 
 which are the basis of our policy, but who saw through the flimsy web, 
 and despised the authors of the pernicious and perfidious manoeuvre.'* 
 After describing the downfall of the attack on the fourth night of the 
 debate, and the collapse of the Opposition into " one great dissolving view 
 of anarchy," he went on, " And these are the people who want to govern the 
 country ! In whose camp there is anarchy ' Between whom there is discord 
 on every point ! And who have not even the uniting bond of wishing to seize 
 upon the spoils of office. . . . What they intend to do, not one of them 
 has had the audacity to intimate. They say we have no policy when we 
 are building up an empire, and they even shrink from giving an opinion 
 upon the very documents which were made the subject of nights of pro- 
 tracted discussion." 
 
 As might be expected, this speech produced a tremendous effect. That 
 a member of Parliament and a conspicuous member of the Administration 
 should have presumed to hint a doubt of the motives of the Opposition, 
 was intolerable ; that he should dare to smile at a Peelite was a scandal ; 
 that he should scoff at Lord Shaftesbury's pharisaical airs was an iniquity 
 which excelled all previous misconduct of the same odious person. He 
 had said there was a " Cabal " against Lord Derby's Government : there was 
 no " Cabal " — only a " fortuitous concourse of political atoms." He had 
 said that the Indian policy of the " Cabal " was a policy of confiscation 
 and extermination : it was more humane than his own — therefore, said his 
 assailants, he was guilty of gross falsehood. He had even dared to boast 
 that the Government had re-established friendly relations with France and 
 had settled the Cagliari dispute. Had Lord Palmerston been left in 
 office he would have done both — therefore he was a braggart and an 
 impostor. He had even said that if it became necessary to appeal to the 
 country on the question of Indian policy, he, for one, confident in the 
 patriotism of the people, would meet them on the hilstings without fear- 
 therefore he had threatened a dissolution of Parliament, which would have 
 been indecent in the extreme at such a juncture. 
 
 It was in this tone that the Press immediately set to work to assail the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the same spirit Lord John Kussell, 
 in a bitter and querulous speech, fell foul of him in the House on the 
 night of the 28th of May. He accused Mr. Disraeli of threatening a disso- 
 lution. The Minister r3plie(i tihat it w£is unfortunate that his accuser had 
 
278 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 not read the speecli lie criticised, for if he had, he would have seen that 
 there was no shadow of ground for such a charge. Lord John had declared 
 himself astounded that Mr. Disraeli should have said that there had been 
 danger of a war with France, and had consulted Lord Clarendon on the 
 subject, with the result of obtaining an assurance that the country had 
 been in no such peril. Why did he not consult Lord Palmerston ? asked 
 Mr. Disraeli, or refer to the records of Parliament ? Had he done so, he 
 would have found that the noble Lord had, two days before the collapse of 
 the Ministry, refused to answer a question by Mr. Darby Griffith* on the 
 express ground that it would imperil our relations with France. If further 
 justification were needed, it would be found in the fact that the French 
 Ambassador had quitted England at that very time — a step not usually 
 taken without good cause. Lord John Russell had represented that the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone into the country expressly to vilify 
 the House of Commons. " Now, is it not true," asked Mr. Disraeli, " that 
 when I alluded to the late great debate on which the fate of the Ministry 
 seemed to hang, I called the attention of the people of England to the 
 extraordinary fact that, while the vote of censure upon the Government 
 was undergoing full discussion, and when that vote had expanded, under 
 the marvellous and felicitous handling of the learned Knight the member 
 for Aylesbury (Sir Richard Bethel) on the last evening of the debate, into 
 one of general want of confidence, night after night this ' weak Govern- 
 ment,' this * Government on sufferance,' when placed upon its trial, was 
 defended by the first men in this assembly, the first men in authority, in 
 intellect, and in influence; not connected with them in politics, not bound 
 to them by any tie of political co-operation or association ; by men speaking 
 from their earnest convictions, and lending their high authority, unbiassed 
 and uninfluenced, to the maintenance of truth and the defeat of a Cabal ? 
 "Was that an attack upon the honour or the conduct of the House of 
 Commons ? Was it not a public declaration on the part of Her Majesty's 
 Government that they had full confidence in the generous justice of the 
 House of Commons — that confidence which they still retain ?" On Indian 
 affairs. Lord John Russell had charged Mr. Disraeli with stating that the 
 Government had prevented a policy of " extermination." He protested 
 against the accusation, declared that the word had never been used by him 
 either in the House of Commons or in Buckinghamshire. He complained 
 of the way in which his words had been distorted, and of the unseemly 
 attack made upon him, and wound up his defence by a declaration that if 
 threats of dissolution had ever been heard, they had come, not from the 
 supporters, but from the opponents of the Government. 
 
 * Mr. D. Griffith's question was as to whether Count Walewski's apology for 
 the publication of the addresses of the French colonels, was to receive the same 
 publicity as the addresses themselves. Lord Palmerston in replying certainly 
 hinted at war, and was besides personally offensive in his manner in no ordinary 
 degree. 
 
STILL ON HIS DEFENCE. 279 
 
 The defence was surely complete, but singularly enough the Whigs did 
 not think so, and Mr. — afterwards Sir E. P. — Collier and Lord John 
 Eussell, chuckled triumphantly over the discovery that, although Mr. 
 Disraeli had not said " extermination," he had asked the farmers of Slough, 
 "Is it always to be massacre and confiscation? or, on the other hand, is it 
 to be discriminating amnesty ? " — it being, of course, obvious to the 
 meanest capacity that "massacre" and "extermination" are absolutely 
 synonymous. Nevertheless, Lord Palmerston returned to the charge, and 
 on the night of Monday, May 31st, delivered himself of a tremendous 
 I^hilippic at the expense of the right honourable gentleman, his " small 
 band of well-drilled supporters in the House, and the 500 or 600 honest 
 but deluded farmers," who had cheered the speech at Slough. Mr. Disraeli, 
 it seemed, had said things which were " actually the opposite of truth " 
 about our relations with France, " to a parcel of carousing electors," and 
 in general, everything that Lord John had complained about was perfectly 
 true, in spite of the arguments and statements of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer. As for faction — it was not the Opposition, but the Govern- 
 ment which was factious, the proof being that it had " published to the 
 world a most affronting insult to the highest officer of the Crown in any of 
 Her Majesty's dominions." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli was again placed on his defence, and repeated his former 
 arguments with certain additions. Lord Palmerston had unwisely brought 
 up the Cagliari case once more, and in connection with it he ventured 
 upon an insinuation that the two prisoners owed their release to his 
 exertions and not to those of the Government. It may readily be 
 believed that so flagrant a perversion of the truth was not allowed 
 to pass unnoticed. The real grievance of Lord Palmerston and his 
 colleagues was, however, to be found in the word "Cabal," which the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer had applied to them. By way of vindicating 
 his use of that word, he turned to the actual state of the Liberal party. 
 " I understand there are great questions which are to be brought forward, 
 and which will test the character of parties in this House. The great 
 Liberal party are in favour of vote by ballot. Are Her Majesty's late 
 Government in favour of vote by ballot? The great Liberal party are in 
 favour of the total abolition of Church rates. Are Her Majesty's late 
 Government in favour of the total abolition of Church rates ? " And so 
 with the proposed extension of the county franchise ; so with economy, 
 which the Liberal party pressed upon their successors but never practised 
 themselves ; so with publicity. " The only charge ever urged against the 
 present Government is that tlicy did produce a public document. . . . No 
 one can say that we intercepted a letter." This last was a particularly 
 damaging allusion for the Liberals, seeing that no small part of the diffi- 
 culty with Lord Canning had arisen from the deliberate suppression of a 
 letter — stated to be private but really official — from the Governor-General 
 to Mr. Vernon Smith. What followed was equally interesting. " The 
 Liberal party . , . have always demanded that the conduct of the Govern- 
 
280 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ment should be temperate and moderate. But what has been the conduct 
 of the late Executive ? They were the first Government which carried on 
 wars without the sanction of Parliament, and if we look to the other 
 great branch of the Executive — namely, the exercise of patronage- 
 is it not notorious that their exercise of patronage outraged all the 
 sense and spirit of the country ? Well then, Sir, I want to know what 
 is the use of these manoeuvres — I will not say of a Cabal? I never 
 supposed that the Cabal sat in this House, although possibly there are 
 many in this House who are knowingly influenced by the Councils of the 
 Cabal. But what I want to know is, what is the meaning of all these 
 operations ? — because it seems impossible, so far as I can form an opinion, 
 that the old delusion can again be revived, that there is the slightest 
 connection or sympathy between the noble Lord the member for Tiverton 
 and his friends and the great Liberal party. Upon every subject there is 
 a total want of sympathy — a total dissimilarity of views. . . . The noble 
 Lord is quite horrified that I should have spoken in a booth on matters of 
 State policy. Special announcements on matters of State — on matters of 
 peace and war — should be made at a carousal in a club room, such as you 
 may remember, when you invite Her Majesty's ofScers who are to under- 
 take operations of warfare, and when Prime Ministers take the chair, and 
 in what is styled — though not by me — an inebriated assembly announce 
 for the first time to the country that a great military expedition is to be 
 undertaken.* But, Sir, although I may not escape from this criticism, 
 night after night (and I am perfectly prepared to meet any of those who 
 attack me), what must the country think, when time is so precious, when 
 the public business is so backward, and when affairs in this House are so 
 urgent — of the conduct of the noble Lord and his managers in this opera- 
 tion? What must they think of these attempts night after night to 
 prevent the progress of public business, and to give vent to all these una- 
 vailin|: expressions of discontent with the position they now occupy ? . . . 
 The noble Lord complains that they have been called a Cabal. What I 
 call a Cabal is a body of men, whether it be in this House or in another 
 House — either a private house or a house devoted to affairs of State — 
 banded together, not to carry out a policy, not to recommend by their 
 wisdom and their eloquence measures calculated to win the approving 
 sympathy of the community, but uniting all their resources, their ability 
 and their varied influence — for what ? — to upset the Queen's Government, 
 without even in so doing declaring any policy of their own or giving any 
 further clue to their opinions than this — that the first article of their creed 
 
 * The allusion here is possibly unintelligible to many readers. Lord Beacons- 
 field was referring to a speech made by Lord Palmerston at a dinner given on the 
 7th of March, 1854, by the I^eform Club to Sir Charles Napier, on the occasion of 
 his departure for the Baltic, at which the noble Viscount presided, and made a 
 speech which evoked " roars of laughter " from beginning to end, and embodied 
 the declaration of war against Russia. The speech was afterwards mj^de the 
 subject of a most angry debate in the House of Commons. 
 
THE BUDGET. 281 
 
 is place. ... If I wanted to confirm the Government in power — if I were 
 anxious to assure a longer tenure of office, I should beg the noble Lords to 
 continue their practices. I should be delighted, night after night, if they 
 called on me in this manner to defend statements made to my consti- 
 tuents, not one word of which I retract, that I made with the due thought 
 which such statements required. I should wish the noble Lord to con- 
 tinue this course, for I am quite certain that whatever difference of opinion 
 there may be in this House or in England between the great Conservative 
 party and the great Liberal party, there is this one point of union between 
 us — that we are equally resolved, both in this House and throughout the 
 country, no longer to be made the tools or the victims of an absolute 
 oligarchy." 
 
 The speech did not end the debate. Sir George Grey was very angry 
 and made a speech, in which, as Sir John Pakington said, he *' endea- 
 voured to make up by vehemence of manner for lack of argument," and 
 Lord John Russell, with characteristic mal-adroitness, contrived to muddle 
 the India Bills with Lord EUenborough's despatch to Lord Canning, and 
 to deliver himself of a remarkably feeble criticism of the general policy of 
 the Government, without in the least degree advancing matters, but with 
 the result of affording to Mr. Whiteside an opportunity for a most 
 damaging attack on the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. Mr. Kinglake 
 defended what had been done by the noble Lord in the Cagliari case ; 
 Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald replied, and the matter was then — happily for the 
 unity of the great united Liberal party— allowed to drop. The Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer had proved that he could hold his own in this matter, and so 
 there was no more to be said. Where he could not defend himself — in 
 the House of Lords, that is to say — a long debate was raised on the 1st of 
 June, in the course of which Lord Clarendon, in the interests of " the 
 department over which he had lately the honour of presiding," fought the 
 battle over again. 
 
 The financial policy of the new Government was expounded by the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 19th of April, exactly two months 
 after the defeat of Lord Falmerston's administration. The estimates for 
 the year had been framed when Lord Derby took the reins of Govern- 
 ment, and as the interregnum had occupied about three weeks of the 
 most valuable time of the session, it was found necessary to go on at once 
 with votes on account. By the middle of March several such votes had 
 passed, and the Government were at once able to proceed with their 
 review of the estimates of their predecessors, and to propose their new 
 Budget. Sir John Pakington was able to announce changes in the Naval 
 estimates to the extent of about £300,000, but the Army estimates could 
 not be reduced, and those for the Civil Service were still under considera- 
 tion when the Budget was brought in. Since the Budget of 1857 great 
 changes had been made in the finance of the country. When Sir G. C. 
 Lewis had l^ist ina4e his finanpial statement, it had seemed possible to 
 
282 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 reduce the military establishment to a peace level, and although no one 
 was quite certain of the extent to which the reduction might be carried 
 out, there was a general feeling that the work begun in 1857 would be 
 continued in 1858. The China War had, however, attained proportions 
 so large that it alone would have prevented any further reductions in the 
 army ; while the persistency of the rebellion in India seemed to point to 
 the necessity for not a decrease, but an absolute augmentation of expendi- 
 ture. Before the year was out this foreboding was realised, and, supple- 
 mentary estimates included, the total sum voted' for the Army and Navy 
 was £22,297,253 — a million and a half more than in the preceding year. 
 Whilst expenditure was thus increasing the resources of the country were, 
 to a certain extent, diminishing. The commercial crisis, and the failures 
 of the autumn of 1857, had diminished the national wealth, and though 
 there had since been a great recovery, it was, as Sir Stafford Northcote 
 Las pointed out, obviously desirable to press as lightly as possible on the 
 resources of the country. The Chanceller of the Exchequer made his 
 Budget therefore a very simple one. He estimated the expenditure for 
 the year at £63,610,000, to which must be added a million and a half for 
 the war sinking fund, and two millions for the redemption of Exchequer 
 Bonds. The whole amount to be provided by the Treasury would thus be 
 £67,110,000. To meet this he had a revenue of £63,120,000— ^n estimate 
 based upon an Income Tax of 5d. in the pound, and on the assumption 
 that the revenue from Customs and Excise, Stamp Duties, and Post Office, 
 would be greatly larger than in the preceding year. His calculations were 
 scofied at, but they proved to be under rather than over the mark. Ho 
 had estimated a receipt of a little under 53 millions : he actually obtained 
 nearly 53 millions and a quarter. 
 
 The deficiency for which he had to provide thus amounted to £3,990,000, 
 of which sum all save £490,000 was created by the necessity for- redeeming 
 debt. The question, therefore, arose, whether the war taxation or the 
 debt should be retained — whether the arrangement of 1853 should be 
 adhered to or whether a new arrangement based upon the altered circum- 
 stances of the case should be adopted. In the result the plan of 1853 was 
 reverted to ; the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he felt that the 
 public would be disappointed and with good reason if no remission of war 
 taxation were made. With regard to the Income Tax he expressed his 
 belief that it was eminently undesirable to retain that impost as a perma- 
 nent feature of our financial system, but that it should be kept in reserve 
 for emergencies. " Is it not of the highest importance, I would ask," said 
 he, " that the Sovereign of this country should, notwithstanding the 
 immense revenue which is annually raised to support the vast establish- 
 ments of this country, be able with the concurrence of her Parliament to 
 touch at any moment, as it were by a spring, a source of revenue which in 
 an hour of great emergency would yield £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 sterling 
 — a sum equal to those large loans which foreign potentates raise at a 
 
EQUILIZATION OF THE SPIRIT DUTIES. 283 
 
 ruinous rate of interest, and one of which ahnost exhausts the resources of 
 their subjects — that year after year, notwithstanding the sums raised for 
 the purposes of general revenue, the Sovereign of this country should bo 
 able to raise during a war an enormous sum without a murmur upon the 
 lips of a single person in her dominions ? " True therefore to his principle 
 of regarding the Income Tax as a War Tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 proposed to continue the fivepenny rate ; to repeal the War Sinking Fund 
 Act, and to postpone the payment of Exchequer Bonds, by which means 
 he reduced the deficit to less than half a million. To get rid of that deficit 
 he proposed to equalise the spirit duties, thus putting Irish whisky on a 
 level with Scotch. " At this moment the only differential duty that 
 remains between Ireland and Grreat Britain is the differential duty on 
 spirits. I am sure that my Irish friends who are always demanding 
 justice for Ireland, and who define that justice to consist in an identity of 
 institutions, of rights and of duties, cannot on reflection consider the 
 position in which they are placed by this differential duty on spirits with 
 any other but feelings of indignant humiliation. I remember once when 
 I was at Bristol a ship came in from Ireland and to my great surprise I 
 saw it boarded immediately by Custom House officers, and the crew treated 
 just the same as a parcel of foreigners. All this was to see if there were 
 any Irish spirits in the hold, which if they had come in undetected would 
 have paid a duty of 6s. 2d. instead of 8s. Was that a position for high- 
 sj^irited Irishmen to be placed in ? " He expressed a strong opinion that 
 no Irishman would object to the change which would simply bring his 
 manufacture into competition with British spirits instead of reserving it 
 for a provincial market. If, however, contrary to his expectation, there 
 should be murmurs, he advised Irishmen to remember that the Income 
 Tax with which the Whigs had loaded them was shaken to its centre, and 
 that the real badge of their yoke had been got rid of. The change which 
 was thus proposed would probably equal the deficiency, but in order to 
 make assurance doubly sure, a penny stamp on bankers' cheques was 
 imposed. 
 
 The Budget was very favourably received, the House expressing satis- 
 faction with the efforts which the Government had obviously made to 
 keep faith with the nation in the matter of the Income Tax. Mr. Card- 
 well was, it is true, strongly opposed to the arrangement for deferring the 
 payment of the Exchequer Bonds, and Sir George Lewis partially seconded 
 him. All parties were, however, agreed as to the reasonableness of equalising 
 the spirit duties, and Sir George Lewis fully confirmed the view of the 
 Government as to the advantage to the Irish trade which would accrue 
 through the abolition of all fiscal distinctions. The real discussion of the 
 Government financial policy was, however, deferred to the night of the 3rd 
 of May, when the Exchequer Bonds Bill came on for discussion. Sir George 
 Lewis then vindicated his own financial policy in an able speech, and criti- 
 cised with similar power the proposals of Mr. Disraeli. The discussion was 
 
284 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 continued by Mr. Gladstone — who defended the Government proposals — Mr. 
 Card well, Mr. T. Baring and Mr. Bright, the latter making a speech addressed, 
 not to the House of Commons, though it was spoken within its walls, but 
 to the world outside. He attacked the whole system of the Govern- 
 ment of this country, declared that taxation was being shifted to the poor 
 from the rich, and prophesied a revolution which should take the goods of 
 the rich to feed the poor. *' You landed proprietors of England," said he, 
 " remember that however many of your countrymen may emigrate, your 
 acres remain, and you will have by-and-by a different tone in this House 
 after another Reform in Parhament. Your succession duties will be over- 
 hauled, and will not be got rid of so easily as at present. Your property 
 tax, which you are assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw 
 over, will come back to you, and come back in an increased proportion," 
 and so forth, through a couple of pages of Hansard. Mr. Disraeli's reply 
 vindicated his finance from the criticisms of Sir G. C. Lewis, and in an 
 answer to Mr. Bright he was able to show that the burden of taxation, 
 even in 1858, fell mainly on the propertied class. Like Mr. Bright, he 
 deplored the costliness of our armaments, but deplored still more the fact 
 that such costly armaments should be necessary. With characteristic 
 adroitness he turned this criticism to advantage. "I do not myself 
 despair," said he, " that — I will not say immediately, but in due season, 
 when some of the excitement which has unhappily prevailed of late has 
 passed away — the wisdom of Cabinets will bring about that reduction of 
 military expenditure which it is for the interests of all nations should be 
 encouraged. That is only to be done by frank communication, and by 
 encouraging, not only in this country, but between us and our immediate 
 neighbours, a spirit not of acerbity, such as in some instances has lately 
 been manifested, but of mutual kindness and confidence which, notwith- 
 standing the sneers which some persons indulge in, I feel it is for the 
 interest of both nations to foster, and which, I doubt not, the great body of 
 the population will on reflection sanction and adopt." 
 
 A few days before the debate on financial matters had afforded an oppor- 
 tunity to Mr. Disraeli of expressing his opinions on these questions, and 
 of giving a quiet hint as to the costliness of Whig foreign policy, he had 
 found occasion to express himself on the subject of Eeform. He is 
 generally believed to have changed his view on this question, and to have 
 adopted in office principles which he steadily opposed when in opposition. 
 What has already been cited from his speeches of this Session will probably 
 suffice to show, however, the baselessness of this accusation. His speech 
 on Mr. Locke King's annual County Franchise Bill confirms that view. 
 He had, ho said in effect, no intrinsic objection to the proposed modifica- 
 tion. He even thought that an extension of the franchise in the counties 
 might improve the representation, but he feared the effect of introducing 
 a measure confessedly partial and incomplete, on the efforts of those who 
 were prepared to deal with reform e^s a whole. The whole state of the 
 
tURlFICAtlON OF THE I'HAME^. 285 
 
 fepi'esentation was anomalous. The counties were represented by 150 or 
 160 members, though the constituencies numbered more than half a 
 million electors ; the boroughs returned 330 members by 400,000 electors. 
 It would but aggravate that anomaly to carry such a measure as that 
 proposed by Mr. Locke King. At that time every county member repre- 
 sented 3300 electors, while every borough member spoke in the name of 
 no more than 1280. "Would any good be done by making county 
 members the representatives of, say 5000 electors, whilst the boroughs 
 kept at the old figure V If the franchise were to be touched at all, it 
 should be dealt with as a whole and not piecemeal. So the Government 
 thought, and they intended to act upon their view. They therefore 
 opposed the Bill, but did not press their opposition to the point of dividing 
 the House on the first reading, and the Bill was accordingly brought in. 
 It was read a second time a few weeks later, but the attention of the 
 House being concentrated on the Government of India, it made no farther 
 progress. 
 
 One more measure of importance during the Session of 1858 was due to 
 the initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchfquer. During the summer of 
 this year the state of the Thames became positively appalling. Animal 
 and fffical matter had been poured into it at every point at winch it seemed 
 convenient to make a sewer opening, and the hot weather having reduced 
 the usual supply of water from the upper reaches of the river, the com- 
 pound which was carried backwards and forwards by the tide between 
 Greenwich and Lambeth became inexpressibly loathsome. The health of 
 London and Westminster began to suffer somewhat seriously, and the 
 gravest fears of an outbreak of virulent epidemic were entertained. In the 
 Houses of Parliament the greatest discomfort was felt. Committees could 
 not sit in the rooms overlooking the river ; the officers of both Houses were 
 seized with illness ; members came down to the House as little and stayed 
 for as short a time as possible, while the Speaker's official residence was 
 almost uninhabitable. Westminster Hall was deserted, and a general 
 panic on the subject set in. To make matters worse the summer was 
 exceptionally hot. On the 25th of June, Mr. Owen Stanley called atten- 
 tion to the then existing state of things, and suggested a Royal Com- 
 mission. The matter was brought up again three days later by Mr. Eoupell, 
 who was met by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 that the Government had already taken the matter in hand by sanctioning 
 a series of remedial operations which entailed an expenditure of about 
 £1500 a week. The work thus commenced was rajMdly pushed on, and 
 the result may be seen in the Thames Embankment and in that Main 
 Drainage Scheme which places London on a level with the greatest cities 
 of antiquity in the matter of sanitary arrangement. The Bill for the 
 Amendment of the Metropolis Local Management Act was brought in by 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 15th of July. The main feature of 
 the plan was to give to the Metropolitan Board of Works power to levy a 
 
286 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 rate for a period not exceeding forty years, and of aa amount not more 
 than Sd. in the pound, to provide funds for the completion of the whole of 
 the main drainage of the metropolis, the Government to guarantee capital 
 and interest to the extent of £3,000,000, on condition that the Board 
 should raise £140,000 a year to provide interest, and create a sinking fund 
 for the extinction of the debt. The works were to be completed within 
 five years and a half, and the general management of the business was to 
 be confided to the Board of Works. 
 
 This Bill — the last of the Government measures for the Session — was 
 carried through the House with unusual quickness. Even in Committee 
 the discussions over it were few and short, and the success with which it 
 has since been carried out is a sufiicient proof of its practical character. It 
 received the Eoyal Assent on the 2nd of August, on which day Parliament 
 was prorogued by Commission. The Speech from the Throne was in 
 somewhat striking contrast with that delivered on a corresponding occasion 
 eleven months before. In lieu of the meagre list of second-rate measures 
 upon which the popular Government of Lord Palmerston, with its over- 
 whelming majority, had been able to congratulate the country. Ministers 
 had a striking list of questions settled and legislation accomplished. On 
 the Continent there was peace ; in India the rebellion seemed to be rapidly 
 approaching an end, and the Act transferring the Government of that 
 Empire to the Queen might be expected to produce the best effect; the 
 Thames was to be cleansed ; the local government of towns was to be im- 
 proved ; Scotch Universities were to be re-arranged ; the transfer of land 
 in Ireland and the acquisition of an indefeasible title had been materially 
 facilitated ; and, finally, the colony of British Columbia had been esta- 
 blished, " in the hope that this new colony on the Pacific might be but one 
 step in the career of steady progress by which Her Majesty's dominions in 
 North America might be peopled in an unbroken chain, from the Atlantic 
 to the Pacific, by a loyal and industrious population of subjects of the 
 British Crown." 
 
 The events of the Eecess were important in themselves, but had little 
 bearing on the character or position of the Government at home. The 
 Treaty of Tientsin, by which peace with China was established, was 
 ratified; a treaty of peace, friendship, and commerce was made with 
 Japan; the East India Company was dissolved, and the Queen's authority 
 proclaimed in India ; and at the end of November Mr. Gladstone arrived in 
 Corfu as Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary, for the purpose of 
 examining on the spot into the relations by which the Ionian Islands wore 
 attached to England. The subsequent history of Mr. Gladstone's mission 
 does not enter into the scope of this work. Greater events were preparing. 
 It was at the New Year's reception at the Tuilcries that the Emperor 
 Napoleon spoke those words which, as soon as they were reported, created 
 universal fear of a war between France and Austria. As a consequence of 
 those strained relations, Lord Malmesbury wrote a conciliatory despatch to 
 
A SPLIT m THE CABINET. 287 
 
 the English Ambassador at Yienna (Lord A. Loftus), urging that France 
 and Austria should lay aside mutual suspicion, and endeavour to promote 
 by peaceful means the regeneration of Italy. Without intervening in an 
 impertinent way, or professing any feeling but that of ordinary friendship, 
 Lord Malmesbury suggested that it would be well for Austria as an Italian 
 power to take the initiative, and to ask France to join with her in reforming 
 the glaring abuses in the Papal Dominions. " Austria is an Italian state, 
 and both France and Austria are now occupying the Papal territories with 
 their troops. Such a position cannot be lasting, and Her Majesty's Grovern- 
 ment submit to both Austria and France that it is their public duty to 
 terminate if possible a state of things which has become intolerable." 
 
 Whilst the Cabinet of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were thus endeavour- 
 ing to act the part of peacemakers in Europe, elements of dissension and 
 trouble were preparing for them at home. The question of Reform, which 
 the Government had undertaken to remove from the path of practical 
 politics, had also been taken up by the more extreme section of the Liberal 
 l)arty ; and Mr. Bright, in the course of an oratorical campaign, had stirred 
 up the electors of the boroughs to support a scheme which if carried out 
 would have intensified all the anomalies and imperfections of the then 
 existing system. Any attempt to deal with the question at all from the 
 Tory point of view, was in the meantime looked at with suspicion and 
 uneasiness by the more pronounced Conservatives in the Administration 
 the consequence being that when Mr. Disraeli's scheme^was brought forward 
 in the Cabinet, Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley retired. The former wrote 
 that he felt it impossible to sanction or countenance the course of policy 
 which the Government had determined upon with regard to reform. " I 
 cannot help saying," he went on, " that the measure which the Cabinet 
 are prepared to recommend is one which we should all of us have stoutly 
 opposed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ventured to 
 bring it forward." On the 1st of Mai'ch, 1859, Mr. Walpole made his 
 statement in the House, reading the letter from which the above sentence 
 is quoted, and slightly amplifying details. Mr. Henley was somewhat 
 more elaborate in his explanation, protesting in energetic terms against the 
 notion of a hard-and-fast line on the question of the suffrage. His speech 
 in view of the Reform Bill ultimately carried by Lord Beaconsfield — a Bill 
 which, despite the accidents of its genesis, unquestionably represents the 
 convictions of its author's life — is really interesting. " I believe," said 
 Mr. Henley, "that identity of suffrage, which is the principle of the 
 Government Bill, is fatal to the constitution of the country. I care not 
 whether the franchise is £10 or £15 or £5 — I care not at what sum you fix 
 it — but I hold that if you take a paint brush and draw a line across the 
 country, and say that all the people on one side are to have the franchise, 
 and all the people on the other are not to have it, although you may have 
 no trouble for a few years, yet as sure as the sun is in heaven, you will 
 have all the peox^le on the outside of the line at one time or other making 
 
288 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFlELa 
 
 a very ugly rush to break over it. . . . Ever since the Eeform Act of 183^, 
 the working people have been having a less and less share in the representa- 
 tion. They had considerable representation in 1832 through the scot 
 and lot voters and the freemen. I am not going to say anything either for 
 or against the freemen, but through them the working classes had their 
 voice in the representation. They are gradually dying out, and I ask my 
 honourable friends near me to consider if they draw a hard line, and leave 
 the working people behind it, how long they think it will stand. . . . Our 
 safety — the permanence of our constitution, in my judgment — has depended 
 on the great variety of the constituency. ... I believe that under identity 
 of franchise you will lose that great and invaluable safeguard." These 
 speeches testify to the difficulty of dealing with the question of Eeform. 
 Mr. Henley retires from the Cabinet because he objects to the Whig 
 principle of a suffrage based on rental, and because he wishes to see a lar j;er 
 infusion of the working class element in the constituencies. Mr. Walpole 
 retires because the Bill which the Government is pledged to bring in will 
 admit a large number of the working classes, and so will disturb the Whig 
 settlement of 1832. It seems at this distance of time a little unfortunate 
 that with these cases before him Lord Beaconsfield did not proceed, as he 
 eventually found it necessary to do, by resolution. 
 
 The Session was opened by the Queen in person on the 3rd of February, 
 ] 859. The Eoyal S]3eech began with the announcement that the mutiny 
 in India had been finally suppressed, and that on assuming the Supreme 
 Government of the country, a policy of clemency and consideration had 
 boon announced. The mention of peace with all the great pov/ers, and of 
 treaties of commerce and amity with Eussia, China, and Japan, com- 
 pleted the references to foreign affairs. The only difficulty was with the 
 turbulent and aggressive Eepublic of Mexico, to which it had been thought 
 advisable to despatch a naval force. At home the advance of steam 
 navigation had rendered a reconstruction of the Navy essential, and for that 
 the Commons were called upon to provide. Bills were promised for 
 assimilating and amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws, for 
 classifying and amending the laws relating to crimes and offences, for 
 enabling the owners of land to obtain an indefeasible title, and if last not 
 least, a Bill for amending the representation of the people. 
 
 The Debate on the Address was very short, no opposition being attempted. 
 Lord Palmerston offered some observations, to which the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer replied, explaining that he should not have risen at all but for 
 the courtesy which the chief of the Government owes to the leader of the 
 Opposition. After dealing with the rather petty criticism on which the 
 noble Lord had ventured, he turned to foreign affairs, the aspect of which he 
 admitted to be threatening, though he hesitated to accept as inevitable the 
 approaching collision between France and Austria. With a brief reference 
 to the despatch from Lord Malmesbury, which has just been quoted, he 
 described the situation in Italy, painting it in forcible colours, and showing 
 
^HE POSITION OF SARDINIA. 289 
 
 in what way tlie Government had striven to ameliorate it. They had 
 impressed upon the Governments of France, Eiissia, Sardinia, and Prussia, 
 their view of the unsatisfactory condition of Central Italy, and the ex- 
 pediency of taking measures to remove the ancient causes of public dis- 
 content. At the same time they had expressed a strong opinion that the' 
 change which they deemed inevitable would best be accomplished from 
 within. " While we have done this — ^while we have endeavoured, both 
 with regard to France and Austria, to remove the mistrust which has 
 unfortunately arisen between those two great powers — while we have 
 sought to allay the suspicions that have been unhappily excited — while 
 we have placed before them every consideration that could be urged for 
 maintaining that general peace which has been so long preserved, and which 
 has been on the whole so beneficial to the cause of humanity and civilisa- 
 tion — while we have done this, we have equally impressed on those two great 
 powers the duty that devolves upon them of entering not into hostile 
 rivalry for the military command of Italy, but into that more generous 
 emulation of seeking to advance its interests and improve its condition." 
 Pointing to the fact that France and Austria are the twin children of the 
 Church of Eome, and that England, as essentially a Protestant power, 
 could not well interfere with the Government of the Pope, he went on to 
 say that the Government had explained to those powers that if they should 
 agree that some re-arrangement of the settlement of 1815 with regard to 
 the position of central Italy was necessary, the English Government would 
 assist them to the utmost with their counsel and influence to bring about 
 such a result. Eepresentations to a similar effect had been made at the 
 Court of Turin. "The position of Sardinia," said he, "is one which 
 necessarily and naturally commands sympathy in a free Parliament, and 
 there is no state in Italy which the English feelings have more clustered 
 round than the kingdom of Sardinia, especially during the last few years. 
 We have all hoped that Sardinia may be the means by which the improve- 
 ment of Italy morally and materially in public liberty, as well as in other 
 respects, may be effected ; and I do not relinquish — I will not readily 
 relinquish — hopes which seemed so well founded, and which were so encourag- 
 ing to every generous spirit." These representations had not, it is true, been 
 received quite so cordially as could have been wished, but there was reason 
 to hope that they had not been altogether ineffectual, and that peace, if not 
 fully assured, might yet eventually prevail. One reason for this hope- was 
 that the Government had confidence in the character of the French Emperor. 
 The Opposition had persistently maligned him, and had treated the alliance 
 with him as a matter for constant suspicion, but his conduct in the past, 
 and especially during the difficulties of this country consequent upon the 
 Indian Mutiny, created an assured hope that the rumours of difficulties 
 and possible wars would pass away. Our alliance with France was as 
 cordial as ever — perhaps even more so — and the Emperor, in the late 
 dispute with Portugal, had shown himself amenable to the public opinion 
 
 U 
 
290 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of enlightened Europe. There was therefore reason to hope, even in 
 February, that peace might be maintained. It is not a little edifying to 
 note that the press of the Liberal party fell foul of this speech, and accused 
 Lord Beaconsfield of " fawning servility and sycophancy totally unbecoming 
 a member of the English House of Commons," because he did not accuse 
 the ruler of the great nation with which we were in cordial and intimate 
 alliance of criminal ambition and a wicked desire for territorial aggrandise- 
 ment. 
 
 A considerable amount of pressure was put upon the Government in order 
 to bring about an earlier discussion of the question of reform. No sooner 
 had the answer to the Address been read to the House than Mr. Duncombe 
 rose witb a question as to when the Bill of the Government might be 
 expected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very naturally replied, that 
 he could not absolutely name the day or even promise that the Bill should 
 be brought in during the month of February. The Navy Estimates and 
 some votes in Supply, to say nothing of Indian Finance, must necessarily 
 take precedence of so comparatively speculative a subject as the Keform of 
 the Representation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, however 
 better than his word, and on the 28th of February obtained leave to bring 
 in a Bill for the settlement of this vexed question. His speech, which 
 occupies no fewer than 38 columns of Hansard, sets out with a demonstra- 
 tion of the gravity of the subject. An erroneous policy in other matters 
 might be modified, a false step might be retraced, but a mistake once 
 made in rearranging the basis of representation could not be rectified. Her 
 Majesty's Ministers had, however, some peculiar qualifications for the task, 
 inasmuch as they had had considerable experience, and were wholly with- 
 out either passion or prejudice in the matter. In 1832 the state of the 
 question had been very different, and the subject had of necessity been 
 treated empirically. Since that epoch, our progress had been " not merely 
 rapid, but even precipitate. There had been no instance in history of so 
 vast an increase of population, and of capital. With that increase the 
 increase of intelligence had kept^ pace." Parliamentary Eeform had thus 
 become a public matter. In course of time public questions become Parlia- 
 mentary and then Ministerial questions. Ten years ago Lord John 
 Russell had discovered that the settlement of 1832 was not a final 
 settlement. Two years later a Minister born and bred _in the Tory 
 camp, was also of opinion that a measure of Reform was required, 
 and a second Bill was accordingly brought forward by the Govern- 
 ment of Lord Aberdeen. Lord Palmerston in 1857 had followed the 
 example of his predecessors, and had promised a resettlement of the 
 question. When Lord Derby succeeded to office tlie question was before 
 the country, and it was for him to take it up. It might be said that 
 Parliamentary Reform was prescriptively the property of the Liberal party. 
 That position Mr. Disraeli refused to admit. The Conservative party had 
 accepted the compromise of 1835, but when the V^higs proposed to reform 
 
THE REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS. 291 
 
 tlie settlement of 1832 they held themselves absolved from the compact, 
 and free to improve the representation of the people, by acting in the 
 spirit, and according to the genius of the Constitution. Kepudiating the 
 notion that a representative Government must be based upon the principle 
 of counting heads or valuing property, Mr. Disraeli went on to enunciate 
 the first principle of the Bill of which he had charge — the principle that 
 the House of Commons ought to represent all the interests of the country. 
 "If the function of this House is to represent all the interests of the 
 country, it must of course have a representation scattered over the country, 
 because interests are necessarily local. Let me take by way of illustration 
 the two cases of the metropolis and of Scotland. The populations of the 
 two are at this time about equal. The wealth of the metropolis and the 
 wealth of Scotland are very unequal. The wealth of the metropolis yields 
 a yearly income of 44 millions, upon which the assessment under the 
 great schedules of the income tax is levied, while the amount upon which 
 the assessment of those schedules in Scotland is levied is only 30 millions. 
 There is, therefore, the difference between 44 millions and 30 millions, yet 
 who would for a moment pretend that the various classes and interests of 
 that country could be adequately represented by the same number of 
 members as represent the metropolis ? So much for the population test. 
 Now for the property test. Let us take one portion of that very metropolis 
 to which I have this moment referred. The wealth of the City of London 
 is more than equivalent to that of twenty-five English and Welsh counties 
 returning forty members, and of 140 boroughs returning 232 members. 
 The City of London — the city proper — is richer than Manchester, Liver- 
 pool, and Birmingham put together. Or take another and even more 
 pregnant formula. The City of London is richer than Bristol, Leeds, 
 Newcastle, Sheffield, Hull, Wolverhampton, Bradford, Brighton, Stoke- 
 upon-Trent, Nottingham, Greenwich, Preston, East Eetford, Sunderland, 
 York, and Salford combined — towns which return among them no less 
 than 31 members. The City of London has not asked me to insert it in 
 this Bill for thirty-one members. . . . They seem to be satisfied with 
 their representation, and to consider that probably no place requires a 
 greater number of members than the City at present possesses." In short, 
 members of Parliament are elected not to represent the wealth or the 
 numerical power of the constituencies, but their opinions. " No one for 
 a moment pretends that the borough system of representation in England 
 was originally framed that it should represent all the classes and interests 
 of the country ; but it has been kept and cherished, because the people 
 found that, althoughi not directly intended for such a purpose, ye 
 indirectly it has accomplished that object ; and hence I lay down as a 
 principle that, if you subvert that system, you are bound to substitute for 
 it machinery equally effective." 
 
 Having regard, then, to the principle of representing interests, and 
 believing that it would be eminently unadvisable to adopt the sa;jgestiou 
 
 V 2 
 
2Qi THE PUBLIC tiFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELfi. 
 
 of a rating francliise, which would make the ratebook the register, and 
 having argued that a general reduction of the qualification to, say, a £5 
 rental , would make the constituencies monotonous, Mr. Disraeli brought 
 forward the proposals of the Government, the principle of which Was that 
 personal property should be an electoral qualification in the boroughs, 
 w holly irrespective of the amount of rent or rates which the elector might 
 pay. All persons with money in the funds of the value of £10 per 
 annum and upwards would be electors ; a man who had £60 for a year in 
 a savings-bank would be ipso facto qualified ; any pensioner from the Araiy, 
 Navy, or Civil Service to the amount of £20 per annum ; the occupant of 
 any portion of a house, rented at not less than £20 a year, for which he 
 should pay a weekly rent of Ss. ; the graduates of all universities ; the 
 clergy and ministers of all denominations ; barristers, members of the inns 
 of court, solicitors, proctors, and all registered medical practitioners, and 
 all schoolmasters possessing a certificate from the Privy Council should be 
 fit to be placed on the register. As regarded the counties, he proposed 
 to assimilate the county and the borough franchise ; to deprive the 
 40s. freeholders in boroughs of their county votes, transferring that qualifi- 
 cation to the boroughs, and to send out Boundary Commissioners to 
 rearrange the boroughs, adapting them to the altered circumstances of the 
 time. By this plan he calculated that 200,000 electois would be added 
 to the county constituencies; and in order to enable as many electors as 
 possible to record their votes, a system of voting-papers was proposed. 
 This part of the scheme, by the way, attracted considerable opposition, 
 apparently on account of the great facilities which it would afford to 
 electors in recording their votes. 
 
 With regard to redistribution — a delicate question at all times — there 
 were peculiar difficulties arising out of the jealousies of town and country, 
 of borough and county. It was, however, hoped that all difficulties had 
 been solved. Four members were to be added to the representation of 
 the West Hiding, the constituencies being West Yorkshire, including 
 Keighley, Dewsbury, and a large number of other towns, North-West 
 Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire. Lancashire was to have an addition of 
 two members by dividing South Lancashire by the boundaries of the 
 Hundreds of Salford and West Derby, as had been proposed on a former 
 occasion. Middlesex would be divided ; South Middlesex with Kensington, 
 Chelsea, and Hammersmith forming the new constituency. Eight would 
 thus be added to the number of county members. In the boroughs, 
 Hartlepool and Birkenhead would have one member each ; West Bromwich 
 and Wednesbury one between them ; Burnley, Stalybridge, Croydon, and 
 Gravesend would be brought into the representation. Arundel would be 
 retained, because, though a small constituency, it always returned a Eoman 
 Catholic member, and was thus representative to no common extent, while 
 to provide for these changes fifteen boroughs, having populations of less 
 than 6000, were to lose one of their members. " I believe," said Mr. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE BILL. 293 
 
 Disraeli, in conclusion, "I believe, Sir, that this is a measure wise, prudent, 
 and adequate to the occasion. I earnestly hope the House may adopt it, 
 I believe, Sir, it is a Conservative measure, using that epithet in no limited 
 or partial sense, but in the highest and holiest interpretation of which it is 
 capable. I can say sincerely that those who framed this measure are men 
 who reverence the past, who are proud of the present, and who are confident 
 of the future."* 
 
 The Bill was receiv ed with very little favour. Mr. Baxter washed all 
 changes to be made at the same time, so that one Bill might cover 
 England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland: Mr. Newdegate was indignant 
 that the representation of the counties was not largely increased, and urged 
 that even Lord John Kussell's proposals had given to those constituencies 
 46 out of the 130 seats to which they had a right. Lord John Kussell, on 
 high constitutional grounds, objected to depriving the 40s. freeholder of 
 the county franchise if he happened to live in a borough, and was very 
 indignant on account of the small satisfaction which the Bill would afford 
 to the working classes; Mr. Roebuck thought the changes all for the 
 worse, and declared that the Bill would not add one iota to the power of 
 the working classes ; Mr. Bright considered the fancy franchises " absurd," 
 and declared that the Bill of the Government "disturbed everything, 
 would irritate vast numbers of the people, and would settle nothing;" 
 Mr. Drummond thought it a great pity that the Government had taken 
 the matter up, and professed himself utterly unable to understand the 
 measure ; and finally Lord Palmerston expressed a hope that all criticism 
 would be deferred until the Bill was laid upon the table. The Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer replied to his assailants and completely annihilated the 
 objections of Lord John Russell by showing that his constitutional argu- 
 ment had been answered by anticipation by himself. " The noble lord 
 based his opposition on two grand principles. First he cannot consent to 
 to the disfranchisement of the ancient freeholders — the freeholders of 
 estates of 300 or 400 years' duration. I have looked into this subject, and 
 I am sorry to say that the great majority of freeholds are not of that 
 ancient duration ; they are of more modern date, and are created in a much 
 more simple and manufacturing style than the noble Lord seems to con- 
 
 * One of the greatest objections to this Reform Bill was the enormous number 
 it would add to the borough constituencies. It should be remembered, however, 
 that while Whig Reform Bills have always been measures of disfranchisement, 
 those of the opposite party have always been in the direction of an increase of the 
 area of representation. When the question of Reform was first mooted, Mr. 
 Canning said, that " should the settlement of Parliamentary Reform fall upon 
 him, he would give the Radicals a dose too strong for their stomachs." (See 
 "Memoirs ox Lord Althorp," p. 210.) The Bill of 1832 was, it will be remem- 
 bered, carried by a coup d €tat after the Lords, upon the motion of Lord Lynd- 
 hurst, had accepted an amendment for considering the c^uestion of enfranchise^ 
 flaent Vefore that of disfranchisement, 
 
294 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 template. * But,' says the noble Lord, * I will never be a party to a Bill to 
 disfrauchis e the working man.' What was the first feature in his last 
 Bill, which was not carried ? Was it not proposed to disfranchise all the 
 freemen in the city ? So much for this great and perilous innovation 
 which the noble Lord dreads — the great and perilous innovation of restrict- 
 ing borough freeholders to voting in the locality where their qualifications 
 exist." 
 
 The Bill came on for second reading on Monday, March the 21st, and 
 immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved. Lord John 
 Kussell came forward with an amendment, " That it is neither just nor 
 pohtic to interfere in the manner proposed in this Bill with the freehold 
 franchise as hitherto exercised in England and Wales, and that no re- 
 adjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House which does not provide 
 for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs thair is con- 
 templated in the present measure." It is needless to recapitulate the noble 
 Lord's argument, which was simply an amplification of that sketched out 
 on the night of the first reading, and which was remarkable for nothing so 
 much as for the amusing self-complacency of the veteran reformer. 
 
 The debate lasted for seven nights, and at midnight on the 31st of 
 March the Chancellor o f the Exchequer rose to reply. Having referred to 
 the fact that, although attempts had been made to settle this question of 
 Reform for ten years, the present was the first Bill which had attained to 
 the honour of a second reading, he discussed the way in which it had been 
 opposed. The Bill was the embodiment of three great principles — first, 
 the introduction of a large number of persons into the constituent body; 
 secondly, that those large communities, whose wealth, population, distinctive 
 industry and ch aracter had been developed since 1832, should be entrusted 
 with direct representation ; and thirdly, that, whilst maintaining generally 
 the system of borough representation, the constituencies should be strength- 
 ened by the admission of those classes and interests wh ich deserved con- 
 sideration, rather than by mere numerical majorities. Those principles he 
 believed to be generally accepted by the House, and, that being so, all 
 mere matters of detail might very fairly be considered in Committee. 
 Instead of that course being taken, an amendment had been brought 
 forward upon two points of detail — the disfranchisement of borough free- 
 holders and the general lowering of the qualification for the franchise. As 
 regarded the first point, he denied that anybody would be really disfran- 
 chised. All that would be done would be to get rid of a number of 
 manufactured votes, and to confine the political exertions of certain indi- 
 viduals to the localities in which they dwelt. For the rest. Lord John's 
 own measure of 1832 disfranchised electors to a much larger extent, and 
 his proposed measures since had been framed in the same spirit. The 
 question of the reduction of the franchise which formed the latter half of 
 the amendment had been shown in the course of the debate to have 
 " formed no part of the original instrument when it was first concocted in 
 
MR. DISRAELI ON THE WORKING CLASSES. 295 
 
 order to embarrass the Government." The Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 would not, however, be so unjust to the noble Lord as to measure his policy 
 by the terms of the resolution. It was necessarily under the ciioumstances 
 a party matter. The noble Lord had declared that his object was to admit 
 the working classes, but he had omitted to mention by what means he 
 proposed to attain that end. Sir James Grraham had, however, supplied 
 the omission. The Liberal Keform Bill was to consist of an extensive 
 disfranchisement of small boroughs, a general redistribution of seats, an. 
 extensive reduction of the franchise, and the ballot. Sir James Graham 
 had admitted that he had had a hand in the concoction of the resolution ; 
 the obvious inference was that Lord John Russell was pledged to his pro- 
 gramme. Mr. Bright, too, who had not always spoken of the Throne with 
 overwhelming respect, who had described the House of Lords as a " public 
 nuisance," and who had contemned the Church, might also be a colleague 
 of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. " There is, after all, therefore, 
 some advantage in a Parliamentary debate. We have arrived at some 
 knowledge, and can see more clearly the future of parties in this House. 
 But what I cannot understand is, how the advocates of the mild Conserva- 
 tive policy — the noble Lord the member for Tiverton, and the right hon. 
 gentleman the member for North Wilts (Mr. Sidney Herbert), and other 
 distinguished colleagues in the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, can 
 join in the determined — I had almost said flagrant — pohcy of the con- 
 federates of the hon. member for Birmingham." i 
 Of the working classes Mr. Disraeli ex^Dressed no apprehension. He was 
 not afraid, even if manhood suffrage were conceded to-morrow, that they 
 would take to pillage, to incendiarism, or to massacre. But "if you 
 establish democracy, you must in due season reap the fruit of democracy. 
 You will have in due season reductions of the public burdens and increase 
 of public expenditure ; have wars entered into from passion, and not from 
 reasonable causes ; ignominious peace sought and obtained, which would 
 diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence ; and 
 you may find your property less valuable, and perhaps your freedom less 
 complete — though no doubt the good sense of the country would come to 
 the rescue at last. ... I have never yet met with an argument which 
 fairly encountered the objections I have urged. You cannot encounter 
 them by sentimental descriptions of the good qualities of the working classes. 
 The greater their qualities the greater the danger if you will lay down as a 
 principle that they are to enter the constituent body, not as individuals, 
 but as the multitude. The great object to be attained is to have the great 
 constituency of the nation so unanimous as to be respectable, and so select 
 as to be responsible. How is this great object to be brought about ? We 
 thought we could accomplish this by introducing different classes with 
 different interests, and by the establishment of the same occupancy franchise 
 in counties as in boroughs. Is not that a wise, a sound, and an effective 
 policy? To this policy three objections have been urged in this debate. 
 
293 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The noble Lord objects because he says we propose uniformity of franchise. 
 The word never escaped my lips. On the contrary, the Bill is introduced 
 with a greater variety of franchises than have ever been introduced in a 
 Reform Bill." Passing then in rapid and somewhat contemptuous review 
 the various gyrations of Lord John Russell on the question of the franchise 
 — concerning which he had pledged himself to half a dozen different views — 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned to the objection that the proposed 
 measure would not admit the working classes. He contended that it would 
 have that effect — that in the North of England, at all events, the greater 
 number of the £10 householders were working men, and that those who 
 did not come in by that qualification would be admitted by the " fancy 
 franchises," if they cared to claim their privilege. For the rest, " there 
 were still 50,000 freemen, working men, notwithstanding the kindly inten- 
 tions of the noble Lord." Thirdly, it had been objected that the Bill 
 would bring about electoral districts ; to which Mr. Disraeli replied that 
 the objections against the new system were equally valid against the old. 
 
 Leaving the vindication of the Bill, its author turned to the considera- 
 tion of the tactics by which it had been met. " What has been the 
 argument of the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition ? He approves of 
 the principle of the Bill. He has announced that he is in favour of the 
 second reading, but at the same time that he will vote for the resolution 
 which we have declared is fatal to the Bill. I must say that I was 
 astonished at the way in which the noble Lord addressed us. ... I never 
 heard in this House the leader of the Opposition, and one who has been in 
 those high posts of confidence which the noble Lord has enjoyed, actually 
 tell his opponents that if they counselled their Sovereign to exercise her 
 prerogative he would stop the supplies. This is so different from what we 
 might have expected from the genial nature of the noble Lord, that, 
 coupled with the announcement of the withdrawal of the vote of want of 
 confidence, I must reallj'- treat the whole affair as a jest." Lord Russell 
 had complained that Sir Hugh Cairns had imputed motives to him. After 
 disavowing all intention of doing any thing of the sort on the part of his 
 Solicitor- General, the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid a becoming tribute 
 to the abilities, character, and ambition of Lord John Russell, and then in 
 language none the less scathing for its perfect courtesy and purely parlia- 
 mentary character, administered a rebuke to him for his factiousness which, 
 if anything could have pierced his armour of self-conceit, must have stung 
 him to the quick. " I am sure," said Mr. Disraeli, " the noble Lord will 
 not feel offended with me if I tell him that I think there is one quality in 
 his character which has rather marred than made his fortunes. It is a 
 restlessness which will not brook that delay and that patience needed in 
 our constitutional government for the conduct of public affairs. The 
 moment that the noble Lord is not in power he appears to live in an 
 atmosphere of coalitions, combinations, coups d'etat and cunning resolutions. 
 An Appropriation Claiise may happen to every man once in his life, But 
 
// <-< 
 
 '^ •^ 
 
 ON LORD JOHN RUSSELL. / g^ <4 
 
 there is only one man living of whom it can be said, that in ISH^^h^ ^ 
 overthrew the Government of Sir Robert Peel upon an impractiicabife c^ 
 pretext ; that in 1852 he overthrew the Government of Lord Derby with C/l 
 an objectless Coalition; that in 1855 he overthrew the Government ^1^ ^ 
 Lord Aberdeen by a personal coup d'etat ; and that in 1857 he overthrs,^^^. *^ 
 the Government of the noble Lord the member for Tiverton by a Parlia\;^^ *^ 
 mentary manoeuvre. Now, Sir, I beg the noble Lord at this moment to ^'^^*==' 
 throw the vision of his memory for an instant back to the year 1852. He 
 sat before me then the head of a mighty host. He drew the fatal arrow 
 that was to destroy our Government. He succeeded. He destroyed in 
 breathless haste the Government of Lord Derby ; but did he destroy 
 nothing else ? Did he not destroy also the position of a great statesman ? 
 Did he not destroy almost the great historic party of which he was once 
 the proud and honoured chief? The noble Lord does not sit opposite to 
 me now, but had he not hurried on the catastrophe of 1852, and had he 
 bided his time according to the periodic habit of our Constitution, he 
 would have returned to these benches the head of that great party of which 
 he was once the chief and greatest ornament. What las the noble Lord 
 done now, and what is the moment that he has chosen for this party 
 attack — an attack which was not necessary to the vindication of his policy 
 or for the assertion of those principles which I believe he sincerely holds ? 
 I brought forward on the part of the Government a measure founded on 
 approved principles, for which fair play and custom would have insured a 
 second reading. The discussion upon the questions which the noble Lord 
 has thrust, as it were, into the Speaker's hand would in the due course of 
 parliamentary routine have been postponed yet for some time." 
 
 The action of the Opposition was additionally objectionable from the fact 
 that the affairs of Europe were in a most critical condition. Important nego- 
 tiations were going on, and the Government was doing everything in its 
 power to maintain peace between France and Austria, and to bring about 
 an amicable settlement of Italian difficulties. Lord John Russell and his 
 associates were perfectly well aware of the fact, yet they had chosen this 
 moment for a party attack— -a moment when it was of vital consequence 
 that the authority of the Government should not be interfered with or em- 
 baiTassed, " I should not," said Mr. Disraeli, " be acting with frankness and 
 fairness to the House if I concealed the fact that the conduct of the noble Lord 
 has been most embarrassing to the Government. I declare it on my respon- 
 sibility as a Minister that the conduct of the noble Lord has produced 
 most injurious effects on the public service." The public mind, he went 
 on to say, was agitated, but not upon the question of Reform. That might 
 come in its due course, but the one feeling of the country was a desire for 
 peace. " Let the Government give us peace, it is the only thing that we 
 require. Our energies are depressed, our commerce circumscribed, and our 
 enterprise crippled, but let the Government secure for us peace, and they 
 y'iU be entitled to the copfidence and the gratitude of the country. J 
 
298 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 thought, Sir, we had secured peace. I thought that the time had arrived 
 when I might have to come down to this House and tell them that the 
 dark disquietude that for three months has overshadowed Europe had 
 passed away, had been succeeded by serenity and repose ; and but for this 
 untoward, this unhapjDy motion of the noble Lord it might have been." 
 
 This was but the simple truth. The eager and restless ambition of 
 Lord John Eussell had forced Lord Derby into retirement in 1852, and 
 dragged the country into the war with Eussia, and the same impatient 
 restlessness in 1859 again drove the Tories from office and precipitated the 
 Italian war of the Emperor Napoleon — a war which has justly been stig- 
 matised as unnecessary, since, if the English Government had been strong 
 instead of weak, its influence might have settled all disputes by diplomatic 
 means. At the time that Mr. Disraeli made this speech the question of 
 peace or war on the Continent was trembling in the balance, and the 
 victory of the strange coalition of which Lord John Eussell was the head 
 IDrecipitated matters. The division on the amendment was taken, and the 
 Government found itself in a minority of 39 — 291 members supporting the 
 Administration and 330 Whigs, Peelites, and Eadicals going into the lobby 
 in favour of Lord John's motion. No sooner had the numbers been 
 announced than a scene followed, the like of which is seldom recorded in 
 the pages of Hansard. Mr. Wyld moved an amendment to the effect that 
 at elections votes should be taken by ballot. Mr. Berkeley, Mr. Clay, Mr. 
 Milner Gibson, Sir John Shelley and Lord Eussell attempted to address 
 the House amidst noise and clamour " worthy," as a contemporary writer 
 says, " of Bartlemy Fair," and in the end the Ballot motion was defeated 
 by 230 votes. 
 
 The House at its rising adjourned until Monday the 4th of April, when 
 Lord Derby in the Upper House, and Mr. Disraeli in the Lower offered 
 their explanations. The proposed Eeform Bill was, of course, to be with- 
 drawn, nor would any other measure on the same subject be brought for- 
 ward. At the same time the Government protested against the notion 
 that the Eeform of the Eepresentation was the peculiar property of the 
 AVhig party. Leaving then that particular question, it had become neces- 
 sary for the Government to consider its position. That position was a 
 painful one. Many times since the beginning of the Session the Govern- 
 ment had found themselves in a minority, and that upon really great and 
 important questions. Yet they could not relinquish their post, for the 
 simple reason that there was no more cohesion or unanimity in the ranks 
 of the Opposition than there was on the day when the Queen entrusted 
 Lord Derby with the formation of a ministry. The state of foreign affairs 
 was, furthermore, extremely critical. England had assumed the office of 
 mediator between France and Austria in the hope of preventing war. 
 Lastly, the country had been promised a measure of reform, and the 
 Government was in a measure bound to bring one in. Influenced by these 
 considerations the Ministry had remained in office " under circumstances," 
 said Mr. Disraeli, " which I admit involved a degree of mortification, and 
 which we bore from a feeling that on the whole we were doing our duty to 
 
A DISSOLUTION ANNOUNCED. 299 
 
 our Sovereiga and to the country." After the vote of the preceding 
 Thursday it was, of course, impossible to remain any longer quiescent. 
 That vote was intended as a vote of censure. There were some cries of 
 "]Sro"atthis declaration, but Lord Beaconsfield stuck to his text, and 
 announced that the vote had been treated as one of want of confidence 
 upon which the Government felt bound to act. As, however, the Opposi- 
 tion seemed to be anything but unanimous — " seeing that the Opposition 
 consists of a number of sections which no doubt can at any time combine 
 and overwhelm the Queen's Government, whoever may happen to form it 
 — seeing from the present state of affairs that there is no security, but almost 
 a certainty that every February there will be a Ministerial crisis, and per- 
 haps its consequences — and believing that this state of affairs is prejudicial 
 to the repute of Parliament and injurious to the best interests of the 
 country, and believing too that it is of the utmost importance at this 
 moment that the authority of the Government should be supported by the 
 authority of Parliament, and not being conscious that during the time we 
 have exercised power we have done anything to forfeit the good opinion of 
 our fellow countrymen — v/e have thought it our duty to advise her 
 Majesty to exercise her prerogative and to dissolve this Parliament." 
 
 Lord Palmerston in a temperate speech argued that the duty of the 
 Government was neither to resign nor to appeal to the country, but to 
 withdraw their Reform Bill and bring in another. It seems a little 
 strange that the noble Lord, shrewd and practical statesman as he was, 
 should so soon have forgotten the lesson of 1852. Had he looked back to 
 that time he would have remembered that the Conservative Government 
 positively refused to be " Ministers on sufferance," that Mr. Disraeli when 
 defeated on his Budget declined to take it back and amend it after the 
 fashion of Sir Charles Wood, and that, proud though Lord Derby might 
 be of enjoying the confidence of his Sovereign, he was not quite the man to 
 hold office in defiance of the majority of the House of Commons. Lord 
 Palmerston was followed by Mr. Bright, and then came a long, rambling, 
 personal debate, in the course of which the object of the resolution of Lord 
 John Eussell was made perfectly clear to the most inexperienced reader of 
 the debates. It was designed to get rid of the Government and toilet in a 
 coalition once more. The movement having failed there was no little 
 indignation against Ministers for daring to advise her Majesty to exercise 
 her prerogative. Since, however, they had done so, the Opposition dis- 
 l»layed an amusing eagerness to get to their constituencies with all the 
 honours of their victory over the Administration thick and fresh upon 
 them. Many times in the course of the short interval between the 
 announcement of the intentions of the Government and the actual dissolu- 
 tion were its members pressed to fix the date, but it was not until the 
 15th of April that Mr. Disraeli was able to tell the House that business 
 was sufficiently advanced to allow the dissolution to take place in Passion 
 ^Yeek. The writs were to bo issued on Good Friday — the 22nd of April. 
 
300 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF TfiLE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 A day or two afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a state- 
 ment to the House detailing the efforts which had been made to preserve 
 the peace of Europe, threatened as it was by the misunderstandings which 
 had arisen between France and Austria. At first it had been intended 
 that there should have been a mediation, which had every appearance of 
 being successful, but the mediation had now become a Congress. France 
 and Austria had accepted the principle of a general disarmament. Sardinia 
 alone held aloof, but it was hoped that her objections might not be in- 
 surmountable. It would indeed be a gross outrage if it should be necessary 
 to have recourse to the sword for the settlement of these questions, and 
 the Government hoped and believed that such a step would not be called 
 for when the pressure of public opinion was brought to bear. " A war in 
 Italy is not a war in a corner. An Italian war may by possibility be a 
 European war. The waters of the Adriatic cannot be disturbed without 
 agitating the waters of the Ehine. The port of Trieste is not a mere 
 Italian port ; it is a port which belongs to the German Confederation, and 
 an attack on Trieste is not an attack on Austria alone but also on Germany. 
 If war springs up beyond the precincts of Italy, England has interests not 
 merely from those principles — those enlightened principles — of civilisation 
 which make her look with an adverse eye to aught which would disturb 
 the peace of the world, but England may be interested from material 
 considerations of the most urgent and momentous character." 
 
 Parliament was dissolved by Commission on the day following that upon 
 which this expression of the ardent desire of the Government to maintain 
 the peace of Europe was given to the world. The Speech from the Throne 
 was very brief, the only point about it worthy of remark being the 
 reference to the fact that a dissolution had really become a matter of 
 necessity, seeing that within two years two successive Administrations 
 had failed to retain the confidence of the House of Commons — a sentence 
 which might serve as the text for many a long political sermon. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer went down into Buckinghamshire. 
 His address, dated from Downing Street, appeared before the end of the 
 month, and referred in somewhat stringent terms to the " disingenuous 
 manoeuvre " by which the Government had been compelled to appeal to 
 the country. It dwelt also upon the factious character of the Opposition, 
 upon the way in which the " discordant elements " of the Liberal party 
 can combine to defeat any and every Administration which may happen 
 to be in ofiice, and upon the peculiar inopportuneness of the crisis in view 
 of the critical state of affairs in Europe. There was naturally a good deal 
 of crimination and recrimination on this subject, and Lord Palmerston 
 took advantage of the opportunity afforded to him by assuring the electors 
 of Tiverton that the Government had eminently failed in its duty to Europe. 
 " A Government to be listened to with deference abroad " — said the noble 
 I^ord^ referring to the mcdiatiou which the A^^niinistratipn >vere thm 
 
l^HE JPOLICY OF ENGLAND. Soi 
 
 endeavouring to carry out between France and Austria — " ought to have 
 strength and stability at home. But the present Administration exhibits 
 itself to Europe at the outset of an approaching Congress as having an 
 irreconcileable difference with Parliament, of whose assistance it will have 
 deprived itself during what may be a critical period of the negotiation." 
 
 It may be doubted whether posterity will endorse Lord Palmerston's 
 opinion. There can be little doubt now that the factious motion which 
 ]3ut the English Government in a minority at a critical moment was the 
 proximate cause of the Austro-Italian war, and there can be as little doubt 
 that popular feeling on the subject of that war prevented the Government 
 from obtaining the majority at the elections which there was every reason 
 to anticipate from the tone of public feeling with regard to the Reform 
 Bill. Rightly or wrongly, the Administration was suspected of sympathy 
 with Austria, and against Austria the enlightened British public had 
 entertained an extremely bitter prejudice since the days when General 
 Haynau was mobbed by Barclay and Perkins's draymen. Popular 
 sympathy was all in favour of Italian independence and against the 
 maintenance of the balance of power as then existing. The results we 
 know — the breach between France and Austria; the refusal of the 
 proffered mediation of Great Britain ; and the eventual defeat of the Tory 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's speech to the electors of Aylesbury turned almost entirely 
 on foreign policy. He condemned with some bitterness the " enormous 
 lies " about secret treaties and secret understandings between Denmark, 
 England, Russia, and France — lies which were so open, monstrous and 
 palpable, that it is hard to imagine anyone deceived by them, and which 
 can only be accounted for on the supposition that they were intended to 
 damage the Government on the eve of the general election. The policy of 
 England in the crisis, he declared to be a policy of peace. " The inter- 
 ference of England in other countries in order to change their domestic 
 institutions or to influence their internal policy, whatever may be the 
 motive, is invariably, I think, a mistake. But although the interest of 
 England is eminently that of peace, it is of the utmost importance that 
 England should be prepared for war." And that England was so prepared 
 he showed by reference to her great armies, to her powerful fleets, and to 
 the enormous pecuniary resources at her command. Even in 1859 Lord 
 Beaconsfield reckoned upon the support of India as of a part of the Empire. 
 " The policy of England is peace, but she must be prepared for war. . . . 
 You have in India 100,000 seasoned and valiant troops such as the world 
 j)robably never saw before. ... A great portion of that force ought to quit 
 India for England. They are at our command.'* . . . Lastly, on tho 
 question of Reform he said : — " So far as dealing with this question in 
 future is concerned, I shall support no proposal for the improvement of the 
 representation of the people in Parliament which does not involve those 
 two great principles to which I have adverted — a large extension of tho 
 
302 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACOKSFIELD. 
 
 franchise, and a due rcprescntcation of those communities which are not at 
 this moment represented, "but which are perfectly entitled to representation 
 by their intelligence, by their numbers, and by their special interests 
 (A Voice : " What about the working-classes ? what about the working- 
 classes ? ") Why, if you were the representative of the working-classes, I 
 should certainly proceed with due deliberation in what I did. But as the 
 working-classes generally are persons respectable for their industry, for 
 their intelligence, and for their moral and social virtues, I should disapprove 
 of any reconstruction of the electoral body which did not offer a fair 
 proportion of avenues for their admission/' 
 
 The fate of the Government was, however, sealed. The election returns 
 showed a net gain of 29 seats to the Conservative party, which it was 
 boped would suffice to carry on the Government, though as Ministers had 
 been in a minority of 39 on the Bill for the representation of the people 
 it was obvious that their chances were but small. There was not much 
 delay over the settlement of their fate. Parliament reassembled on the 
 31st of May, and on the 7th of June, preliminaries having been settled, 
 the Queen opened Parliament in person with a brief Speech from the 
 Throne. Keference was then made to the failure of the efforts of the 
 Government to preserve the peace of Europe, and to the consequent Franco- 
 Austrian war ; to the determination of England to maintain an attitude of 
 strict neutrality ; to the necessity for strengthening the Navy, and to the 
 restoration of diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, 
 which relations had been suspended during the life of the late King 
 Ferdinand. The question of manning the Navy was suggested as one 
 calling for early consideration, and on the Reform Bill her Majesty was 
 made to say that she " should with pleasure give her sanction to any well 
 considered measure for the amendment of the laws which regulate the 
 represeni ation of her people in Parliament ; and should you be," the Speech 
 went on, " of opinion that the necessity of giving immediate attention to 
 measures of urgency relating to the defence and financial condition of 
 the country, will not leave you sufficient time for legislating with due 
 deliberation on a subject at once so difficult and so extensive, I trust that 
 at the commencement of the next Session your earnest attention will be 
 given to a question of which an early and a satisfactory settlement would 
 be greatly to the public advantage." 
 
 An Amendment to the Address, expressive of a want of confidence in 
 the Ministry, was moved by the Marquis of Hartington in a short speech, 
 in the course of which he frankly admitted that the move was distinctly a 
 party one, and that it was not likely to bring about any accession of 
 comfort to the Liberals in the event of its success. One point, however 
 is somewhat singular. Lord Hartington must have known that no Liberal 
 Government could hope to retain its hold upon office for a month if Lord 
 Palmerston did not share in it, and he must have known also what 
 were the leading characteristics of Lord Palmerston's foreign policy. Yet 
 
FACTIOUSNESS OF THE OPPOSITION. 303 
 
 he absolutely advocated the resolution he had in hand, on the ground that 
 it would be equivalent to a declaration of a policy of peace and non-inter- 
 vention in foreign affairs. Mr. Disraeli spoke on the first night of the 
 debate. He found no fault with his opponents for the step they had taken 
 and even commended their prompt action. After defending the course of 
 the Government in dissolving rather than in resigning after the vote on 
 Lord John Eusseli's Amendment, he congratulated Lord Hartington on his 
 promising speech, and on his having refrained from introducing "that trash 
 of which we have heard so much with regard to the conduct of the elections, 
 the corruption of the constituencies, and the compacts with foreign powers 
 and hierarchies," — a subject which afforded him an opportunity of intro- 
 ducing a reply to certain statements made at Carlisle by Sir James Graham. 
 The right honourable baronet with characteristic recklessness had ventured 
 upon a number of charges against the Government, which it is hard to 
 believe he did not know to be false from beginning to end, and those 
 charges had been industriously circulated all over the country. "The 
 public have really believed that a corrupt administration has been obtain- 
 ing returns from the hustings by the vilest means, and for the most in- 
 famous purposes. They have believed that the allowance to inkeepers for 
 the billetting of soldiers was absolutely increased at the arbitrary wish of a 
 War Minister in order to bribe the publicans to vote for Government can- 
 didates, though every honourable gentleman in this House must be per- 
 fectly aware that their predecessors had passed the Act by which that 
 increase of allowance was constitutionally made, and that the Act had 
 been for some time in operation. The public did believe that barracks 
 were built and contracts given when contracts were never entered into, and 
 barracks were never built. More than that, the public really did believe 
 that my Lord Derby had subscribed £20,000 to a fund to manage the 
 elections. The Earl of Derby has treated that assertion quoted by the 
 right honourable gentleman with silent contempt. All the other assertions 
 made at the time have been answered in detail, and therefore I suppose he 
 thought the time might come, when the subject being fairly before the 
 House, he could leave it to me to say for him what I do say now, that the 
 statement was an impudent fabrication. But what are all these contracts 
 with innkeepers to the compact with the Pope ? Next to nothing. Sir, it is 
 not an agreeable duty to hare to listen to statements made until Parliament 
 meets by Privy Councillors, by men who have filled the highest ofiices of the 
 State, and who for aught I know may be about to fill high oflices of State, 
 but upon which the moment Parliament meets every one is silent. Neither 
 the mover nor the seconder of this great indictment of want of confidence con- 
 descends even to mention them. And yet the charge is a weighty one." After 
 categorically contradicting the stories told by the Opposition, and apparently 
 accepted to a great extent by the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 went on to notice in detail the arguments by which the amendment to the 
 Address was supported. First it was said that the Government had been 
 
304 The public life of The earl of beaconsfieLd. 
 
 unable to carry its measures in the late Parliament. That, however, was tho 
 reason for the dissolution. Secondly, it was said that^ the dissolution was 
 a reckless step, but that was really the issue the House had met to try. 
 Then, again, the House had heard that the foreign policy of the Govern- 
 ment was distasteful to the country, because in spite of all efforts on their 
 part war had broken out on the Continent of Europe. On that point, 
 however, the House could hardly fonn a fair judgment, seeing that the 
 papers were not yet laid upon the table. And if the Government had 
 failed to preserve the peace in this instance, were they more culpable than 
 the union of "all the talents " — Lords Aberdeen, Clarendon, and Palmers- 
 ton — who had managed to embroil this country in the Crimean war. And 
 now how were the Opposition treating the Government. When the 
 Liberal Cabinet was in difficulties, when the Vienna Conference collapsed 
 through the abject incompetency of Lord John Kussell, the Opposition 
 " numerous and fairly ambitious," aided the Government in its difficulties, 
 fairly supported it, brought forward no embarrassing resolutions, and when 
 the Coalition Government collapsed, it fell by the hand of one of its own 
 members. And what was being done now? Were not its members 
 snatching a victory out of a state of things which they had themselves 
 created ? The attack upon the Government because of its attempt to deas 
 with the question of reform was wholly indefensible. " Admitting for 
 the sake of argument that our propositions perfectly deserved the condemna- 
 tion they received, have no propositions to amend the representation of the 
 people been coupled, and connected with propositions which were equally 
 unsuccessful, and equally condemned? Why don't we hear of them? 
 Why are we always told of an unhappy proposal to disfranchise freeholders, 
 and to give votes by papers ? The noble Lord the member for the City 
 has been in office almost all his life, he has had a monopoly of the question 
 of Reform ; he has been handling it, and fumbling it as long as I can 
 remember. What then has he done? He has twice brought forward 
 Eeform Bills, and twice unsuccessfully. He proposed at one time — he the 
 great patron of the working classes — to disfranchise all the freemen of 
 England. Why should not that proposition be urged as a reason for no 
 longer entrusting him with the preparation of a Pieform Bill ? In one bill 
 he introduced a proposition hostile to the very principle on which repre- 
 sentative government is founded — representation by minorities. If there 
 was ever a ^proposition received with universal condemnation that was it. 
 Why should not that disqualify the noble Lord from again meddling with 
 the sacred question of Reform ? . . . We who at least have prepared and 
 have introduced a measure which would have more than doubled the con- 
 stituency of the kingdom, are never to be allowed to give our opinions on 
 a measure of this kind, whilst the noble lord (Palmerston) who scarcely 
 conceals his opinion that all Parliamentary reform is a bad thing, and who 
 tells you that if you are to have it you shall have as little as possible, is 
 the popular candidate for the command of what we were told yesterday 
 are now * the united sections of the Liberal party,' " 
 
WHO COULD REPLACE THE MINISTRY ? 305 
 
 In concluding his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for the 
 " constitutional confidence " of the House. He urged that the objections 
 to the policy of the Government were " flimsy, feeble, and illusive," and 
 that the Government itself was at the least as strong in its joersonnel as any 
 which could possibly be invented to replace it. There was certainly 
 neither a Mr. Vernon Smith nor a Marquis of Clanricarde in it, and the 
 possibilities of the future did not promise very efficient substitutes. The 
 Opposition had hinted at recruiting its strength from below the gangway : 
 three members only appeared of sufficient importance to be taken into any 
 future administration. They were Lord John Russell, and " we know how 
 the noble Lord conducts negotiations ; " Mr. Sidney Herbert, and " we 
 know how the right honourable gentleman conducts war ; " and Mr. Bright, 
 and " there was a time when I thought the burly eloquence of the honour- 
 able member for Birmingham might have been heard oa the Treasury 
 Bench; but it would seem he has yielded up those claims which once were 
 vindicated with that uncompromising eloquence that all admire and some 
 fear." 
 
 An effort was made to bring the question to a decision on the first 
 night, and had such a thing been possible there was little doubt of the 
 result. A very fair proportion of the more Conservative section of the 
 Liberal party were by no means anxious to see the Government turned 
 out of office, especially since there was a good deal of doubt as to who 
 their successors would be, and a certainty that the Opposition would be 
 more than commonly strong. Parties were, in fact, so evenly balanced, 
 that a really strong Government could not be constructed from either side 
 of the House. The debate was, however, adjourned over the Wednesday, 
 and the scattered forces of the Liberal party were rallied during the period 
 of delay. The division was not taken until very late on Friday night, and 
 then the Government, after a brilliant speech from Sir Hugh Cairns, found 
 itself in a minority of thirteen in a House of, including tellers, 637. After 
 such a debate and such a division, of course there was no more to be said. 
 The House adjourned for a week, and on Friday, the 17th of June, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Her Majesty had been pleased 
 to accept the resignations of Lord Derby and his colleagues, and that Lord 
 Palmerston had received her commands to form a new Administration. 
 
806 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ONCE MORE IN OPPOSITION. 
 
 The new Administration — The Willis's Rooms Intrigue — Lord Granville sent for 
 — The Queen's reasons — Lord Granville fails to form a Ministry — His letter 
 to the " Times " — Lord Palmerston returns to office — Without a Policy and 
 without a Party — ^The Banquet at Merchant Taylors' Hall — Mr. Disraeli's 
 Speech — State of the Exchequer — A Deficit of Five Millions — More Addi- 
 tions to the Income Tax — Mr. Disraeli's criticism — Foreign Policy — Lord 
 John Russell's Statement — Why should England join the Conference? — 
 Prorogation — Speech from the Throne — A barren Session — The Session of 
 I860 — The Queen's Speech — Debate on the Address — French Commercial 
 Treaty — The Italian Question — A February Budget — More Income Tax- 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Pitt — No more concessions to precedent — Objections 
 to Mr. Cobden as Negotiator of the Treaty — Mr. Disraeli's criticism of the 
 Budget — and of the Treaty — The Annexation of Savoy and Nice — The New 
 Reform Bill — Unpopular from the first, and speedily withdrawn — Financial 
 Adjustment — Paper Duty — Church Rates — Prorogation — Mr. Disraeli at 
 Amersham — Session of 1861 — Debate on the Address — Mr. White's Amend- 
 ment — Mr. Disraeli on Lord Russell's " candid foreign policy " — Public 
 business — The Budget — Mr. Disraeli's criticism — Prorogation — Ministers 
 and the Confedei'ate States — Death of the Prince Consort — Parliament opened 
 by Commission — The Legislative Programme — The Budget — No remission 
 of Taxation — Mr. Disraeli's indictment of Liberal Finance — A " Penurious 
 Prodigal " — Resolutions on Retrenchment — Not a vote of want of confidence 
 — Mr. Cobden on Liberal Economy — The Position of the Government — Foreign 
 Affairs — The Colonies — Close of the Session. 
 
 The new Adminiatration was not formed without a good deal of nego- 
 tiation — to which captious critics might perhaps be disposed to apply tho 
 less flattering title of intriguing. Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell 
 made up their differences and agreed upon a compact of mutual support. 
 If they could but succeed in getting the Government of Lord Derby out 
 of office, one or other of them must, they believed, be called upon to form 
 the new Administration. It was accordingly decided that whichever of 
 the twain should receive the Royal commands, the other should give him a 
 loyal and cordial support, and so little discreditable was this arrangement 
 considered that it was told with the greatest candour by Lord Palmerston. 
 A meeting was afterwards held at Willis's rooms, to which Mr. Disraeli 
 made sarcastic allusion in his speech on the Amendment to the Address, 
 and there it was decided that the Opposition should receive the support of 
 t'le Peelites. Mr. Sidney Herbert and his friends accordingly assisted 
 Lord Hartiugton in the debate and shared the spoils of office. 
 
 Then came perhaps the least creditable performance of English political 
 
LORD GRANVILLE SENT FOR. 307 
 
 life in the present generation. To the surprise of everybody, on the 
 defeat of Lord Derby's cabinet her Majesty sent, not for either of the two 
 leaders of Liberalism who had made so sure of ofiSce, but for Lord Gran- 
 ville. The explanation was that the Queen " felt that to make so marked 
 a distinction as is implied in the choice of one or other as Prime Minister 
 of two statesmen so full of years and honours as Lord Palmerston and 
 Lord John Eussell, would be a very invidious and unwelcome task." It 
 may possibly be surmised that some other motives were at work as well 
 as the sense of invidiousness to which the memorandum refers — some 
 sense of Lord John Eussell's unhappy knack of " upsetting the coach," 
 some memory of Lord Palmerston's unfortunate impracticability in the 
 matter of consulting the Sovereign on questions of foreign policy, may 
 have had at least as much to do with the rather singular step of sending 
 for an unknown and untried man like Lord G-ranville. Of course Lord 
 Granville set about attempting to form an Administration, and equally of 
 course he failed. Lord Palmerston cheerfully consented to serve under 
 him — which the admirers of the noble Lord attributed to his utter indiffer- 
 ence as to who might be the nominal chief of the Cabinet, seeing that if 
 he were in it he was certain to be the guiding and controlling spirit. Lord 
 John Eussell, however, flatly refused to take service under Lord Granville, 
 and with his refusal the whole scheme fell to the ground. Upon this the 
 noble Lord rushed into print and through the columns of the Times com- 
 municated to the world the history of his negotiations and of their failure. 
 The most illiterate of newspaper readers was thus informed of what " her 
 Majesty was pleased to observe;" "her Majesty felt;" "her Majesty 
 intended;" of how "her Majesty cast her eyes;" and how "furnished 
 with this commission Lord Granville communicated to Lord Palmerston 
 the Queen's wishes" — all in the most approved style of Jenkins. 
 
 Lord Palmerston accordingly waited upon her Majesty and received her 
 commands, in obedience to which he once more formed a Ministry which 
 was of course a Coalition, but a Coalition with a more decidedly Liberal 
 leaven in it than his former Government ; Lord John Eussell went to the 
 Foreign Office ; Sir G. C. Lewis, not having been remarkably successful as 
 a financier, went to the Home Office ; Mr. Sdiney Herbert became Secre- 
 tary for War ; Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer ; while Mr. 
 Milner Gibson took the Board of Trade. This last appointment was 
 offered to Mr. Cobden, but he refused it. Ministers went at ouce to their 
 constituents: the re-elections were speedily accomplished and on the 
 evening of the 30th of June, Lord Palmerston was able to make his state- 
 ment to the House. It was very short, and mentioned only three things : 
 — first, that the new Cabinet was exceptionally strong and able ; second, 
 that in foreign policy it intended to follow strictly in the line marked out 
 by its predecessors, and thirdly, that the Government had no intention of 
 doing anything with the question of Eeform for that Session. Thanks to 
 the dilatory policy of the Liberals and to the success of Jthe Coalition by 
 
 X 2 
 
308 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 which Lord Derby had been driven from oflSce, there was no chance of any 
 real work being accomplished by the Government in the year 1859. As 
 a matter of fact Lord Palmerston's Government had literally no policy 
 whatever. It was nominally pledged to Keform, but there was a notorious 
 indisposition on the part of a large section of the Administration to ex- 
 tend the franchise to any appreciable extent. On questions of foreign 
 policy it could only follow the lead of Lord Malmesbury, and whether 
 Lord Palmerston's way of dealing with foreign powers was more satis- 
 factory than that of his predecessors, is a question which will probably 
 obtain varying answers according to the varying predilections of the 
 answerers. The only real business of the Session was of course the 
 Budget, which, however, was not brought forward until the 18th of July. 
 But even before that date the incoherent condition of the majority was 
 exhibited on more than one occasion by the criticisms of Mr. Bright and 
 the more advanced Liberals on the action of the Government. Their 
 sneers at Liberal differences raised the question whether the leader of the 
 Opposition intended to avail himself of the services of the advanced 
 section of the Liberals in order to turn out the Government. As a matter 
 of course the newspapers opposed to the late Government assumed that ho 
 would do so, and condemned him by anticipation, although he had pro- 
 mised a fair measure of support to the Government and although when in 
 Opposition he had hitherto uniformly refrained from factious courses. 
 
 An opportune banquet, given in Merchant Taylors' Hall on the 16th 
 of July, afforded Mr. Disraeli an opportunity of formulating his position 
 and policy. After referring to the theory which he had always maintained, 
 of the necessity for party government under a Parliamentary system, and 
 after pointing out that the operation by which the Government had just 
 been transferred from Tory hands to Liberal was distinctly a party move, 
 he repeated the view which underlies the whole of his political writings, 
 — that the Whig party hold to the administration of public affairs by the 
 " great families," whilst their opponents have as uniformly gone upon the 
 theory that the best security for public liberty and good government was 
 to be found in the maintenance of tke institutions of the country, in up- 
 holding the prerogative of the Crown, in supporting the privileges of 
 Parliament, whether hereditary or elective, in maintaining the alliance of 
 Church and State, and in sustaining the great fabric of local government 
 throughout the country by independent corporations and an independent 
 body of magistrates. Such was the Tory party, and thirty years ago that 
 party had been " caught napping by the Whigs." Since 1832, in spite of 
 the great Whig measure of that year, the Tory leaders had been four 
 times recalled to office, and each time they had retired, certainly after a 
 somewhat brief tenure of power, but with a deeper root in the country 
 and an increased area of public sympathy in their favour. There had, of 
 course, been dissensions in the ranks from time to time, and individual 
 secessions, but in the twenty-eight years which had elapsed since the 
 
HIS RELATIONS WITH HIS PARTY. ^09 
 
 Keform Bill, the party had been reorganised, reconstructed, and brought 
 into harmony with the times. " It is now a great confederation, prepared 
 to assist progress and to resist revolution. We have arrived at this com- 
 manding position at the very moment when it has devolved upon us to 
 abandon power ; bat there is no inconsistency in the situation if we examine 
 the past. We have seceded from office because of the powerful machinery 
 which was devised in 1832 to prevent us from gaining office, but we did 
 so unquestionably with public respect. We relinquished office with the 
 confidence and approbation of the country. That is capable of satisfactory 
 demonstration, and this is the proof — that those who ejected us from 
 power have laid down no good ground why that expulsion should have 
 taken place." Mr. Disraeli went on to point out that the great feature of 
 the indictment against the late administration was that they had not a 
 majority in the House of Commons ; that the remedy lay with the people 
 of the country to whom the late Government had appealed, and that the 
 event had shown that the appeal was justified, since there was a large 
 accession of strength to the Tory party. 
 
 With regard to the future, it was difficult in the extreme to venture on 
 a forecast ; but whether there were to be peace or war, it was equally im- 
 portant that in this country the existence of a great constitutional party 
 should be encouraged by all possible means. " We must remember that 
 when we have to deal with the constitution of an old European country, 
 we are not like men who fashion commonwealths in a wilderness. We 
 have to consider prescriptive rights, habitual influences, and all that com- 
 phcation of opinion, sentiment, and prejudice, which exists and can exist 
 only in a community whose institutions are consecrated by custom. It is 
 this reverence for tradition which makes this ancient and free country in 
 which we live shrink from empirical and unnecessary change, and which 
 makes our statesmen hesitate to alter, even to improve. ... I can truly 
 say that from the earliest moment when I gave my attention to public 
 affairs, I have ever had it as one of my main objects to restore the power 
 and repute of the great party to which we are proud to belong, and which 
 I beUeve to be intimately bound up with the welfare and renown of this 
 country. My connection with that party has existed in days of trial and 
 comparative adversity, but I have never ceased to have faith in its destinies, 
 because I believed it was founded on principles to which the great body 
 of the nation responded. In attempting, however humbly, to regulate its 
 fortunes, I have always striven to distinguish that which was eternal from 
 that which was but accidental in its opinions. I have always striven to 
 assist in building it upon a broad and national basis, because I believed 
 it to be a party peculiarly and essentially national— a party which the 
 adhered to institutions of the country as embodying the national neces- 
 sities and forming the best security for the liberty, the power, and thQ 
 prosperity of England." 
 
310 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Except in personal abuse — of which Lord Beaconsfield has always found 
 himself the target — ^this spirited defence of his policy elicited no reply from 
 the other side. The Times published a leader designed to show that after 
 all there was not much difference between the principles professed by Lord 
 Palmerston and the principles professed by Lord Derby, that the former 
 enjoyed a larger share of public confidence than the latter, and that on the 
 whole it was best to support him. And there can be no doubt that as far 
 as it went this view of the situation was accurate enough. There was 
 certainly very little that could be fairly described as " principle " in the 
 combination by which Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had been turned out 
 of office. 
 
 The country was speedily to find out that the pleasure of turning out 
 the Government was much like other pleasures, in that it had to be paid 
 for. Lord Beaconsfield may have been the bad financier it pleases his 
 Liberal critics to represent him, but nothing can get rid of the fact that in 
 spite of the disturbed condition of Europe, he would have contrived to 
 make the Zd. Income Tax answer the purpose of the Government without 
 any additional taxation for the year 1859-1860. The surplus on the year 
 was not far short of a million, and the balances in the Exchequer were 
 large enough to enable the Government to pay off the £2,000,000 of 
 Exchequer bonds, which fell due in the month of May. The income for 
 the year rose to nearly sixty-five millions and a half, a portion of which 
 was, however, due to the Id. Income Tax remaining from the previous 
 year. Even after deducting this amount, however, Mr. Gladstone, when 
 bringing forward his Budget on the 18th of July, was able to estimate the 
 ordinary revenue at £64,340,000. His additions amounted to nearly five 
 millions, thus raising the estimated receipts to about sixty-nine and a 
 half millions. That sum was in the end exceeded by more than a million 
 and a half, so that the ordinary revenue would have been £65,969,000. 
 The proper expenditure of the year was something less than £63,000,000, and 
 had this rate been maintained there would have been a large surplus. The 
 " Long Annuities " fell in at the close of the financial year, and what with 
 the amount thus obtained and the surplus on the general revenue, it would 
 have been possible for the Liberal Government to have kept the Tory 
 promise, and to have wholly remitted the Income Tax in 1860. 
 
 The foreign policy of the Government rendered heavy additions to our 
 armaments necessary. Nearly four and a half millions were put on the 
 navy estimates and £600,000 on the miscellaneous estimates, so that the 
 first duty of Mr. Gladstone was to provide for an estimated deficit of 
 nearly five millions. To meet that deficiency, the great Liberal financier 
 had recourse to two expedients ; and, as might be anticipated, one of 
 them pressed heavily on the agricultural interest, while the other struck 
 at every class in the country. Hitherto, maltsters had been allowed to 
 take a credit of eighteen weeks in the payment of their excise duty. The 
 eighteen weeks were suddenly cut down to twelve, by which manoeuvre a 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S BUDGET OF 1859. 3U 
 
 considerable portion of the revenue properly belonging to the year 1860-61, 
 was brought into the Treasury before the end of the financial year 1859-60 
 —the sufferers by the change being, of course, the maltsters in the first 
 place, and the farmers in the second. The second expedient was of the 
 same character but more general in its operation. Four pence in the pound 
 were added to the Income Tax, and the whole amount was exacted on the 
 payment of the first half-year. 
 
 It was not to be anticipated that a Budget such as this could pass with- 
 out stringent criticism from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nor 
 did it. On the night of the introduction of the Budget, indeed, Mr. 
 Disraeli scarcely spoke, but two days later, on the order for going into 
 Committee of Ways and Means, he delivered an elaborate criticism of the 
 Government proposals and a vindication of his own policy. He expressed 
 approval of the intention of Mr. Gladstone to meet the deficiency in the 
 finances by an addition to the taxation rather than by a loan ; but, whilst 
 he admitted that that policy was the right one, he objected strenuously 
 to the manner in which it was proposed to levy the Income Tax, and 
 asked whether it was impossible that the proposal should be modified. He 
 did not think it by any means necessary to collect the extra fourpence in 
 the pound within six months, instead of spreading it over the year ; nor 
 did he think it at all desirable to adopt a policy which not merely implied 
 heavy taxation, but which actually made that taxation offensive and irri- 
 tating beyond measure to the tax-payers. Looking at the general condition 
 of the finances, he observed that at a time of peace the country was called 
 upon to raise the extraordinary revenue of seventy millions ; and he asked 
 how this great and growing expenditure was to be met. It was useless to 
 blame Governments. None, as a matter of fact, were so much interested 
 in keeping down the expenditure as were the members of the Administra- 
 tion, and declamatory speeches against them were therefore a sheer waste 
 of power. The Government of this country was on the whole economical. 
 The Civil Service Estimates it is true were large, bu.t the money was spent 
 for the advancement and development of the people, and could not be 
 diminished without injury ; whilst, although vast sums were annually 
 spent upon the army and navy, both services were said to be still in a 
 very imperfect and unsatisfactory condition. What then, he asked, was 
 the best way to lower our expenditure ? His answer was, that the ex- 
 penditure depended upon the policy of the country. The Ministry did 
 no more than keep up the expenditure demanded by the national policy, 
 for which Parliament and Parliament alone was responsible. If we did 
 not reduce our expenditure we must look to our policy, and with that 
 view, there were at this moment two points of especial interest. The 
 policy of the late Government with respect to Italy had been one of the 
 strictest and most impartial neutrality. That policy the new Administra- 
 tion had announced its intention of adopting. There was a prospect of a 
 Conference or Congress, to be attended by neutral powers, but the moment 
 
312 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 they attended that gathering they ceased to be neutral. We had, how- 
 ever, peace at the time at which he spoke, and peace was not merely a 
 great blessing ia itself, but the source of numberless others. But in view 
 of what was going on in Italy and of the vantage ground we occupieJ, he 
 asked the House to consider whether it was worth while for England to 
 entangle herself in Congresses or Conferences, and to enter into engage- 
 ments which might involve this country in proceedings injurious to our 
 resources and certain to produce only confusion and ruin. The other point 
 of policy which called for the consideration of the House was of even 
 greater importance. We had to look at the peace (of Villafranca, then 
 just signed and much discussed) as it related to England and English 
 interests. He considered it was entitled to our respect, but it was hardly 
 a matter for England to meddle with. English statesmen had in some 
 instances disapproved the peace, because the Emperor of the French had 
 not realized the expectations with which he went into the war. But in 
 that there was nothing very singular. No war could be mentioned in 
 which the entire programme of either belligerent had been realized. For 
 himself he gave credit to the princes who had signed the peace, and to the 
 declarations which they had made. He hoped and believed that the peace 
 would be permanent ; he thought it was the duty of England to try to 
 make it so, and under the influence of that desire not to meddle with Con- 
 gresses or to fancy that anything was to be done by entertaining the 
 notion that our ally was not sincere in his professions of peaceable in- 
 tentions. Oar proper course was clear enough : " Not to go to Congresses 
 and Conferences in fine dresses and ribands, to enjoy the petty vanity of 
 settling the fate of petty princes. No ; but to go to your great ally the 
 Emperor of the French ; give him credit for the motives which have animated 
 and influenced him, and say — ' If you are in favour of peace — if at a great 
 hazard to the mere reputation of the hour you have terminated this war, 
 join with us in securing that peace by the only mode in which peace can be 
 secured. Eevive and restore, and even increase the good feeling which 
 once existed — which I hope still exists — between the great oountries of 
 England and France — prove by the diminution of your armaments that 
 you are sincerely anxious, as we believe you are, for the peace of Europe 
 and of the world, and we will join you in a spirit of reciprocal confidence 
 — ^and animating alike the industry of both nations, thus achieve con- 
 quests far more valuable than Lombardy, far more valuable than those 
 wild dreams of a regeneration ever promised but never accomplished.' . . . 
 There is a good opportunity for the noble Lord at the head of the Govern- 
 ment to prove the influence of the English Government, and to act a 
 great part in Europe. Instead of going to Congresses and Conferences for 
 petty objects in which England has no interest, and which may involve 
 England in great disaster, let the noble Lord prove to the world that 
 England is a power that possesses and exercises a great influence, espe- 
 cially with France, by accomplishing that which is much more important 
 
fHE TREATY OF VlLtAFRANCA. 813 
 
 than formal articles of peace ; by bringing about that whicb will put an 
 end for ever to the doubts on the sincerity of princes ; which will speak to 
 every cabin and cottage in both countries, as well as to the Houses of 
 Parliament and places of high resort ; which will prove to the natural 
 conviction of the great countries of Europe that peace is the policy of their 
 rulers. Let us terminate this disastrous system of rival expenditure, and 
 mutually agree, with no hypocrisy but in a manner and under circum- 
 stances which can admit of no doubt — by a reduction of armaments — that 
 peace is really our policy. Then, Sir, the right honourable gentleman the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer may look forward with no apprehension to his 
 next Budget, and England may then actually witness the termination of 
 the Income Tax." 
 
 This speech led to Mr. Bright proclaiming, with no small amount of 
 enthusiasm, his delight at finding the leader of the Opposition a convert to 
 his peculiar views on the question of peace — a little bit of absurdity of 
 which Mr. Disraeli made rather bitter fun. The opportunity was afforded 
 by Lord John Kussell on the evening of the 28th of July, when he brought 
 up certain papers and entered upon a long statement as to the foreign 
 policy of the Government. The statement was not very clear, and in 
 asking for further explanations, the leader of the Opposition elicited from 
 Lord Palmerston an admission that the terms of the peace of Villafranca, 
 of whose severity the Emperor of Austria had complained, were trans- 
 mitted to him through the agency of the English Government. As for the 
 Congress, he expressed a strong opinion that the presence of an English 
 representative there was wholly unnecessary. In his opinion it was never 
 the interest of this country to attend any Congress unless the balance of 
 power in Europe was affected. It was said, however, that although the 
 balance was not concerned by the cession of Lombardy to Sardinia, there 
 was another consideration which Lord John Eussell called the " future of 
 Italy ; " and he had furthermore said that after the Crimean War 
 England was committed to a certain policy with regard to Italy. What 
 was recommended before war and for the prevention of war, was a very 
 different thing from what might become advisable after a war had broken 
 out, and had been brought to a close. If Lord John Russell were to 
 attend the Conference to advance the interests of Italy in consequence of 
 the Treaty of Villafranca, would he not be bound by all the conditions 
 relating to Italy ? How then would he deal with the Duchies ? If the 
 Confederation principle, as he has said, is undesirable, if there is to be no 
 interference with the Duchies, and if the only question that the Conference 
 will be called upon to deal with is that of the Papal Government, is it 
 advisable, asked Mr. Disraeli, that England should be drawn into this 
 Conference? "If under all circumstances we should be chary about the 
 engagements which Conferences and Congresses always lead to, surely 
 when a war has been waged of which we entirely disapproved, when it has 
 been closed on a sudden, when the responsibility of all that has occurred 
 
314 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and of all that may occur, is one of which this Government is completely 
 clear, it would be the height of rashness and precipitation by any act or any 
 advice of ours to involve ourselves in the responsibility of a settlement 
 occasioned by a war for which we are not answerable. I trust therefore 
 that the feeling of the House will be so direct and distinct upon this 
 subject that her Majesty's Ministers will not feel it their duty to recom- 
 mend her Majesty to send any representative to this projected Conference. . . 
 We had nothing to do with the war ; we had nothing to do with the 
 peace; and if difficulties arise in which we must interfere, we shall 
 interfere with much greater effect and with much greater dignity if we do 
 not do so merely to save other persons from difficulties which they created 
 and for which we are not answerable." 
 
 Once more before the Prorogation the leader of the Opposition found an 
 opportunity of defending the policy of his own Government and of 
 impressing upon the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston the extreme desirability 
 of refraining from intervention in the affairs of Italy, w^hich there seemed 
 to be considerable reason to fear was contemplated. Lord Elcho brought 
 in a motion to the effect that it was desirable that England should send no 
 representative to the Congress for the purpose of settling the details of the 
 peace. The motion was met by Mr. Kinglake with the previous question ; 
 and in the course of the debate Mr. Gladstone and Lord John Eussell made 
 ipeeches which created a general belief that the Government of the day 
 were very anxious that a Congress should assemble, that they were desirous 
 of taking part in it, and that in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer at least it was eminently desirable that an end should be put to the 
 temporal sovereignty of the Pope. Against this view Mr. Disraeli pro- 
 tested most strongly on every ground, though he refused to support Lord 
 Elcho's motion because of its inopportuneness. At the same time he 
 restated his objections to the Congress. " Let the two signatories of the 
 preliminary articles of Villafranca meet, with their Ministers, at Zurich. 
 Let us see them work out their sketch. Let us have the finished picture. 
 It is an operation which we may view with interest and instruction. And 
 if it be necessary that we should ultimately put our hand to it, depend 
 upon it, if we now exhibit a proper and dignified reserve, we shall interfere 
 with immensely more effect when the rulers of France and Austria, if they 
 fail, have confessed their inability to make a settlement, and when they, 
 appeal to us, not to extricate them from the consequence of the rash en- 
 gagements into which they have entered, but to step forward to secure the 
 peace of Europe and the general cause of civilisation." 
 
 Parliament was prorougued by Commission on the 13th of August. 
 The Speech from the Throne was of the nature of an apology. " Various 
 circumstances which occasioned interruptions in the usual course of busi- 
 ness," said the Commissioners, " prevented the completion of important 
 measures, which her Majesty pointed out to the attention of her Parliament 
 
THE SESSION OP 1860. 315 
 
 in the beginning of the present year ; but her Majesty trusts that those 
 matters will be taken into your earnest consideration at an early period of 
 next Session." An apology was certainly needed. The effect of the Whig- 
 Eadical inti'igae had been effectually to prevent all business in Parhament. 
 The great scheme of Law Reform promised in February had wholly fallen 
 through, the opportunity for settling the Representation of the People had 
 been lost, and the only Act of the Session was one providing a naval and 
 military reserve force. It is true that there had been a change of Ministers, 
 but as the change was a purely personal matter, and one which in no way 
 affected the policy of the nation, it may possibly be questioned by the im- 
 partial historian of the future whether the country was not called upon to 
 pay, in the sacrifice of a Session, somewhat too high a price, even for the 
 privilege of having the ever popular Lord Palmerston at the head of 
 affairs. 
 
 Parliament reassembled on the 24th of January, 1860. The Queen's 
 Speech was of extraordinary length, and, in accordance with custom when 
 Lord Palmerston was in power, was in a large measure occupied with foreign 
 politics. Italian affairs came first, and it was announced that the Govern- 
 ment had accepted the invitation to the Conference at Zurich : but as that 
 gathering had been postponed sine die, it was not anticipated that much 
 would come of it. A commercial treaty with France was announced as in 
 course of arrangement. Mr. Cobden had, in fact, been sent to Paris to 
 negotiate it a week before, and the treaty was at that moment signed, 
 though it was not formally ratified until the 4th of February. Spain had 
 been quarrelling with Morocco, and England had striven, but unsuccess- 
 fully, to act the part of mediator. Another Chinese war had broken out, 
 into which France had also entered. The Government of the United 
 States wanted our island of San Juan, and there had been fears of a colUsion 
 between our forces and theirs. The Viceroy of India had made a progress 
 through the districts which had been the scene of rebellion, and was 
 able to report that " the last embers of disturbance had been extinguished." 
 As to the Estimates, the usual allusion to economy was omitted — the 
 House being in fact warned to expect rather heavy expenditure, as it was 
 advisable to " place the national defences on a satisfactory footing." The 
 extension of the volunteer service was mentioned. A new Reform Bill 
 was promised, as were also measures for the improvement of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Law and the laws relating to the Transfer of Land ; for the Con- 
 solidation of the Statutes and the fusion of Law and Equity. Such was 
 the programme which the Government of Lord Palmerston laid before the 
 country at the opening of the Session of 1860 : it will be seen how far its 
 fair promise was fulfilled. 
 
 The Address was moved by Mr. St. Aubyn and seconded by Lord 
 Henley, the latter of whom expressed a somewhat remarkable amount of 
 confidence in the Castor and Pollux of the Liberal party, and drew down 
 upon himself thereby a caustic retort from the leader of the Opposition. 
 
316 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELT). 
 
 Mr. Disraeli did not indeed move an amendment, but he protested against 
 the attempt which had heen made to convert the debate on the Address 
 into one on a vote of confidence in Ministers. On the question of Reform, 
 which occupied so prominent a place in the Queen's Speech, he promised 
 the support of the Opposition to the Government, provided only the 
 measure which Lord John Russell was pledged to bring in were one calcu- 
 lated to " strengthen and confirm our Parliamentary institutions, and not 
 to change their character or impair their influence." Turning then to the 
 important question of the commercial treaty with France, Mr. Disraeli ex- 
 pressed some little surprise at the revival of this method of regulating our 
 commercial relations with other countries. Of course he approved of every 
 measure which helped to confirm and establish friendly relations with our 
 natural ally, but he professed himself unable to see the necessity, under a 
 system of free trade, for a treaty to enable this country to reduce the 
 duties on goods imported from France. If reciprocity were to be the prin- 
 ciple of the Treaty, well and good, but it was impossible to imagine Mr. 
 Cobden going to Paris to negotiate an arrangement based upon the principle 
 which he had all his life most vehemently opposed. Further — the treaty 
 was unnecessary, seing that France was already pledged to the abolition of 
 the protective system in July, 1861, and then whatever boons might be 
 obtained by the Treaty, they were no more than would be conferred had 
 we abstained from entangling ourselves by an inconvenient arrangement 
 wholly opposed to those principles of Free Trade which had been de- 
 liberately made the foundation of our commercial system. 
 
 On the Italian question Mr. Disraeli asked how far the Government 
 stood committed, and, in brief, what was our own position. Referring to 
 the debate on the last night of the previous Session, on Lord Elcho's 
 motion, he pressed upon the Government the fact that had that motion 
 been pressed to a division, there was no reason to doubt that such an ex- 
 pression of opinion in favour of non-intervention in the Italian question 
 would have been elicited as would have effectually prevented the Govern- 
 ment from consenting to enter the Congress. He asked, therefore, what 
 had happened, and whether it was true that almost immediately after the 
 prorogation Lord Palmerston had made overtures to the Frencli Govern- 
 ment, with the object of bringing about the settlement of the Italian 
 question. On this subject he complained, not without reason, that, 
 although papers were always being promised by " the two noble Lords," 
 (to quote Lord Henley's description of the Government), there never was 
 an Administration which allowed so long a time to elapse between promise 
 and performance in the matter of producing papers. On this subject he 
 was somewhat pressing, mainly because the French Government had 
 allowed certain statements to be made public which pointed very clearly 
 to the acceptance by England of an arrangement by which England and 
 France should settle the affairs of Italy to the exclusion of Austria. Now 
 the Italian question had been removed out of the sphere of Congresses and 
 
THE CESSION OF SAVOY. 317 
 
 Conferences and Protocols. They could produce only a sickly and artificial 
 state of things, and if the Italian Revolution were to be accomplished at 
 all it must be done in a vigorous way, and by the people themselves. 
 In any case the matter was one which did not concern us as a nation in 
 any way. 
 
 Lord Palmerston denied that negotiations had been opened by the 
 Government, or that any engagement whatever existed between England 
 and a foreign power on the subject of Italy. At the same time his answer 
 was worded so cautiously and so ambiguously that no surprise was felt 
 when it was afterwards found that the English Cabinet had been during 
 the autumn of 1859 and in the early days of 1860 actively engaged in 
 endeavouring to settle Italian affairs, and that Lord Palmerston had made 
 extensive and definite proposals on the subject. The papers were at last 
 presented— on the 13th of March — and it then appeared that the cession 
 of Savoy and Nice had been determined upon, and was within the know- 
 ledge of the Government almost from the time of their accession to office. 
 In the debate on the presentation of the papers, Mr. Disraeli spoke some- 
 what strongly on the negligence of Lord John Russell with regard to this 
 subject. " We know by the record before us that at the end of December 
 or early in January the greatest anxiety existed iti Europe on this subject. 
 "We know that the Swiss Government did everything tbey could to bring 
 the anxiety they felt on the subject of Savoy under the consideration of her 
 Majesty's Ministers. I do not find, however, that our Government took 
 any steps to reassure Switzerland or to influence France. . . . Not a single 
 thing was done during the six weeks preceding the 28th of January. Yet 
 we know from private letters that Count Walewski was frank and straight- 
 forward in his explanations of French pohcy to our Government, although 
 the noble Secretary of State treated the whole affair as rumour, pretence, 
 or menace." He went on to show how the Swiss Government had pro- 
 tested, and how Lord Cowley had sent representations on the subject to 
 the Government at home and how still nothing had been done. " Parlia- 
 ment meets, and we are presented with a high-sounding despatch. We 
 have had a high sounding despatch before. Remember the Russian war. 
 . . . What happened then ? We had a high-tjounding despatch recount- 
 ing the history of the last of the Medici and the War of Succession, but 
 that despatch, though written with so much literary ability, did not prevent 
 the Russian war." Summing up this part of his subject, the leader of the 
 Opposition asked for information why the Government had done nothing to 
 prevent the annexation of Savoy by France, why they had pursued a 
 policy in Italy which must lead to that change, and why, when they 
 formally communicated their plan for the settlement of Italy to foreign 
 powers they made no simultaneous communication on the subject of this 
 annexation. In concluding his speech he referred to the annexation of 
 Savoy as an illustration of the principle of natural boundaries of nations 
 which has been formally put forward on many occasions of late years by 
 
318 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 France, but he denied that the annexation afforded any reason for our 
 quarrelling with our ally, or for the blustering tone of Lord John's despatch. 
 "The Government of France have given us warning of their policy; we 
 have worked to accomplish that policy ; where then is our cause of com- 
 plaint and controversy ? But that does not alter the state of circumstances, 
 and if those terrible consequences which the noble lord has foreseen do 
 occur — if that principle of natural boundaries of empires now to be 
 countenanced by, as 1 believe, the certain annexation of Savoy and Nice 
 be realized ; if distrust and despair be spread throughout Europe : if there 
 be scenes of horror and sanguinary war ; if empires be overthrown and 
 dynasties subverted — then I say it is the Minister, it is the Government, 
 who assisted that policy who will be responsible to their country and to 
 history for those calamitous results.'* 
 
 The Budget was brought in on the 10th of February, and was framed, as 
 Mr. Gladstone's finance usually has been, on the principle of substituting 
 direct for indirect taxation. To make things worse for the taxpayer avc 
 were unfortunately involved in another war with China, which had 
 rendered it necessary to present a supplementary estimate for the year 
 1859-60 amounting to £850,000, whilst the commercial treaty with France 
 pledged us to remissions of import duties to the amount of £1,737,000, by 
 which, according to Mr. Gladstone's calculations, a loss to the revenue to 
 the amount of £1,190,000 would be incurred. Besides these changes Mr. 
 Gladstone proposed other reductions of duties to the extent of £1,039,000, 
 and the abolition of the paper and some other excise duties, causing a loss 
 of £990,000. The revenue from the paper duty was between £1,200,000 
 and £1,300,000, but as the reduction would not take effect until late in the 
 year the whole loss would not be immediately felt. Altogether the 
 reductions amounted to about £3,000,000, but by adding some minor 
 duties and increasing some of the stamp duties Mr. Gladstone brought 
 down the sacrifice to about £2,100,000 — ^just about the amount placed at 
 his disposal by the falling in of the Long Annuities. 
 
 The expenditure for the year was estimated at £70,014,000, including 
 £500,000 to defray the current expenses of the Chinese war ; while the 
 income for the year was calculated at no more than £60,700,000. To 
 make up the deficiency, Mr. Gladstone proposed an income tax of lOd. in 
 the pound, and with this re-imposition he combined a plan for collecting 
 three-fourths of the product within the financial year instead of one half 
 only as heretofore. The tea and sugar duties were retained "at the higher 
 figure at which they had stood since the war, and the hop and malt credits 
 were again shortened, while the Exchequer Bills, falling due in May, 1860 
 were to be renewed, and credit was to be taken for a sum of £250,000 in 
 part payment of an old debt due from Spain. The Budget was received 
 with an enthusiasm which it is not now quite easy to understand. Of 
 course it was very gratifying that the duty on French brandy should be 
 reduced from 15s. to 8s. 2c?., and that that upon wine should fjili from 
 
THE BUDGET OF 1860. 319 
 
 5s. lOd. to 3s. ; but a 10c?. income tax is a rather serious matter, especially 
 when it is so levied as to make it practically equivalent to one of 15cZ. It 
 was, moreover, not quite pleasant to find that whilst the French wine- 
 growers were to receive a very considerable concession, the producers of 
 our national beverage should find their already heavy burdens augmented. 
 Distasteful though the proposed changes were in many quarters, it was 
 found impossible effectually to oppose them. Hopeless though the task 
 was, however, Mr. Disraeli set vigorously to work at criticising the financial 
 policy of the Government, both with respect to the commercial treaty 
 with France, and also on the general questions arising out of the 
 Budget. On the Motion to go iuto Committee on the Customs Acts, he 
 brought forward an Amendment to the effect that the House would not go 
 into such Committee until an opportunity had been afforded of considering 
 and assenting to the Treaty. He did not enter upon any elaborate discus- 
 sion of the poHcy of the Treaty, or of the details of the Budget. His 
 objection to the financial proposals of the Government was one of principle. 
 The Government, he said in effect, has to deal with a large and avowed 
 deficiency, and instead of seeking to get rid of that deficiency it actually 
 proposes to increase it, and only to balance the accounts of the year by 
 having recourse to a large increase of an impost which the country 
 expected to see brought to an end in that year. It would have been com* 
 paratively easy for the Opposition to have embarrassed or even to have 
 defeated the Government by allying itself with some one or other of those 
 interests whose prosperity was menaced : but that was not a course which 
 could commend itself to a great party. A distinct issue had therefore been 
 raised. On the preceding Friday (17th February), Mr. Disraeli had asked 
 the Government, in view of the way in which the Budget and the French 
 treaty were being confused, in what way that treaty was to be brought be- 
 fore the House. The reply was so ambiguous that he had felt it necessary 
 to bring forward his motion. After referring to the way in which the 
 Government had persistently avoided to the utmost of its power the task 
 of submitting its handiwork to the judgment of the House, he pointed 
 out that the course adopted materially abridged tflie rights of the Commons 
 in those financial matters of which they are most jealous. Referring to 
 precedent, he pointed out how in 1786 Mr. Pitt negotiated a treaty with 
 France which was completed in September. The country was in posses- 
 sion of all details forthwith, but the House did not meet until the close of 
 January, 1787. Mr. Pitt brought up the Treaty on the 2nd of February, 
 and gave notice of his intention to move that the House should take it 
 into consideration on the 12th. Whereupon Mr. Fox immediately pro- 
 tested against so hurried a step ; and though his wish for further delay was 
 overruled, the precedent was fairly established that the House should be 
 properly consulted on all Treaties. Mr. Pitt then proceeded by large and 
 general resolutions, twenty in number, and not by minute resolutions on 
 petty Customs duties, and matters of detail such as those which Mr. 
 
320 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Gladstone was bringing forward, and having done so and embodied the 
 resolutions in an address to the Throne, he sent the whole to the House of 
 Lords for consideration. When the Lords had considered the Kesolutions 
 the two Houses went up with their joint Addresses ; Mr. Pitt left the 
 Kesolutions on the table, and brought forward his Consolidation Act ; and 
 when the House went into Committee upon that Act, the Kesolutions were 
 worked out and brought into practical effect. 
 
 " Now, Sir," the leader of the Opposition continued, " I know I shall be 
 told — there were some impatient gentlemen when I talked of precedents — 
 I may be told ' You are referring to times past. What have times past to 
 do with an age of progress like the present? Never mind precedents; 
 never mind standing orders. Go ahead with large and comprehensive 
 measures. You are not to suppose that the authors of such schemes are 
 to be subject to such rusty regulations.' But had Mr. Pitt in 1787, when 
 he introduced the Treaty of Commerce with France to the consideration of 
 the House, had he no large and comprehensive measures of reform — of 
 financial reform ? . . . Sir, we hear a great deal now of simplification of 
 the tariff, as if it was some new idea, the offspring of this enlightened age, 
 and only discovered in Manchester. We are told now that a reform of 
 200 or 300 articles in the tariff is one of the most marvellous actions of 
 our day. Why, the House may form an idea of what Mr. Pitt's labours 
 were when he dealt with a tariff that had not been revised for generations — 
 I might almost say for centuries. I must remind the House that the 
 Committee had to go in his days into the consideration of no less than 
 3000 resolutions to carry his policy into effect. Mr. Pitt, therefore, had 
 his ' large and comprehensive measure,' but he did not mix it up in any 
 way with his commercial treaty. On the contrary, having given the 
 House of Commons of his day a constitutional opportunity of considering 
 the Treaty, having moved and passed in Committee the twenty resolutions 
 that were necessary to carry it into effect, no sooner had he obtained that 
 result than he introduced his Consolidation of Customs and Excise Bill, 
 the House went into Committee, the resolutions were referred to the Com- 
 mittee, and then the Committee had the opportunity of considering the 
 financial and fiscal portions of his policy. Now let the House observe this, 
 that in the exposition with which Mr. Pitt introduced that Treaty of Com- 
 merce with France in 1787, there was not the slightest allusion to the effect 
 which that Treaty would have on the revenue of the country, though its 
 effect must have been considerable. There was not the slightest allusion 
 to his great and comprehensive measures of fiscal and financial reform, 
 although it was his purpose to submit to the Committee upon that great 
 Bill the resolutions which had been passed in the Committee on the 
 Commercial Treaty. In March, Mr. Pitt introduced his great measure of 
 financial reform. And what did he do in April ? Why, at the right time, 
 Mr. Pitt proposed his Budget. And I ask the House now, why are we to 
 be treated differently from the Commons in 1787 '? Why should we not 
 
LORD BEACONSFIELD ON THE TREATY. 321 
 
 have the Commercial Treaty, the comprehensive measure of financial 
 reform, and then the Budget, brought forward in their natural order and 
 submitted to us in that manner, which would give us frequent and ample 
 opportunities for that matured debate and that criticism which questions oi 
 such importance and of such complicated character demand." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli further objected to the appointment of Mr. Cobden as the 
 negotiator of the Treaty. Of him the Tory chief invariably spoke with 
 the greatest respect — ^indeed, during the whole of the time throughout 
 which they were in opposition he never failed to recognise and to applaud 
 his genius. And even now, whilst objecting to his appointment, he 
 declared that he " would rejoice to see him on the Treasury Bench in an 
 honourable and recognised position," but he objected to his acting as a 
 secret negotiator since it then became impossible not to trace in the Treaty 
 something of his personal idiosyncrasy. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's reply was a series of brilliant rhetorical fireworks, but 
 as it did not touch the real question at issue — the question, namely, 
 whether the Government had not acted in defiance of precedent, and was 
 not asking the House to sanction indirectly a Treaty which had neve 
 been brought directly under its consideration — it is, perhaps, hardly neces- 
 sary to examine it. The division was a foregone conclusion, Mr. Disraeli's 
 amendment being lost by 63 in a House of 525. A few days later 
 Mr. Ducane made an effort to get rid of some of the more objectionable 
 features of the Budget, by a resolution declaring the inexpediency of 
 adding to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, and 
 the unpreparedness of the House to disappoint the just expectations of the 
 country by re-imposing the Income Tax at an unnecessarily high rater 
 Mr. Ducane was, however, no more successful than his chief. Every 
 detail of the Treaty and of the Budget was canvassed after a most imper- 
 fect and unsatisfactory fashion in the course of the debate, and a general 
 opinion was expressed that the two things were really one. The question 
 of principle raised by the leader of the Opposition was hardly noticed 
 during the prolonged discussions in and out of the House, the only points 
 which the public mind at that date seeming to be capable of appreciating 
 being the genius of Mr. Cobden in submitting to the demands of France 
 and the blissful prospect of getting cheap claret. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield's contribution to the debate on Mr. Ducane's motion 
 was a reply to Mr. Gladstone's speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 referring to the financial operations of 1842-1845 and 1853, had contended 
 that his Budget was really the conclusion and fulfilment of the policy of 
 those measures. Mr. Disraeli denied the similarity, and complained that 
 the Budget then before the House aimed at too much and provided too 
 little. Mr. Gladstone estimated his deficit at £9,400,000, and he had 
 reckoned on spending only half a million on the China war. It would 
 surely be a most moderate estimate to calculate upon spending at least 
 another million in that way. Taking, however, the figures of the Chan- 
 pellor of the Exchequer, he would find for the next year a deficiency of 
 
322 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 £1,400,000 on the malt and hop credits, whilst a million more would be 
 needed for Exchequer Bonds. As regarded the Treaty, he and those who 
 acted with him had no prejudice whatever against a treaty with France. 
 He, indeed, entirely approved any means which would increase the friend- 
 liness of our relations with that country, and he referred with satisfaction 
 to the efforts which he had made in 1852 to improve them. But he 
 objected to this Treaty because, irrespective of the financial conditions 
 involved, it was a very bad Treaty. "I don't think there ever was a 
 Treaty drawn up apparently with less forethought or less knowledge of the 
 circumstances with which the negotiators had to deal, which altogether 
 contains so many arrangements injurious, not only to the trade of England, 
 but inferentially and ultimately to that of France, or which is better cal- 
 culated to sow the seeds of discord and dissension between the two 
 countries." Later on, after mentioning his objections to certain details of 
 the Treaty, he said : — " As regards commercial intercourse with France 
 there is on this side of the House no political opposition to such a course, 
 but, on the contrary, the greatest readiness to enter into arrangements for 
 that object. But we object to the Treaty as a Treaty not skilfully 
 negotiated, and as one that occasions a considerable deficiency in our 
 revenue — probably a much more considerable deficiency than the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer estimates." The Budget, of which this Treaty formed 
 part, was, he contended, the legitimate result of that Budget of 1853 
 which had failed so conspicuously, and, after a cursory review of the 
 disasters which that Budget had entailed, Mr. Disraeli asked if the country 
 still put faith in the wild and improvident projects of the same financier. 
 Finally, after a brief glance at the state of Europe, the leader of the 
 Opposition asked the House to consider whether the present was a moment 
 at which it could be desirable to sacrifice revenue instead of husbanding 
 our resources. Lord Palmerston rej)lied, and the well-drilled supporters 
 of the Ministry gave him a majority of 116 in a House of 564. 
 
 In the course of the debates on the Budget, Lord Palmerston had found 
 it advisable to promise that the French Treaty should be submitted to the 
 House for discussion, and this was accordingly done on the night of the 
 8th of March, on a motion by Mr. Byng, the member for Middlesex. The 
 debate, which lasted over two nights, led up to a foregone conclusion, 
 but Mr. Disraeli took advantage of the opportunity to criticise the 
 provisions of the treaty at some length. He began by saying that he 
 thought the formal treaty undesirable, inasmuch as some alterations in the 
 tariffs of the two countries to be settled by their representatives would 
 have done all that was necessary for the present. When in July, 1861, 
 the protective system which found favour in France should have come to 
 an end, it would have been easy to complete the work. He had, however, 
 under the circumstances even greater objections than disapproval of the 
 questionable means by which the treaty had been carried out would imply. 
 He objected to the treaty on financial, diplomatic, and political grounds. 
 Financially he thought it open to objection in that it created a large deficit 
 
IMPERFECTIONS OF THE TREATY. 823 
 
 in the revenue of this country, and also because it was open to something 
 inore than doubt whether the market which would by it be opened to the 
 English producer would be in any way so valuable as was anticipated. On 
 diplomatic grounds he thought it open to objection as being negligently, 
 carelessly, and unskilfully drawn. An article of navigation had, for 
 example, been introduced into the Treaty, and that alone was sufficient 
 reason for uneasiness.* The clauses with respect to coal were again un- 
 satisfactory in the extreme, while there appeared to be something very 
 improvident in the arrangement that the silk manufacturers of England 
 should enter France at a certain time, subject to an ad valorem duty of 
 30 per cent, whilst the raw material from France should be liable to 
 a heavy rate of duty. Again, while the negotiators were arranging for 
 the removal of restrictions on the importation of French wine, why was 
 nothing done to secure a French market for English beer ? It was un- 
 necessary to go into farther illustrations. It was evident that the Treaty 
 affected injuriously a revenue which was already dilapidated, and it was 
 no less evident that it had produced an arrangement which did not duly 
 provide for British interests, though they might have been provided for in 
 perfect harmony with the English commercial system. 
 
 The Treaty was, however, something more than a mere commercial 
 arrangement. " The Government," Lord John Kussell had said, " attach 
 a high social and political value to the conclusion of a Treaty;" and in 
 another place he had remarked that the conclusion of the Treaty " would 
 powerfully reassure the public mind in the various countries of Europe." 
 Eeferring back to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France, Lord 
 Beaconsfield here pointed out that during the period when that unhappy 
 business was being arranged, the negotiations for this Commercial Treaty 
 had been carried on, and that no step had been taken to make the French 
 Government aware that the views of the English Ministry on the subject 
 were such as they afterwards expressed. It was not till the end of January 
 that the Foreign Secretary wrote his grandiloquent despatch on the an- 
 anexation. " That document," said Mr. Disraeli, " is no doubt very con- 
 venient for the House of Commons, but 1 should have liked one in the 
 same spirit to have been sent to the French Emperor months before. The 
 Emperor of the French is supposed, and I believe with justice, to be not 
 insensible to public opinion — a quality not to be despised ; but according 
 to the noble Lord's own narrative, he appears, during all these months, to 
 have made no effort to protest against a policy which he himself described 
 at the end of January as one which would fill Europe with alarm and 
 distrust, and as being of a disturbing character and one that might lead to 
 
 * The Article in question deserved more severe criticism than it received. The 
 great free trader had actually accepted and succeeded in inducing the nation to 
 accept a stipulation that " it is understood that the cases of duty mentioned in the 
 preceding Articles are independent of the differential duties established in favour 
 of French shipping, with which duties they shall not interfere." 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the most distressing and dreadful consequences. Yet the noble Lord com- 
 mences this Session by placing on the table a paper which is to be the 
 foundation of a Treaty of Commerce between England and France, which 
 Treaty he recommends on account of the critical condition of Europe, and 
 because its significance at that moment would be understood, and would 
 powerfully reassure the public mind in the various countries of Europe. . . . 
 A Treaty with France is recommended to the House on account of the 
 critical condition of Europe and the excellent effect it would have. That 
 critical condition turns out to be an act of aggression on the part of France 
 which we strongly disapprove, yet by this Treaty appear to sanction, and 
 yet the House is placed in such a situation that it really can pronounce no 
 practical opinion upon this important instrument." That this was damag- 
 ing and most reasonable criticism cannot be denied, and the best proof 
 is that no real answer was offered by the Government. The House of 
 Commons paid, however, little attention to it. Mr. Bright, with his cry of 
 " Perish Savoy ! rather than we, the representatives of the people of Eng- 
 land, should involve the Government of this country with the people and 
 the Government of France," represented the popular voice at this moment, 
 and the result was seen in the triumph of the Government on this ques- 
 tion by a majority of 226. 
 
 A Bill for the amendment of the Representation of the People had been 
 promised in the Queen's Speech, and on the 1st of March Lord John 
 Kusscll introduced his measure. It was a feeble bantling from the begin- 
 ning. Lord John himself notoriously cared very little for the subject ; his 
 colleagues — especially Lord Palmerston — were as notoriously more than 
 indifferent, whilst some few were absolutely hostile in principle. What 
 the Government thought about the matter may be estimated from one 
 circumstance. In Lord John Russell's "Recollections" — the book in 
 which he magnifies his triumphs and extenuates his failures — he has 
 plenty to say about the state of the Reform Question from 1819 to 1832 
 and an abundance of sarcasm at the expense of Mr. Disraeli in 1867, but 
 of his own abortive proposals in 1860 he carefully says nothing. He 
 brought in his Bill, and the country at once perceived how little heart 
 there was in the proposals of the Government, and how little intention 
 there was of pushing them through the House. The principle of the 
 measure was a £6 rental franchise, by which it was calculated that the 
 number of borough voters would be raised from 440,000 to 634,000, — a 
 smaller total extension of the electoral area than would have been conceded 
 in the counties alone under the Conservative Bill of 1859, — and twenty- 
 five seats were to be taken from small constituencies and given to larger. 
 Fifteen of these seats were to be bestowed upon the counties in such a way 
 as to provide against too great a preponderance of the agricultural interest, 
 and the remainder were to be given to manufacturing towns and metro- 
 politan boroughs. 
 
 The Bill was received with the profoundest indifference by the public 
 
«PALTKY" BEHAVIOUR. 325 
 
 and the press, while in the House the coolness displayed on the Govern- 
 ment benches was very generally noticed. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli spoke on the second reading, calling upon the noble Lord 
 to withdraw his " unnecessary, uncalled for and mischievous Bill." His 
 objections to it were many. If, said he in effect, we are to extend the 
 franchise at all, you should not recommend your Bill by showing, as you 
 have done, how very small an effect it would produce. You say that you 
 intend to admit 257,000 electors to the franchise. I say that If there were 
 557,000 men who are fit for it, you ought to admit them. The step you 
 propose to take is, however, one exclusively in the interest of the working 
 classes, and will amount to class legislation on an extensive scale. There 
 are other classes in the country who are shut out from electoral rights, and 
 .who are quite as worthy of them as the working men — why do you make 
 no attempt to admit them? Why not, for instance, have a lodger 
 franchise ? why not make the payment of direct taxation a basis of the 
 suffrage? why not, in short, make fitness rather than numbers, the basis 
 of any change you may propose ? As for the working classes, it is unjust 
 to say that they are not represented. The freemen, upon whose political 
 existence the noble Lord had made so many attacks, were working men, and 
 in the important boroughs of the North, the working men form a large pro- 
 portion of the constituencies. Why then swamp all other classes by this 
 monotonous process ? As regarded the proposed changes in the county 
 franchise — they were simply a measure of disfranchisement, and as such in 
 themselves eminently undesirable. The principle of the redistribution of seats 
 he held, too, to bs objectionable, inasmuch as it was based wholly upon the 
 rule of giving representation in proportion to numbers, and not upon the 
 old constitutional principle of representing interests. Nevertheless he had no 
 intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill. He was not opposed 
 to the extension of the basis of representation, and his own Bill of the pre- 
 ceding year would have admitted many more electors. But the present 
 measure he thought radically bad, and he looked for no inconsiderable 
 amendments in Committee — if the Bill should ever reach that stage. 
 
 The proposal to go into Committee was made on the 4th of June. The 
 motion " that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair " was prefaced by a long 
 and desultory discussion, and on that motion Mr. Disraeli made a 
 pungent speech on the conduct of Lord John Kussell. The noble 
 Lord had talked of the "paltry objections," and of the "paltry con- 
 duct " of the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli pointed out, that if paltriness were 
 to be laid to the charge of anybody, it must be to those who thought so 
 little of their own Bill, that they were ready to do anything if they 
 could only get it out of the way. Already the Bills for Scotland and Ire- 
 land had been withdrawn, a nd with regard to that for England, " the House 
 may do what it likes with the franchise 1 Thus the high policy which 
 destroyed a Ministry and dissolved a Parliament has melted away ! He 
 will accept anything, if the House will but agree to something that may 
 shuffle this great impediment to progress out of the course. Anythir.g the 
 
326 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 House will settle by the end of the Session, will be accepted by the Gov- 
 ernment. Well, that may be very discreet ; it may be a very wise course 
 for the noble Lord in his present position, to give these moderate counsels, 
 and make these temperate offers; but I ask, is this the Minister who 
 ought to talk of * paltry ' behaviour on the part of the House of Com- 
 mons ? " 
 
 The debates which followed were languid enough and unsatisfactory 
 enough, but they served one good end — they proved to the Government 
 that Lord John Russell's Bill was thoroughly unpopular inside the House 
 as well as without its walls, and that no good end could be served by 
 forcing it on the country. On the 7th of June a division was taken on an 
 amendment to postpone the measure until after the Census returns had 
 been obtained, and although the Government succeeded in carrying its 
 proposal, 250 members voted against it. On the 11th accordingly Lord 
 Lord Russell withdrew his Bill — a course which the leader of the Opposition 
 described as " wise and not undignified." 
 
 Reform having been Yv^ithdrawn the Government found themselves at 
 liberty to continue the great work of financial adjustment, which, as Mr. 
 Disraeli had pointed out, was really the obstacle to progress with measures 
 for modifying popular representation. The unfortunate arrangement by 
 which the provisions of the Budget and of the French Commercial Treaty 
 were inextricably entangled, produced endless difficulty and a financial 
 conflict of the greatest magnitude in the last days of the Session. On the 
 6th of August Mr. Gladstone brought forward a resolution for removing so 
 much of the duty on paper imported from other countri-es as exceeded the 
 Excise Duty at home. This proposal was met by an amendment, moved 
 by Mr. Puller, postponing the change for the present. The leader of the 
 Opposition supported this proposal, pointing out that the supplementary 
 treaty, promised as a conclusion to the treaty of January, had not made 
 its appearance, and was in fact postponed until the 1st of i^Iovember. 
 There was no security that it would be ready even then, and since the 
 French Government had postponed the consideration on its part of certain 
 important points there was no particular reason why this matter should 
 be hurried on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Palmerston 
 had, he considered, attached exaggerated importance to the settlement of 
 this question : he hoped they would accept the proposal of the member 
 for Hertfordshire and would not plunge the House on the 6th of August 
 into a great party-struggle on a matter which was, after all, not of first- 
 rate importance. The well-meant criticism was not accepted. Lord 
 Palmerston, in a speech of jaunty self-complacency, declared that he fully 
 agreed with the leader of the Opposition that a division was wholly 
 unnecessary, and recommended as a consequence the withdrawal of the 
 amendment. That course was not followed, and the Government 
 triumphed by a majority of 33. In the great debates which had preceded 
 this petty settlement of the much- vexed question of the Paper Duty 
 
CHURCH RATES. 327 
 
 generally, the leader of the Opposition had not taken a conspicuous part ; 
 but when at a later period the Upper House rejected the Bill for the total 
 repeal of these duties, to the intense surprise and indignation of the Liberal 
 party, he supported their action as perfectly constitutional. 
 
 The only other question of public importance on which the leader of 
 the Opposition formulated his policy during the Session of 1860 was that 
 of Church Eates. Sir John Trelawney's Bill for their abolition was read 
 a second time on the 8th of February, and in the course of the debate Mr. 
 Disraeli made a speech calliug attention to the centralising character of 
 the measure proposed and to the extent to which it set aside the principle 
 of local self-government. He also dwelt upon the fact that the grievance 
 to be redressed was not one which was practically felt, and that the policy 
 adopted was merely the acceptance of a speculative theory. For the rest 
 the question was narrowing itself down into a controversy whether or not 
 the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the country should be supported. On 
 this ground he announced his intention of opposing the Bill. On the 
 third reading, when the Bill was squeezed through a very full House by 
 the narrow majority of 9, only to be rejected by an overwhelming vote in 
 the Lords, Mr. Disraeli spoke a second time, iirging the comparative failure 
 of the voluntary system, protesting against the notion of treating the 
 Church of England as though she were a mere religious sect, and urging 
 the House to sanction no measure which might tend to weaken the social 
 fabric. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued by Commission on the 28th of August after a 
 long and wearying Session, and members returned to their consrt-ituents 
 with a happy knowledge, that although the Commercial Treaty with 
 France and the consequently doubled Income Tax were almost the only 
 fruits of their labours, the foreign affairs of this country were in the strong 
 and capable hands of the inventor of a spirited foreign policy, and that, 
 thanks to it, we had only a war with China and a difSculty in Syria on 
 our hands. 
 
 During the recess Mr. Disraeli remained in Buckinghamshire, taking his 
 usual part in county business and appearing in public on two or three 
 occasions. Once and once only did he speak on political questions. A very 
 large njeeting of the clergy and laity of the rural deanery of Amersham 
 was held at the beginning of December for the purpose of considering the 
 Church Bate question, and Mr. Disraeli being called upon delivered a some- 
 what remarkable address. The question he held to be a national one and 
 to imply the severance or the continuance of the connection between 
 Church and State. " Our political constitution was built on our parochial 
 constitution. The parish was one of the strongest securities for local 
 government, and on local government political liberty mainly depended. 
 The social relations of the Church with the community wore so compre- 
 hensive and so complicated, so vast and so various, that the most iar- 
 seeing could not predict the consequences of the projected change. It was 
 
328 THE PUBLIC HFE OF THE EARt OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 not merely the education of the people that was concerned, it was even 
 their physical condition. He would almost say that if by some convulsion 
 of nature some important district of the country, one on which the food 
 and industry of the country mainly depended, were suddenly swept from 
 our surface, the change would not be greater than would arise by the with- 
 drawal of the influence of the Church from our society." On these 
 grounds and on the ground of the deep root which the Church had in the 
 hearts of the people Mr. Disraeli urged his hearers to unite in opposing 
 the attempt to separate the Church of England from the land of England 
 and from the nation generally, and to petition Parliament for the mainten- 
 ance of the Church of England as a national institution. 
 
 The Session of 1861 opened in the 5th of February. There had been 
 few events in the world of politics since Parliament rose in the preceding 
 August, the attention of Europe being at the time taken up with the 
 rapid progress of reorganization in Italy. To that subject accordingly the 
 first paragraph of the Queen's Speech was devoted. The settlement of 
 the disputes in Syria and China occupied the succeeding paragraphs, and 
 these were followed by the announcement of a war in New Zealand, by a 
 mention of the outbreak of the Civil War in the United States, and by refer- 
 ence to the completion of the French Commercial Treaty. The work of 
 the Session was indicated in a single paragraph : — " Measures will be laid 
 before you for the consolidation of important parts of the Criminal Law ; 
 for the improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency ; for ren- 
 dering more easy the transfer of land ; for establishing a uniform system 
 of rating in England and Wales ; and for several other purposes of public 
 usefulness." 
 
 The customary routine of the debate on the Address was varied — for 
 this occasion only — by an amendment moved by Mr. White, the Kadical 
 member for Brighton, and seconded by Mr. Digby Seymour, calling for a 
 Eeform Bill, " in fulfilment of the express pledges given by Her Majesty's 
 Government when they came into office." The sincerity of those pledges 
 and of the supporters of the Administration may be estimated by the fact 
 that on the division the amendment was lost by 83 votes in a House of 177. 
 It cannot, in fact, be too clearly understood that at this date the Whig 
 anxiety for Eeform was neither more nor less than a piece of carefully 
 planned political hypocrisy. No one wished to disturb the settlement of 
 1832 — Lord John Bussell least of all — but the matter was so convenient 
 for harassing and worrying a Tory Government when in office, that it is 
 impossible to wonder at its being taken up from time to time. When, 
 however, the Whigs felt themselves, as in 1861, tolerably safe, they had 
 1 no hesitation in throwing over their past professions and in leaving Reform 
 to take care of itself. No one recognised this fact more clearly than 
 Lord Beaconsfield, who accordingly devoted the whole of his speech on 
 the Address to the consideration of the threatening condition of foreign 
 affairs. As regarded Eeform, he had nothing to say beyond congratulating 
 
JPRANCE AND ITALY. 329 
 
 the Government on their wisdom in refraining from introducing another 
 Bill in face of the opposition which their last measure of the kind had 
 encountered at the hands of their own supporters. Then, after adverting to 
 the bewilderment of the public on account of the state of public affairs and 
 the general policy of the Government, he went on to expose, with scathing 
 irony, the " candid " foreign policy of Lord John Kussell. " What," he 
 said in his customary epigrammatic vein — " what in old times, in the days 
 of secret diplomacy, would have been a soliloquy in Downing Street now 
 becomes a speech in the House of Commons." It was in that way that the 
 whole foreign policy of the Government was managed last Session, and 
 certainly the fact was highly complimentary to the House. With regard 
 to the policy of France and England in the Italian question, he described 
 the difficulties which encumbered the path to Italian unity, and argued 
 that, even if it should be attained, it could only be through the sword of 
 France. " It is," said he, " the will of France that can alone restore Rome 
 to the Italians : it is the sword of France, if any sword can do it, that 
 alone can free Venetia from the Austrians. If the unity of Italy is to be 
 effected by such influences and by such means, are we to suppose that a 
 Sovereign who is described as profound and crafty, and a people whom we 
 know to be ambitious and quickwitted, will be prepared to make such an 
 effort and to endure such a sacrifice — such a surpassing sacrifice and such 
 an enormous effort—without obtaining some result ? Why, Sir, it v/ould 
 belie every principle of human nature. We cannot impute it to that Sove- 
 reign and to such a people as the French, that they would not after such 
 exertions expect to obtain some great political and public advantage. And 
 it is obvious what that result would be. Those who under the circumstances 
 I have stated will free the nation, will make their terms and will be justified 
 in making their terms. They will have an alliance, offensive and defensive, 
 with Italy, and the Emperor of the French will then appear in the character 
 which he has himself shadowed out, for which he has prepared the world, 
 which the policy he has hitherto pursued with regard to Italy has shown 
 that he has — not too anxiously — sought to fulfil, foreseeing its difficulties 
 as well as its glory. The Emperor of the French will then come forward 
 in the character of the head of the Latin race. He will find himself the 
 emancipator of Italy at the head of a million of bayonets. A million of 
 disciplined, and even of distinguished, soldiers will be at his command and 
 behest, and then it will be in his power — you having forced him to a policy 
 in Italy which at first he was unwilling to pursue — to make those greater 
 changes and aim at those greater results which I will only intimate and 
 will not attempt to describe." Summing up the affairs of Italy, Mr. Dis- 
 raeli arrived at the conclusion that the country must either fall back upon 
 a settlement similar to the Treaty of Zurich or else encounter a state of 
 affairs, so dangerous, that before its difficulties were solved every throne 
 in Europe might be shaken. That state of things, he contended, would be 
 brought about by the policy of Lord Palmerston's Government. In view 
 
330 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of later events those remarkable and prescient views of English policy in 
 European affairs have a special interest. 
 
 One of the first acts of the Government Id this Session was to bring 
 forward a motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of public busi- 
 ness with the object of discovering if by some alteration of forms and 
 procedure greater expedition could not be insured. This, it may be re- 
 marked, has always been a somewhat favourite device of Whig Administra- 
 tions. They do not take pains to present their measures in a sufficiently 
 perfect form ; they leave to tlie House in CommiLtcc nil that elaboration 
 of detail which ought to be the work of those by whom the measure was 
 originally prepared, and then finding that progress is slow and that few 
 measures are passed, they either blame the forms of the House or find an 
 excuse for their failure in the loquacity of members. There was therefore 
 nothing surprising in Mr. Horsman bringing forward an amendment requir- 
 ing the Select Committee to consider whether it would not be possible more 
 effectually to promote the despatch of public business by a more judicious 
 distribution of legislative work between the two Houses of Parliament, and 
 by " a more careful preparation and early introduction of measures." To 
 that amendment Mr. Disraeli refused to assent, seeing that it implied a 
 severe censure on the Government, but he at the same time professed his 
 inability to discover the grievance of which the Government complained, 
 and he earnestly deprecated any change in the forms of the House. " The 
 primary duty of the House of Commons," said he, " is not to pass the 
 measures of the Executive. The House as a part of the Parliament is the 
 great Council of the nation. We are summoned here to advise Her Majesty 
 as to the means by which the services of the country may be carried on 
 and to express on subjects which engage public attention the opinions of 
 our constituents." The Committee, of which] Mr. Disraeli became a mem- 
 ber, was appointed and reported in due course, but it does not appear that 
 anything very practical resulted from its deliberations. The House went 
 on in its usual fashion, and the Session of 1861 was in the end not much 
 more fruitful than that which preceded it. 
 
 The principal business of the Session was of course the Budget, which 
 was this year brought in at the usual time. Mr. Gladstone made his 
 financial statement on the 15th of April, and it was one which gave enor- 
 mous satisfaction to the admirers of his fiscal poHcy. He estimated the 
 expenditure at a little under seventy millions — less by three millions than 
 the amount of the expenditure of the year preceding — and the revenue at 
 seventy-one millions and a half, supposing the Income Tax to be renewed 
 at lOd. and the War duties on Tea and Sugar to be retained. By these 
 means he calculated upon a surplus of nearly two millions, on the strength 
 of which he proposed to take off' a penny in the pound from the Income 
 Tax and to abolish the Paper Duty. The full amount of the proposed 
 reductions would have been nearly two and a half millions per annum, but 
 as in accordance with Mr. Gladstone's usual custom the benefits were to be 
 
WAR TAXATION IN TIME OF PEACE. 331 
 
 wholly prospective and the additional taxation somewhat in advance, he 
 contrived to juggle a surplus out of a scheme of taxation which taken by 
 itself must have resulted in a deficit. The repeal of the Paper Duty was 
 put off for six months, and one quarter of the lOd. Income Tax remained 
 to be collected. It was therefore easy to announce great reductions in 
 April, when during a time of great commercial prosperity all the old and 
 heavy burdens on the national industry remained untouched. This Budget 
 moreover was not a success in other ways. One principal item was 
 the expected payment of three-quarters of a million by China. In the 
 end the sum so received was considerably less than half that amount. 
 The Paper Duty, the repeal of which was anticipated to cost a little more 
 than half a million, cost in the end more than twice the anticipated sum, 
 whilst the expenditure on additional preparations in consequence of the 
 American war — an expenditure which the Government had scornfully de- 
 clared would be by no means necessary — amounted to nearly a million and 
 a half besides a sum of nearly a million applied to fortifications — which last 
 amount was raised by a loan. The kernel of the Budget, as was aptly said 
 at the time, was the repeal of the Paper Duty — or rather the destruction of 
 the right of veto as exercised by the Upper House in the matter of that 
 impost. Had not the Lords interfered the deficit on the year 1860-61 
 would have been heavier by nearly a million than it was, but their throw- 
 ing out the Bill saved the country from the necessity of providing against 
 so great a deficiency. 
 
 The great object of the Grovernment in dealing with this Budget 
 appeared to be to force it through the House with all possible speed, and 
 to avoid anything approaching to exhaustive criticism. Debate was dis- 
 couraged as much as possible, and Mr. Gladstone was pleased to describe 
 the discussions as " aimless and uninteresting." As was but natural, the 
 leader of the Opposition vindicated the rights of independent members, 
 and on the third night of the debate on the technical question that the 
 Speaker should leave the chair he delivered himself of a careful and 
 elaborate criticism of the financial policy of the Government. He com- 
 plained in somewhat stringent terms of the way in which Mr. Gladstone 
 had attempted to stifle discussion, and reminded him that his dealing with 
 the estimate for the China war in the year 1860 had suflSciently proved 
 that he was not infallible. He had asked for half a million for the 
 purposes of that war, and he had had to come down to the House before 
 the end of the Session and to ask for ten times as much. Now when he 
 came down with a similarly elaborate financial scheme he must not com- 
 plain if he were subjected to unusually careful criticism. The finance of 
 1860 was, he argued, not a success. It had in fact resulted in a deficiency, 
 which had been " supplied by aggravating the liabilities and diminishing 
 the resources of the country — by reducing the balances in the Exchequer, 
 and increasing the debt." Mr. Gladstone's juggling with the Exchequer 
 balances came in for especial reprehension, the leader of the OppositioQ 
 
332 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAliL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 pointing out that what he had done was done without the consent of 
 Parliament, and was really the same thing as had excited the direful 
 wrath of the Liberals when in 1852 the Government proposed to submit a 
 similar proposition for the approval of the House. Addressing himself to 
 the question of a surplus, he observed that if the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer confessed to such a thing it was hardly for the House to prove 
 him mistaken. The supposed surplus was founded on the estimates of the 
 great branches of the Eevenue, and those estimates were not to be 
 questioned. There was therefore a surplus for the House to deal with, but 
 he could hardly express approval of the manner in which it was obtained. 
 The retention and renewal of war duties in a time of comparative peace 
 might give a factitious surplus, but it could hardly be described as wise 
 or statesmanlike finance. And, he went on to ask, what is it that the 
 Government proposes to do with this surplus ? The House is told that it 
 is proposed to repeal the duty on paper. The pedigree of this question 
 was hardly an edifying one. Mr. Gladstone had said that in 1860 there 
 had been a general impression that great reductions of indirect taxation 
 would take place. That assertion Mr. Disraeli characterised as " enormous," 
 contending — with perfect truth it may be remarked — that what the 
 country anticipated was the reduction not of indirect but of direct taxa- 
 tion, and that it hoped for a remission of the Income Tax more than for a 
 repeal of the Paper Duty. Mr. Gladstone had claimed him as a suj.>- 
 porter of the proposal on the ground that he had supported the proposals 
 for a repeal of the taxes on knowledge. That in part he admitted. He 
 had thought the press shackled and restrained in a most impolitic manner, 
 and he had therefore voted for the repeal of the newspaper stamp and of 
 the duty on advertisements, but these votes he contended had nothing 
 whatever to do with a purely fiscal question like that of the Paper Duty. 
 The nation wanted, not the repeal of an Excise duty, the pressure of 
 which was hardly felt, but the remission of those "War Taxes under which 
 the community was groaning. There was now an Income Tax of 9d. in 
 the pound, tea and sugar were heavily taxed, and the question of the hour 
 for financiers was, " if these war taxes were continued in time of peace 
 what prospect there was of the people, in case of a renewal of war, coming 
 forward and bearing their share of the public burdens?" The more 
 extreme amongst the Liberals protested that the expenditure of the country 
 was " profligate," and that taxes might be remitted if the estimates were 
 kept down. Mr. Gladstone had cheered that sentiment, and made it his 
 own. " We heard," said Mr. Disraeli, " a great deal last year about a 
 « gigantic innovation,' but to my mind there is no innovation so gigantic 
 as a Chancellor of the Exchequer denouncing the expenditure as profligate 
 for which he is supplying at the same time the Ways and Means. If he 
 believes the expenditure to be impolitic, to use the mildest term ; on what 
 principle can he vindicate his sitting on that Bench ? I have asked men 
 of all parties, simple and plain as well as of refined intelligence, for an 
 
LORD DERBY AT THE MANSION HOUSE. 333 
 
 explanation, but they have all been preplexed by a mystery of conduct 
 that is unparalleled in the history of this country. The right honourable 
 gentleman insinuates that the Government as well as himself are recom- 
 mending and pursuing an expenditure that is contrary to their conviction 
 of public necessity. It is some one or other, some unknown but irresistible 
 force, that urges them on. Sometimes it appears to be the country, 
 sometimes the House, but never the Ministry." By appeals to past 
 debates, Mr. Disraeli then went on to show that it was neither the House 
 nor the country which forced this expenditure upon the Government, and 
 on behalf of the former he claimed the right of expressing a free and 
 unrestrained opinion as to the distribution of the surplus. The Opposition 
 had shown no desire to embarrass the Government in their financial policy, 
 but on the contrary had loyally supported the Ministers of the Crown. 
 Was the Minister who had been so supported, he asked, to grudge to the 
 House of Commons the power of considering how best the interests of 
 their constituents and of the country could be served ? He would offer no 
 opposition to the resolution relating to the Income Tax, but he intended 
 to oppose the retention of the war tax upon tea. 
 
 Protests of this kind were not uncalled for. Mr. Gladstone's extraordi- 
 nary theories of finance were sowing the seed of endless difficulties for every 
 Government of the future, and by none were those difficulties more likely 
 to be felt than by the chief of the Opposition, who in due course would 
 succeed to the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. For the time, however, 
 protest was vain. The people of this country were so dazzled with the 
 prospects of remitted taxation that they left out of account the burden- 
 someness of the simple substitute which Mr. Gladstone proposed, and 
 allowed him to add year by year to the Income Tax, contented if he 
 dangled before them such boons as a low duty on French wines, and the 
 remission of the duty on paper. There had been a time, and that not 
 very long before, when Mr. Gladstone claimed for himself the glory of 
 determining the reign of the Income Tax, and of burying it in the grave 
 of its inventor, Peel. " When the Knight of the Round Table had done 
 his work," said a contemporary critic, " his charmed weapon was to be 
 thrown into the lake whence it came, and Mr. Gladstone was the man to 
 perform this solemn rite. That day has gone by. If Mr. Gladstone did 
 indeed ever lay that gleaming brand by the side of its great owner, he has 
 since rifled his grave, and now wears the spoil. Nobody has so worked 
 the tax as he." And these words really fall short of the truth. Unfor- 
 tunately they were spoken to deaf ears. England was for the time 
 infatuated with Gladstonian finance, and even such pungent and valuable 
 criticism as that of Lord Beaconsfield failed to break the spell. 
 
 Strongly though the Conservative party and its leaders felt upon the 
 subject, they refrained from attempting to turn out the Government, for 
 reasons which were explained by Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli at a dinner 
 given in their honour by the Lord Mayor on the 1st of May. In the 
 
334 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 course of his remarks the former explained that he and those who acted 
 with him had no desire to witness constant changes of the Government. 
 They thought in short that it were better to " bear the ills they had than 
 fly to others that they knew not of," " We are firmly convinced," said 
 Lord Derby, " that whatever our personal advantages might be it is for the 
 advantage of the country .... that there should not be constant changes 
 of Government. We desire to see a strong Government — I fear we have 
 not one at present — and I must confess honestly that I do not see the mode 
 of forming a strong Government ; but that which is most to the prejudice 
 of the country is a succession of weak Governments and a perpetual change, 
 creating both inconvenience and embarrassment — embarrassment to the 
 Sovereign, embarrassment and inconvenience in all our foreign and diplo- 
 matic arrangements— embarrassment and want of steadiness in carrying 
 out our internal policy." Mr. Disraeli followed in the same vein, pointing 
 out that although the Conservative party were out of office they neverthe- 
 less exercised a very considerable influence in the country, and had been 
 during the last few weeks instrumental in getting rid of a number of mea- 
 sures which had been independently introduced, and which with the tacit 
 support of the Government were designed to overthrow the Constitution in 
 Church and in State. 
 
 It is easy of course to be wise after the event, but it is now impossible 
 to avoid regret that the Opposition should have consented to exercise only 
 its powers of criticism. The Liberal Government was at this time embark- 
 ing on the ill-judged and aggressive course which led eventually to its 
 downfall, but which produced very disastrous consequences for the country 
 before the party was finally driven from power. During this Session the 
 onslaughts upon the independence of the Lords assumed a very serious 
 appearance, and the utterances of the Government with regard to the Civil 
 War in the United States sowed the seeds of that bitterness between this 
 country and her daughter across the Atlantic, which finally cost us the 
 Geneva Congress. Immediately after this speech of Mr. Disraeli's the 
 Government announced through Mr. Gladstone its intention of embodying 
 the financial proposals of the year in a single Bill instead of following the 
 usual course of sending them up in a series of separate measures. The 
 object was of course to force the Lords to accept the repeal of the Paper 
 Duty, even against their own wishes and views of their duty to the 
 country. The Marquis of Salisbury — then Lord Eobert Cecil — opposed 
 this proposal by every means in his power. On the night of the 6 th of 
 May he characterised it as " design to avenge a special political defeat, to 
 gratify a special pique, and to gain the doubtful votes of a special political 
 section." In the long debates which followed, Mr. Disraeli maintained a 
 careful watch, but he did not speak at any length until the 30th of May, 
 when in the course of a long and valuable contribution to the controversy 
 in hand he expressed a strong opinion that although it was, perhaps, 
 possible to justify the conduct of the Government by a reference to pre- 
 
THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUE IN POWER. 335 
 
 cedent it was nevertheless on this occasion "unwise, unnecessary, and 
 impolitic." In the course of his speech he vindicated his belief in the 
 House of Lords, pointing out that the existence of that Chamber was the 
 great security of public liberty and good government in this country. 
 Furthermore, he vindicated himself from the charge of wasting the public 
 time, pointing out that the task of scrutinising the estimates was empha- 
 tically one for the Opposition, and that they would fail in their duty to the 
 country if they neglected it. 
 
 With regard to the Income Tax Mr. Disraeli maintained first that it 
 was essentially a War Tax, and that, as such, it ought to be remitted as 
 sj^eedily and to as large an extent as possible, whilst in the next place he 
 argued that there was not a tax the remission of which so greatly stimu- 
 lates consumption. There were some expressions of incredulity when the 
 position was urged ; but the leader of the Opposition met them with a 
 reminder that in 1857, when the rate of discount was the highest that had 
 been known for many years, and when there was a great commercial and 
 monetary crisis, the Revenue never decreased, simply and solely because 
 the country was relieved of nine millions of Income Tax, which had been 
 imposed to carry on the Russian War. Turning then to the question of 
 tea versus paper he explained that he accepted the estimate of the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer ; that he was willing to believe — even in spite of 
 the figures before the House — that there was a surplus of two millions, and 
 that the question for the House to consider was how that surplus should be 
 expended. The only uncertainty was as to whether the money should be 
 spent in relieving the Excise or in reducing the impost on an article of 
 general consumption, and on that point he urged the policy of supporting 
 the view to which he had endeavoured to give efiect in 1858 by calling for 
 the remission of war taxation — by lowering the Income Tax, and by 
 reducing the oppressive duties upon tea and sugar. With a solemn and 
 indignant disclaimer of the injurious reports which had been circulated 
 of his having been influenced in the course which he had adopted by cer- 
 tain manufacturers and persons whose local interests were affected by the 
 proposed fiscal changes, Lord Beaconsfield closed a speech which so far 
 damaged the Government that on a division it found itself in a majority of 
 no more than 15. 
 
 It is probable that any other than a Whig-Radical Government would 
 have felt that a division such as this, which left them on a vital point of 
 policy practically in a minority, would have retired from office. Not thus, 
 however, do Liberals in office regard their duty. The Government con- 
 tinued in power, and in the course of the year contrived to do considerable 
 mischief. The premature recognition of the Confederate States as a belligerent 
 power was dangerous enough, but before many months were over worse was 
 to come. During the remainder of the Session, however, Mr. Disraeli spoke 
 but seldom, and on the 6th of August Parliament was prorogued by com- 
 mission. There was very little in the Speech from the Throne. As a 
 
336 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 matter ot fact the business of the Session of 1861 had been almost exclu- 
 sively financial, and members were so profoundly occupied in carrying out 
 Mr. Gladstone's schemes for replacing indirect by direct taxation that they 
 had had no time for other work. The forfeited seats of Sudbury and 
 St. Albans had been allotted ; a Bankruptcy Bill had been forced through 
 Parliament by Lord Westbury, who for once lost his temper over the work, 
 and a few trivial Acts on subjects like Drainage, Agricultural Improvement 
 and the consolidation of the Criminal Law of England and Ireland afforded 
 the Government an opportunity of congratulating the country. 
 
 The Kecess was a busy and an anxious time. The American War had 
 assumed really alarming proportions, and English Ministers did not 
 trouble themselves to disguise their sympathy with the Southern States. 
 More than once they went out of their way to applaud Confederate 
 " chivalry " and to approve the action of those who wished to split up the 
 Union. Naturally this sort of thing could not go on without creating a 
 strong feeling of opposition on the other side of the Atlantic, and there was 
 consequently nothing surprising in the fact that such steps were taken by 
 the American Government as all but brought about an outbreak of 
 hostilities. The speeches of Lord John Kussell, and of some other public 
 men in this country were the natural prelude to the " Trent Outrage," 
 and to the difficulties which arose out of that unhappy affair. An even 
 greater trouble befell the people of this country in the death of the Prince 
 Consort, which also occurred during] this recess. The seizure of Messrs. 
 Slidell and Mason was unquestionably a great grievance and one which 
 gave rise to a vast amount of feeling, but its effects on the nation at large 
 were as nothing compared with what followed on the removal of the Prince. 
 Not merely did Her Majesty lose the trusted companion of her life, but 
 the country was deprived of the services of one of the most sagacious and 
 prudent statesmen who have ever filled an exalted position. 
 
 The first sign of the practical retirement of the Queen from public life 
 was given at the opening of Parliament on the 6th of February, 1862, 
 when Commissioners performed the duty which had hitherto been in- 
 variably discharged by the Queen herself, save when considerations of 
 health interfered. The Speech from the Throne was not important. 
 There were of course references to the death of the Prince Consort, and to 
 the difficulty with the United States. The Canadians were praised for 
 their loyalty, and a convention with France and Spain for the purpose of 
 obtaining redress for the grievances of British subjects in Mexico was 
 announced. The estimates as usual had been prepared with a due regard 
 to economy and efficiency, and the programme of legislation announced 
 measures for rendering the title to land more simple, and its transfer more 
 easy — a meagre programme, but perhaps as much as could be expected in 
 the midst of the Cotton Famine. Mr. Disraeli spoke in the debate on the 
 Address, and true to his principle of refraining from embarrassing the 
 Government of the day by factious opposition, he expressed himself as 
 
The BUDGEf. 837 
 
 thoroughly satisfied with what had been done in the matter of the *' Trent 
 Outrage." At the same time he was careful to say that whilst the Govern- 
 ment had done what was to be expected from men in their position, the 
 conduct of the Cabinet of Washington was no less honourable — words, 
 which coming from the leader of the Opposition, could not fail to 
 exercise a beneficial effect in the United States, then rather more than 
 sufiBciently irritated against this country. The remainder of his speech 
 was mainly a tribute to the memory of the Prince Consort, and an offering 
 of the sympathy of the nation to the bereaved Queen. Nothing could 
 have been in better taste or more effectual for the purpose of preventing an 
 amendment to the Address. 
 
 The Budget was brought in by Mr. Gladstone on the 3rd of April, and 
 was not an altogether satisfactory business. He had estimated his 
 expenditure for the preceding year at a trifle less than seventy millions ; 
 he had had to spend nearly a million and a half in excess of that sum. 
 There was consequently a deficiency of £1,164,000. But deducting this 
 sum from the amount of the supplemental grants — a financial feat of which 
 Mr. Gladstone is rather fond — there was a nominal surplus of £335,000. 
 Comparing the revenue of the last year with that of 1861-62, it must be 
 remembered, he argued, that the count ry had lost three important sources 
 of revenue, which entailed a loss of more than 2^ millions. The American 
 blockade, a deficient harvest, and a declining revenue made the future 
 somewhat gloomy. For the coming year, 1862-3, Mr. Gladstone estimated 
 the expenditure at £70,040,000, and the revenue at £70,190,000, leaving a 
 surplus of £150,000. In view of the condition of America, and of the 
 growing importance of our trade with France, the Government did not 
 propose to put on any new taxes or to remit any of those then existing, 
 with one grand exception. He could not, he said, sanction any alteration 
 in the Hop duties, in the Malt credits, or in the duty on spirits. 
 These were native industries, and protection to native industry was an 
 exploded theory which could not enter the enlightened finance of the 
 future. But Mr. Gladstone could do something for the relief of the 
 country. There was an inventory duty in Scotland which might be got 
 rid of; licenses to publicans who had booths at fairs might be subjected to 
 taxation, and poor folk whose necessity drove them to money-lenders 
 might be made to pay a tax of one-eighth per cent. The Spirit duties 
 w^ere of course to be maintained, and as to Sugar the question was a 
 complicated one, but " if any change were made it must be after a 
 careful and protracted inquiry," which the Government would not 
 oppose if it were asked for. So with the Malt credits and the minor 
 charges upon trade. The great feature of the Budget was its modifica- 
 tion of the Wine duties. The complicated system of four duties in pro- 
 portion to the alcoholic strength of wine which had been introduced a year 
 or two ago with such a flourish of trumpets, had been found a costly 
 blunder in practice. Henceforward there were to be but two duties — up 
 
838 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to 26 degrees by Sykes' hygrometer, Is. ; from 26 to 42, 2s. 6d. — out of 
 which change he hoped to obtain about sixteen thousand a year. There 
 was to be a readjustment of brewers' Ucences, and of the licences for 
 private brewing, and with these changes the Budget ended. Mr. Gladstone 
 concluded his financial statement with an earnest protest that the expendi- 
 ture of the coimtry had not increased and was not increasing, and with 
 an intimation that if members wished to see a reduction of expendi- 
 ture they must carefully watch the estimates. 
 
 Such a Budget naturally aroused all the combative instincts of the 
 leader of the Opposition, and accordingly on the Monday following its pro- 
 duction Mr. Disraeli made a great onslaught upon it, and at some length 
 vindicated his own financial policy. The passage of arms was brilliant, 
 and though the House sided with Mr. Gladstone there can be Uttle doubt 
 that the honours of the fight rested with his opponent. He set out with 
 the admission that there might be times when a Financial Minister was 
 justified in beginning the year without a surplus. But though such 
 occasions might occur, the present was certainly not one of them. Our 
 trade was not increasing, our revenue was declining, in America the aspect 
 of affairs was dolorous in the extreme, and in Europe it was not much 
 more promising. And now we were beginning with only a nominal 
 surplus. On all hands the question was asked " why was there no surplus ?" 
 and to that question the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make no 
 reply. The truth was that his financial system wasted the resources of 
 the country. Ho had repealed the Paper Duty, and he had calculated his 
 loss at £655,000. The real loss was £850,000, and as a matter of fact, 
 for the sake of a barren triumph over the Upper House he had sacrificed 
 a source of income which would have given him a surplus of nearly a 
 million and a half. The repeal of the Paper Duty had been opposed on two 
 grounds : — first, because there had been no real surplus to justify its being 
 thrown away, and next because in view of the threatening state of things 
 in the United States, naval and military preparations might become 
 necessary which would swallow up all that the duty could produce. Both 
 arguments had been scornfully derided, and yet it was found that those 
 ■who had used them had been more than justifiedi. The surplus was 
 admitted by Mr. Gladstone to have been purely visionary ; the expenditure 
 necessary for vindicating the national honour in the matter of Messrs. 
 Slidell and Mason, had been many times more than the Paper Duty had 
 ever produced in a single year. Again, Mr. Gladstone had counted on the 
 receipt of three-quarters of a million from China, but there never had been 
 a more fallacious estimate. He had been told that he would not receive 
 more than half that sum, and he had been vehemently indignant. As a 
 matter of fact, he had obtained something less than £400,000. Altogether 
 the deficiency on the years during which Mr. Gladstone had been in office 
 at the Exchequer was at least four millions. " But is that all ? Alas ? 
 only a small portion of the great achievements of his (Mr. Gladstone's) 
 
KO REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. 339 
 
 briglifc career. In addition to this deficit of £4,000,000, the right honour- 
 able gentleman during these two years has anticipated the resources of the 
 country to the amount of £3,500,000 sterling. Something more than 
 £1,250,000 of the Malt Credit ; £2,000,000 of the Income Tax ; £250,000, 
 half of the Spanish payment, make up a sum of £3,500,000. Therefore, 
 this great manager of our finances has in the course of two years exceeded 
 the ordinary revenue of the country by seven millions and a half ? But 
 is that all ? What was the ordinary revenue of the country during the 
 two years when its amount was exceeded by the right honourable gentle- 
 man by the enormous sum of £7,500,000 ? It was no ordinary revenue. 
 It was sustained and supported by war taxation — by a war income tax, by 
 war duties upon tea and upon sugar, and swollen and bloated as the 
 ordinary revenue was by these war taxes, still it was exceeded by the right 
 honourable gentleman during these two years by £7,500,000 sterling. But 
 is that all ? It seems impossible that there can be an aggravation of such 
 aggravated circumstances. And yet I can show to the House that 
 hitherto they have not measured the amount of the prodigality of the 
 right honourable gentleman. For not only has he exceeded during these 
 two years by seven millions and a half the ordinary revenue of the country, 
 and that ordinary revenue sustained by war taxation, but he has done this 
 at a period when the charge of the National Debt had diminished by 
 £2,000,000 per annum by the lapse of terminable annuities." 
 
 That this was a tremendous indictment of the policy of the great Liberal 
 financier no one can deny, but Lord Beaconsfield made it still stronger by 
 showing how fallacious was the supposition that the National Debt had 
 been in any way reduced, and how utterly untrustworthy were Mr. 
 Gladstone's promises with regard to retrenchment. The peroration of this 
 speech will always remain one of the finest pieces of invective ever 
 delivered in the House of Commons even by Mr. Disraeli. After denounc- 
 ing Mr. Gladstone's determination to make the Income Tax a permanent 
 feature of our financial system, instead of holding it in reserve for times of 
 trouble, he again, and in terms which there was no possibility of misunder. 
 standing, attacked Mr. Gladstone's habit of endeavouring to create an 
 impression that, though he was compelled to provide the ways and means 
 for a profligate expenditure, he was himself an economist at heart who 
 would gladly cut down expenditure in every way. " The right hon. 
 gentleman," said he — having a moment before described him as " the most 
 profuse Minister that ever administered the afi^airs of this country,"^ 
 " the right hon. gentleman never proposes a vote — and it falls to him to 
 propose the most profuse votes that any Minister in time of peace ever 
 brought forward — he never does this without an intimation that he does 
 not sanction in his heart the expenditure he recommends. . . . How 
 is it that that party which preaches retrenchment and reduction— who 
 believe all our estimates, especially the naval and military estimates, arc 
 much too extravagant, who are opposed to fortifications, and who do not 
 
 z 2 
 
340 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAliL OF BEACONSFlELD. 
 
 mucli like iron ships— how is it that this party always support a Minister 
 who is bringing forward these excessive estimates, and who provides for 
 this enormous expenditure? Well, that is a great question. This, at 
 least, we know — that whiJe the spendthrift is weeping over pence — while 
 this penurious prodigal is proposing this enormous expenditure — ^he always 
 contrives to repeal some tax to gratify the interests or prejudices of the 
 party of retrenchment. No wonder, then, we hear no longer the same 
 character of the Income Tax. No wonder we are no longer reminded of 
 that compact entered into by the House and accepted by the country for its 
 gradual and permanent abolition. Unless the House expresses on a fitting 
 occasion its opinion, there is very little hope of our obtaining any redress 
 in this respect. Well, Sir, who will deny that this position of affairs is 
 peculiar and perilous ? I remember some years ago, when the right hon. 
 gentleman was at the head of a small and select party of politicians, not 
 then absorbed in the gulf of Liberalism, that we heard much prattle about 
 political morality. What then most distinguished the right hon. gentleman 
 and his friends was their monopoly of that admirable quality. They were 
 perpetually thanking God that they were not as other men, and always 
 pointing their fingers at those unfortunate wights who sat opposite to them* 
 Now we see the end of * political morality.' We see the position to which 
 ' political morality ' has brought the finances of a great nation. I denounce 
 this system as one detrimental to the character of public men, and most 
 injurious to the fortunes of the realm." 
 
 Such a Budget and such opposition to it could not fail to produce an 
 enormous effect, and before the Session of 1862 was over that effect had 
 become visible. Everybody was more or less angry with the excessive 
 expenditure of the economical Government, and the result of the anger was 
 seen in the motions and amendments which stood in the notice paper for 
 the 3rd of June, They are so remarkable as to deserve copying at length. 
 
 *'Mr. Stansfeld :— ' That in the opinion of this House the national 
 expenditure is capable of reduction without compromising the safety, the 
 independence, or the legitimate influence of the country.' 
 
 " Lord Kobert Montagu, as an amendment to Mr. Stansfeld's motion :— 
 ' That Her Majesty's Government alone are responsible to the House for 
 the supplies which Her Majesty asks the House to grant, and that this 
 House is alone responsible for the sums which have been voted.' 
 
 " Mr. Horsman, as an amendment to Mr. Stansfeld's motion :— * That 
 this House, while deeply impressed with the necessity of economy 
 in every department of the State, and especially mindful of that necessity 
 in the present condition of the country and its finances, is of opinion that 
 the sums voted under the present and late administration in the military 
 and naval service of the country have not been greater than are required 
 for its security at home and the protection of its interests abroad.' 
 
 "Mr. Griffiths, as an amendment to Mr. Horsman's amendment: — • 
 ' To leave out the words after " its finances," and to insert the words, " will 
 
ENGLISH RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 341 
 
 always be ready to make any pecuniary sacrifice that may be necessary to 
 maintain the honour, the interests, and the independence of the country.' 
 
 "Viscount Palmerston — amendment as substitute for Mr. Stansfeld's 
 resolution :—* That this House, deeply impressed with the necessity of 
 economy in every department of the State, is at the same time mindful of 
 its obligation to provide for the security of the country at home and the 
 protection of its interests abroad. 
 
 " ' That this House observes with satisfaction the decrease which has 
 already been effected in the national expenditure, and trusts that such 
 further diminution may be made therein as the future state of things may 
 warrant.' 
 
 ** Mr. Walpole— amendment to Lord Palmerston's substitute for Mr. 
 Stansfeld's resolution : — * And trusts that the attention of the Government 
 will be earnestly directed to the accomplishment of such farther reduction, 
 due regard being had to the defence of the country, as may not only 
 equalize the revenue and the expenditure, but may also afford the means 
 of diminishing the burden of those taxes which a- d confessedly of a 
 temporary and exceptional character.' " 
 
 In the debate which followed Lord Palmerston chose to treat the question 
 at issue as one of confidence in the Government, and dwelt at some length 
 on the warlike preparations of the French Government, who, as he argued, 
 had thirty-six ironclads built or building whilst we had only twenty-five. 
 Mr. Disraeli spoke in somewhat stringent terms concerning the impro- 
 priety of these constant disparaging allusions to our ally, whose faithfulness 
 and courtesy had been more than sufficiently approved by his treatment of 
 this country during the Indian Mutiny, and by the readiness with which 
 he supported the just demands of England during the remonstrances in 
 the matter of the Trent outrage. The French preparations for war he 
 regarded as a monstrous fabrication — as indeed they turned out to be so 
 far as England was concerned — and he viewed our relations with France as 
 in all respects satisfactory. As was to have been expected, the debate 
 came to nothing. Mr. Stansfeld's motion was lost by a majority of 302 in 
 a House of 436, and Mr. Walpole withdrew his amendment on the express 
 ground that Lord Derby " had no wish to disturb the noble lord at the 
 head of the Government." 
 
 Before the end of the Session arrived, however, Mr. Disraeli found an 
 opportunity of again exposing the fallacious nature of Mr. Gladstone's 
 financial policy. He had spoken on the Government scheme of fortifica- 
 tions, criticising the proposal with some severity, but his great opportunity 
 was on the night of the 1st of August, when Mr. Cobden, who had given 
 notice of his intention " to offer observations on the administration of the 
 noble lord the Member for Tiverton in relation to the legislation and the 
 state of parties in the House," made a most damaging onslaught on Lord 
 Palmerston's Government. Mr. Cobden, in a word, played the part of the 
 **eandi4 friend;" declared that the Liberal Government had pledged itself 
 
342 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to Economy, Non-intervention, and Eeform, and had deliberately broken 
 every one of its pledges. With all that mastery of detail which was 
 characteristic of the great Free-Trader, he showed that absolutely and 
 relatively the Liberal Government was in a time of profound peace spending 
 more per head of the population than had ever been spent before, and that 
 when Mr. Disraeli had been Chancellor of the Exchequer he had actually 
 asked for less on account of national defence by £8,306,000 than did 
 Mr. Gladstone in 1862. All the increased expenditure Mr. Cobden put 
 down to Lord Palmerston, and he entered into an ingenious calculation to 
 show that, " taking into account his Afghan wars, his Chinese wars, his 
 Persian war, his expeditions here, there and everywhere ... the least I 
 can put the noble lord down as having cost the country must be 
 £100,000,000 sterling. " I think," added Mr. Cobden, " the noble lord 
 with all his merits is very dear at such a price." 
 
 Lord Palmerston replied to Mr. Cobden, and then followed Mr. Disraeli 
 in his most sarcastic vein. He had been greatly interested in the discussion 
 — ^he could not be otherwise. It was pleasant in Lucretian fashion for 
 those who sat on the higher ground to watch the storm and tempest which 
 were working their dreadful will on the disintegrated and demoralized party 
 below them. But he had to recall the House to the exact position which 
 it occupied. The existing Parliament had come to the front on two con- 
 ditions. It was to pass a thoroughly democratic Eeform Bill and it was to 
 extricate the country from the difficulties of her position with relation to 
 France. " The Government was formed to carry a democratic Eeform 
 Bill : I need not remind the House that no Eeform Bill of any kind has 
 been carried." The passage which follows will not bear condensation : — 
 " ' It was found,* says the noble lord, * that the House was not particularly 
 anxious for a Eeform Bill, and the country did not care much for it.' Is 
 this the language we have a right to expect from a statesman of unprece- 
 dented experience — of one who is supposed not to act upon very grave 
 matters but after due and deep reflection ; a statesman we assume gifted 
 with a fine observation of the temper of the times, and actuated by some 
 sense of that responsibility which — though the House, as we are told 
 to-night, may be broken up into fragments and manipulated by a dexterous 
 parliamentary tactician — ^by a responsibility which I still hope influences 
 the conduct of a British Minister? Why, Sir, what were the antecedents of the 
 noble lord on this question of Eeform? A measure for the reconstruction of 
 this House was brought forward by the late Government, and it was opposed 
 by the noble lord because it was not sufficiently comprehensive and suffi- 
 ciently democratic. Animated by that conviction and influenced by that 
 feeling the noble lord felt himself authorized to counsel a course, and join in a 
 vote which he knew would lead to the dissolution of the existing Parliament. 
 Parliament was dissolved, the opinion of the country was given — the 
 opinion of the country, whatever might be its verdict . . . and after the dis- 
 solution which he had forced — after the public judgmentof the people had been 
 
ON THE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 343 
 
 offered for his consideration — the noble lord entered into a confederacy, 
 attending a public meeting in a public place, and made terms with ther,-} s 
 leaders of those convenient sections which are now to be managed in viola- t/j 
 tion of the traditions and spirit of the English constitution, and there asipd ^ 
 then entered into an engagement to bring forward a more democ^atro -J - 
 Reform Bill than their predecessors whom he had defeated. And is it to a 
 be tolerated now that he should come forward with these jests, with this ^ 
 frivolous levity, and tell the parties whom he has deluded and the people 
 in the country whom he has disappointed, that, after such grave conduct, 
 with such an opportunity of forming an opinion, he finds that neither the 
 Parliament which had just been elected, nor the people whom he had just 
 left, really cared anything at all about Parliamentary Reform, and treats it 
 as one of those manoeuvres by which a Minister who does not rule a party 
 contrives to get a majority." Mr. Disraeli went on to say that he was not 
 at all astonished by the attitude which Mr. Cobden — " a sincere member of 
 the Liberal party," as he justly called him — ^had chosen to take up. The 
 country had a right to look for an honest measure of Reform, and the noble 
 lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had no right to treat Parlia- 
 mentary Reformers " with habitual and studied contempt." Lord Palmer- 
 ston in effect had appropriated the proposals of Mr. Bright, " but that he 
 should hold up to scorn the man who had made him Minister — that he 
 should point to him as the man whose conduct rendered him unable to 
 carry his Reform policy into effect — appears to me," said Mr. Disraeli, "an 
 ungenerous indiscretion, and one which the people of the kingdom, what- 
 ever may be their opinion of the hon. member for Birmingham, cannot 
 approve and sanction." 
 
 Turning now to foreign policy, Mr. Disraeli reverted to the fact that the 
 Government of which Lord Palmerston was really, if not nominally, the 
 head had lost the confidence of the country, because — apart from the ques- 
 tion of Reform — " our foreign relations had been mismanaged or perverted, 
 and that a war with France was imminent, in consequence of the short- 
 sighted and prejudiced manner in which we had upheld the interests of 
 Austria." On that hypothesis the House had turned out the Government, 
 and the Liberal Ministry, who had replaced them, had announced that 
 they intended to carry on the administration of foreign affairs "on the 
 lines chalked out by their predecessors." But had they done so ? Could 
 it be denied, Mr. Disraeli asked in burning words, that not three months 
 had passed without Lord Palmerston being involved in the most unseemly 
 and the most violent courses with the French Government; that the 
 Foreign Minister had authentically informed the House that he intended 
 to look for new allies ; and that " on every public occasion on which the 
 relations of the two countries had been brought under discussion in the 
 House, those discussions arose from misunderstandings between the 
 Governments of the two countries. . . . The noble Lord told us the other 
 night that there existed between the Governments of England and France 
 
3U THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the most perfect understanding upon all matters of public policy. ... If 
 there be that perfect understanding between the two Governments, all I 
 can say is, that the people of this country are mystified beyond expression, 
 for the general assumption, not only of England but of Europe, is, that 
 upon all these matters there exist at this very moment great misunder- 
 standing and misapprehension between the Governments of England and 
 France." 
 
 After a few words of indignant reprehension of the waste of £12,000,000 
 ■which had been perpetrated in the Dockyards, of the " rash and impru- 
 dent " China war, and of the squabbles between the OfiSce of Works and 
 the Office of Woods, M r. Disraeli referred to the way in which the Colonies 
 had been treated, and to the manner in which the Colonial Secretary had 
 announced " that he should witness a dissolution of the ties between the 
 Mother Country and Canada with the utmost cheerfulness." The Prime 
 Minister, it was true, had repudiated this view of the case, but the facts 
 remained, and on those facts Mr. Disraeli summed up the evidence. " As 
 the noble Lord has informed us that he no longer recognizes the existence 
 of any parties in the State, but that he looks on us as counters he means 
 recklessly to play with for the gratification of his own ambition, I may be 
 permitted to say that, although the outraged feelings of those who made 
 him Minister have to-night been expressed — ^I believe with dignity and 
 truth — by the honourable member for Rochdale, though the noble Lord 
 has himself admitted that, so far as this Session is concerned, he has little 
 to pretend to which can recommend him to public consideration, but falls 
 back upon the achievements of former Sessions to excuse the shortcomings 
 which he does not deny, I will at least say for the gentlemen who sit on 
 this side of the House, that the past Session is a Session upon which they 
 have no reason to look back as a party with regret. ... To build up a 
 community, not upon Liberal opinions, which any man may fashion to his 
 fancy, but upon popular principles, which assert equal rights, civil and 
 religious ; to uphold the institutions of the country because they are the 
 embodiment of the wants and wishes of the nation, and protect us alike 
 from individual tyranny and popular outrage ; equally to resist democracy 
 and oligarchy, and favour that principle of free aristocracy which is the 
 only basis and security for constitutional government ; to be vigilant to 
 guard and prompt to vindicate the honour of the country, but to hold aloof 
 from that turbulent diplomacy which only distracts the mind of a people 
 from internal improvement ; to lighten taxation ; frugally, but wisely, to 
 administer the public treasure ; to favour popular education, because it is 
 the best guarantee for public order ; to defend local government, and to be 
 as jealous of the rights of the working man as of the prerogative of the 
 Crown and the privileges of the Senate— these were once the principles 
 which regulated Tory statesmen, and I, for one, have no wish that the 
 Tory party should ever be in power unless they practise them." 
 This debate practically closed the Session, Parliameot was prorogued 
 
CLOSE OF THE SESSION. 345 
 
 by Commission on the 7th of August, having succeeded in passing five 
 measures of sufiBcient importance to call for mention in the Eoyal Speech, 
 They were, an Act for further amending the Poor Law, by giving addi- 
 tional powers to Guardians ; a Land Transfer Act ; an Act for regulating 
 Parochial Assessments ; an Act for establishing uniformity of Weights and 
 Measures in Ireland, and an Act for regulating Merchant Shipping — a tale 
 of legislative work which will probably explain the contemptuous tone in 
 which the Conservative party spoke of the Government. 
 
346 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 STILL OUT OF OFFICE, 
 
 The Recess — Queen*s Speech — No Amendment to the Address — Mr. Disi'aeli's 
 Speech — Earls Russell's Foreign Policy — Poland and Austria — Brazil — Italy — 
 The Budget — Earl Russell at Blairgowrie — Speech from the Throne — 
 Mr. Disraeli on the Address — Condition of Europe — Denmark — Lord Russell's 
 promises — Government by Under Secretaries — ^The Budget of 1864 — A Penny 
 off the Income Tax — Prorogation — State of Europe — " On the side of the 
 Angels" — Commencement of the Reform Agitation — Session of 1865 — 
 Canada and the United States — Death of Mr. Cobden — Mr. Baines's Reform 
 Bill — ^The Westbury Scandal — The General Election — The falling Ministry 
 — Mr. Disraeli's Address — Results of the Election — Death of Lord Palmerston 
 — The Queen opens Parliament — Suspension of Habeas Corpus in Ireland — 
 The Budget — ^The New Reform Bill — Mr. Lowe's Opposition to it — Agitation 
 out of doors — Mr. Disraeli's criticism of the Bill — Mr. Gladstone's reply — 
 Ministers practically in a Minority — The Redistribution Bill — Absurd in 
 practice — Referred to Committee — The Government going to pieces — Lord 
 Dunkellin's Amendment — Ministers defeated — Lord Russell resigns — Lord 
 Derby sent for — Popular excitement — Mr. Disraeli once more elected for 
 Buckinghamshire. 
 
 The autumn of 1862 was a time of considerable excitement. The so- 
 aclled " Rebellion " in the United States was a subject which occupied the 
 minds of men, and unhappily the tongues and pens of Cabinet Ministers, 
 who were not careful to disguise their leaning to the side of the South, or 
 their belief in the impending break-up of the Union. Lord John Russell 
 was, indeed, tolerably prudent, though less reticent than he might have 
 been ; whilst Mr, Gladstone made, in October, one of the most imprudent 
 speeches ever uttered after dinner. Mr. Jefferson Davis, he said, had suc- 
 ceeded in making the Southern States an "independent nation." The 
 Alabama had sailed only a month before, and this speech, coming, as it 
 did, immediately after that untoward affair, and whilst the diplomatic 
 victory of England in the Trent affair was still fresh in the public mind of 
 America, not unnaturally created an impression on the other side of the 
 Atlantic that England would be only too glad when the moment for the 
 final disruption of the Union arrived. In Europe there were other com- 
 plications. The demands of Prussia upon Denmark had already begun to 
 assume shape, and Lord John Russell, with his incurable habit of inter- 
 meddling in every trouble of other States, had written a peculiarly unwise 
 despatch — even for him — recommending Denmark to give to Holstein and 
 Lauenberg all that the Germanic Confederatiou asked for them, and also to 
 erect Schleswig into an autonomous State. Meanwhile, negotiations for 
 
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. 347 
 
 the marriage of the Prince of Wales were going on, and Denmark was be- 
 ginning to hope that in the troubles which were very obviously coming 
 upon her, England would give her both moral and material support. 
 
 All these subjects and a good many more — including the offer of the 
 throne of Greece to Prince Alfred, and the Lancashire Cotton Famine — 
 were touched upon in the lengthy document read to Parliament by the 
 Commissioners who opened the Session on the 5th of February, 1863. The 
 Speech from the Throne was, however, remarkable rather for what it 
 omitted than for what it said. There was nothing about Eeform, nothing 
 about retrenchment of expenditure, nothing about future legislation, save 
 a vague promise that " various measures of public usefulness and improve- 
 ment" would be laid before Parliament. It was natural that such a 
 meagre programme should be criticised somewhat severely by the leader 
 of the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli did not indeed move an amendment to 
 the Address, but he criticised the conduct of the Government with no 
 inconsiderable force. The Opposition, he pointed out, had been careful to 
 refrain from embarrassing Ministers, and had worked for the maintenance 
 of a policy of neutrality in the American conflict. " I was, therefore," he 
 went on, " surprised and, individually speaking, somewhat mortified when 
 I found that in the course of the autumn Her Majesty's Government com- 
 missioned one of their members to repair to the chief seats of industry to 
 announce, as I understood it, an entire change in the policy which they 
 had throughout supported and sanctioned." He urged that Mr. Gladstone's 
 declaration could not be treated as a mistake or an accident, that it was an 
 official statement, and that if it meant anything at all, it meant that the 
 Government were prepared to recognise the Southern States, although no 
 one could contend that anything had occurred to warrant such a change 
 of policy. He condemned also, in the strongest terms, the vacillation of 
 the Government and the diversity of their opinions, which could not fail 
 to be a source of great diplomatic trouble in the future. " But whatever 
 may have been the disinclination of Her Majesty's Government to interfere 
 in the conflict between the Northern and the Southern States, there does 
 not appear to be any objection to interference in other countries. So far 
 as we can judge of the state of affairs, they appear to have employed the 
 autumn in interfering in almost every part of the world except America." 
 But whilst papers were promised about Greece, Italy, and Denmark, 
 nothing was said about China, and yet China was then a subject of the 
 greatest interest. The Taeping rebellion had then begun, and English 
 officers were being enlisted in support of the Tartar dynasty. Was this, 
 Mr. Disraeli asked, a desirable state of things? would it not tend to 
 involve us in another Chinese War ? and finally, was such a war, which 
 was certain to lead to an increase of taxation, desirable ? The Government 
 had promised retrenchment. He hoped the promise would be kept, not 
 by cutting down expenditure, but by the adoption of a policy which would 
 not lead to expenditure. Such a policy would be like that of the Duke of 
 
348 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Wellington, not a policy of intrigue, not a policy of sensation, not a policy 
 of surprise, but a genuinely Conservative and national one — sl policy which 
 would not lead to mistakes such as those which Lord John Russell had 
 perpetrated with reference to the Schleswig-Holstein question, to the diffi- 
 culty about the residence of the Pope, to the Suez Canal, to the Greek 
 insurrection and to the Ionian Islands. On the last point Mr. Disraeli 
 was especially urgent, pointing to the fact that Lord Palmerston had 
 opposed the construction of the Suez Canal with the greatest vehemence, 
 on the express ground that it would endanger the integrity of the Turkish 
 Empire, and yet by the proposed cession of these islands to Greece, he was 
 doing far more in this way, and was, as a matter of fact, reversing the 
 policy which the country had deliberately adopted. " It is idle to meet 
 us by arguing the case on a technical term, and to tell us that we are not 
 the possessors of the island but only the protectors. . . . Are difficult 
 questions like the cession of a province to be settled by special pleading 
 such as this? . . . Within the last twenty-five years the route to our 
 Indian possessions has been changed, and whatever the intention of the 
 treaties of 1815, the country has been constantly congratulated on having 
 a chain of Mediterranean garrisons which secured our Indian Empire. . . . 
 Professors and rhetoricians find a system for every contingency, and a 
 principle for every chance ; but you are not going, I hope, to leave the 
 destinies of the British Empire to prigs and pedants. The statesmen who 
 construct, and the warriors who achieve, are only influenced by the instinct 
 of power and animated by the love of country. Those are the feelings 
 and those the methods which form empires. There may be grave questions 
 as to the best mode of obtaining wealth — some may be in favour of the 
 protection of domestic and colonial interests, some of unrestricted compe- 
 tition, or some, of what I am quite surprised has now become so modish — 
 of commercial treaties and reciprocal arrangements for the advantage of 
 commercial exchange — propositions which used to be scouted in this 
 House ; but there can be no question either in or out of this House, that 
 the best mode of preserving wealth is power. A country, and especially a 
 maritime country, must get possession of the strong places of the world. 
 I have heard no argument to justify the course Her Majesty's Ministers 
 have pursued, or the expectations they have held out relative to the 
 Ionian Islands. . . . You propose to give these settlements, which have 
 been fostered by the power of England, and which abound in wealth and 
 public spirit, to the Provisional Government of what at present certainly 
 is a distracted country. Whatever the present posture of affairs, I trust 
 we shall not precipitately adopt a policy which appears to me to have been 
 taken up with some caprice, and which may lead to serious consequences." 
 Mr. Disraeli probably knew perfectly well that the hope which he ex- 
 pressed in these words would not be fulfilled. The Speech from the 
 Throne upo i which he was speaking had announced that if the Greeks 
 could find somebody to assume the ta§k of governing them, and " if in 
 
iNtEHVEN'flON IN POLAND. 849 
 
 SUcli a state of things the Republic of the Seven Islands should declare a 
 deliberate wish to be united to the kingdom of Greece, Her Majesty would 
 be prepared to take such steps as might be necessary for a revision of the 
 Treaty of November, 1815, by which that Republic was reconstituted and 
 was placed under the protection of the British Crown." The meaning of 
 those words could not be misunderstood. They conveyed an intimation 
 of the fact that the Government of Lord Palmerston had deliberately 
 determined to complicate still further the much-vexed Eastern Question, 
 and to add another to the many elements of difficulty already existing 
 with relation to it. The Ionian Islands were forthwith ceded to Greece, 
 Lord Palmerston defending the act in the House of Commons on the 
 ground that they had never been the property of England, but that she 
 merely exercised a protectorate which was terminable at will. 
 
 Lord Russell's Government was not much more fortunate in other 
 matters of foreign policy during this Session. He had chosen to inter- 
 meddle in the usual half-hearted way in the affairs of Poland ; writing 
 despatches that meant nothing and could lead to nothing save exasperation 
 on the part of the Russian Government, and the excitement of perfectly 
 baseless hopes on that of the Poles. However much the English people 
 might pity the sufferings of Poland, and however great might be their 
 indignation at Russian treachery and Russian cruelty, it was quite under- 
 stood that there was not the slightest probability of England's ever 
 entering upon a war for the restoration of Polish integrity. Nothing but 
 mischief could therefore be anticipated from remonstrances addressed to 
 Russia which we were not prepared practically to support, and the only 
 possible effect of which must be to stimulate that spirit of conspiracy which 
 is the bane of Poland. When therefore Mr. Hennessey brought forward his 
 motion calling for active interference in the affairs of that country, Lord 
 Beaconsfield seized the opportunity of condemning at once the proposition 
 of the versatile member for the Church of Rome and the meddhng propen- 
 sities of Her Majesty's Government. The meaning of Mr. Hennessey's, 
 address he interpreted as being that Ministers were not to pass over the 
 state of affairs in Poland in silence ; that they were to avail themselves of 
 their rights under the Treaty of Vienna, and to take every other step which 
 lay within their power to procure favourable treatment for the Poles. 
 That did not necessarily mean war, and he hoped it would not be so 
 interpreted, but he wished the Address to be withdrawn rather than have 
 it adopted by the House, emasculated in its language or changed in its 
 expressions. Poland itself he declared to have suffered more from political 
 sentimentality than any other State of Europe, and he commented with 
 some severity on those Poles who had been living in Paris and London in 
 comparative luxury year after year, and who had so lived by stimulating 
 their countrymen to useless revolt. The same views were expressed in the 
 debate of the 22nd of June, when Mr. Hennessey again raised a discussion 
 on Polisb affairs, in the course of which Lord Palmerston laid great stress 
 
850 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 upon the fact that Her Majesty's Government had " advised a cessation of 
 hostilities." " Is the Government of Russia," he aske<^, " in communica- 
 tion with the Government established by the insurgents ? Where is that 
 Government ? If it be, as we have been led to believe, a secret Govern- 
 ment, how is the Russian Government to take measures to obtain a 
 cessation of hostilities ? " There can be no question as to the soundness 
 and statesmanlike character of the position thus taken up, but it cannot be 
 denied that it injured the popularity of Mr. Disraeli, and retarded the 
 advent of the Tory party to power in this country in no small degree. 
 That " political sentimentality," which had all but deified Kossuth and 
 apotheosised Garibaldi, seized upon the supporters of Poland, and caused 
 them to speak of all who did not pronounce " shibboleth " in their particular 
 way as the enemies of popular liberty at home and abroad. In the result 
 Lord Beaconsfield, who had fought the battle of the people of England 
 against Whig encroachments and Whig measures of disfranchisement for 
 more than thirty years, was held up to popular execration as the supporter 
 of tyranny and the friend of reaction because he refused his support to a 
 policy which was humiliating to England and of no benefit to the unhappy 
 insurgents of Poland. The difficulty w,as aggravated by the fact that a 
 conspicuous journal, which at times imagines itself the organ of the Tory 
 party — wholly erroneously, by the way — took up the defence of Russia, 
 and almost alone amongst English newspapers, applauded the doings of the 
 Russian Government. A belief was thus created that the Tories approved 
 the atrocities which accompanied the suppression of the insurrection, and 
 of that belief the supporters of the Government made the fullest use. 
 
 In full accord with his reiterated protests against the "meddle and 
 muddle " foreign policy of the Whigs — a phrase, by the way, which was 
 not invented until the opening of the next Session, when it was used by 
 Lord Derby in his speech on the Address — was the speech delivered by 
 Mr. Disraeli in one of the debates on the squabble with Brazil. The 
 question of Mr. Christie's conduct had been brought under the notice of the 
 House in an irregular way on the motion for going into Committee on the 
 Prison Ministers Bill. Lord Beaconsfield expressed the strongest dislike 
 for these desultory discussions, and reminded Lord Palmerston that in the 
 course of a short speech he had *' attacked first the Brazilian Government, 
 then the Brazilian nation and their state of civilisation ; then he attacked 
 the American Minister at Rio, and finally he attacked the British merchants 
 in Brazil. ... I have no doubt that even General Webb (the American 
 Minister) has some friends here who may take up his cause, and then we 
 shall have the noble Lord indulging again in those instructive and 
 inspiriting attacks on foreign countries, which, though they may be very 
 amusing, certainly do not tend to a conciliatory course of diplomacy." la 
 the same spirit again he criticised the Whig policy with regard to Italy — a 
 policy of perpetual interference, intrigue, and "eras of moral support." 
 *' Since the death of Cavour," said Mr. Disraeli, " the programme of the 
 
THE BUDGET WITHDRAWN. 85t 
 
 national party in Italy has been ' movement, development, unity, Eome," 
 — immense words, verha sesquipedalia — used by men of very little minds 
 and very slight resources. What have they leant upon? They have 
 leant upon the support of England. In the English Parliament some 
 gentlemen, if not with the absolute co-operation of, at least with social 
 encouragement from the noble Lord, constantly brought forward the 
 subject of the state of Italy. It was let out like a bag fox, and followed 
 with a full halloo. Every year we had the noble Lord presented to us as 
 the regenerator of Italy, the saviour of the country, and the performance 
 ended with invectives directed against the Pope, and a promise . . . that 
 Kome should be the capital of a United Italy before the end of the Session. 
 . . . And now," he went on, " where has all this ended ? Cavour with- 
 drawn from the scene — no commanding mind in Italy ; France naturally 
 jealous of our uncertain and irritating policy ; Eome alarmed ; Kome and 
 France leagued against the unity of Italy ; the noble Lord conducting a 
 policy of words, speeches and despatches; and the Italian Governmenti 
 without a leader, still hanging on the accents of English Ministers, per- 
 petually adopting a line which nothing could justify except commanding 
 genius and commanding legions, and holding out to the people the imme- 
 diate expectation of Rome being made their capital by the overpowering 
 interference of their English ally." 
 
 The Budget was brought in on the 16th April, but it wds a tame and 
 uninteresting series of proposals which called for none of that elaborate 
 criticism which the leader of the Opposition usually bestowed upon Liberal 
 finance. Its principal features were the reduction of the Tea Duty to Is. 
 and the removal of the exemption from Income Tax accorded to Charitable 
 Corporations. The latter proposal created an enormous amount of excite^ 
 ment outside, and in deference to the clamour of the public it was with- 
 drawn. Mr. Disraeli made no remark upon the subject, nor in fact did he 
 speak much, except upon questions of foreign policy, during the Session. 
 Parliament was prorogued by Commission on the 28th of July. The Royal 
 Speech contains eighteen long paragraphs, seven of which relate to foreign 
 affairs, one to India, and one to New Zealand. Three only relate to accom- 
 plished legislation — the Acts for augmenting the incomes of small benefices, 
 for the revision of a portion of the Statute Book, and for placing the 
 volunteer force on a better footing, being the only outcome of the delibera- 
 tions of the Legislature. The country had, however, the satisfaction of 
 knowing that some efforts at diplomatic intervention had been made in 
 behalf of Poland, that Brazil had quarrelled with England, that we were 
 going to war with Japan, and that war was threatening in New Zealand. 
 
 The Recess was politically as uninteresting as the Session had been as 
 regarded home politics. Its most notable incident was the delivery of a 
 speech by Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, in the course of which he expressed 
 his opinion that so far as Reform was concerned England was entitled to 
 « Rest And Be Thankful." There was, however, plenty of activity in forcigc 
 
852 THE PUBLIC LIFE* OB* I'M EARL OF BEACONSFIELO. 
 
 affairs, and before the Session began war had all but broken out betvveeil 
 Denmark and her German neighbours. That matter naturally formed tho 
 subject of the first part of the Speech from the Throne when Parliament 
 was opened by Commission on the 4th of February, 1864:. The Japanese 
 difficulty, the New Zealand war, and the cession of the Ionian Islands were 
 also referred to, but the programme for the Session was extraordinarily 
 meagre, being summed up in the stereotyped announcement copied from 
 the Speech of the preceding year that " various measures of public use- 
 fulness would be submitted for consideration." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, in a speech not very long but certainly very pungent, 
 criticised the shortcomings of this manifesto of the Government, dwelling 
 first upon the fact that while the patience of the sufferers by the cotton 
 famine in Lancashire was duly commended, nothing whatever had been 
 said about the patience with which the agricultural distress in Ireland 
 which had lasted for now three years had been borne by the people of that 
 country. Emigration from thence was going on at an unprecedented rate, 
 and that was a matter which he could not regard with complacency or 
 even indifference. He complained also of the absence from the Speech of 
 any allusion to the American war, and of any declaration that the Govern- 
 ment intended to pursue the policy which it had pursued hitherto and which 
 had been sanctioned by Parliament. A good deal had occurred during the 
 Eecess which led to a general fear lest there should be some deviation from 
 strict neutrality. Further he asked for information about China, where 
 the old difficulty of English officers taking part in the civil war still con- 
 tinued. On the Polish question, he observed that although the Government 
 promised to use its best endeavours in the interest of peace, nothing was 
 said of certain diplomatic propositions which were understood to have been 
 made by France and which might have had the effect of removing some 
 of the irritation which existed and some of the misapprehension which was 
 know to prevail. The greatest omission of all with regard to foreign affairs 
 was, however, that of the customary assurance that Her Majesty continued 
 to receive from foreign powers declarations of goodwill. That omission he 
 thought ominous, and it forced the critics of the Government to take a 
 review of the situation. " Taking a general view," said he, " of our foreign 
 relations, what strikes me as their principal feature is their utter confusion. 
 Everything is in an inconsistent condition — sometimes approaching even 
 to the incoherent. Everything appears to be done with a total want of 
 system, and we are forced to ask ourselves daily this question — * what are our 
 objects, and who are our allies ? '" In the case of Russia Ministers had 
 stimulated insurrection, "and then in the midst of the tumult and the 
 conflagration they suddenly drew up. Their conduct became involved in 
 perplexity and ambiguity, and they never once relapsed into frankness 
 except at the last to declare that on no consideration whatever would they 
 go to war in favour of a policy which, in justice to Poland and the Poles, 
 they never should have adopted unless they were prepared in reality to 
 
t)EBATE ON THE ADDRESS. 353 
 
 support it." "With reference to the Ionian Islands he pointed out that 
 although the cession of that portion of British territory was a step con- 
 cerning which the gravest doubts were entertained, it was one which might 
 become desirable if we wished to strengthen and consolidate the power of 
 the kingdom of Greece. But no sooner had the cession been decided on 
 than the greater part of its value was taken away by the imposition of 
 two conditions — the neutralisation of the territory and the destruction of 
 the fortifications. The refusal of England to attend the proposed Congress 
 on the Treaty of Vienna he considered an affront to France and not merely 
 to the French Emperor who had proposed it, and he expressed the deepest 
 regret that the Government could find nothing better than a sneer for its 
 reply. 
 
 Turning then to the great question of the day, the impending war be- 
 tween Germany and Denmark, Mr. Disraeli expressed his bewilderment 
 and surprise at the fact that although a great part of the Royal Speech 
 was occupied by references to this question there was absolutely no ex- 
 pression of opinion — no declaration of policy. At the same time, the 
 unfortunate despatch of Earl Russell (of the 24th of September, 1862, in 
 which he had recommended Denmark to give an autonomy to Schleswig, 
 and to Holstein and Lauenberg all that the German Confederation asked 
 for them) was notoriously considered by the extreme German party as an 
 indication that the English Government was strongly biassed in its favour. 
 He referred then to the debate which had been raised on the subject by 
 Mr. Horsman on the last night of the preceding Session and reminded the 
 House of the speech of Lord Palmerston on that occasion, " in which he 
 declared, while duly acknowledging the relations of Holstein to the German 
 Diet, that if the border was passed Denmark would find that she was not 
 alone in the quarrel — I ask the House — I ask both sides of the House 
 with equal confidence — whether the necessary effect of that speech was not, 
 what we all know now it was, to encourage a party that never required any 
 encouragement, namely the extreme Danish party. Therefore," he went 
 on to say, "in this grave question of Germany and Denmark, the same 
 confusion, the same inconsistency, the same incoherency and the same 
 oppositeness which I have traced throughout the whole diplomatic conduct 
 of Her Majesty's Government are to be found." He protested against the 
 line which Ministers seemed prepared to adopt — that of taking their policy 
 from the House instead of taking the initiative themselves. " What I 
 wish to impress upon the House is that that is by no means our duty. 
 If there be a prerogative of the Crown which no one has ever challenged, 
 it is the prerogative of the Crown to declare peace and war without the 
 interference of Parliament, by Her Majesty alone under the advice of her 
 responsible Ministers. . . . The condition of Europe is no doubt one of a 
 grave character, and upon the conduct of the English Government and 
 upon the conduct of Parliament much depends. But it is for the Govern- 
 ment to frame a policy and recommend it to us : aud I have no doubt that 
 
 2 a 
 
354 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 when it is brought before us, if it be a wise policy, the House will unani- 
 mously support them : for I have always seen that when foreign affairs 
 have occupied the attention of the House there has been an absence of 
 party strife. But let us be sure about the policy we are pursuing. Let us 
 be quite sure, if we go to war, first of all that it is a necessary and just 
 war, and secondly, if now necessary, whether it might not have been pre- 
 vented by more skilful management." 
 
 Throughout the spring the leader of the Opposition constantly spoke in 
 this strain. The papers on the Schleswig-Holstein question ought unques- 
 tionably, according to Parliamentary precedent, to have been produced at 
 the beginning of the Session, but it was only after repeated inquiries urged 
 in the strongest manner that Lord Palmerston's characteristic indisposition 
 to take the House into his confidence was overcome. "When the papers 
 were produced at last, and it was suddenly announced that negotiations 
 had been resumed, considerable dissatisfaction was, of course, both felt 
 and expressed. Mr. Disraeli gave expression to some feeling of this kind 
 on more than one occasion, and on the eve of the Conference of London, 
 which Lord Eussell's diplomacy had succeeded in bringing about, he took 
 part in the debate on Mr. Bernal Osborne's motion that " it is both unjust 
 and inexpedient to insist on the provisions of the Treaty of London, 1852, 
 so far as they relate to the order of succession in the duchies of Schleswig 
 and Holstein, as a basis for the settlement of the Dano -German dispute." 
 
 The speech of the leader of the Opposition on this occasion was suffi- 
 ciently characteristic. He referred to that on the Address which has just 
 been cited, dwelling with more emphasis than before on the way in which, 
 under the guidance of Lord Eussell, this country had led on the Emperor 
 Napoleon in the matter of Poland, only to leave him in the end in a 
 position which was not one of dignity or self-respect in the eyes of Europe. 
 That conduct, he urged, had weakened our influence, and when it was 
 followed up by a refusal to join in the Emperor's proposal for a Congress 
 on the Danish question, it had created an impression that the Anglo- 
 French alliance had been shaken, and that consequently the war then 
 raging had been brought about. He protested against the notion that 
 every criticism of the Government should be treated as a motion of want 
 of confidence, as well as against that which seemed to underlie the speeches 
 of the supporters of the Government that, if the Opposition were dissa- 
 tisfied with the policy of the Government it was their duty to bring 
 •forward a policy of their own. And, finally, he protested against the 
 motion before the House, inasmuch as it was an attempt to impose upon 
 the House of Commons the task of laying down the bases of a Conference. 
 He concluded his speech by asking, in emphatic tenns, for a declaration of 
 the Government policy. It was the duty of the Government to originate 
 as it was the duty of the Opposition to criticise, and he therefore asked for 
 the remaining papers on the Schleswig-Holstein question, and for a distinct 
 declaration of the intentions of Lord Palmerston's Government. It is 
 
LORD PALMERSTON'S FOREIGN POLICE 355 
 
 hardly necessary to add that he obtained for answer a declaration that the 
 disclosure of the intentions of the Government on the eve of the Conference 
 would be inconvenient and prejudicial. The Conference met in due course. 
 Earl Eussell proposed an armistice, which was agreed to for a month, and 
 finally, the Conference having failed and war having recommenced, 
 Mr. Disraeli gave notice of a vote of want of confidence, on the ground 
 that " while the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government had failed 
 to maintain their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and indepen- 
 dence of Denmark, it had lowered the just influence of this country in the 
 counsels of Europe and thereby diminished the securities for peace." 
 
 After pointing out that England was no more bound by the Treaty of 
 1852 to interfere in the affairs of Denraarlv than were France and Eussia, 
 and that on moral grounds there was even less reason for her taking up 
 the position of a partizan, he went on to trace the history of the relations 
 of Denmark with the German Diet. Ministers had thought it their duty 
 to interfere when those relations became strained ; but the wisdom of their 
 doing so was doubtful, seeing that the question at issue was purely 
 Federal in its character. They might, however, defend themselves on the 
 ground that it was in itself so large, that it became of international im- 
 portance. This interference entailed a long controversy, which resulted in 
 the famous despatch of September 1862, and that in turn was followed by 
 the equally famous speech of Lord Palmerston, to which reference has 
 already been made. Of that speech the leader of the Opposition declared 
 that it was " a clear, statesmanlike and manly declaration of policy, and 
 not a hurried or hasty expression of opinion. . . . The occasion was 
 arranged. ... Ho wanted the disquietude of the public mind in England 
 and on the Continent especially to be soothed and satisfied, and he knew 
 that he could not arrive at such a desirable result more happily and com- 
 pletely than by a frank exposition of the policy of the Government. Sir,", 
 he went on, " it is my business to-night to vindicate the noble lord from 
 those who have treated this declaration of policy as one used only to amuse 
 the House of Commons. I am here to prove the sincerity of that decla- 
 ration." Then from the Blue Book he produced several citations, to show 
 that, at the time that speech was made, and for some time before and 
 after, the Ambassadors at Berlin and Vienna had been instructed in this 
 sense. Further, he went on to argue that the policy, besides being a 
 definite one was a wise and judicious one, inasmuch as it was cordially 
 endorsed by France and even invited by her. When, however, England 
 made overtures to France on this subject in the following September, they 
 were very coldly received, the reason unquestionably being the manner 
 in which Earl Eussell had blown hot and cold alternately in the 
 matter of Poland, and had placed Franco in a false and humiliating 
 position as regarded Europe. All this was proved by successive 
 extracts from the Blue Book, and from the same source the spcpker 
 drew also proofs of the almost absolute threats which, even up to the 
 
 2 A 2 
 
35(J THE PUBLIC LIFE 0^ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, 
 
 date when it was decided that " Federal Execution " should be put in 
 force, Earl Kussell was despatching to Prussia to warn her against 
 going to war for the purpose of annexation. Then, after a renewal of 
 negotiations with all the Powers, came the opening of Parliament. Just 
 before that event took place — on the 24:th of January — Earl Kussell again 
 made overtures to France, and was received with even more coldness than 
 before ; a fact upon which Mr. Disraeli relied to prove that " the just 
 influence of England was lowered in another quarter of Europe." Then 
 running briefly over the way in which the Government had evaded discus- 
 sion by keeping back papers, how the proceedings of the Congress had been 
 veiled in masks and mysteries, and how at last the proposals of England 
 at the Congress had been flouted, and deservedly flouted, he summed up 
 by asking for a declaration of the opinion of the House on the management 
 of this business. " Do you see in the management of those affairs that 
 capacity and especially that kind of capacity that is adequate to the occa- 
 sion? Do you find in it that sagacity, that prudence, that dexterity, that 
 quickness of perception, and those conciliatory moods, which we are always 
 taught to believe necessary in the transaction of our foreign affairs ? Is 
 there to be seen that knowledge of human nature, and especially of that 
 particular kind of science most necessary in these affairs — an acquaintance 
 with the character of foreign countries and of the chief actors in the scene?" 
 He professed that he could find none of these qualities and argued that 
 from the want of them the policy of the Government had failed, our influ- 
 ence in the councils of Europe had been destroyed and in consequence the 
 securities for peace had been diminished. On that text he enlarged at some 
 length, dwelling on the humiliation which every one must feel at hearing the 
 chief Ministers of the Cabinet, when the Congress had collapsed, confessing 
 in both Houses of Parliament that having no allies we were powerless, 
 even whilst Lord Russell could not refrain from denouncing in the same 
 speech in which he made this admission, alternately the perfidy of Prussia 
 and the fickleness of Austria. To complete the picture, the noble Lord at 
 the head of the Government had in the other House equally condemned 
 the obstinacy of Denmark in refusing to submit to dismemberment at the 
 bidding of England. 
 
 Mr. Newdegate proposed an amendment which was withdrawn in favour 
 of one brought forward by Mr. Kinglake, expressive of satisfaction that 
 " at this conjuncture Her Majesty had been advised to abstain from armed 
 interference in the war," and that amendment was carried by 313 to 295 — 
 a majority of 18. As with two exceptions, every member of the Admini- 
 stration voted in this division, to the number of 25, it will be seen by how 
 precarious a tenure the Government held its position. In the Lords a 
 similar motion was carried against Ministers by a majority of 9-177 against 
 168, including proxies. 
 
 There can be no question that this division greatly shook the position of 
 the Palmerston Government, weakened as it already was by what was 
 
GOVERNMENT BY UNDER-SECRECTARIES. 357 
 
 called the " Stansfeld Inciilent " earlier in the year — when a memher of the 
 Administration was proved to have allowed his house to be made the head- 
 quarters of the Italian refugees who were plotting against the peace of 
 Europe and the lives of European Sovereigns — by the resignation of 
 Mr. Lowe of his place at the Privy Council, and by the treatment awarded 
 by the Government to the proposals for extending the County Franchise. 
 In connection with the " Stansfeld incident" it may be noted, by the way, 
 that in the course of the Session (April 18) the leader of the Opposition, 
 who had more than once adverted to the fact that the Government was 
 represented in the House of Commons chiefly by Under-Secretaries whose 
 oflScial character was treated with even more contempt by their superiors 
 than by those who sat opposite to them, brought forward this question 
 upon Constitutional grounds. His speech was in his happiest vein, full of 
 sarcasm and epigram. He urged that the work of the House demanded 
 that the majority of oflSces should be held by its members ; recalled the 
 fact that it had been said that the ** Government of this country ought to 
 be conducted by the educated section of the Liberal party " — a happy 
 phrase when taken in connection with the fact that " all the great offices 
 of State were confided to the custody of half-a-dozen peers of the realm" 
 — ^and declared that if the question were regarded purely from a party 
 point of view he should be well satisfied, since " no arrangement could 
 more tend to the political degradation of the party opposite." He went on 
 to point out how this arrangement tended to weaken the authority of the 
 House of Commons, but how it still more lowered its character by making 
 it unduly subservient to the Upper House. Mr. Disraeli had criticised a 
 certain policy which had been adopted by a SecJl-etary of State who sat in 
 the Upper House, and he had been taunted by Lord Palmerston with 
 having attacked an " absent man " — from which he " saw clearly in what 
 a situation members of the Opposition would be placed, who, bringing 
 forward cases of importance or urging inquiries of interest, were always 
 put in collision with gentlemen . . . who are obliged to encounter us upon 
 questions which no one can properly treat who is not in the councils of his 
 Sovereign, who is ignorant of the motives and the policy really pursued 
 by the Cabinet, and who cannot enter into those engagements and make 
 those representations which the authority of Ministers of the Crown alone 
 authorises them to express." Then, after tracing the history of Under- 
 Secretaryships, he pointed out that the recent rearrangement of public 
 business consequent upon the retirement of the Duke of Neweastle, had 
 left the House of Commons with no fewer than five Under-Secretaries — a 
 state of things which was flagrantly unconstitutional. The subject was 
 argued at considerable length and upon technical grounds, but in the end 
 Mr. Disraeli succeeded in getting the House to resolve, in accordance with 
 his motion, that the law had been violated, though the resolution was 
 saddled with a rider in the shape of the appointment of ^ Committee to 
 
358 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 consider " wtefher the Under-Secretary of State who was last appointed 
 to that office thereby vacated his seat." 
 
 The Budget was brought in on the 4th of April, and Mr. Gladstone had 
 the satisfaction of announcing a surplus of £2,352,000, which he proposed 
 to utilize by relieving the Income Tax payer to the extent of a penny in 
 the pound and by making sundry reductions in the Sugar Duties, the Fire 
 Insurance Duty and the Stamp Duties. Naturally enough the representa- 
 tives of the agricultural interest thought that with a surplus of nearly two 
 millions and a half they were entitled to some reduction in the Malt Tax, 
 and Colonel Barttelot brought forward a motion accordingly to the effect 
 that the consideration of the duties on Sugar should be postponed until 
 the Malt Tax had been discussed. He succeeded, however, in taking with 
 him into the Lobby no more than 99 followers, as against 347 who supported 
 the Government proposal, of whom Mr. Disraeli was one. The leader of 
 the Opposition admitted the legitimacy of the object aimed at by this reso- 
 lution, but he pointed out that if the object of the agricultural party were 
 attained the entire surplus would be swallowed up and the national engage- 
 ment to the payers of Income Tax would be violated. At the same time 
 he protested that his opinion on the injustice and inequality of the Malt 
 Tax had not changed in the smallest degree. The question simply was, 
 whether in fairness to the payers of Income Tax that impost, which was 
 createdly simply and solely to supply the exigencies of war and under 
 solemn engagements that it should be remitted when peace was made, the 
 House should sanction the removal of a portion of the tax which notoriously 
 affected the agricultural community almost exclusively. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued by Commission on the 29th of July, 1864. 
 The situation as disclosed in the Speech from the Throne was hardly con- 
 solatory. War was still going on in Denmark ; that great achievement, 
 the cession of the Ionian Islands, had been completed, and peace was 
 established with the Emperor of China ; the Hospodar of Moldo-Wallachia 
 had soldered up his feud with the Sultan, and the American War was 
 raging as fiercely as ever. The manufacturing dist ricts were not so greatly 
 distressed as they had been'; the New Zealand war was going on ; but peace 
 reigned in India. The work of the Session comprised an Act for regulating 
 the employment of women and children in factories, for creating Govern- 
 ment annuities for purchase by the working classes, for Public Works in 
 the manufacturing districts, and are for increasing the facilities for the con- 
 struction of railways — not a very splendid list perhaps, but as much as 
 could be expected from a Parliament which accepted meddling in foreign 
 affairs as a substitute for a strong domestic policy. 
 
 The recess was enlivened by a speech from Lord Beaconsfield which has 
 attained a certain celebrity from the use of a single epigrammatic phrase in 
 it. A meeting of the Oxford Diocesan Society for the augmentation of 
 small benefices having been called, Mr, Disraeli was amongst the principal 
 
«0N THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS." 359 
 
 speakers. His speecli was one of those paradoxically brilliant ones in 
 which he was wont to delight. He told his audience that instead of the age 
 of faith being past, he " held that the characteristic of the age was a craving 
 creduUty." He went on : — " Why, my lord, man is a being born to believe, 
 and if you do not come forward, if no Church comes forward with its title 
 deeds of truth sustained by the tradition of sacred ages, and by the con- 
 victions of countless generations to guide him, he will found altars and idols 
 in his own heart, and in his own imagination. "Where there is a great 
 demand there will be a proportional supply ; and commencing as the new 
 school may by rejecting the principle of inspiration, it will end by every 
 priest being a prophet; and beginning as they do by repudiating the prac- 
 tice of miracles, before long we shall be living in a flitting scene of spiritual 
 phantasmagoria. There are no tenets however extravagant, no practices 
 however objectiociable, which will not in time develop under such a state 
 of affairs : opinions the most absurd and ceremonies the most revolting 
 are perhaps to be foUowed by the incantations of Canidia, and the Cory- 
 bantian howl." Then came a reference to the wonderful way in which the 
 French Eevolution, after having madly overthrown the altar and the throne, 
 had ooUapsed, and how " when, as it were, the waters had disappeared, the 
 sacred heights of Sinai and Calvary were again revealed, and amid the 
 wreck of thrones, and tribunals of extinct nations, and abolished lawsj 
 mankind bowed again before the Divine truths that had been by Omni- 
 potent power, in His ineffable wisdom, entrusted to the custody and the 
 promulgation of a chosen people. I hold," Mr. Disraeli went on, "that 
 the highest function of science is the interpretation of nature, and the inter- 
 pretation of the highest nature is the highest science. But I say that when 
 I compare the interpretations of the highest nature with the most advanced, 
 the most fashionable and modern school of modern science, with the older 
 teachings with which we are familiar, I am not prepared to say that the lecture 
 room is more scientific than the Church. What is the question which is now 
 placed before society with a glib assurance which to me is most astonish- 
 ing ? The question is this — is a man an ape or an angel ? My lord, I am 
 on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence 
 these new fangled theories. I believe they are foreign to the conscience of 
 humanity ; and I say more, that even in the strictest intellectual point of 
 view, I believe that even the severest metaphysical analysis is opposed to 
 such conclusions. But on the other hand, what does the Church teach us ? 
 What is the interpretation of the highest nature ? It teaches us that man 
 is made in the image of his Creator — a source of inspiration, of solace— a 
 source from which can flow only every right principle of morals and every 
 divine truth." 
 
 The most important event of the winter was the commencement of the 
 Kadical crusade for an extension of the Fr anchise. The Liberal party had 
 good cause to complain of the way in which their tmsted leaders had dealt 
 with this subject. In the Session of 1859, the Conservative party had 
 
360 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 brought in a Bill dealing with this subject which would have admitted a 
 very large number of persons to the franchise, and they had been turned 
 out of office because their Bill was based upon the principle of extension 
 laterally — that is to say by widening all existing suffrages — rather than 
 upon that of swamping the register by admitting large bodies of a single 
 class without making due provision for those members of the class above 
 whom accidental circumstances might have deprived of electoral rights. 
 Since that time the question had been allowed to slumber. Lord John 
 Eussell had indeed brought in a Bill which he recommended to the House, 
 on the ground that it would do very little in the way of extending the 
 electoral basis, and that Bill was not unnaturally withdrawn. From that 
 time forward the only thing that was heard was his advice to " rest and be 
 thankful." At the same time it cannot be' contended that the way in 
 which the agitation was got up was very creditable to the Liberal agitators. 
 Their cry was, if it meant anything at all, a cry for universal suffrage, and 
 men like Mr. Bright did not scruple to go into the larger centres of popu- 
 lation and — as he did at Birmingham in the middle of January 1865 — tell 
 the people that so long as they remained without votes they could not call 
 themselves free. 
 
 The agitation out of doors had, however, hardly assumed very definite pro- 
 portions when Parliament opened on the 7th of February, 1865, and accord- 
 ingly nothing is to be found on the subject in the Speech from the Throne, 
 which mentioned only as the programme of the Session the Bills for pro- 
 viding a Palace of Justice, for completing the Revision of the Statute law, 
 for improving Patent law, for modifying the Poor Law and for dealing with. 
 Endowed Schools. Lord Derby characterised the Speech as ** perfectly 
 innocuous," and "of just such a character as might naturally have been 
 expected to be addressed by an aged minister to a moribund Parliament." 
 Mr. Disraeli did not say even so much, but allowed the Address to be 
 voted in silence. Throughout the short, and not particularly interesting 
 Session he spoke indeed but seldom and once only at any great length — on 
 the principle, it is to be presumed, of allowing the rank and file of the 
 party to do its work while the chief assumes the task of direction. 
 
 His most important and characteristic speech of this Session was de- 
 livered on Monday, the 14th of March, the subject being the relations of 
 this country with America. On going into Supply Mr. Seymour Fitz- 
 gerald interposed to call attention to Colonel Jervois' Report on the 
 Defences of Canada, and to ask the Government what steps they proposed 
 to take in consequence of that Report. In the course of his speech he 
 gave expression to the general uneasiness which was felt in this country 
 and in Canada on account of the vapouring of certain American politicians 
 and because also of the withdrawal of the United States from the Reci- 
 procity Treaty. Mr. Cardwell replied on behalf of the Government, 
 speaking very hopefully of the future of our relations with America, and 
 refusing to sj^y more of the intentions of the Government than that if war 
 
OUR RELATIONS WITH AMERICA. S61 
 
 were declared against Canada, it would be considered as a war against 
 England also. The leader of the Opposition followed with a speech of con- 
 siderable length. He began by ridiculing the prophets who were vexed 
 because their predictions about America had not been fulfilled, and he not 
 unreasonably took credit to himself for having kept out of their ranks. 
 Lord Eussell, Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Lewis had all propounded 
 theories which events had disproved and predicted results which had never 
 followed. He himself had no falsified prophecies on his conscience— a cir- 
 cumstance which he explained by the fact that he had predicted nothing 
 and had generally avoided the subject altogether, Mr. Forster had censured 
 Lord Derby, whose name he mentioned, for having suggested that the 
 Americans were animated by a spirit of animosity towards this country. 
 Mr. Disraeli defended his chief and protested that the Cons ervative party, 
 from the leaders to the rank and file, had no animosity to the party of the 
 North, and had no intention of slighting them in any way. For himself 
 he willingly and gladly did justice to the energy and discretion of the 
 Federal Government, and he could vouch for his noble friend being of the 
 same opinion. He thought it peculiarly unfortunate that the people of 
 this country took so much notice of the " rowdy rhetoric " of the American 
 newspapers and of popular meetings. The wild speeches at those gatherings 
 and the wilder articles of the lower class of American journals no more re- 
 presented the true mind of the people than the strong fantastic drinks of 
 the " bars " represented the real substance and nutriment of their bodies. 
 He believed that the Americans were at heart a domestic people who when 
 the war was over would welcome the returning labourers to their fields, 
 would rejoice over the restored circle of their hearths, and would be averse 
 to farther warlike enterprise. But we ought to note the revolution which 
 was taking place in North America. Even when the present struggle 
 between North and South was at an end — ^and on the nearness of the end 
 he expressed no opinion — the Government might continue the same in 
 form but would be new in spirit. It would have to deal with new circum- 
 stances—with discontented Southerners and negroes emancipated but not 
 incorporated with the general community. In our own possessions a grand 
 Confederacy had been formed, conscious of a national existence, while in 
 Mexico a Republic had given place to an Empire. Thus since the con- 
 ditions of North America were undergoing a remarkable change in every 
 quarter we must be prepared for every contingency. If the Canadians saw 
 before them a promising career as an independent State, we had no right 
 to withhold them from that career. We did not want to force ourselves 
 upon anyone, but we could not in honour allow any of our territories to be 
 violently snatched from our hands. Hence he blamed the Government for 
 having lost four years in idleness and for leaving our North American pos- 
 sessions without defence. It was late to begin the work, but that was the 
 more reason why it should be prosecuted with spirit. This logical and 
 striking exposition of the situation from a point of view altogether dififerent 
 
362 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 from that occupied by impatient partizans of the type of Mr. Bright, who 
 followed later in the evening with one of those diatribes against his own 
 countrymen and eulogies of America in which he so much delights, was 
 received with very general satisfaction. Even across the Atlantic the more 
 respectable organs of public opinion hailed with satisfaction the declarations 
 of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition as being dignified and patriotic, 
 by no means arrogant in its tone or indicative of any disposition to 
 treat the United States with aught save the most perfect courtesy and 
 friendliness. 
 
 On two occasions — the deaths of Cobden and of President Lincoln — it 
 fell to his lot to pronounce the elegies of great men, and on each he acquitted 
 himself with singular felicity. His tribute to the memory of Cobden — the 
 antagonist for whom he always entertained so cordial and sincere a respect 
 — was worthy of the occasion. " Sir," said he, " there is something mourn- 
 ful in the history of this Parliament when we remember how many of our 
 most eminent and valued public men have passed from among us. I cannot 
 refer to the history of any other Parliament which will bear to posterity 
 so fatal a record. But there is this consolation when we remember these 
 unequalled and irreparable visitations — that these great men are not 
 altogether lost to us ; that their opinions will be often quoted in this 
 House ; their authority appealed to ; their judgments attested ; even their 
 very words will form part of our deliberations and debates. There are 
 some members of Parliament who, though not present in the body, are 
 still members of this House ; independent of dissolutions, of the caprice 
 of constituencies, even of the course of time. I think. Sir, Mr. Cobden 
 was one of these men. I believe that when the verdict of posterity shall 
 be recorded on his life and conduct, it will be said of him that he was, 
 without doubt, the greatest political character the pure middle class of 
 this country has yet produced — an ornament to the House of Commons, 
 and an honour to England." 
 
 Seeing that the Government had declined to bring in a Bill for the ex- 
 tension of the Franchise, Mr. Baines, the member for Leeds, brought in a 
 small measure on his own account for its extension in the Boroughs. Such a 
 Bill was not likely to pass, and on the first night the Government — acting 
 as usual through its Under-Secretaries, tried to snuff it out. Mr. Disraeli 
 forced an adjournment, and repeated in stringent terms some of those 
 arguments with reference to the representation of the Administration in 
 the House of Commons by subordiDates which he had made use of on a 
 previous occasion. The second night's debate was concluded by a speech 
 from him, in which, in a short space, he summed up the arguments 
 against the Bill — that it was a Bill to do very much in a very imperfect 
 way ; that whereas it should have been a Government measure, it had been 
 brought in by a private member ; that it seemed that one of the arguments 
 in favour of the Bill was that it relieved Lord Palmerston of a difficulty ; 
 and finally, that no two members of the Liberal party appeared to bo, 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION. 363 
 
 agreed as to what was wanted. Then, after vindicating his own conduct, 
 and that of the Government of Lord Derby in relation to the Keform 
 Bill of 1859, he said, " I can at least . . . say that we treated it with 
 sincerity, that we prepared our measure with care and submitted it to the 
 House trusting to its candid consideration. We spared no pains in its 
 preparation, and at this time I am bound to say, speaking for my col- 
 leagues — in the main principle on which that Bill was founded, namely, 
 the extension of the franchise, not its degradation, will be found, we 
 believe, the only solution that will ultimately be accepted by the country. 
 Therefore I cannot say that I look to this question, or that those with 
 whom 1 act look to it, with any embarrassment. We feel we have done 
 our duty ; and it is not without gratification that I have listened to the 
 candid admissions of many honourable gentlemen who voted against it that 
 they feel the defeat of that measure by the Liberal party was a great 
 mistake. So far as we are concerned, we as a party can look to Parlia- 
 mentary Eeform not as an embarrassing subject ; but that is no reason 
 why we should agree to the measure of the honourable member for Leeds." 
 A sentence or two later he characterised the proposal to reduce the suffrage 
 in boroughs to £6 as a " mean device," and the House endorsed his 
 opinion by rejecting the Bill by 74 votes in a House of 502. 
 
 Before the Session closed on the 6th of July, 1865, the Government 
 was to receive another heavy blow in the person of the Lord Chancellor 
 (Westbury), who — there is no scandal in saying so — had perpetrated a 
 gross and flagrant job in appointing certain persons, including his son, 
 to lucrative posts in the service of the State. It is not now necessary to 
 take up an exceedingly dirty business, but it is not saying too much 
 to characterise the whole affair as one of the most disgraceful breaches of 
 public trust of which a high official could be guilty. Its effect was visible 
 in the vote of censure which the House, by a majority of 14, passed upon 
 Lord Westbury, and of which he showed his acceptance by resigning. 
 
 The general election, which took place almost immediately, turned upon 
 the great question of Keform. Lord Palmerston, in his address to the 
 electors of Tiverton, appeared to have a presentiment of his own rapidly 
 approaching end — he died on the 18th of October — and spoke somewhat 
 dubiously of the prospect of his Administration long continuing to govern 
 the country. Mr. Bright jubilantly assured his constituents that the 
 Ministry was tottering to its fall, and, as usual in his hustings speeches, 
 denounced Lord Beaconsfield as the enemy of the working classes in words 
 which the logic of events has so completely falsified that there is some- 
 thing ludicrous in recalling them. He admitted that " Mr. Disraeli is a 
 man of brains, of genius, of a great capacity for action, of a wonderful 
 tenacity of purpose, and of a rare courage. He would," he however went 
 on to say, " have been a statesman if his powers had been directed by any 
 ennobling principle or idea, but unhappily he prefers a temporary and 
 
364 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 worthless distinction as the head of a decaying party fighting for impos- 
 sible ends, to the priceless memories of the services rendered to his 
 country, and to freedom, upon which only in our age an enduring fame 
 can be built up. The fancy franchise has failed, the lateral extension will 
 also fail ; we who advocate honest, open, clearly understood, and definite 
 measures — we shall succeed." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's address to the electors was somewhat of the shortest, 
 reminding them simply that, upon the constitution of the next Parlia- 
 ment hung the policy of the country for many years. No opposition was 
 made to his return. The Liberal party had, it was said, scoured the 
 county in search of a candidate, but even the hitherto irrepressible Dr. 
 Lee refused to come forward. An abortive attempt was made on the 
 nomination day to bring forward Sir Harry Verney, and he was even pro- 
 posed on the hustings, but the proposition fell to the ground for want of a 
 seconder. The three Conservative candidates consequently " walked over 
 the course." The hustings speech of the leader of the Conservatives was of 
 course an address urhi et orbi^ and assumed the form first of a vindication 
 of the conduct of Lord Derby and his colleagues upon the question of 
 Reform, and, secondly, of a defence of the union of Church and State. It 
 is usually assumed that, on this question Lord Beaconsfield held views 
 of the most pronouncedly Erastian character. This idea will, however, be 
 dissipated if the line of the Aylesbury speech of the 15th July, 1865, 
 be considered. After declaring for the fullest and the most perfect liberty in 
 religious matters, he went on to show that, whereas in other countries the 
 enjoyment of religious rights is secured by taking the ministers of religion 
 into the pay of the State, the case is very different in England. " Here 
 you find a powerful, learned, and wealthy corporation, the Church of 
 England, which formerly was independent of the State, but which in time 
 became allied to it. In its alliance with the State it acknowledges the 
 supremacy of the Crown, which I trust never will be lessened, for it it 
 one of the keystones of our liberty, civil as well as religious. You have 
 this great corporation, which, while it has supplied the want consistently 
 with the enjoyment of religious liberty by every subject of the State — ac 
 the same time providing spiritual instruction for all the subjects of Her 
 Majesty — holds a position of independence that most favourably dis- 
 tinguishes it from the position of priesthoods, which are salaried servants 
 of the State — thus combining, as it were, toleration and orthodoxy, and 
 giving to our institutions the consecrating character of religious con- 
 nection. And it is proved that its existence is quite consistent with the 
 ample and complete enjoyment of religious liberty by every one of Her 
 Majesty's subjects. It is for these reasons . . . that I am the uncom- 
 promising and conscientious upholder of that great institution." 
 
 "With regard to the commercial prosperty of the country to which the 
 iupporterg of the Government in 1865 invariably pointed as a jiroof that 
 
MR. GfLADStONE'S FINANCE. S65 
 
 ' its finances were well managed, Mr. Disraeli expressed a certain amount 
 of scepticism.* The number of failures in the last year had been greater 
 and the sums involved more extensive than could be remembered for many- 
 years past. Pauperism was moreover increasing and the state of Ireland 
 lar from satisfa-ctory. Of course the usual cry had been raised that the 
 evil was being remedied by emigration, but he confessed that as a states- 
 man he did not regard such emigration with feelings of entire satisfaction.! 
 Turning then to finance, he admitted the greatness of Mr. Gladstone's 
 achievements in this respect, but he pointed to two rather damaging facts 
 in connection with this subject. One was that Mr. Gladstone had on one 
 occasion confessed that he would not have taken off the Paper Duty when 
 he did had not the House been in some measure pledged by the acts of his 
 predecessor ; the other that the two things which were to make Mr. 
 Gladstone famous for all time — the reduction of the Income Tax and the 
 lowered duty on tea — were both adopted from the rejected Budget of 
 1853. After denouncing as a " genteel imposture " the pretence which 
 had pervaded the hustings throughout the country that none of these 
 blessings would have reached the country had not a Liberal Government 
 been in power, Mr. Disraeli went on to explain what had become of the 
 £2,000,000 of Terminable Annuities which had lately fallen in. " It is a 
 remarkable thing what Mr. Gladstone did with the Terminable Annuities. 
 Nobody knows — it has been kept a profound secret ; but as Parliament 
 has been dissolved, I will tell you. It was a most wonderful thing. Par- 
 liament was assembled ; the House was very full, as it always is when 
 Mr. Gladstone is going to make a great speech or to perform some con- 
 siderable feat. "We knew that he was going to perform a considerable 
 feat that night. He had two millions of taxation which was dying a 
 natural death. It was a fund to which Englishmen had been looking for 
 relief for half a century. Well what did Mr. Gladstone do with it? He 
 took one million and he turned it into ducks ; then he took another 
 
 * How fully events justified Lord Beaconsfield's scepticism on this head was 
 shown in the course of less than a year. The 10th of May, 1866, witnessed the 
 bursting of the bubble. On that day Overend, Gurney & Co. failed with liabilities 
 of more than £11,000,000 ; on the day following—" Black Friday "—the stoppages 
 were announced of the English Joint Stock, £800,000 ; Peto & Betts, £4,000,000 ; 
 Shrimpton, £200,000 ; Imperial Mercantile Credit, £500,000 ; and Consolidated 
 Discount, £250,000. At midnight Mr. Gladstone announced the suspension of the 
 Bank Charter Act — that wonderful measure which always has to be suspended 
 when there is most need for its operation. It may be noted, by the way, 
 that none of the critics who claimed for Mr. Gladstone's financial policy 
 the credit of the great commercial inflation of the preceding year were disposed 
 to admit that this most disastrous panic was in any way the result of that 
 policy. 
 
 t A sentiment, it may be remarked, in which he had been anticipated by x»o 
 Jess a personage than Milton, 
 
366 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 million and turned it into drakes, and for lialf an hour these ducks and 
 drakes flew cackling about the House of Commons until at last we got 
 ashamed of one another and we ordered strangers to withdraw, and deter- 
 mined to keep it a profound secret until Parliament was dissolved." 
 
 The results of the General Election were on the whole favourable to the 
 Liberal party. If they lost seats in some places they gained them in 
 others, and they were fortunate enough to obtain as their representatives 
 many men of conspicuous ability. Mr. Mill obtained his first suceess by 
 being returned for Westminster at the head of the poll, and in the city of 
 London four Liberals were returned. Mr. Gladstone lost his seat for the 
 University of Oxford in spite of a most urgent appeal by his committee, 
 "advocating his cause on grounds above the common level of politics 
 ... his pure and exalted character, his splendid abilities, and his eminent 
 services to Church and State." In spite of all this Mr. Gathorne Hardy 
 came in by a majority of 180, and Mr. Gladstone had to seek a refuge in 
 South Lancashire, where from family reasons his success was tolerably 
 well assured. He was still in name a Conservative, yet in spite of all the 
 weight of family and personal influence, and in spite too of the famous 
 " unmuzzling " speech, he obtained only the third place on the poll. 
 
 The autumn was busy and eventful. Irish disaffection grew rapidly, 
 and the Fenian movement on the other side ot the Atlantic, fostered by 
 American politiciaris for their own reasons, grew rapidly in spite of public 
 incredulity and exercised a great effect upon this country. In England 
 the factitious cry for reform became louder, and nxany meetings were held 
 for the purpose of stimulating the working classes to do that which they 
 generally seemed to care very little about doing — to clamour for the 
 extension of the franchise. The agricultural interests were occupied with 
 the Cattle Plague, which assumed in 1865 very alarming proportions, and 
 produced some very pungent remarks from Mr. Disraeli at the meeting of 
 the Bucks Agricultural Society, over which he presided. In the midst of 
 all this excitement Lord Palmerston died, and was succeeded in the 
 Premiership by Earl Kussell, whose place at the Foreign Office was forth- 
 with filled up by the appointment of Lord Clarendon, Mr. Goschen going 
 to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster. 
 
 The new Parliament assembled on the 1st of February, 18GG, and on the 
 6th it was formally opened by the Queen in person. The greater part 
 of her Speech was occupied with Foreign Affairs, the principal subjects 
 being the first mention of the Alabama claims, the renewal of diplomatic 
 relations with Brazil, the treaty of commerce with Austria and the 
 Japanese Treaty. The Jamaica Insurrection, the Cattle Plague, and 
 Fenianism were also mentioned, and the Legislative programme included 
 an Irish Coercion Bill, a Bill founded on the Capital Punishment Commis- 
 sioners' Report, a Bankruptcy Bill, a Bill on the Audit of Public Accounts, 
 and finally a Eeform Bill. In the debate on the Address which followed, 
 and which was mainly on Irish questions, the leader of the Opposition took 
 
ANOTHER EEFORM BILL. 367 
 
 no part, nor indeed did he speak much for some little time. When on. 
 the 17th of Februcary the Government moved for leave to bring in a Bill 
 for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, he promised his 
 support to the measure, but complained that there had been considerable 
 want of foresight on the part of the Administration, inasmuch as it had 
 repealed the Eapparee Act of the reign of Queen Anne in the preceding 
 Session — which Act would have given them all the powers they now 
 asked for without any infraction of the Constitution. What made matters 
 worse was that this Fenian movement was essentially an exotic from the 
 United States, the importation of which ought to have been provided 
 against. When in 1848 Lord John Kussell had asked the House for 
 similar powers, Mr. Disraeli had supported him as he supported him 
 now, believing that Irish disaffection was not produced by any remediable 
 cause, but was the factitious creation of a particular class and period. He 
 did not again speak on the question, but contented himself with giving a 
 silent vote in favour of the Government. 
 
 On all other subjects during the Session Mr. Disraeli's utterances, as has 
 been said, were few and brief. Even upon the Budget he was silent, though 
 at another time he might have been expected to criticise with some acerbity 
 the proposals of Mr. Gladstone for frittering away the surplus of £1,350,000 
 in such changes as taking off the duty from timber and from pepper, 
 modifying the alcoholic test upon wine, cutting down the stage carriage 
 and post-horsG duty from a penny to a farthing a mile and applying the 
 balance — about a million sterling — to the reduction of the National Debt 
 because a professor had discovered that we were exhausting our coal-beds, 
 and Mr. Stuart Mill believed him. This, like many other opportunities, 
 he passed by, foreseeing that the fate of the Government on the question 
 of Keform was inevitable. They were a house divided against itself, and 
 any reform which a Liberal Administration could bring in must of neces- 
 sity be jjurely democratic in its character, and as such distasteful to those 
 aristocratic Whigs who formed so influential a section of the Liberal 
 party. 
 
 On the 12th of March, Mr. Gladstone brought in his Bill. He explained 
 in his opening that Eeform was the business of the House of Commons, 
 that for it the country had elected them, and that they were now about to 
 fulfil their pledges. After a review of the recent history of the question, 
 he pleaded that it would be impossible to do more in one measure than to 
 extend the Franchise. Redistribution, Boundaries, Bribery, and the other 
 questions he proposed to deal with separately. The proposals of the 
 Government amounted to, first, an occupation franchise in counties, in- 
 cluding houses rented at £14 ; secondly, the introduction into the counties 
 of the provision which copyholders and leaseholders within Parliamentary 
 boroughs then possessed for the purpose of county votes ; and thirdly, a 
 savings' bank franchise which would have a great effect in counties as well 
 as in towns. In the towns the compound householders were to be placed 
 
368 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFlEta 
 
 on the same footing as ratepayers ; tax and rate-paying clauses were to be 
 abolished ; £10 clear annual value to be the test and the gross estimated 
 rental from the rate-book to be taken as the measure of the value, thus 
 ;pro tanto making the rate-book the register. A lodger franchise was also 
 proposed as well for lodgers holding rooms approached by a separate 
 entrance as for inmates of a family ; £10 clear annual value of apartments 
 without reference to furniture to be the qualification. It v/as also pro- 
 posed to abolish the necessity in the case of registered voters for residence 
 at the time of voting. Dockyard labourers were to be excluded from the 
 franchise. Mr. Gladstone concluded by explaining that by these changes 
 he hoped to bring in 200,000 of the middle class, and the same number 
 from the class below, but as the change was all in one direction, the 
 lowering of the qualification, even this small concession was surely open to 
 the criticism which Mr. Disraeli afterwards offered — that it was a step in 
 the direction of Americanizing the Constitution. 
 
 The debates were prolonged over some weeks, and were amongst the 
 angriest on record. Mr. Lowe led the Opposition of the Whigs with an 
 onslaught on the working classes which had in it sufficient truth to create 
 a storm of unpopularity for the speaker amongst those whom he had 
 attacked. " You have had the opportunity of knowing some of the con- 
 stituencies of this country," said he, " and I ask if you want venality, 
 ignorance, drunkenness, and the means of intimidation — if you want im- 
 pulsive, unreflecting, and violent people — where will you go to look for 
 them — to the top or to the bottom ? It is ridiculous to blink the fact that 
 since the Keform Act great competition has prevailed among the voters 
 of between £20 and £10 rental — the £10 lodging and beerhouse-keepers. 
 . . . We know what sort of people live in these small houses ; we have 
 all had experience of them under the name of * freemen,' and it would be 
 a good thing if they were disfranchised altogether." On the seventh night 
 of the debate, on one of the many amendments to the second reading, 
 Mr. Lowe spoke again with equal bitterness, bewailing the death of Lord 
 Palmerston, but lamenting most of all that the Liberal party had laid in 
 his grave " all their moderation, all their prudence, and all their states- 
 manship. The Government," he went on, " have performed an immense 
 exploit ; they have carried the great mass of their party — men of moderate 
 opinions and views — they have carried them over from their own views 
 and laid them at the feet of the member for Birmingham." 
 
 The exasperation which these words produced out of doors was excessive. 
 Mr. Bright and Mr. Stuart Mill were the twin idols of the populace, and a 
 word spoken in dispraise of either was like fire to tow in certain quarters. 
 And since the leader of the Opposition was found in the same lobby with 
 those who thus reviled the working man and the Government which sought 
 to admit him to the suffrage, he shared their unpopularity, though he by 
 no means shared their sentiments. Mr. Disraeli did not take part in the 
 debate until the night of the 27th of April — the eighth of the debate on 
 
DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNiMENT. 369 
 
 the second reading. He based his opposition to the Bill primarily on the 
 ground that it was a piecemeal reform, impossible to be understood or to 
 have its consequences calculated until the other measures promised by the 
 Government should be introduced. If the changes proposed were made 
 before the boundaries of boroughs were settled, the whole representation of 
 some counties would be thrown into the hands of the working-class electors, 
 who live outside the present borough boundaries, but who are essentially a 
 part of the borough constituency. Again, if no Allotment Bill were 
 brought in, a great difference would be made to the county representation 
 by the sudden conversion into county voters of the populations of a large 
 number of manufacturing towns which have no borough members, and 
 which have sprung into size and importance since 1832. After mentioning 
 what had been proposed by the Bill of 1859, and re-stating the principles 
 upon which it was drawn up, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to express his ob- 
 jection to an indiscriminate lowering of the franchise. He was willing, 
 and even anxious, to let in all working men who had a right to represen- 
 tation, but he was opposed to a movement which would make them the 
 dominant class in the country. " I wish them," said he, " to take their 
 position in the Estate of the Commons, and have an adequate share of that 
 great and privileged order." Then entering into a calculation based on the 
 proportion of freemen and scot and lot voters at the time of the Reform 
 Act of 1832 as compared with the statistics of the same classes now, he 
 came to the conclusion that probably one-third of the present constituencies 
 are composed of working men, which he considered a pretty fair proportion. 
 If that view of the case should be accepted, he thought further information 
 should be obtained before taking a step which would turn the House of 
 Commons into the House of the People, " the House of a mere indiscrimi- 
 nate multitude devoid of any definite chapacter, not responsible to society, 
 and having no duties and no privileges under the Constitution. Are we," 
 he continued, "to consider this subject in the spirit of the Enghsh 
 Constitution, or are we to meet it in the spirit of the American Consti- 
 tution ? " 
 
 Such was the spirit of Mr. Disraeli's defence of the vote he was about to 
 give. It was received with profound scorn by Mr. Gladstone, who, with- 
 out taking the trouble to reply to it, contemptuously announced that " a 
 Bill which, in a country with 5,000,000 adult males, proposes to add to its 
 present limited constituency 200,000 of the middle class, and 200,000 of 
 the working class, is, in the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a 
 Bill to reconstruct the constitution on American principles." This version 
 of the matter was more ingenious than ingenuous, but it answered its 
 purpose. The division was, however, so close a one that it was obvious 
 that the fate of the Government was sealed. The Bill was the crucial 
 measure— -the measure by which the Administration on its own principles 
 must stand or fall — but when the numbers were announced, it was found 
 that there were but 318 ayes to 313 noes ; thus giving the Ministry a 
 
 2 B 
 
370 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 majority of no more than five. The excitement in the House was over- 
 whelming, and the cheering such as has seldom been heard. On all sides 
 the honours of the victory were declared to rest with Mr. Lowe, who was 
 popularly supposed to have in this way revenged himself upon the 
 Government of which he had. been a member, until certain rather un- 
 pleasant circumstances connected with the garbling of Education Office 
 Keports led to his retirement. 
 
 The Grovernment did not resign, though it was very evident that this 
 was but the beginning of the end. The Kedistribution of Seats Bill was 
 brought in by Mr. Gladstone on the 7th of May, and on the 14th 
 Mr. Disraeli expressed his views on the subject. The principle of the Bill 
 was that of practically disfranchising a considerable number of small 
 boroughs ; grouping several others into one constituency, and taking one 
 member from certain others which were duly scheduled. Forty-nine seats 
 were thus gained, twenty-six of which were to be given to populous 
 coimties, one each to Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, and 
 Leeds ; seven new boroughs were to be created with one member apiece, 
 and two (Kensington and Chelsea) with two members, while six seats were 
 to be given to Scotland. 
 
 In the debate on the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Disraeli defended 
 at some length the continued existence of the small boroughs, pointing out 
 that in a House of Commons it was necessary to proceed upon another 
 principle than merely that of counting heads — that there were, as he 
 had argued before, many interests to be considered wholly apart from those 
 of numerical majorities, and that, while the land was represented by the 
 county members, and manufactures and commerce by the members for 
 great manufacturing and mercantile constitutencies, it was only by means 
 of the small boroughs that those interests could be represented. It was to 
 small boroughs that the country must look for representatives, not merely 
 of local interests, but of the learned professions, especially of the Law, of 
 Colonial interests, and of the Indian Empire. The local feeling actuates 
 the large constituencies in a great though not excessive degree, but the 
 smaller constituencies provide the House with its due proportion of men 
 fitted to represent, not the places themselves only, but infinitely more 
 important interests. He found a striking illustration of his position in 
 the fact that the three members to whom the House looked mainly for 
 authoritative information on Indian topics — Sir James Hogg, Sir John 
 Willoughby, and Mr. Prinsep — sat respectively for Honiton, Leominster, 
 and Harwich, all of which would be disfranchised under this Bill. He 
 further objected to the Bill on the ground that it established plurality of 
 voting — a principle which he regarded as opposed to the principles of the 
 Constitution. Such a system, he contended, had a tendency to reduce the 
 House of Commons from a representative body into a body of delegates. 
 He objected also to the system of grouping, inasmuch as it would, in 
 effect, saddle the candidate for every constituency thus formed with the 
 
A mW ARRANGEMENT. 371 
 
 expense and labour, not of one contest, but of two or three. The prin- 
 ciple of the groujjing, too, would be rather absurd in its working. A hard- 
 and-fast line was drawn at a population of 8000, above which a con- 
 stituency might retain two members, whilst below that figure it could 
 only form part of a group represenJ:ed by one, so that Dorchester and 
 "Wareham, for instance, having a united population of 14,500, would have 
 but one member, whilst Poole, close by, with a population just over 8000, 
 would retain two. Not contented with criticism, Mr. Disraeli suggested 
 a plan of construction. He would leave the present constituencies 
 pretty much as they were, but apply the principle of grouping to those 
 new constituencies which were growing up, especially in the North. 
 Middlesborough, for example, he would unite with Stockton-on-Tces, 
 giving a population of 32,300 persons all having much the same interests 
 and requirements. Having reached the boundary question, he pointed 
 out a curious flaw in the calculations of the Government. The Bill pro- 
 vided that in borough constituencies the Municipal and Parliamentary 
 boundaries should be identical, bat that if populous districts outside the 
 limit should wish to be brought in, it should be competent for them to do 
 so. The Government draftsman had entirely forgotten that mills were 
 built and cottages raised outside the limits of the municipal boroughs for 
 the express purpose of avoiding local rates, and that there was little likeli- 
 hood of their ever coming within the municipal boundary so long as this 
 state of things continued, the result of which would be to swamp the 
 county constituencies with borough voters. He commented further on 
 the immaturity of the Bill, complaining that " this vast subject, which 
 required so much thought, so much research, so much temper, at the same 
 time such patience and such firmness, was never considerevl except in the 
 few hasty days — or hours rather — which the Government snatched from 
 other engrossing labours during the agitating fortnight between which it 
 was promised and produced." 
 
 The passage which follows is of especial interest as illustrating the line 
 of action adopted by Mr. Disraeli himself when, a few months later, he 
 came to deal with this very subject. " I am told," said he, " as I walk 
 down to the House of Commons every day — by the man in the street as I 
 walk down Parliament Street — ibam forte via sacra — somebody tells me, 
 * I hope you are going to settle the question.' Sir, ignorance never settles 
 fv question. Questions must be settled by knowledge, and it is not the 
 vexation of an opposition, from whichever side of the House it may come, 
 that prevents this Bill from advancing. It is that we none of us see our 
 way. I say it with a frankness that I trust will be pardoned, I do not 
 believe the question of Parliamentary reform is thoroughly understood by 
 the country — is thoroughly understood by this House; and although I 
 dare only utter it in a whisper, I do not believe that it is thoroughly 
 understood by her Majesty's Government. I often remember with pleasure 
 a passage in Plato, where the great sage descants upon what ho calls 
 
 2b2 
 
372 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 'douWe ignorance,' — and that is where a man is ignorant that he is 
 ignorant. Bat, Sir, in legislating there is another kind of ignorance that 
 is fatal. There is in the first place an ignorance of principles, and in the 
 second place an ignorance of facts. And that is our position in dealing 
 with this important question. There is not a majority in this House that 
 can decide upon the principles upon which we ought to legislate in regard 
 to this matter ; there is not a man in this House who has at command any 
 reliable facts upon which he can decide those principles. . . . The country, 
 the House of Commons, the Ministry are — it is a classical, although it 
 may seem an idiomatic phrase as it was used by Dean Swift — *in a 
 scrape.' . . . We must help the Government. We must forget the last 
 two months. The right honourable gentleman must recross the Rubicon.* 
 We must rebuild his bridges and supply him with vessels. The right 
 honourable gentleman is in a position in which he can retire from this 
 question of Reform for the moment with dignity to himself and to his 
 colleagues. He must not sacrifice his country, his party or his own great 
 name to a feeling of pique. He is still supported by a majority ; he is not 
 in the position of a Minister whose reputation and the fortune of whose 
 Cabinet are staked upon individual measures in a House wherein it is 
 known that he is in a minority. That has been the unfortunate position 
 of others, but it is not his. ... It seems to me that the most advantageous 
 and the most dignified course which he could adopt would be this — Let 
 him give instructions that at once complete and accurate statistics shall be 
 prepared with regard to the borough franchise. . . . Let him . . . give imme- 
 diate orders that the most ample information should be acquired as to the 
 share which the working classes of this country possess in the county fran- 
 chise. Let him . . . give orders that sub-commissioners, acting under the 
 Inclosure Committee, should visit the Parliamentary boroughs of England, 
 and examine and report upon their boundaries. . . . Let him prepare a 
 well-digested and complete scheme which will give representation where 
 required, upon the principle of grouping the unrepresented towns of the 
 country, and having done all these things, let him consider the results with 
 his colleagues, and when Parliament meets again he will have an oppor- 
 tunity of submitting to our consideration a measure which will command 
 the sympathies of the country, and which will obtain the sanction of 
 Parliament." 
 
 The Government declined to accept the proposition, and the Bill was 
 read a second time without a division, the Opposition knowing perfectly 
 well that it could never pass into any more advanced stage. On the 
 motion of Sir Stafford Northcote it was consigned to the same Committee 
 
 ♦ In allusion to the expression of Mr. Gladstone at one of the many eicited 
 Reform meetings in the Easter recess, when, in announcing the intention of the 
 Government to stand or to fall by its Bill, he said : — " We have passed the 
 Rubicon ; we have broken the bridge and burned the boats behind us," 
 
LORD DUNKELLIN'S AMENDMENT. 373 
 
 as the Representation of the People Bill. From this time forward tha 
 Government suffered a succession of defeats. Sir Rainald Knightley 
 brought forward, on the order for going into Committee on the Bill, a 
 motion that it should be an instruction to the Committee that they should 
 have power to make provision for the better prevention of bribery and 
 corruption at elections. The motion was opposed only on the ground that 
 it was a part of the wicked schemes of the intriguing Opposition to delay 
 the progress of the Bill, and that — of all conceivable charges — it was the 
 Tory party who really profited most by bribery. Mr. Disraeli replied in a 
 scathing speech of some ten minutes in length, in which he pointed out 
 that no public charge was ever brought against the county members, whilst 
 borough members could not claim the same immunity. Wakefield and 
 Huddersfield were interesting cases in point. In the division the Govern- 
 ment found itself in a minority of ten. The same kind of thing went on 
 unceasingly for some considerable time. Amendments were moved now 
 on one side of the House, now upon the other ; the Government sometimes 
 holding its ground by a narrow majority, sometimes finding itself in a 
 minority small enough indeed, yet sufficient to prove to any impartial 
 spectator that the Liberal Administration of Earl Eussell did not command 
 the support, not of the country, but of the majority of the party by whose 
 favour it held ofiice. The end came on the 18th of June when Lord Dun- 
 kellin moved an amendment, the effect of which was to substitute rating 
 instead of rental as the basis of the Borough representation. The debate 
 was a short but animated one. It would seem that the House was 
 thoroughly tired of these attempts to settle a great question on small prin- 
 ciples, and was anxious above all things to get to a division. The division 
 came at last, and apparently much to the surprise of the Government it 
 found itself in a very full House (623 including tellers) in a minority of 
 11. For an Administratitn that had " passed the Rubicon, broken its 
 bridges and burned its boats," these figures could have but one meaning. 
 Acceptance of Lord Dunkellin's motion meant abandonment of the prin- 
 ciple of the Bill, and that was of course equivalent to resignation. Mr, 
 Gladstone announced on the 25th of June that Ministers had tendered 
 their resignations, but that Her M.ijesty hesitated about accepting them. 
 In accordance with the inconvenient custom which has been introduced of 
 late years, the Queen was at Balmoral, but finding that her presence was 
 essential, she was already on her way to Windsor. On the following day 
 Mr. Gladstone was able to announce to the House that Her Majesty had 
 been pleased to accept the Ministerial resignations, and to move that at 
 its rising the House should adjourn until the following Thursday (28th 
 of June). 
 
 The negotiations concerning the formation of the new Ministry naturally 
 occupied a considerable time, and in their course, as Lord Derby explained in 
 the House of Lords, overtures were made to the discontented Whigs whose 
 votes had practically turned out the Government — the Adullamites as ^Ir. 
 
374 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Bright had felicitously nicknamed them — with the view of bringing about 
 an association of that party with the new Administration. Happily for 
 the country the independent Liberals with Earl Grosvenor at their head 
 refused to join in the suggested arrangement, though a disinterested 
 support to the new Government was promised. While these negotiations 
 were going on within doors a great agitation was got up without, and the 
 excited Liberal politicians of Clerkenwell Green and similarly enlightened 
 districts made London hideous with demonstrations and processions. On 
 the night of the 29th of June, the first of the long line of Trafalgar Square 
 meetings was held, when about 10,000 of the great unwashed who never 
 had had and never were likely to have votes, met to groan for the Tories 
 and cheer for Mr. Gladstone. The old miserable business of 1830 seemed 
 on the point of being renewed, and the Whig Keform Bill, all undigested 
 as it was, of being carried, as Mr. Bright had suggested that it should, by 
 force of mob intimidation. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli went down into Buckinghamshire for re-election, and as a 
 matter of course was returned unopposed. The proceedings were purely 
 formal, and the speech in which he addressed his constituents was formal 
 also. On the question of reform he simply said that he thought the new 
 Government quite as competent to deal with the subject as the old, and 
 he reminded his constituents that his Bill of 1859 was the only attempt 
 to settle the question of which anyone spoke with respect, and the only 
 one which ardent Liberals had expressed their regret at not having seen 
 carried. The whole proceedings were finished before luncheon time, and 
 Mr. Disraeli returned to town in time to take the oaths and his seat as 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby's third Administration on the 
 16th of July, 1866. 
 
C 375 ) 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE EEFOKM MINISTRY, 
 
 Lord Derby unwilling to accept office, but consents — The New Administration 
 a strong one — Mr. Disraeli begins with a supplementary vote of ci'edit— 
 End of the Session — The Royal Speech — Reform agitation — Mr. Stuart 
 Mill's speech — The Hyde Park riot — ^The Reform League — Mr. Bright on 
 the House of Commons — Leicester, the glass-blower, and " Constructive 
 abdication" — Lord Beaconsfield's unpopularity — The Session of 1867 — 
 Queen's Speech and debate on the Address — Work of the New Adminis- 
 tration — Reform — Not a question to decide the fate of Ministries — Lord 
 Beaconsfield's speech on the Resolutions — ^The Resolutions — Boroughs and 
 Counties — The Conservative sacrifice — The House and the Speech — Opposi- 
 tion to the Resolutions — "Forcing the hand " of the Government — Cabinet 
 dissensions — Resignations of Lord Carnarvon, Lord Cranborne and General 
 Peel — The Cabinet " reverts to its original policy " — The New Reform 
 Bill — Details — Popular privileges and democratic rights — The policy of the 
 Opposition — Opinions of the Press — Mr. Bright and the Besiduum — Not 
 numbers, but fitness, the principle of the Bill — Mr, Gladstone's opposition 
 —The Budget of 1867— Popular opinion of it— The Reform Bill again— The 
 Liberal instruction — Its collapse — The Reform Bill in Committee — Mr. 
 Beresford Hope and his " Batavian Grace " — Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions — 
 The Division — The Recess — The Compound Householder — Mr. Gladstone's 
 charge of " fraud and dissimulation " — " The invective of Torquemada and 
 the insinuation of Loyola " — The Scotch Reform Bill — Mr. Disraeli's rebuke 
 to Mr. Gladstone — The reply of " Atticus " — Mr. Bernal Osborne's opinion 
 of Lord Beaconsfield — Extinction of the Compound Householder — Lord 
 Cranborne on the Conservative leaders — Lord Beaconsfield's last speech on 
 tlie Reform Bill — Third Reading of the Bill — Conservative opposition to 
 Reform — End of the Session — The Mansion House banquet — Lord Beacons- 
 field's speech^ — A quiet autumn — Lord Beaconsfield at Edinburgh — His letter 
 to the Times — The " Conservative surrender " — On the Irish Church — The 
 new Session — The Queen's Speech — ^The Abyssinian War — ^The Fenians at 
 Clerkenwell prison — Bribery and corruption — Lord Derby retires — Mr. 
 Disraeli Premier — The Press on the event — The Chelmsford incident- 
 Welcome of Mr. Disraeli in Westminster Hall — Opening speech — Mr. 
 Maguire on Ireland — Mr. Neate's amendment — Mr. Disraeli closes the 
 Debate — The Church and the Nation — Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions on the 
 Irish Church — Mr. Disraeli's letter to Lord Dartmouth — Lord Stanley's 
 amendment — Lord Beaconsfield on Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe — Result 
 of the Debate — Lord Beaconsfield attacked by the Press — Appeals to the 
 country — Mr. Ayrton as censor morum — Mr. Bright's personal attack — The 
 tactics of the Opposition — Mr. Gladstone's letters — Dinner at Merclirmt 
 Taylors' Hall — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Factious opposition to the Govern- 
 
376 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 meat— Lord Beaconsfield and John Leech's family — ^Prorogation and the 
 Queen's Speech — Lord Mayo's appointment — Address to Bucks electors — 
 Tory finance — Organisation of the War Office — Religion and civilisation — 
 Fenianism and English Liberalism — ^The elections and their results — Mr. 
 Disraeli's speech at Aylesbury — Mrs. Disraeli becomes Lady Beaconsfield — 
 Results of the elections — Mr. Disraeli retires — Mr. Gladstone is sent for — 
 The spoils to the victor. 
 
 Lord Derby had not at first been v«ry williag to undertake the task of 
 forming an Administration. His health was notoriously far from good, 
 and personally he was never an ambitious man. So long as Lord Palmer- 
 ston lived — the Conservative chief of a Liberal Administration — he was 
 perfectly content to occupy the position of leader of a compact Opposition, 
 by the aid of which that noble Lord was able to keep in check his more 
 impetuous adherents. When, however, the death of Lord Palmerston 
 threw the Government into the hands of Earl Eussell the situation was 
 altered, and a more active Opposition became not merely practicable but 
 necessary. In the first place Lord Eussell had made a great mistake in 
 introducing a Reform Bill in the first Session of the new Parliament ; in 
 the second he left out of his calculations the amount of support which had 
 been given to Lord Palmerston personally at the last general election ; in 
 the third he had blundered in bringing in his Bill in a fragmentary and 
 imperfect fashion, and finally he had blundered still more in trying to 
 force his Bill upon the House of Commons by the declaration that its 
 rejection would be treated as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence. 
 The natural result followed : the Government went out and Lord Derby 
 was the only statesman to whom Her Majesty could turn, and in fact the 
 only possible Minister at the time. The want of a majority in the 
 Commons was a very serious drawback, however, and one which for a 
 time threatened to make shipwreck of the new Administration. Happily 
 the promise of independent support from the old "Whigs in both Houses of 
 Parliament overcame the difficulty, and the Ministry was formed, though 
 without any popular enthusiasm. 
 
 It was certainly a strong Administration, including as it did Lord 
 Chelmsford as Chancellor, Lord Stanley at the Foreign Office, Lord 
 Carnarvon at the Colonies, Lord Cranborne for India, General Peel for 
 War, Mr. Disraeli at the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote at the Board 
 of Trade, Mr. Gathorne Hardy at the Poor Law Board, and Sir John 
 Pakington at the Admirality. Sir Hugh Cairns as Attorney-General, and 
 Sir William Bovill as Solicitor-General made up the Administration. It 
 will be observed that in the formation of this Government Lord Derby 
 acted most carefully on that constitutional principle on which Mr. Disraeli 
 had laid so much stress in his criticisms of Lord Palmerston's Govern- 
 ment — the principle, that is to say, of taking a sufficient number of 
 members of the Cabinet from the House of Commons, and of not allowing 
 important departments of the State to be represented in that assembly by 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. S77 
 
 Under-Secretaries. Of the fifteen members of the Cabinet five only were 
 peers, and of those members of the Government not in the Cabinet, 
 exclusive of the Household, only three. 
 
 It was a little unfortunate for Mr. Disraeli that the first task imposed 
 upon him, on again taking his place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was 
 to present a supplementary estimate, but it must be admitted that the 
 fault did not lie with Mr. Gladstone. The estimates which he had pre- 
 pared included half a million to be obtained by New Zealand Bonds, and 
 showed an expenditure of £66,727,000, including £502,500 for the creation 
 of terminable instead of permanent annuities, while the revenue was calcu- 
 lated at £67,013,000, thus showing a surplus of £286,000— on paper. 
 But the supplementary estimates laid on the table amounted to £495,000, 
 leaving a deficiency of £209,000. The usual way of meeting this difficulty 
 would be by the issue of Exchequer Bonds or Bills, but since the Budget 
 had been brought in, there had been the greatest commercial ])anic ever 
 known — " Black Friday " had come and gone, the Bank Charter Act had 
 been suspended, the bank rate of discount having risen to 10 per cent., at 
 which it still remained. The floating of Exchequer Bonds was thus 
 rendered impossible, nor could the New Zealand Bonds be placed. Under 
 the circumstances the only plan which could safely be adopted for meeting 
 these liabilities was that of dropping the scheme for the reduction of the 
 National Debt by half a million, and that course was adopted in spite of 
 a very long speech from Mr. Gladstone in defence of his proposals. It was 
 as well, perhaps, that this scheme should have been cleared out of the 
 way of practical politics, seeing that it was the mis-shapen result of a 
 panic, engendered by certain professors and fostered by Mr. Mill, on the 
 subject of the speedy exhaustion of British coal. The incident was note- 
 worthy, however, inasmuch as it afforded Mr. Disraeli an opportunity of 
 explaining the intention of the Government to reduce the expenditure, and 
 at the same time to provide improved rifles for the army and better ships 
 for the navy. 
 
 The Session ended on the 10th of August, on which day Parliament was 
 prorogued by Commission. The Royal speech made reference to the 
 Austro-Prussian war, which " seriously affected the positions of Sovereigns 
 and Princes with whom Her Majesty is connected with the closest ties of 
 relationship and frendship, but ... in which neither the honour of her 
 Crown nor the interest of her people demanded any active intervention oa 
 her part." A large part of the Speech was taken up with reference to the 
 progress of Feuianism in Ireland and to the Fenian raid in Canada — reference 
 chiefly noticeable inasmuch as it recognised fully and completely the point 
 on which Mr. Disraeli had from the first insisted — the foreign origin of the 
 Fenian confedenicy. There was but little more to say and that little not 
 of a very cheerful character. The depression of all commerce, which had 
 been the natural result of its preceding inflation, was duly lamented ; a 
 hope was expressed that the cattle plague was_ subsiding; the visitation of 
 
378 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 cholera was bemoaned, and the completion of the Atlantic cable was spoken 
 of in terms of appropriate satisfaction. There was literally no public 
 legislation on which to congratulate the country, thanks mainly to the 
 factitious agitation which had been got up on the question of Eeform. 
 People were indeed beginning to ask themselves very seriously whether 
 too high a price was not being paid for party government, and whether it 
 would not be worth v,'hile for Parhament to try to do something besides hagg- 
 ling over the distribution of political power. The Session had opened with a 
 fair if not an ambitious political programme. There had been some hope 
 that the Church-rate question might be amicably settled, and that the 
 Bankruptcy Law, notoriously unsatisfactory as it then was, might be 
 reformed, but everything had fallen through, and the record of the Session 
 consisted of an abortive Eeform debate. The fault certainly did not lie 
 witht he Tory party, which, acting under the leadership of Lord Beacons- 
 field, had offered no factious opposition to the policy of the Government, 
 and had rigidly confined itself to the exercise of its legitimate function of 
 criticism until forced into office by Liberal dissensions. 
 
 The Eeform agitation had during the last few weeks assumed alarm- 
 ing proportions. Mr. Bright, Mr. Stuart Mill, and a handful of agitators, 
 mostly of the baser sort, devoted themselves to stirring up the mob against 
 the constituted authorities, and to clamouring with tremendous energy 
 against the Tory Government. No sooner had Lord Eussell's Govern- 
 ment gone out of ofiice than the excitement began. " Demonstrations " — 
 vast meetings of working men with a choice following, of roughs and 
 reprobates from the lowest dens in London — were of weekly and almost of 
 daily occuiTence. Sunday and week-day, wet weather or dry, the un- 
 happy residents in certain districts of the capital were compelled to see 
 vast mobs of the great unwashed marching in procession to the discordant 
 strains of brass bands. Trafalgar Square was the favourite scene of these 
 performances. The first " demonstration " was held there on the 2nd July, 
 1866. A few days later it was announced that one was to be held in Hyde 
 Park, whereupon Sir Eichard Mayne issued a prohibitory notice, which 
 gave rise to an angry discussion in the Commons-. Mr. Mill— the aalm 
 philosopher, the unimpassioned critic of fallacies, the man who had given 
 a long life and unequalled powers to grave discussion of the widest and 
 most important subjects which can occupy the human intellect — made 
 an outrageous speech in the House upon the subject (24th of July) 
 which drew down upon him the sarcastic remark of Mr. Disraeli that he 
 " took it for granted that the speech was one of those intended to be 
 delivered in Hyde Park." Mr. Disraeli indignantly disclaimed the corrupt 
 motives which had been so freely imputed to the Government. There was 
 no desire to prevent free discussion, he urged, but the Park is not the 
 place for it. In the provinces wherever a new park is made, it is an 
 express stipulation that political meetings shall not be held there, and 
 London ought not to be less wise than country towns. Nor was there any 
 
THE REFORM AGITATION. 379 
 
 distrust of the working classes. What the Government did distrust was 
 the "rough" element which always attached itself to working-class 
 gatherings. As regarded public meetings he believed them, " properly- 
 held at the proper time and in the proper place ... to be most desirable 
 . . . one of the great political safety valves to which we should trust. So 
 far from discouraging them," he went on, " I would allow of no impedi- 
 ment to public meetings of the working classes at the right time and 
 place upon political subjects." 
 
 Despite the prohibition of Sir Eichard Mayne, backed as it was by the 
 authority of the Government, the mob, egged on by its leaders, and notably 
 by Mr. Bright, whose wanton defiance of authority in this matter admits 
 of neither excuse nor palliation, held its meeting in Hyde Park, knocked 
 down the railings, trampled over the flower-beds, pelted the police, and 
 generously devoted themselves to the task of. proving how thoroughly Mr. 
 Disraeli was justified in his belief that the proposed meeting would be 
 merely a mischievous gathering without any real political value, and 
 serving mainly to prove how utterly unfit mob orators are for the work 
 of legislation. The meetings were not, indeed, intended as political gather- 
 ings. They were, by the frank admission of Mr. Mill himself, intended to 
 overawe the Government. " I do not want," said he, on one occasion, 
 "to talk to you about Eeform. . . . Discussion is not the only useful 
 purpose of public meetings. One of the objects of public meetings is 
 demonstration." If for the last word we read 'intimidation,' we shall 
 probably arrive at the truth. It is melancholy to recall the distracted 
 circumstances of that distracted time and the infinite follies of the advocates 
 of change. Some may, however, worthily find a place here. Thus, on 
 the 8th of August a Keform Meeting was held in the Guildhall, presided 
 over by the Lord Mayor, and attended by the delegates of the Eeform 
 League.* All the speakers were working men, and the meeting pledged 
 itself to manhood suffrage and the Ballot. Three weeks later a demon- 
 stration was held at Birmingham, attended, it was said, by a quarter of 
 a million of people, at which Mr. Bright held Mr. Lowe up to popular 
 execration — a performance which he repeated a month later at Manchester, 
 adding to his former vituperation a personal attack on Lord Derby. The 
 Manchester mob were ungrateful enough to cheer this onslaught, forgetting 
 how Lord Derby had worked for them in the cotton-famine, and unfair 
 enough, seeing that he had never refused his assent to any project of 
 Eeform, and was practically pledged to bring one in. 
 
 The most remarkable of all the displays were, however, one in which 
 Mr. Bright figured at Glasgow and a "demonstration" in London. At 
 
 * Life is so rapid in these days that it may be necessary to remind the reader 
 that the League was an association of tap-room spouters, meeting under the 
 presidency of one Beales, a talkative barrister, who was afterwards rewarded by 
 Mr. Gladstone for his eminent services with a County Court Judgeship. 
 
380 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Glasgow gathering, Mr. Bright, who, on a former occasion, had drawn 
 down upon himself a severe and well-merited rehuke from Mr. Disraeli, 
 on account of his habitually depreciatory way of speaking of the House of 
 Commons when outside its walls, chose to declare that that assembly was 
 utterly unworthy of popular confidence. " If the clerk of the House," 
 said he, " were placed at Temple Bar, and had orders to lay his hand on 
 the shoulder of every well-dressed and apparently clean-washed man who 
 passed through the ancient bar until he had numbered 658, and if the 
 Crown summoned those 658 men to be the Parliament for the United 
 Kingdom, my honest conviction is that you would have a better Parlia- 
 ment than now exists." The other was a grotesque gathering got up by 
 the London Trades Unions, who marched in procession from the parade 
 ground at Whitehall to Chiswick, in order to hsten to the oratory of a 
 conceited glassblower named Leicester, who, after denouncing the House 
 of Commons as a " set of little-minded, decrepit, humpbacked, one-eyed 
 scoundrels," asked, " "What had Lord Derby done ? " and answered him- 
 self : — " He has translated Homer. But he could not make one of those 
 beautiful specimens of glass-work which had been carried in procession 
 that day. . . . There was not a stocking-weaver in Leicester or a clod- 
 hopper in the kingdom rendering service to the State who was not quite as 
 useful as Lord Derby." Perhaps one of the most amusing specimens of 
 impudent audacity which this time afibrded was, however, to be found 
 in a correspondence begun by an obscure personage connected with the 
 Clerkenwell branch of the Keform League, who was very anxious that Her 
 Majesty should receive a deputation on the subject, and who, on being 
 refused, wrote through Sir Thomas Biddulph to tell the Queen that her 
 refusal " was in law a constructive abdication." 
 
 Trash of this kind, abundantly seasoned with the most vehement per- 
 sonal abuse, was poured out in abundance during the whole of the autumn 
 and winter. What made it noticeable was that men like Mr. Stuart Mill 
 and Mr. Gladstone, philosophers, scholars, and gentlemen, were not 
 ashamed to encourage the agitation, and to point to it as a reason for 
 conceding a " large and comprehensive measure " of Eeform. It is true 
 that both professed to disclaim all connection with the League, but both 
 supported its demands in the House of Commons, and used its demonstra- 
 tions as arguments in favour of their views. Amongst those who came 
 in for the largest share of ijopular hatred at this time was, of course. Lord 
 Beaconsfield. Forgetful of what he had done in the past, forgetful of the 
 Bill of 1859, which would actually have introduced 50 per cent, more 
 electors to the Franchise than either of its successors, forgetful of every- 
 thing, in short, except that he had opposed Lord Kussell's last abortive 
 and incoherent scheme, the popular mistrust of him was stimulated to 
 such an extent that the mere mention of his name at a public meeting 
 was the signal for a chorus of groans and hooting. The tone of public 
 feeling on the side of the Liberal party may best be understood from the 
 
THE SESSION OF 1867. 381 
 
 utterances of its leaders. Mr. Stuart Mill, for example, was one of the 
 most furious partisans of the period, and his peculiar temper may be best 
 understood from a speech which he delivered in Manchester a day or two 
 before the opening of the Session of 1867. The Manchester Liberals had 
 just started a Reform Club, and a luncheon was given in order properly to 
 " inaugurate " it. After the meal was over, Mr. Stuart Mill made a speech, 
 in which he referred to " the great battle in which we are now engaged 
 against what remains of privilege in this country," and said that it was 
 not to be expected " that any country should long retain its liberty which 
 did not keep political progress constantly going." He called attention to 
 the fact that, whilst all the more powerful Governments of the Continent 
 were arming to the teeth, we could not get recruits to fill up our small 
 army, and he had the courage to ascribe this circumstance not to the 
 growth of national prosperity and to the consequent increase of civil 
 employment, but to the assumed fact that " the people of this country will 
 no longer fight for a cause which is not their own . . . the number is 
 constantly diminishing ; who will hire themselves out to shed blood when 
 it is not for the protection of their own freedom and laws." When these 
 things were done in the green tree, who can wonder at what was done in 
 the dry ? If philosophers and statesmen of the calibre of Mr. Stuart Mill 
 and Mr. Gladstone could condescend to factious nonsense of this kind, 
 there is little reason to wonder at the vagaries of the ignorant and the 
 passionate. 
 
 In diversions such as these the Recess passed away, and when Parliament 
 opened on Tuesday the 5th of February, 1867, there was a very general 
 sense of relief at the thought that the country was for some little time to 
 come likely to be spared the spectacle of members of Parliament hobnob- 
 bing with the orators of the pot-house and of great philosophers condescend- 
 ing to vulgar personalities. The Queen's Speech was read by Her Majesty 
 in person — her presence affording an agreeable contradiction to the sinister 
 rumours which had been industriously circulated as to her health during 
 the Recess. It was remarkable in the first place for its reference to that 
 scheme of Confederation for the Canadian Colonies for which the country is 
 indebted to Lord Carnarvon, and in the second for the prominence given to 
 the question of Reform. The general programme of legislative work was, 
 moreover, somewhat extensive, and included the promise of a Commission 
 for inquiring into the working of Trades Unions, Bills for the extension of 
 the Factory Acts, for the improvement of the Merchant Service, for the 
 rearrangement of our relations with France in the matter of shipping, for 
 dealing with Insolvent Railways, for improving the management of the sick 
 and other poor in London, for the reform of Bankruptcy Law and Legal Pro- 
 cedure, and for modifications of the relations of Irish landlords and their 
 tenants. The debate on the Address was singularly short and uninteresting. 
 Indeed the only point worthy of notice was that Mr. Disraeli promised to 
 bring in the Government Reform Bill on the following Monday. 
 
382 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The new Administration had not wasted time during the recess. As 
 early as the night of Friday the 8th of February two of the most im- 
 portant of the measures promised in the Queen's Speech—the Metropolitan 
 Poor Bill and the Trades Unions Bill— were brought in and read a first 
 time, while on the Thursday Sir Stafford Northcote had introduced his 
 measure for dealing with Insolvent Kailways. On the following Monday 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the new Eeform Resolutions. 
 Jn introducing them he first had the paragraph of the Queen's Speech 
 relating to the question read by the Clerk at the Table, and as it is some- 
 what important in its bearing on the after conduct of the Government in 
 dealing with this matter, it is here reproduced : — 
 
 " Your attention will again be called to the state of the Representation 
 of the People in Parliament ; and I trust that your deliberations, conducted 
 in a spirit of Moderation and Mutual Forbearance, may lead to the adop- 
 tion of measures which without unduly disturbing the balance of political 
 power shall freely extend the Elective Franchise." 
 
 There could be no mistake as to the authorship of those words, nor 
 indeed did Mr. Disraeli pretend to disguise it. He began his speech by 
 explaining that they were intended to convey to the House the opinion of 
 the Government that it was expedient that Eeform should no longer be a 
 party question on which the fate of Ministries should depend. The reason 
 for this decision was that all parties in the State had tried to deal with it 
 and all had failed. As was but natural there was a titter below the gang- 
 way at the announcement that the question was to cease to be one of party, 
 but the laughter subsided as the speaker gravely and earnestly went 
 back to the Reform Act of 1832, and pointed out how the wholesale dis- 
 franchisement of the labouring classes by that measure had sown the 
 seeds of the existing agitation. Sir Robert Peel had foreseen the danger 
 at the time, and had warned the Government of the day that in putting 
 an end to the rights of freemen as they then existed they were embarking 
 in a course which must create great difficulty in the future. Sir William 
 Follet and Lord Lyndhurst had spoken in the same strain, and Mr. 
 Disraeli departed from his usual rule of not referring to his own past 
 speeches to show that as far back as 1852 he had himself urged the great 
 want then existing of a due consideration of the claims of the working 
 classes to the suffrage. He repudiated the notion that those claims had 
 been discussed by the House in a disrespectful or dilatory spirit, but he 
 complained that they had too often been met in an Epicurean tone which 
 would do anything for present quiet. He further denied that any scheme 
 whatever had been introduced from which a fair settlement of the contro- 
 versy could be anticipated. As it was the House and not any political 
 party or any political leader which had disturbed the settlement of 1832, 
 80 it was the House and not any party within the House which had baffled 
 every effort to pass a new Reform Bill. When that attempt at disturbance 
 commenced the Conservative party determined not to make opposition to 
 
I 
 
 BOROUGH AND COUNTY FRANCHISE. 383 
 
 Parliamentary reform a principle of action, and accordingly they lia"^ not 
 opposed the second reading of any one of the Bills introduced since 1850. 
 He would go farther and would boldly assert that the question had not 
 assumed a party cliaracter until the vote of 1859 upon Lord Russell's reso- 
 lution. The House of Commons as a body had thus incurred a special 
 and peculiar responsibility in this matter, and he asked if it would not be 
 wise to consider the possibility of adopting a course which whilst not 
 relieving the Opposition of its due share of responsibility would insure them 
 against a repetition cf former misadventures. This advantage might be 
 attained if the House would give the Grovernment some intimation of its 
 views on the main points of the controversy by resolutions before a Bill 
 was introduced ; which course, he argued, was constitutional, justified by 
 successful precedents, would not lead to deky, and though to require too 
 much precision would be unreasonable, need not entail vagueness and 
 uncertainty. The Government would forthwith lay on the table the 
 resolutions they proposed for this purpose, and in shadowing forth the 
 chief of them he intimated that rating and not rental would be the basis 
 of the franchise ; that there would be a reduction both of the county and 
 of the borough franchise, though the precise limit, depending as it did on 
 so many other points to be subsequently settled, could not be stated in the 
 Eesolution. The Government would proceed in their task of reconstruct- 
 ing the House of Commons on the principles of the British Constitution. 
 They would sanction no course which would alter the characteristics by 
 which it had risen to its present pitch of power (a power not enjoyed, as 
 he showed, by any of the democratic assemblies of foreign states), and 
 would strenuously contend that the electoral franchise must be considered 
 a popular privilege and not a democratic right. Notwithstanding the 
 violent and pernicious doctrines recently circulated, he hoped the House 
 would agree to resolutions in harmony with these views. On the import- 
 ant question of Redistribution of Seats, resolutions would be proposed con- 
 sistent with the principles by which the vast and varied interests of the 
 Empire secured a representation in the House, the Government being 
 fully conscious that by any attempt to obtain an artificial symmetry, the 
 character of the House would be changed and its authority destroyed. 
 The resolutions would proceed on the principle that no borough should be 
 wholly disfranchised except in cases where systematic corruption was 
 proved and that representation should be extended to boroughs now 
 unrepresented whose circumstances demanded it, and would provide for 
 the extension of boundaries. On this last point Mr. Disraeli dwelt at some 
 length, arguing that as the eleven and a half millions of county population 
 were represented by 162 members, while the borough population of nine 
 and a half millions had 324 members, the former constituencies had a 
 right to complain if their representation were interfered with by the addi- 
 tion of a large element from the boroughs — a state of things which might 
 arise from the great overflow of boroughs into counties since the boundaries 
 
384 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 were settled in 1832. That injustice already existed to a considerable 
 extent, but it would be grievously intensified by the proposal to reduce 
 the county franchise. After illustrating his position by sundry examples, 
 Mr. Disraeli went on to say, that there was no desire on the part of the 
 Government to prevent the blending of urban and rural populations where 
 it was urgent and desirable. All that they desired to do was, to remedy 
 an open and palpable injustice. When he had urged this point on a 
 previous occasion, he had been accused of endeavouring to deprive the 
 county electors of their independence, and to hand the representation over 
 to the landlords and to the farmers. That charge he fully disproved by 
 showing that while these classes, including farm labourers, numbered only 
 two millions, there was a scattered village population, as it was statisti- 
 cally called, of seven millions — the backbone of the country — including 
 that most valuable of all classes, the county freeholders. " The course we 
 adopt," he went on to say, "is not one flattering to ourselves" — an 
 idmission which drew from Mr. Bright a peculiarly ironical cheer — " but 
 it is more flattering to assist, however humbly, in effecting that which we 
 think for the public good, than to bring forward mock measures which we 
 know the spirit of party will not pass. And let me tell the member for 
 Birmingham who gave me that ironical cheer, that there are others beside 
 himself who think that it is desirable that this question should be settled, 
 but who wish it to be settled in the spirit of the English Constitution. 
 Of course it would be very agreeable to us to bring forward at once a 
 complete measure backed by a confiding majority, and having the assur- 
 ance of settling a question which engages the attention of a great nation. 
 None of my colleagues pretend to be superior to 
 
 * The last infirmity of noble minds.* 
 
 But, Sir, this is not a time in which we are to consider the complacency 
 of Ministers, or even the pride of parties. I earnestly hope that the House 
 of Commons will rise to this occasion . . . and give her Majesty's 
 Ministers on this, if on no other occasion, the advantage of their co-opera- 
 tion and their cordial support." 
 
 The reception of this speech by the House was sufficiently striking. An 
 extraordinary number of visitors was present. Every gallery was full to 
 overflowing, and, to quote from the description of an eyewitness, " mem- 
 bers sat on the floor and on the steps, and the Peers sat almost in each 
 other's laps." When the clerk at the table was called upon to read the 
 paragraph from the Queen's Speech he was at first unable to find it, where- 
 upon there arose one of those curious nervous laughs which so often 
 indicate an overstrained attention. The laughter changed its character 
 when Mr. Disraeli announced that the Government had arrived at the con- 
 clusion that the subject of Keform was one which could no longer be held 
 to decide the fate of Administrations, and then became somewhat savage 
 and ironical. The peroration was, however, listened to with respectful 
 
THE THIRTEEN RESOLUTIONS. 385 
 
 silence, and the cheering was very hearty and genuine. Mr. Gladstone's 
 speech in reply was the only one worth notice. It is hardly necessary to 
 say that he was very indignant that the Government had not introduced a 
 scheme by which they were prepared to stand or fall, the result of which 
 would of course, in a House of Commons constituted like that of 1867, 
 have been a fresh shuffling of the cards and another wasted Session as the 
 price of the return of the Liberal party to office. 
 
 The 13 Kesolutions upon which the House went into Committee on the 
 25th of February may be briefly summarized : — 
 
 1. The number of electors to be increased. 
 
 2. Such increase to be effected by reducing the value of the qualifying 
 tenement in counties and boroughs, and by adding other franchises. 
 
 3. That while giving more direct representation to the labouring class, it 
 is unconstitutional to give to any one class a preponderating power. 
 
 4. Occupation franchise to be based upon rating. 
 
 5. Plurality of votes in boroughs. 
 
 6. Redistribution. 
 
 7. No borough to be wholly disfranchised. 
 
 8. In redistributing seats to give them to places not already represented. 
 
 9. Provision to be made against bribery and corruption. 
 
 10. Assimilation of county and borough registration. 
 
 11. Voting papers. 
 
 12. Additional polling places to be provided. 
 
 13. Boundary Commissioners to be appointed. 
 
 The state of the House of Commons on this evening testified to the 
 anxiety which was universally felt on the subject of Reform. Long before 
 the usual time of assembling the lobby was full, and a wonderful flock of 
 canards was sprung upon unsuspecting members. All through the after- 
 noon there had been rumours of dissensions in the Cabinet and of the 
 resignation tjf Ministers, two of the most important of whom were said 
 *' upon the oest authority " to have insisted on sending in their resigna- 
 tions. It was not until business had fully begun that the futility of these 
 tales became manifest. Long before the time came for the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer to speak, the House was crowded in every part ; the 
 Strangers' Gallery was full ; Peers and Ambassadors struggled for places 
 in the gallery over the clock, and it was with difficulty that room w.is 
 found at the bar for the Prince of Wales. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's explanatory speech on introducing the Resolutions began 
 with an assurance that the object of the Government was to complete 
 and extend the Reform Act of 1832, which he described as the most 
 successful political experiment of our time, inasmuch as it transferred the 
 Government of the country from the hands of a party which had sunk into ■ 
 a " heartless ohgarchy," to those of the middle classes. The Act had, how- 
 ever, the one great defect of disregarding the rights of the working classes 
 to AThom the Government now desired to restore what they had lost. 
 
386 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 After a brief defence of the course he had adopted of proceeding by 
 Eesolution, chiefly on the ground of the necessity for coming to some 
 understanding as to principles before entering into details, Mr. Disraeli 
 explained the scheme of the Government. He proposed to create four 
 new franchises in both boroughs and counties — an Education franchise 
 somewhat wider than that proposed in 1859 ; a £30 saving's bank 
 franchise, requiring a year's retention of the deposit ; the possession of 
 funded property to the amount of £50; and the payment of 20s. of 
 direct taxes. By these means he hoped to add 82,000 voters in borough 
 and 124,000 in county constituencies, and these he believed would be per- 
 sons not merely qualified to come to the poll but likely to do so. Before 
 touching on the reduction of the existing franchises, Mr. Disraeli explained 
 that his resolution as to plurality votes had been misunderstood. What 
 he had intended had been that the possessor of one of these new fran- 
 chises, if otherwise qualified, should have an additional vote, but he was 
 not disposed to insist upon this point. The occupation franchise he was 
 prepared to reduce to a £6 rating in boroughs and a £20 rating in counties, 
 by which 130,000 voters would be added to the borough and 82,500 to 
 the county constituencies — a total addition of over 400,000 voters to the 
 register. As a remedy for bribery and corruption he proposed, on a 
 petition being presented from a town after an election, to send down two 
 assessors to conduct a local inquiry with an appeal to a Select Committee 
 (costs to be guaranteed by the complainants and by the appellants). If 
 a successful candidate were convicted of bribery, the unsuccessful candi- 
 date, if proved pure, to be seated in his place. These proposals might 
 be embodied in a separate Bill. Passing to the redistribution portion of his 
 scheme, Mr. Disraeli announced that the four boroughs recently convicted 
 of bribery would be disfranchised, which would give seven seats, and 
 twenty-three would be taken from small boroughs with a population of less 
 than 7000, making a total of thirty at the disposal of the Government. 
 Of these, fourteen seats would be given to new boroughs; the Tower 
 Hamlets being divided and two members given to each division and fifteen 
 to counties. The thirtieth seat would be given to the London Univer- 
 sity, an arrangement devised, as he afterwards explained, for the especial 
 benefit of Mr. Lowe. Over the last resolutions he passed very briefly, 
 promising that the Bill which should embody them should be speedily 
 produced whilst the Boundary Commission, being a Royal and not a Parlia- 
 mentary Commission, might be appointed at once. 
 
 The proposals of the Government elicited a storm of opposition. 
 Mr. Lowe, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Gladstone vied with each other in denun- 
 ciations of the impracticability of the scheme, and the rank and file of the 
 Opposition kept up a continual chorus of " Withdraw," " Bring in a Bill," 
 during the short speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sar- 
 castically commented on the newly discovered harmony between Messrs. 
 Bright and Jjowe, and on their obvious agreement to defeat the proposals 
 
OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNJ^IENT PROPOSALS. 387 
 
 of the Government if possible. Mr. Koebuck did not mend matters by a 
 suggestion that the Government was trying to " trick " the House. Sir 
 George Grey suggested that the Boundary Commission, on which the 
 Government had laid considerable stress, might be issued at once, and 
 sundry other members expressed themselves as thoroughly hostile to 
 the Government method of procedure. There can be no question as to the 
 factiousness of the Opposition against which the Government had to 
 contend. Gentlemen in the position of Mr. Bright would go down to their 
 constituents, would declare the House of Commons to be little better than 
 a set of idiots, would pander to the worst passions of the lower classes 
 would inflate their vanity and inspire their pride, and then coming back 
 to the House, would speak in tones of silvery softness, and would do every- 
 tbiog that was possible to prevent a settlement of the question. The 
 position of Mr. Disraeli, and in fact of the whole of the Conservative 
 Government, was simple enough. They had before them a question, the 
 solution of which a factious agitation out of doors had made imperative. 
 Several attempts had been made to deal with it — all without success ; and 
 if it were left any longer unsettled, the chances seemed to be that such a 
 change would be made as would subvert the very bases of the Constitution. 
 The Government therefore proposed to let the House of Commons settle 
 the matter in its own way, but to that the more advanced Liberals would 
 not assent. They were ready to accept the office of critics, but they would 
 not, or could not, assume that of constructors, and theretbre, although they 
 were invited to deal with the question of reform in their own way, they 
 declined the task unless the Government would embody its proposals in 
 the form of a Bill — the obvious intention being to " iorce the hand " of 
 the Administration, and to secure its resignation in order that the matter 
 might be dealt with by the members of that extreme party, which claimed 
 a monopoly of Reform. The difficulties created by the action of the 
 Opposition were multiplied by dissensions of the gravest kind within the 
 Cabinet. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli had recognised the fact that an extension of the franchise 
 was inevitable, and determined with statesmanlike sagacity to shape that 
 extension in a Constitutional manner and to Constitutional ends. Some of 
 his colleagues were less far-seeing. Failing to see that the settlement of 
 1832 was one purely Whig in character, and designed to establish and 
 perpetuate the power of that party, they blindly opposed all change, and 
 abandoned the task of directing the course of events to the hands of Lord 
 Derby and his lieutenant. The existence of these dissensions had long 
 been notorious, and it was therefore without surprise that the country heard 
 on the morning of Sunday the 3rd ot March, that Lord Carnarvon, Lord 
 Cranborne, and General Feel had ceased to be members of the Government. 
 Their places were filled in the course of the week by the Duke of Bucking- 
 ham, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir John Pakington. It is worthy of 
 
 2 G 2 
 
388 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 remark that wlien the House expressed great curiosity as to the motives 
 which had caused this schism amongst Ministers, no explanations whatever 
 were afforded. The secrets of the Cabinet were not then treated as public 
 property. 
 
 The path being thus cleared, Mr. Disraeli found himself able to take a 
 definite step in advance, and to take it in his own way. On Monday, the 
 4th of March, he made the significant announcement in the House of 
 Commons that the Cabinet " had resolved to revert to its original policy *' 
 on the question of Keform, and that he proposed to bring in the Eeform 
 Bill on the 18th, to move the second reading on the Monday after, and if 
 the Bill went into Committee to sit de die in diem until the measure was 
 passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer kept due faith with the House 
 of Commons, and on the appointed night introduced his Reform Bill. His 
 speech was an unusually full and interesting one. At the outset he 
 divided his remarks under two heads — the object of the Government in 
 dealing with the question, and the means they thought best fitted to attain 
 their object. On the first head, he remarked that the Government wished 
 to sustain and strengthen the varied character and functions of the House 
 of Commons, by which it had attained its present power and character, 
 and to effect this by placing the representation on a broad and popular 
 basis. He warned those, however, who deemed the franchise to be a 
 democratic right, and not a popular privilege, that there would be much in 
 the Bill of which they would be by no means likely to approve. Turning 
 then to the details of the scheme, he examined at some length the principle 
 on which the borough franchise ought to rest. He pointed out that in 
 every one of the abortive Bills which had been brought in since Lord John 
 Eussell first questioned the finality of his own " final " measure the prin- 
 ciple of a diminution of value had been adopted. He further reminded the 
 House that by the division on Lord Dunkellin's amendment which had 
 brought about the downfall of Earl Russell's administration the House had 
 established the principle that rating ought to be the basis. The Govern- 
 ment had, therefore, accepted that principle, and proposed that every 
 householder paying rates who had resided for two years in his house should 
 be admitted to vote. The term of two years was afterwards reduced by 
 consent to one. By this means he anticipated the possibility of admitting 
 237,000 men who live in houses under £10 rental and who pay 
 rates, leaving unfranchised 486,000 householders not paying their own 
 rates. Every facility would, however, be afforded to compound house- 
 holders to take upon themselves the payment of their own rates, and to 
 obtain as a result the right of voting. " That appears to me," said Mr. 
 Disraeli, *' to be the only solid foundation upon which you can settle this 
 question of the borough franchise. I have heard nothing which gives me 
 any hope that any other plan can be offered which involves at the same 
 time the principle that society has a right to ask that the person who 
 exercises the suffrage is not a migratory pauper ; and as regards settlement, 
 
A PERSONAL RATING FRANCHISE. 389 
 
 I can see no satisfactory settlement unless you lay down the principle that 
 every householder who fulfils the constitutional conditions to which I have 
 adverted, proves himself one qualified for the possession and exercise of 
 such a trust." Adverting to the suggestion that a £5 rating franchise would 
 settle the matter more satisfactorily, he said — " I know of no Serbonian 
 bog deeper than a £5 rating would prove to be. In the present state of the 
 law . . . there really is no such thing as a £5 rating. You let in a very 
 large and very indiscriminate number to the enjoyment of the right without 
 the preliminary performance of the duties, and when they are let in, you 
 leave a great many behind them who because others are let in, immediately 
 cry out to be admitted. Then where is your settlement ? There is no 
 more reason why a £5 rating should give a qualification than one of £4. 
 But then I am told that this great difficulty is to be entirely overcome by 
 a violent change to be effected in the law of England. Nominal £5 raters 
 are to be turned into hond fide £5 raters by the operation of the law, and 
 no Englishman who pays on less than that sum is to enjoy the privilege of 
 voting." Such a scheme he stigmatised as injurious and even fatal, and he 
 warned the House that if it were adopted manhood suffrage would become 
 a logical necessity. He further announced that the payment of direct 
 taxes to the amount of £1 would be a qualification for the franchise — the 
 object being, of course, to admit that large class who though not house- 
 holders are nevertheless contributories to the Income Tax. The weak 
 point of the scheme was, however, the proposition which followed — that 
 those who possessed the double qualification should possess a double vote. 
 It is hardly necessary now to say that this proposal was promptly aban- 
 doned. Besides these franchises the Bill embodied an Educational franchise, 
 and provisions for giving the right of voting to the holders of savings bank 
 deposits and funded property to the amount of £50. The Educational 
 franchise as proposed by the Government was an exceedingly liberal one. 
 Under it a vote was to be given to every University Graduate, to every 
 person who had passed the Senior Middle Class Examination, to every duly 
 ordained Priest or Deacon of the Church of England, to every recognised 
 Dissenting Minister officiating in a registered place of worship, to every 
 serjeant-at-law, barrister, pleader, conveyancer, attorney, solicitor or proctor, 
 to every registered medical practitioner, and to every certificated school- 
 master. Mr. Disraeli estimated that the direct taxation franchise would 
 add at the lowest estimate 200,000 ; the Education franchise 35,000, the 
 funded property franchise 25,000, and the savings bank franchise 45,000. 
 In all, the borough constituencies would be increased by more than one 
 million voters. In the counties he proposed to adopt a £15 rating franchise, 
 which would add 171,000 to the number of electors, while the lateral 
 franchises would bring up the additions to about 330,000. The Bedistri- 
 bution Scheme was substantially that of the Besolutions. Thirty seats 
 would be redistributed, 14 of which would go to new boroughs, 15 to 
 counties, and one to the London Universitj^ The general principlo of tho 
 
390 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Bill will best be understood from the closing words of the speech. After 
 calling on the House to give to the Bill a fair and candid consideration, 
 Mr. Disraeli added — " We believe it is one which, if adopted in spirit, will 
 settle the long differences of the House, and that it is qualified to meet the 
 requirements of the country. I am told that there are objections against 
 it, but I beg to remind the House of the distinction which we draw between 
 popular privileges and democratic rights. I am told that in this measure 
 there are checks and counterpoises, and that it assumes in this country the 
 existence of classes. If there are checks and counterpoises in our scheme, 
 we live under a constitution of which we boast that it is a constitution 
 of checks and counterpoises. If the measure bears some reference to 
 existing classes in the country, why should we conceal from ourselves or 
 omit from our discussions the fact that this country is a country of classes, 
 and that a country of classes it will ever remain ? What we desire to do 
 is, to give every one who is worthy of it a fair share in the Government of 
 the country by means of the elective franchise ; but at the same time, we 
 have been equally anxious to maintain the character of the House, to make 
 propositions in harmony with the circumstances of the country, to prevent 
 a preponderance of any class, and to give a representation to the nation." 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that the Bill was received with a general 
 chorus of disapprobation, the noisiest of the hostile critics being, of course, 
 those who had traded upon the supposed unwillingness of a Tory Govern- 
 ment to concede an honest measure of Keform. The great liberality of 
 Mr. Disraeli's proposals in 1859, and the fact that Lord Kussell's 
 last attempt at tinkering the Constitution, had been recommended 
 on the ground of its smallness were alike forgotten. The only 
 feeling was one of resentment that a Tory Government should have 
 brought in a BUI which promised to remove the troublesome question of 
 Keform from the region of party politics. Up to 1867 it had been used 
 in a maimer which can only be stigmatized as factious in the extreme. A 
 Tory Administration being in office, advantage was taken of the fact to 
 raise once more the cry for an extension of the franchise. A Bill for the 
 purpose being brought in, the heterogeneous body which calls itself the 
 Liberal party combined to defeat it with a promise of bringing in a far 
 more democratic bill of their own. How that promise was kept is a 
 matter of history. Now when the Tory Government made the plunge, 
 and offered concessions such as no Liberal Adminstration dared even to dream 
 of, they were met by the most bitter hostility. And yet despite adverse 
 criticism, despite the defection of some of those who ought, on every ground, 
 to have supported him, Mr. Disraeli contrived to carry this Bill in sub- 
 stance and to lay the spectre of Eeform, which had paralysed useful legisla- 
 tion for fifteen years, in the Dead Sea of oblivion. 
 
 There was a good deal of opposition even to the bringing in of the Bill, but 
 the difficulty was at last overcome, and on the 25th of March it came up 
 for second reading. The debate lasted for two nights, in the course of 
 
REPLY TO CRITICISMS ON THE BILL. 391 
 
 whicli every detail connected with it was subjected to the most minute 
 and most hostile criticism. Mr. Bright especially distinguished himself 
 by a speech in which he condemned the Bill for doing too much and too 
 little, proving completely to his own satisfaction that the promises of the 
 Government were illusory, and that " in all our boroughs, as many of us 
 know, sometimes to our sorrow, there is a small class which it would be 
 much better for themselves if they were not enfranchised, because they 
 have no independence whatever, and it would be much better for the con- 
 stitutency also that they should be excluded, and there is no class so much 
 interested in having that small class excluded as the intelligent and honest 
 working men. I call this class the residuum." Mr. Disraeli replied to the 
 criticisms to which his Bill had been subjected, pointing out that most of 
 the matters to which exception was taken, were merely embodiments of 
 certain views which the Liberal leaders themselves had urged upon the 
 House at various times. He expressed himself as being strongly in favour 
 of the lodger franchise — in^fact he declared himself to be the father of 
 this particular suffrage. He reminded the House that last year Mr. Glad- 
 stone, who now magnified its importance, had predicted that its effect 
 would be trifling. In the same tone he discussed Mr. Gladstone's other 
 criticisms, pointing out that the very matters which he selected for most vehe- 
 ment rebuke and sarcastic comment were taken bodily from Lord Kussell's 
 last abortive Bill. Other matters he declared to be fit only for discussion in 
 Committee — they did not and could not affect the principle of the measure. 
 Keplying to Mr. Gladstone's criticisms of the Kedistribution Scheme, he 
 insisted that he ought to produce his own plan, so that those who were 
 threatened might know what they had to fear. Mr. Gladstone had pro- 
 posed to draw a hard and fast line at a £5 rating. To that he was wholly 
 opposed, regarding his own scheme as infinitely more elastic and more 
 likely to admit tit persons to the franchise. The Government had never, 
 he asserted, considered the numbers to be admitted by the operation of 
 the Bill. They had merely endeavoured to lay down a principle, believing 
 that fitness and variety were the best safeguards against democracy no 
 matter what numbers were admitted to the suffrage. The immediate 
 effect might be to introduce only 120,000 voters, but in its extreme applica- 
 tion there would not be a quarter of a million of compound householders, 
 and he was therefore not anxious to insist upon the dual vote which he 
 had in the first instance proposed, in order to prevent the middle classes 
 from being swamped by the class below — a position which he considered 
 the Government more than justified in assuming, by reference to the pro- 
 positions for protecting the rights of minorities brought Ibrward by Mr. 
 Hare, Mr. Mill and sundry other members of the Philosophical School of 
 politicians. At the close of his speech he defined his position. " I am 
 prepared," said he, " to fight against the greatest difficulties. But wo 
 stand here as practical men with a duty to fulfil, and that is to pass a Bill 
 for the Amendment of the Kepresentation of the People. ... All I can 
 
392 THi:: PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 say on the part of my colleagues and myself is, that we have no other 
 wish at the present moment than, with the co-operation of the House, to 
 bring the question of Parliamentary Reform to a settlement. I know the 
 Parliamentary incredulity with which many will receive avowals that wo 
 are only influenced in the course we are taking by a sense of duty, but I 
 do assure the House if they need such assurances after what we have gone 
 through, after the sacrifices we have made, after having sundered our 
 political connection with men whom we more than regarded — I can assure 
 them no other principle animates us than a conviction that we ought not to 
 desert our posts until this question has been settled. Rest assured it is 
 not for the weal of England that this settlement should be delayed. You 
 may think that the horizon is not disturbed at the present juncture — you 
 may think that surrounding circumstances may be favourable to dilatory 
 action — some of you may think in the excitement of the moment that 
 ambition may be gratified and that the country may look favourably upon 
 those who prevent the passing of this Bill. Do not believe it. There is a 
 deep responsibility with regard to this question resting not upon the 
 Government merely but upon the whole House of Commons. We are 
 prepared to act in all sincerity in this matter. Act with us cordially and 
 candidly ; assist us to carry this measure . . . Pass the Bill and then change 
 the Ministry if you like." 
 
 The candour and courage of this appeal took the House by storm. 
 Earely has there been heard a more continuous or spontaneous burst of 
 cheering than that which greeted Mr. Disraeli as he resumed his seat. The 
 Bill was read a second time, and the Committee appointed for the 8th of 
 April, the only dissident being Mr. Gladstone, whose complaints of delay 
 were hardly appeased by the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 that he intended to devote the 4th to his financial statement. Mr. Glad- 
 stone's opposition to Mr. Disraeli was indeed at this time beginning to 
 develope some of those features by which it has been rendered conspicuous 
 of late years — an almost sublime self-assertion and an assumption of lofty 
 superiority to his opponent, which nothing on either side could possibly be 
 held to warrant. " I have stated," he said in his speech on the second 
 reading of the Bill — " I have stated to many persons during the last ten 
 days that the personal rating clauses as announced by the Government 
 cannot stand " — the moral being that because Mr. Gladstone had said some- 
 thing depreciatory of his political opponents and their principles " across 
 the walnuts and the wine," they must be hopelessly in the wrong. Mr. 
 Disraeli laughed at these assumptions, and was rewarded with still more 
 lofty disdain. 
 
 In the tumult created by the question of Reform in 1867, the Budget excited 
 comparatively little interest. Yet it was in its way a sufficiently remarkable 
 one, and it was expounded to the House in a manner which extorted the ad- 
 miration even of those who were personally most opposed to the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer. Mr. Disraeli's speech lasted exactly fifty-five minutes — 
 
ex 
 
 THE BUDGET OF 1867. / ,'> 393 -« <^ 
 
 I ^ - ^^ ^ ^ 
 probably the shortest time occupied in that way on record. The maiq features ^ '^■ 
 of the Budget were that in spite of the bad times — and it must be' remem-'-^ ^ ^. 
 bered that the panic of 1866 had left its mark all over the country -* the «^ 'e^ ! 
 income of the year had exceeded the expenditure by nearly two and a half tA • 
 millions, the increase being chiefly in the items of customs and dx'ci^, *^ - 
 each of which showed a surplus of a million over the estimate of Mr. Glai^ *^ 
 stone. The estimated expenditure of the coming year was £68,134,096*^^^ 
 and the revenue £69,340,000, showing a surplus of revenue over expendi- ' 
 ture of £1,206,000. At this point Lord Beaconsfield remarked the chief diffi- 
 culty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer began — the difficulty, that is to say, 
 of satisfactorily disposing of his surplus. He prefaced his annoucements on 
 this point by reminding the House that during the last ten years there had 
 been reductions of taxation, irrespective of Income Tax, to the amount of 
 eleven millions a year, so that it would be difficult to fix upon any tax so 
 unjust and oppressive that all parties would unite in calling for its removal. 
 Except the Malt Tax there was no duty injuriously affecting the industry 
 of any large portion of the people, but as this tax could only be dealt with 
 on the largest and most comprehensive scale, the resources at his disposal 
 this year would not enable him to touch it, anxious though he w^as to do 
 so. Next to the appropriation of the surplus to the diminution of the 
 taxation came its use for the diminution of debt, and the only way of 
 doing this was by charging some specific annual amount on the Consoli- 
 dated Fund. After duly considering how this method could be best 
 applied — such as by an annual vote in the Financial Statement or by a 
 Sinking Fund, which he strongly condemned — Mr. Disraeli expressed his 
 preference for Mr. Gladstone's plan of the preceding year in a form some- 
 what more simple than that which his predecessor had adopted. Mr. 
 Gladstone's proposal was to extinguish five millions of debt due to the Post 
 Office and old Savings Banks by a terminable annuity, half of which sum 
 had already been operated upon, while the other half would be cancelled 
 immediately, provision for that purpose being taken in the Budget. Mr. 
 Gladstone had also proposed to cancel a sum of 24 millions by an annuity 
 terminating in 1885 and a further sum by an operation extending to 1905. 
 Approving the first part of this plan, Mr. Disraeli proposed to utilise a part 
 of the surplus for the cancellation of 24 millions of debt, the particulars of 
 the operation being as follows : — It would be effected on two sums of debt, 
 one of 18 and the other of 6 millions. The first amount, which then bore 
 interest to the amount of £540,000, would be converted into an annuity of 
 £1,332,000, terminating on the 5th of July, 1885; and the second sum, 
 then bearing interest to the amount of £180,000, would be converted into 
 an Annuity of £440,000, terminating on the 5th of April in the same year. 
 The joint amount of the two annuities would be £1,776,000. The charge 
 upon the year's revenue from the operation would be three quarters' 
 interest on the sum of 18 millions and one quarters' interest on the 6 
 millions; together £1,110,000, to which must be added £360,000, the 
 
394 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 interest on the two sums until they were converted ; whilst the interest 
 which the country would have had to pay, amounting to £720,000, must be 
 deducted, so that the total net charge to the revenue would be exactly three 
 quarters of a million. Taking everything into account, this operation pro- 
 vided for the cancellation of 24 millions of debt in the year 1885 by the 
 imposition of an annual charge of half a million. The surplus being thus 
 reduced to £456,000, Mr. Disraeli proposed to utilise £210,000 by reducing 
 the Marine Insurance Duties whether on time or voyage policies to a 
 uniform rate of Sd. per cent., the remaining surplus being left over for con- 
 tingencies. The scheme met with universal approval, even the most ardent 
 Liberals expressing great satisfaction at the prospect of so large a reduction 
 of the National Debt, and none being churlish enough to grudge the 
 Shipping interest the small boon implied in the change in the duty on 
 Marine Insurances. 
 
 The House having had its interlude of finance, returned on the 8th of 
 April to the Reform Bill. A good deal had been done since the second 
 reading. In the first place a deputation of the busybodies known as the 
 Reform League, and pretending to represent the working classes, had an 
 interview with Mr. Gladstone to urge him to use all his influence to get 
 rid of the Savings Bank clauses, on the ground that depositors in savings 
 banks were an "intensely selfish" race of beings, who cared nothing for 
 politics and who left it to others to struggle for their political rights. In 
 the second place a deputation from the same body had waited upon Lord 
 Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urge the abandonment of 
 the residential qualification and the rating clause and the adoption of the 
 lodger franchise. Thirdly, a meeting had been held at Mr. Gladstone's 
 house at which some 240 Liberal members were present, and at which it 
 was decided that Mr. Coleridge should propose a resolution : " That it be 
 an instruction to the Committee that they have power to alter the law of 
 rating, and to provide that in every Parliamentary borough the occupiers 
 of tenements below a given rateable value be relieved from liability to 
 personal rating, with the view to fix a line for the borough franchise at which 
 all occupiers shall be entered on the rate-book and should have equal 
 facilities for the enjoyment of such franchise as a residential occupation 
 franchise." In the fourth place, before the House met on the 8th of April, 
 another meeting of Liberal members was held in the Tea-Room, at which 
 about fifty were present. There was not much opposition to the proposals 
 of those who had called the meeting, and the end of it was that a deputa- 
 tion waited on the leader of the Opposition to express the distaste with 
 which that section of the party regarded the attempt to tie the hands of 
 the Committee by a minute instruction such as that which Mr. Gladstone 
 had forced upon the party. There was notoriously a good deal of dissatis- 
 faction amongst the rank and file of the Liberal party at the tone which 
 their leader adopted. As a Liberal journal of some importance remarked 
 at the time, it was not very flattering to independent men " to be handed 
 
IN COMMITTEE ON THE BILL 395 
 
 over, bound hand and foot, to a leader wlio simply called them together 
 to tell them what he intended to do, and who seemed to expect that when 
 he spoke the only duty of his followers was to nod assent." That feeling 
 found expression in the Tea-Room meeting, and the result Avas that 
 Mr. Gladstone consented — in order to avoid a division and certain defeat — 
 to withdraw the latter part of the instruction and to deal only with the 
 first clause. When the House met at 4 o'clock Mr. Locke inquired, with 
 a truly refreshing air of innocence, whether, if the instruction were con- 
 fined to the first clause, the Government would be prepared to accept it. 
 Mr. Disraeli replied that it was very inconvenient to answer hypothetical 
 questions, and inquired, in turn, whether Mr. Locke had any authority to 
 make the inquiry. A satisfactory reply having been obtained, the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer said that he was under the impression that the 
 Committee had the power claimed for it without any instruction from the 
 House — " therefore on this point it was quite unnecessary to have recourse 
 to any pressure, however gentle." The elaborate instruction liaving thus 
 collapsed, Sir Rainald Knightley made an effort to get the subject of 
 bribery and corruption made a part of the Bill, but was pacified by a 
 promise that a separate Bill on the subject should be introduced in the 
 course of the Session. Captain Hayter having unsuccessfully attempted to 
 carry a resolution which would have had the effect of swamping all 
 boroughs with a population of less than 10,000, and some desultory con- 
 versation having taken place, Mr. Gorst moved the adjournment of the 
 House on the ground that after the collapse of the Liberal Opposition, 
 members were not prepared to go on with the discussion of the Amend- 
 ments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a hope that the 
 motion would not be pressed, and took the opportunity of expressing " the 
 deep gratification of the Government and their gratitude for the generous 
 and candid manner in which they had been treated by the House." So 
 ended the first night's debate. Mr. Sp>eaker left the chair ; progress was 
 reported and the House resumed. 
 
 The real work of the Committee began on the 11th of April. It is 
 imnecessary to re-open all the dead and gone discussions about the " Com- 
 pound Householder " and the operation of the Small Tenements Act. They 
 were dreary and unprofitable enough at the time, and a rechauffe of them 
 would now be intolerable. Their dulness was, however, relieved on the 
 second night by a smart personal encounter. Mr. Gladstc»ne had proposed 
 a series of amendments, the effect of which would have been to substitute 
 a £5 rental for the larger and more generous concessions of the Govern- 
 ment. He was supported by, amongst others, Lord Cranborne and Mr. 
 Beresford Hope, the latter of whom made an exceedingly personal attack 
 on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There had been some little con- 
 versation on a previous occasion concerning the part taken by Mr. Spofforth 
 in getting information for the use of the Government — a task which had 
 not been performed with quite so much tact as might have been anticipated. 
 
396 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Referring to this circumstance, Mr. Beresford Hope said that the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer had taken " household suffrage, and hemmed it in 
 with provisions available only to the Tapers and the Tadpoles who 
 managed an election. ... He was prepared for anything he might hear. 
 He had been longer out of Parliament than in it, because, although a Con- 
 servative, he never would fall down and worship the golden image set up 
 in the deserts of Arabia. He had been a free lance long enough not much 
 to mind what might happen to him hereafter, and to say — Sink or swim, 
 dissolution or no dissolution, whether he was in the next Parliament or out 
 of it, he for one, with his whole heart and conscience, would vote against 
 the Asian mystery." Mr. Disraeli's rejDly was perfect. Having answered 
 the criticisms of Mr. Lowe, and having brought forward his arguments in 
 favour of his proposals as compared with those of Mr. Gladstone, he said — 
 speaking of Mr. Beresford Hope—" I assure him that I listened with the 
 greatest pleasure to the invective which he delivered against me. His 
 style is very ornamental to discussion, but it requires practice. And so 
 far as my honourable friend displayed his talents to-night, I listened with 
 the greatest satisfaction. All his exhibitions in this House are distinguished 
 by a prudery which charms me, and when he talks of Asian mysteries I 
 may perhaps, by way of reply, remark that there is a Batavian grace 
 about his exhibition which takes the sting out of what he has said." 
 
 The division upon these amendments was felt to be the turning point of 
 the Bill. Mr. Disraeli had said that, from the principle of personal rating, 
 the Government could not swerve, and it was very generally understood 
 that, if the Government were defeated, a repetition of the catastrophe of 
 1859 might be looked for, to be followed by an administration of which 
 Mr. Gladstone would be the leader, whose Bill would probably be based 
 on manhood suffrage and equal electoral districts. The division was con- 
 sequently watched most anxiously. It occupied about a quarter of an 
 hour, and the silence is described as having been very remarkable. The 
 tellers for the Ayes were the first to arrive at the table, and as they 
 handed in their return to the clerk a thrill ran through the House. It was 
 known that the Government had a majority, and the most intense but 
 suppressed excitement prevailed. There was a slight clapping of hands as, 
 about a minute later, the tellers for the Noes made their appearance. The 
 figures were quickly entered, and as the clerk handed the paper to the 
 Government teller (Mr. Whitmore), there was a tremendous burst of 
 cheering. When, after a pause, Mr. Whitmore read the magic words, 
 " Ayes, 289 ; Noes, 310 ; majority against the Amendment, 21," there was 
 another outbreak of enthusiasm. Hands were clapped, hats were waved, 
 and members crowded to the Treasury Bench to shake hands with the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, " the working of whose face," says an eye- 
 witness, " alone showed bow tremendous had been the strain of the last 
 few hours." The Opposition were silent. The defeat of these resolutions 
 was a heavy blow and a great discouragement to Mr. Gladstone. 
 
THE COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER. 397 
 
 The House at its rising adjourned for the Easter holidays happy in the 
 consciousness that the Eeform question was now fairly on the way to a 
 definite solution. During the recess Mr. Gladstone wrote in reply to 
 Mr. Crawford, announcing his intention to refrain from pursuing the 
 amendments of which he had given notice, adding, however, that he would 
 " gladly accompany others in voting against any attempt, from whatever 
 quarter, to limit yet further the scanty modicum of enfranchisement pro- 
 posed by the Government." Considering that the " scanty modicum " in 
 question was calculated to admit to the franchise about three times as 
 many persons as Lord Eussell's abortive Bill, it must be admitted that this 
 phrase was not the fairest or most happy that could have been chosen to 
 describe the proposals of the Government. Mr. Gladstone was, however, 
 outdone by Mr. Bright, who, in a speech at Birmingham, found the 
 courage to declare that, from the preamble of the Government Bill to 
 the last word in it, there was not a single proposition to which any 
 real, earnest, intelligent Eeform er would consent. Meanwhile the Eeform 
 League continued its work of agitation, and for several weeks Hyde Park 
 was rendered intolerable to decent people by the riotous assemblages of 
 roughs whom the League called together. The Government, of course 
 opposed these meetings, and Mr. Walpole received a good deal of abuse 
 from those who wished to carry Eeform by wholesale intimidation. The 
 end. of the matter was that Mr. Walpole retired from the Home Office, and 
 was succeeded by Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the event being signalised by a 
 peculiarly cordial and generous recognition of Mr. Walpole's admirable 
 temper and amiable disposition by the leader of the House. 
 
 The debate on the " Compound Householder " on the 9th of May was 
 enlivened by a personal encounter between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. 
 The former had made one of those vehement speeches of which he is so 
 fond, and had accused those who had charge of the Bill of " fraud and 
 dissimulation." Called upon by the indignant House to withdraw the 
 charge, he substituted for it a statement that " there had been an adjust- 
 ment of provisions framed with the appearance of giving an extended 
 franchise, whilst care had been at the same time taken that the apparent 
 extension shall not be realised." Commenting on these words, *' I must 
 say," said Mr. Disraeli, " that I prefer the original invective of the right 
 honourable gentleman. I prefer the invective of Torquemada to the 
 insinuation of Loyola. I prefer to meet the direct charge of fraud and 
 dissimulation to being told in language like that which I have just read to 
 the House that we have been guilty of conduct unworthy in my opinion of 
 all public men." Mr. Gladstone's explanation that he had not himself 
 intended to apply the words to the Government, but that people outside 
 would certainly do so, made matters rather worse than before. On a 
 division, however, the Government obtained a majority of 66 — 322 against 
 256— -which proved pretty clearly that there was a large section of the 
 
398 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 House unblinded by faction and not swayed by passion who sincerely 
 desired to see the question of Reform settled. 
 
 On the following Monday — the 13th of May — Mr. Disraeli introduced 
 his Scottish Eeform Bill. Between the division and this debate Mr. Glad- 
 stone had received a deputation of about 200 persons from the National 
 Reform Union. After listening to several speeches he delivered a long 
 address, in the course of which he declared that he considered it his " duty 
 to use every effort and to avail himself of every remaining opportunity to 
 strike at the odious principle of inequality and injustice involved in the 
 Bill, and if we fail, as we probably shall fail ... to decline to recognise or 
 be parties in any measure to it as a settlement of the question, and to 
 continue to maintain by every constitutional means in our power the prin- 
 ciples on which we have acted." In other words the leader of the 
 Opposition thought it not unbecoming in him to refuse to recognise the 
 deliberate decision of the House of Commons, over whom it had been 
 emphasised by so great a majority. To this and to sundry other speeches 
 Mr. Disraeli made reference on bringing in the Scotch Bill. After warning 
 the House that the Government would not retreat from the position which 
 they had taken up, he said, " I regret very much that the old stages and 
 antique machinery of agitation should have been readjusted and rebur- 
 nished and sent up by Parliamentary train to London, and that we should 
 have been threatened with an agitation of a most indefinite and incoherent 
 character, for at this moment I am at a loss to know whether the proposed 
 agitation is to be in favour of manhood suffrage or of a £5 rating. I 
 should have been very glad if, after the vote of the House on Thursday, it 
 had been considered that there was no question whatever that a definite 
 opinion had been arrived at on the subject of the borough franchise, and I 
 regret very much that these spouters of State sedition — these obsolete 
 incendiaries — should have come forward to pay their homage to one who, 
 wherever he may sit, must always be the pride and ornament of this 
 House : — 
 
 ' Who but must laugh if such a man there be, 
 Who would not weep if Atticus were he ? ' 
 
 Nothing has surprised me more in the ebullitions which have recently 
 occurred than their extremely intolerant character. Everybody who does 
 not agree with somebody is looked upon as a fool, or as being merely 
 influenced by a total want of principle in conducting public affairs. But» 
 Sir, I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the temper of the House 
 of Commons or the temper of the country. I appeal with confidence to the 
 House to assist her Majesty's Government in any efforts they may make to 
 improve these Bills for the representation of the people." " Atticus '' 
 replied with considerahle acerbity but did not materially alter the com- 
 plexion of affairs. From certain woids which he let fall it would, however, 
 appear that he still clung to the Whig principle of a hard and fast line — 
 
THE REDISTRIBUTION CLAUSES. 399 
 
 say, for example, a £5 rating — a principle which the House had deliberately 
 discarded and which Mr. Disraeli of course could not entertain. 
 
 Contrary to his usual custom of refraining from routine work and of 
 leaving to subordinate members of his Government the opportunity of 
 distinguishing themselves as often as possible, Mr. Disraeli took charge of 
 this Bill in Committee and worked it through almost without assistance. 
 His tact, readiness and adroitness were never more conspicuously displayed, 
 but singularly enough the only member who seems to have recognised 
 those qualities was Mr. Bernal Osborne, and even he failed to see that Mr. 
 Disraeli was but carrying out the principles by which his political conduct 
 had uniformly been guided. His testimonial to the Tory chief is, however, 
 so quaint as to deserve quotation. " I say if we wish to make progress 
 with this Bill, let us have no law. Let us rely on the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer. I say this without any innuendo respecting his sincerity. I 
 always thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer the greatest Eadical in 
 this House. He has achieved what no other man in the country could 
 have done. As I have said before, he has lugged up that great omnibus- 
 full of stupid, heavy country gentlemen (Oh ! Ob !) — I only say * stupid ' 
 in the Parliamentary sense. It is a perfectly Parliamentary word. He 
 has converted these Conservatives into Eadical reformers. In fact, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Ministry by himself, for it could not 
 exist a day without him, and all the rest who sit near him are most 
 respectable pawns on the board, their opinion being not worth a pin ; when 
 I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say a thing, I know it shall and 
 will be so." Without necessarily sharing in Mr. Bernal Osborne's con- 
 tempt for Mr. Disraeli's colleagues in the Ministry, there can be no 
 question that he was right as to the position of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer at j;his time. He was the Ministry — of that fact there can be 
 no doubt — and the Eeform Bill was his work and his only from first to 
 last. How vast an amount of labour these words imply may be estimated 
 from the fact that during the Session he spoke on this Bill no fewer than 
 310 times, often at very considerable length. 
 
 There were after this date but few incidents in the Debates. The 
 Government having determined to clear the question of reform out of the 
 way during this Session, the House sat daily from towards the end of the 
 month of May, from 2 o'clock until 7, and from 9 until such time as the 
 business of the night could be finished. The " compound householder " 
 was finally extinguished on the 27th of May, on which day the county 
 members held a meeting and agreed to recommend the Government to 
 accept the £12 rating limit for the County Franchise. On the 30th the 
 debate on the Eedistribution of Seats commenced, and the disfranchise- 
 of Yarmouth, Lancaster, Eeigate and Totnes was agreed to. A proposal 
 of Mr. Mill, based on Mr. Hare's scheme for the representation of 
 minorities was promptly snuffed out. Next day came on a discussion on 
 the proposal to cut down all constituencies under 7000 to one member 
 
400 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 each. Mr. Laing, the member for Wick, moved to enlarge the minimum 
 to 10,000, and his proposition was carried in spite of the opposition of the 
 Government. Mr. Serjeant Gazelee afterwards proposed to disfranchise 
 all boroughs having a less population than 5000, but this proposition could 
 not be accepted. The Keform Bill of 1867 was intended to be a measure 
 of enfranchisement and not of disfranchisement, and the principle of the 
 discarded resolution was thus maintained. On the 1st of July the 
 Government accepted the proposal of Mr. Horsfall to give a third member 
 to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, and added Leeds to the 
 number of places so represented, and on the 15th the Bill was read a 
 third time. 
 
 The debate on this occasion lasted for eight hours, in spite of the fact 
 that when the Speaker put the question there was but one solitary 
 " No ! " Lord Cranborne made a somewhat vehement speech, in which 
 he arraigned the leader of the Conservatives for treachery to the party. 
 He declared that Mr. Gladstone's imperious demands had been obeyed by 
 Mr. Disraeli, and that the Conservative Reform Bill was really the 
 fulfilment of Mr. Bright's wildest dreams. Mr. Lowe declared that the 
 Government had opened a new era, and that when the Bill came into 
 operation, the country would find itself in an atmosphere of perpetual 
 change and revolution. With his usual fine taste, the member for Calne 
 accused the Government of " lending themselves to the arts of treachery," 
 and of having, for the sake of " keeping themselves in office " and " of 
 giving some small patronage to half a dozen lawyers . . . sacrificed all 
 the principles, all the convictions and all the traditions of their lives." 
 Mr. Bright expressed moderate satisfaction with the measure, which he 
 believed would be final, and then after a great deal more oratory, in the 
 course of which most of the arguments used in the debates of the last 
 six months were brought out again, Mr. Disraeli rose to sum up the 
 debate. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by saying that he was more 
 anxious to defend the Bill than the Cabinet, though both had been 
 vehemently attacked. He accepted the challenge of Lord Cranborne, and 
 looking back over the fifteen years during which the question of Reform 
 had been before the country reminded the House that in 1852, when 
 Mr. Hume, as was his wont, brought that subject forward, he himself had 
 expressed certain opinions which by no means justified the criticisms 
 which had been levelled at him. He had then said — and in so speaking 
 he was but expressing the opinion of the Cabinet of Lord Derby — that if 
 the subject were again opened — and its reopening he had sincerely de- 
 precated — the fault of excluding the working classes which had been 
 committed in 1832 would not be repeated. After that declaration the 
 Liberal party came back to office, and after an official existence of some 
 six or seven years, during which they made scarcely any attempts to 
 deal with the question, they went out, leaving a Bill upon the [table. It 
 
WORKING-CLASS ELECTORS. 401 
 
 therefore became necessary for the Conservative party in 1858 to consider 
 the question. It was proposed, on that occasion, in the Cabinet of Lord 
 Derby, that the principle of the borough franchise should be household 
 suffrage. The proposition, it is true, was not adopted, but it was not 
 opposed on any political ground. The only reason for dropping the scheme 
 was a general conviction that the measure would not be satisfactory to the 
 country. In point of fact, it would be difficult to say what scheme would 
 succeed. Every leading statesman — Lord Kussell, Lord Aberdeen, Lord 
 Palmerston and Lord Derby, failed in succession, and when the Tories 
 returned to office, it was only after a second failure by Lord Kussell. 
 The principle of household suffrage had been deliberately adopted because 
 it was felt that there could be no resting-place between it and the then 
 existing qualification. Mr. Disraeli scornfully derided the notion that 
 there was any one section of the working classes so superior to all the rest 
 that they deserved the suffrage to the exclusion of their fellows. The 
 proposal to admit the favoured section he looked at with something more 
 than suspicion — ^he preferred to appeal to the sympathies of the great body 
 of the people. " The working classes will now probably have a more 
 extensive sympathy with our political institutions, which, if they are in a 
 healthy state, ought to enlist popular feeling, because they should be 
 embodiments of the popular requirements of the country. It appeared 
 to us that if this great change were made in the constituent body, there 
 would be a better chance of arriving at the more patriotic and national 
 feelings of the country than by admitting only a more favoured section, 
 who, in consideration of the manner in which they were treated, and the 
 spirit in which they were addressed, together with the peculiar qualities 
 which were ascribed to them, would regard themselves as marked out as 
 it were from the rest of their brethren and from the country, and as 
 raised up to be critics rather than supporters of the Constitution. These 
 were our views, and we retain the conviction which guided us in 1859, 
 and from which if we have deviated, it was only for a moment, and 
 because we thought that on this question it was impossible to come to any 
 solution except in the spirit of compromise and mutual concession." 
 
 After answering Lord Cranborne's rather bitter attack on the Govern- 
 ment for accepting Mr. Gladstone's amendments on points where they did 
 not clash with the principle of the Bill, Mr. Disraeli turned to Mr. Lowe, 
 to whose " doleful vaticinations " he had a ready answer. Mr. Lowe 
 had thought that the Bill would ruin the House of Lords ; the Govern- 
 ment thought that it would create new bonds of sympathy between 
 the nation and its rulers ; Mr. Lowe thought the passage of this Bill 
 an act of treachery, Mr. Disraeli asked wherein the treachery of removing 
 an obstruction from the path of useful legislation consisted ; Mr. Lowe had 
 laid before the House a programme of measures which he detested and 
 which he assured the House he was ready to accept now that this 
 odious Bill was to become law. "The right honourable gentleman," 
 said Mr. Disraeli, "concluded his attack upon us by accusing us of 
 
 2 D 
 
402 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 treacliery, and by informing us that he is going to support all those 
 measures which he has hitherto opposed in this House — though I believe 
 he advocated them elsewhere — and that he will lean I suppose to those 
 Australian politics which rendered him first so famous. The right honour- 
 able gentleman told us that in the course we are pursuing there is infamy. 
 The expression is strong, but I never quarrel with that sort of thing, nor 
 do I like on that account to disturb an honourable gentleman in his speech, 
 particularly when he happens to be approaching his peroration. Our con- 
 duct, however, according to him, is infamous — that is his statement — 
 because in office we are supporting measures of Parliamentary Keform 
 which we disapprove, and to which we have hitherto been opposed. Well, 
 if we disapprove the Bill which we are recommending the House to accept and 
 sanction to-night, our conduct certainly would be objectionable. If we, from 
 the bottom of our hearts, do not believe that the measure which we are 
 now requesting you to pass is on the whole the wisest and best that could 
 be passed under the circumstances, 1 would even admit that our conduct 
 was infamous. But I want to know what the right honourable gentleman 
 thinks of his own conduct when having assisted in turning out the Govern- 
 ment of Lord Derby in 1859, because they would not reduce the borough 
 franchise — he, if I am not greatly mistaken, having been one of the most 
 active managers of that intrigue — the right honourable gentleman accepted 
 office in 1860 under the Government of Lord Palmerston, who, of course, 
 brought forward a measure of Parliamentary Reform which it would appear 
 the right honourable gentleman also disapproved, and more than dis- 
 approved, inasmuch as, although a member of the Government, he pri- 
 vately and successfully solicited his political opponents to defeat. And 
 yet this is the right honourable gentleman who talks of infamy ! Sir, 
 the prognostications of evil uttered by the noble lord (Cranborne) I 
 can respect because I know they are sincere — the warnings and the 
 prognostications of the right honourable gentleman I treat in another 
 spirit. For my part I do not believe the country is in danger. I think 
 England is safe in the race of men who inhabit her ; that she is safe 
 in something much more precious than her accumulated capital — 
 her accumulated experience ; she is safe in her national character, in 
 her fame, in the tradition of a thousand years, and in that glorious 
 future which I believe awaits her." 
 
 Prominent amongst the difficulties of Mr. Disraeli in working the 
 Keform Bill through the House of Commons was the opposition which 
 it encountered from those members of the Conservative party whom the 
 prospect of a generous measure of this character had driven from the 
 Government and had converted into op|)onents. Of these critics Lord 
 Cranborne — now the Marquis of Salisbury — was the bitterest and the 
 most persistent. He fought the Bill at every step of its progress through 
 the House of Commons, and when it had received the Royal Assent, he 
 published in the Quarterly Review an article entitled " The Conservative 
 Surrender," in which he vehemently attacked the Bill and its authorSi 
 
PROKOGATIOi^. 403 
 
 and predicted the most doleful results as certain to flow from its operation, 
 *' Unscrupulousness " and " facility" were the words used to describe the 
 policy of Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby, and both were roundly accused of 
 having been actuated by fear of the mob and by a desire to retain office 
 at the expense of a sacrifice of principle. How profoundly mistaken Lord 
 Salisbury was both as regarded the past conduct of the Premier and the 
 future of the constituencies probably he himself would now be the first to 
 admit. 
 
 This was the last speech of importance made by Mr. Disraeli during the 
 Session of 1867. He had taken the lead in all the business of the House 
 as a matter of course, but the all-absorbing question of Reform had been 
 the main business of the year. Parliament was prorogued on the 21st of 
 August, the Queen's Speech being read by Commission. It contained an 
 allusion to the settlement of the Luxemburg difficulty, in which her 
 Majesty's Government had had a considerable share, and due mention was 
 made of the successful completion of the Canadian Confederation. The 
 Reform Bill was also mentioned in a paragraph which bears a curious 
 likeness to a passage in the speech of Lord Derby on the third reading of 
 that measure in the Lords. " No doubt," the noble Earl had said, " we 
 are making a great experiment and taking a leap in the dark ; but I have 
 the greatest confidence in the sound sense of my fellow countrymen, and I 
 entertain a strong hope that the extended franchise which we are now con- 
 ferring upon them will be the means of placing the institutions of this 
 country on a firmer basis, and that the passing of the measure will tend 
 to increase the loyalty and contentment of a great portion of her Majesty's 
 subjects." " I earnestly trust," said the S^Deech from the Throne, "■ that 
 the extensive and liberal measure which you have passed may effect a 
 durable settlement of a question which has long engaged public attention, 
 and that the large number of my subjects who will be for the first time 
 admitted to the exercise of the Elective Franchise may in the discharge of 
 the duties thereby devolved upon them prove themselves worthy of the 
 confidence which Parliament has reposed in them." 
 
 A week earlier Ministers had, as usual, been entertained by the Lord 
 Mayor at the Mansion House, and Mr. Disraeli made a remarkable and 
 characteristic speech. " I have seen in my time," said he, " several mono- 
 polies terminated, and recently I have seen the termination of the monopoly 
 of Liberalism. Nor are we to be surprised when we see that certain 
 persons, who believed that they had an hereditary right whenever it was 
 necessary to renovate the institutions of their country, should be somewhat 
 displeased that any other persons should presume to interfere with those 
 changes which I hope, in the spirit of true patriotism, they believed the 
 requirements of the State rendered necessary. But I am sure that when 
 the hubbub has subsided — when the shrieks and screams which were heard 
 some time ago and which have already subsided into sobs and sighs, shall 
 be thoroughly appeased — nothing more terrible will be discovered to have 
 
 2 D 2 
 
404 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 occurred than that the Tory party has resumed its natural functions in the 
 government of the coimtry. For what is the Tory party unless it repre- 
 sents national feeling ? If it do not represent national feeling Toryism is 
 nothing. It does not depend upon hereditary coteries of exclusive nobles. 
 It does not attempt power by attracting to itself the spurious force which 
 may accidentally arise from advocating cosmopolitan principles or talking 
 cosmopolitan jargon. The Tory party is nothing unless it represent and 
 uphold the institutions of the country. For what are the institu- 
 tions of the country ? They are entirely in theory, and ought 
 to be, as I am glad to see they are likely to be, -in practice, 
 the embodiment of the national necessities and the only security 
 for popular privileges. Well then I cannot help believing that because 
 my Lord Derby and his colleagues have taken ^a happy opportunity to 
 enlarge the privileges of the people of England, we have not done any- 
 thing but strengthen the institutions of the country, the essence of whose 
 force is that they represent the interests and guard the rights of the people." 
 These views seem to have startled a good many people at the time of their 
 utterance, and one critic in particular was especially severe on " Mr. 
 Disraeli's new theories of Toryism " — the fact being that Lord Beaconsfield 
 always had to contend with a criticism based upon, not what he had 
 really said or -written, but upon what his critics imagined that he ought to 
 have said. The words he used on this occasion are, as the reader will per- 
 ceive, almost literally the same as those which he used in the earliest years 
 of his political career both in his speeches and in his published works. 
 
 The autumn was a busy one in the political world. Lord Beaconsfield, 
 indeed, did not make the political speech to his constituents which the 
 country had become accustomed to expect, assigning as an excuse that 
 *' he was not up to politics in September," nor did he accompany Lord 
 Derby, Lord Stanley, Lord John Manners, and Sir John Pakington when 
 they went to Manchester in October to be feasted by nine hundred mem- 
 bers of the Conservative party there. He was not, however, forgotten, and 
 the cheering was loud and continuous when Lord Derby declared that it 
 was he " to whose tact, temper and judgment it was mainly owing that the 
 arduous undertaking in which they had been engaged had not resulted 
 instead of triumphant success, in disastrous failure." A fortnight later, 
 Mr. Disraeli was present at a banquet given in his honour at Edinburgh. 
 In speaking after the dinner he again vindicated the right of the Conserva- 
 tive party to deal with the question of Reform, and explained how, during 
 the seven years between 1859 and 1866, he " had had to prepare the mind 
 of the country and to educate — if it be not arrogant to use such a phrase 
 — to educate our party. It is a large party, and requires its attention to 
 be called to questions of this kind with some pressure." The use of this 
 phrase was criticised somewhat severely, especially by the organs of " cul- 
 tivated Liberalism," one of which, with a disregard of fact which would 
 be laughable were it not malignant, asserted that this explanation of his 
 course must be intended as a joke, since it was impossible to believe "that 
 
SPEECH AT EDINBURGH. 405 
 
 all the while he was heading his party in the denunciation of every measure 
 of Reform which proposed a considerable reduction of the franchise or let 
 in any important number of the more ignorant and more violent classes, he 
 was really instructing his colleagues in the necessity of going at once to 
 household suffrage." Lord Russell made a remark in the Upper House 
 which the following letter will best explain and answer. It is one of the 
 very few which Lord Beaconsfield addressed to the London papers. 
 
 " Sir, — Lord Russell observed last night in the House of Lords that I 
 * boasted at Edinburgh that whilst during seven years I opposed a reduction 
 of the borough franchise, I had been all that time educating my party with 
 the view of bringing about a much greater reduction of the franchise than 
 that which my opponents had proposed.' As a general rule, I never notice 
 misrepresentations of what I may have said ; but as this charge was made 
 against me in an august assembly, and by a late First Minister of the 
 Crown, I will not refrain from observing that the charge has no foundation. 
 Nothing of the kind was said by me at Edinburgh. I said there that the 
 Tory party, after the failure of their Bill of 1859, had been educated for 
 seven years on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and during that 
 interval had arrived at five conclusions, which, with their authority, I had 
 at various times announced, viz. : — 
 
 " 1. That the measure should be complete. 
 
 " 2. That the representation of no place should be entirely abrogated. 
 
 " 3. That there must be a real Boundary Commission. 
 
 " 4. That the county representation should be considerably increased. 
 
 " 5. That the borough franchise should be established on the principle of 
 rating. 
 
 " This is what I said at Edinburgh, and it is true. 
 
 " I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 " Downing Street, March 6." " B. Disraeli. 
 
 In the course of this speech Lord Beaconsfield took the opportunity of 
 answering the objections to his Reform Bill, dividing them into two classes 
 — those who think that by establishing household suffrage it has democ- 
 ratised the constituencies, and those who hold, with the writer of " the 
 Conservative Surrender " in the Quarterly Review, that it has demoralised 
 the Tory party. He would not admit that household suffrage was neces- 
 sarily democratic in its tendency ; but it was not necessary to argue the 
 point, since, as a matter of fact, the Government had not established 
 household suffrage. There were, in round numbers, some four millions of 
 householders in the country. About one million possessed the suffrage 
 before the Bill, and about half a million would be enfranchised by the 
 Bill ; and was it to be seriously argued that such an addition as that would 
 revolutionise the country ? The writer in the Quarterly Review was, ho 
 went on to say, a very clever man who had made a great mistake. Ho 
 reminded him of those patients whom one sometimes meets in lunatic 
 asylums, whose madness takes the form of a belief that they are the only 
 
406 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 sane people in the world, and that all the rest of mankind are mad. 
 "Reall}'," he continued, "these Edinburgh and Quarterly EeviewSy 
 although no man more admires them than myself, I admire as I do first- 
 class, first-rate posting houses which, in old days for half a century or so, 
 to use a Manchester phrase, carried on a * roaring trade.' Soon there came 
 some revolutions or progress which no person ever contemplated. They 
 find things so altered that they do not understand them, and instead of 
 that fierce competition and mutual vindictiveness which before distinguished 
 them, they suddenly quite agree — the Boots of the ' Blue Boar ' and the 
 Chambermaid of the *Red Lion' embrace, and they are quite of one 
 accord in this — in denouncing the infamy of railroads." 
 
 Passing over some good-humoured banter at the expense of his oppo- 
 nents, we come to a statement of the bases of his policy which is worthy 
 of remark. Contrasting the state of the country then and after the passing 
 of the Reform Bill of 1832, Mr. Disraeli said : — ■" You passed a Reform 
 Bill then, and everybody was frightened ; they were so frightened that they 
 collected together and believed that the only security against further 
 danger was in associating together to prevent further change. Now we all 
 feel what an error was that. It is as fallacious an opinion in politics as in 
 science to suppose that you can establish a party upon resistance to change ; 
 and for this reason, that change is inevitable in a progressive country. 
 Change is inevitable, but the point is whether that change shall be carried 
 out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of 
 the people, or whether it shall be carried in deference to abstract principles 
 and arbitrary and general doctrines. One is a national system ; the other, 
 to give it the worst epithet it may deserve, is a philosophical one. But 
 although they both have very great adv^antages, this must be remembered 
 — the national system is supported no doubt with the fervour of patriotism; 
 the philosophic has a singular exemption from the force of prejudice ; but 
 the national system, although it may occasionally represent the prejudices 
 of a nation, never injures the national character, while the philosophic 
 system, though it may occasionally improve by its advanced views the 
 condition of the country, precipitates progress and may occasion revolution 
 -and destroy States." 
 
 On the day following this entertainment, Mr. Disraeli was presented with 
 the freedom of the city of Edinburgh, and endued with the honorary degree 
 of LL.D., sharing this latter honour with Mr. Lowe. In his speech in 
 reply to the address of the Corporation, he mentioned the questions of the 
 Irish Church and Education. Concerning the former, he would only say that 
 Commission was even then employed in investigating its condition, and 
 that he thought practical men would look with very little confidence on a 
 Minister who, under such circumstances, made any declaration of his policy 
 with regard to it. With reference to education he denied, as he had done 
 on a previous occasion, that the people of this country could fairly be called 
 uneducated. " When I hear," said he, " that the British people are not 
 educated, that they are incapable of exercising what is very natural to a 
 
AN AUTUMN SESSION. ' 407 
 
 Briton whether he possessed it before or now — namely the suffrage — I say 
 we forget that in this country there is a source of education perpetually going 
 on, secular education of the highest class, which affords a future mine 
 for the performance of public and political duties, and that is the in- 
 fluence, thank God 1 of a free press. When the education of the people is 
 brought forward, and statistics of continental nations are adduced to prove 
 the advantageous position those countries hold, and the comparatively 
 disadvantageoug position occupied by the people of the United Kingdom, I 
 always recollect that those philosophers and statisticians forget the in- 
 fluence of the great educating power I have referred to, and I remember with 
 pride and consolation that England, and England alone, is the country in 
 which a free press practically and really exists." These words, though not 
 ostensibly, seem to have been intended as an answer to the declaration of 
 Mr. Lowe in his jeremiad on the third reading of the Eeform Bill, that the 
 first duty of the Government now would be to insist that their future 
 masters should learn their letters. 
 
 Parliament was opened by commission on the 19th of November, 1867, 
 the Government having decided that it was absolutely necessary to send 
 an expedition for the release of the British subjects detained in captivity 
 in Abyssinia. That expedition was accordingly about to be despatched, 
 and the House was asked to provide the ways and means. The legislative 
 programme was necessarily mainly devoted to the Acts necessary as com- 
 plementary to the Keform Act of the preceding Session. A Bill for 
 extending the franchise in Scotland was to be brought in ; the Boundary 
 Commissioners' report was nearly ready ; the Bribery Bill was promised ; 
 the Public Schools Bill was to be brought forward again ; several measures 
 which had been deferred in consequence of the Reform debates of the pre- 
 ceding Session were to be introduced. The debate on the Address was 
 marked by one trifling incident. Mrs. Disraeli had been seized with 
 with severe and even alarming illness, and when Mr. Gladstone rose for 
 the purpose of criticising the Speech from the Throne, he began with an 
 assurance, which was loudly applauded, of the " universal sympathy " of 
 the House with the Chancellor of the Exchequer — a courtesy which 
 Mr. Disraeli's manner showed that he fully appreciated. His speech was 
 naturally very short, and consisted mainly of a promise that the papers 
 jelating to Abyssinia should be laid on the table as speedily as possible, 
 and that every facility should be offered for their discussion. The Address 
 was agreed to without a division, and the House adjourned at a very early 
 hour. 
 
 The promised debate on the Abyssinian war came off on the26th of Novem- 
 ber, when Mr. Disraeli moved a credit of £2,000,000 for the purposes of the 
 expedition. He entered at some little length into the circumstances which 
 had rendered this expedition necessary, and explained that although it was 
 considered indispensable that the Government should have the means of 
 enforcing its demands, there was still a hope that a peaceable solution of 
 the difficulty might be arrived at. The jDossibility of a conflict had been 
 
408 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 present to the mind of the Government for the past twelve months, and 
 preparations had been made accordingly. Communications had been opened 
 with the Government of Bombay, and " provisional preparations " were 
 made for enforcing tke just demands ofctne English Government by the 
 help of Indian troops. In the middle ofxthe month of August, on the 
 very eve of the i)rorogation, the Government had received the reply of 
 King Tiieodore to the ultimatum which had been sent to him, and they 
 had then to deliberate on the general question. " They believed that the 
 interests of this country required that the honour of our Sovereign should 
 be vindicated. I will not," continued Mr. Disraeli, " dwell upon the high 
 duty of rescuing the subjects of her Majesty from captivity, because that 
 consideration is really involved in the honour of the Crown. I shall not 
 conceal from the House the great reluctance with which her Majesty's 
 Government arrived at this resolution. Nothing but the conviction that 
 it was our duty to take such a course would have induced us to come to 
 that decision. It is, I admit, a vexatious thing that we should be obliged 
 to have recourse to arms in order to control a Sovereign like the King of 
 Abyssinia. I feel that if there ever was a case in which a great nation, 
 governed by a Sovereign like ours, could show magnanimity and forbear- 
 ance this was one. Magnanimity and forbearance, however, have limits, 
 for though in public as well in private matters when an insignificant or an 
 unworthy individual wishes to fasten a quarrel upon you, magnanimity 
 and forbearance would be shown by every right-minded man, we know 
 that practically speaking there is a limit to the exercise of jthese qualities 
 . . . Now magnanimity and forbearance had in this case been exercised 
 by Her Majesty in an eminent degree . . . We believed, therefore, that 
 the period had arrived when it was absolutely necessary to the interests 
 of this country that there should be a recourse to arms, in order to vindi- 
 cate the honour of the Throne and to obtain that justice without which 
 the possession of power would to my mind have no charms ... I cannot 
 help feeling that when we are going to war, not to obtain territory, not to 
 secure commercial advantages, but for high moral causes, and for high 
 moral causes alone, that it is perhaps well in an age like the present, which 
 certainly is distinguished by an almost absorbing love of wealth and 
 power, that the country should feel, as I believe it does feel, that there is 
 something more precious than power and wealth." It was not necessary 
 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to speak again on this subject. There 
 was a good deal of debate, chiefly on two points raised by Mr. Lowe — that 
 the war had been decided on before the prorogation, and that a great deal 
 of money had been spent without the knowledge or consent of the House. 
 Both were however satisfactorily answered, and the action of the Govern- 
 ment was approved by a majority of 175 in a House of 221. This was 
 the only business of any moment before the House, and it being settled by 
 the 7th of December, an adjournment was taken on that day to the 13th 
 of February. 
 A few days afterwards, the Fenian attempt to blow up the House of 
 
THE BRIBERY BILL. 409 
 
 Detention in Clerkenwell afiforded an opportunity for the display of those 
 ready and statesmanlike qualities with which Lord Beaconsfield was uni- 
 versally credited. As is well known the effect of the explosion was far 
 more serious as regarded the neighbourhood than upon the prison. Sixty 
 yards of wall were blown in, it is true, but no one was hurt in the prison, 
 while outside many tenements crowded with poor people were wrecked, six 
 persons were killed on the spot and a hundred and twenty injured. The 
 news no sooner reached Downing Street than Mr. Disraeli despatched a 
 trustworthy messenger with £500 of public money for the relief of the 
 sufferers. 
 
 When the House resumed after the Christmas holidays, the first business 
 before it was found to be the Government Bill for the Prevention of 
 Bribery and Corruption, which was introduced by Mr. Disraeli in a speech 
 of a narrative rather than argumentative character. It was indeed as un- 
 necessary to prove that bribery existed to a certain extent as it was to show 
 that it was the duty of the Government to suppress it by all possible 
 means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore passed in brief review 
 the various processes of discipline by which the House had endeavoured to 
 guard the purity of election, and urged that while all such changes were 
 progressive in their character, the then existing system of procedure was 
 far from satisfactory. He might indeed have gone farther, and said that 
 there was no tribunal so utterly and hopelessly bad as an election Com- 
 mittee, but he refrained from going so far, and contented himself with 
 saying that the decisions of those committees had been uncertain and un- 
 satisfactory, feeble in their influence as a check on bribery, and favourable 
 rather than otherwise to the practice of a corrupt compromise between 
 candidates. The radical vice of the system was, he argued, that the 
 House itself insisted upon deciding all cases relating to controverted elec- 
 tions. That such a feeling was perfectly natural he admitted, but it was 
 most disastrous in it results. The Government Bill of last year, which 
 the exigencies of the Reform Bill had caused to be referred to a Select 
 Committee, had proposed to hand over such questions for investigation by 
 a local commission, to be appointed by the Speaker, and with the right of 
 appeal to the House. The Committee had reported, however, in favour of 
 a transfer of jurisdiction in this matter to the Court of Queen's Bench 
 without any Parliamentary appeal. During the recess the report of the 
 Committee had been subjected to a good deal of criticism, especially by the 
 Judges, who had opposed the scheme both on constitutional and on personal 
 grounds. But, went on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, " although the 
 highest authority has told us that even in Olympian dwellings there are 
 those who are not superior to the infirmities of human nature, I may say 
 on the part of her Majesty's Government that we feel wo can no longer 
 attempt to influence the Judges in this matter." The only thing to be 
 done was to devise some substitute for the Court to which it had originally 
 been proposed to refer these cases. It was, therefore, proposed to form a 
 
410 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Court, to be called the Parliamentary Elections Court, or by some similar 
 name, to be composed of three legal gentlemen of the highest attainable 
 abilities, who would be paid a salary of £2000 a year each, and who, in 
 in addition to election petitions, would hear appeals from the decisions of 
 the revising barristers. The proposals of the Grovernment called down a 
 good deal of criticism both in the House and out of it. Mr. Henley ob- 
 jected to them because he feared that they would interfere with the inde- 
 pendence of the House and have a tendency to subdue it unduly to the 
 House of Lords. The Whigs generally took much the same tone, and 
 those members who usually form their opinions on abstract principles, 
 accepted the view of Mr. Ayrton, that a legislative assembly, to maintain 
 its independence, must have the right of determining all questions relating 
 to the election of its members. All parties, however, united in condemn- 
 ing the proposed new Court, seeing that during four years out of five it 
 would practically be idle, and that for the £6000 a year which it would 
 cost, a new Judge mi^ht be obtained whose services would be available at 
 other times. With the ultimate working of this Bill through the House 
 Mr. Disraeli had nothing to do — a greater destiny was in store for him. 
 
 Lord Derby's health had long been in a very precarious condition, and 
 sundry very disquieting rumours had got about. On the 22nd of Feb- 
 ruary a Cabinet Council was held, and on the same day an intimation was 
 forwarded to the newspapers that the noble Earl was fairly convalescent, 
 and " able to give some attention to public business." On the 25th, how- 
 ever, the country was startled by the announcement that Lord Derby had 
 resigned the premiership, and that Mr. Disraeli had been " sent for." The 
 last official act of the great Tory leader was to write to Her Majesty, ex- 
 pressing in the strongest terms his confidence in his lieutenant, and his 
 profound conviction that he was the only possible Prime Minister at that 
 moment, an opinion which he afterwards repeated in even stronger terms 
 in a letter to Lord Dartmouth. The news was announced to both Houses 
 of Parliament — if news it can be called, seeing that it had been so com- 
 pletely discounted — in the Commons by Lord Stanley, and in the Lords by 
 the Earl of Malmesbury. The House at once adjourned until Friday, the 
 28th of February, and again until Thursday,- the 5th of March. The 
 intervening period was occupied, of course, in the changes rendered neces- 
 sary by the reconstruction of the Cabinet — a task which the late Lord 
 Derby once described as one of the most onerous which man could under- 
 take. 
 
 The summons from the Queen to Mr. Disraeli was carried by his old 
 opponent at High Wycombe — General Grey, who had early abandoned 
 politics for a post in the Household — and no time was lost in obeying it. 
 Of course there was a scandal. Lord Chelmsford retired, and there were 
 not wanting enemies to the new Premier who declared that that retire- 
 ment was enforced upon personal grounds. The real fact was that Lord 
 Chelmsford was invited to retire on account of the absolute necessity for 
 
FIRST MINISTER OF THE CROWX. 411 
 
 strengthening tha debating power of the Government in the Upper House. 
 There was no discourtesy, no complaint of anything of the kind was ever 
 made by Lord Chelmsford ; but the matter afforded too convenient a 
 handle for a party attack to be allowed to pass unused. The truth of 
 the story lies in a very small compass, and as, since the death of Lord 
 Chelmsford the old slander has been revived, it may be well to restate the 
 facts. When Lord Chelmsford was asked if he would accept the Chancel- 
 lorship it was explained to him by the late Lord Derby that it might 
 become necessary to request him to make way for a Chancellor of greater 
 debating power. Lord Chelmsford had a very just opinion of his own 
 capabilities as a statesman and political orator, and knew that though no 
 one had greater power with a jury there were many men conspicuously his 
 inferiors in forensic eloquence who were much greater political authorities 
 than he could possibly pretend to be. He accepted the situation, there- 
 fore, in all frankness as it was put before him, and wrote a letter to that 
 effect. When it had become necessary for Lord Beaconsfield to make the 
 change he had forgotten this existence of this letter, and expressed to 
 a common friend some little irritation at being set aside. Like a loyal 
 gentleman, however, he made no complaint, and wrote no angry letters to 
 his political leader. After a few days the matter was brought under 
 Lord Beaconsfield's notice. He at once produced the forgotten letter 
 which Lord Chelmsford immediately acknowledged, and friendly relations 
 were at once established never again to be broken. The new Lord 
 Chancellor was Lord Cairns, whose consummate abilities more than 
 justified the choice of the Minister. Mr. Disraeli's place at the Exchequer 
 was taken by Mr. Gr. Ward Hunt, and Sir John Pakington, who was 
 transferred to the War Office, was replaced at the Admiralty by Mr. 
 H. T. L. Corry; Sir J. B. Karslake became Attorney-General, and Sir 
 C. J. Selwyn Solicitor-General. The other ministerial offices remained 
 unaltered. Mr. Disraeli " kissed hands " on the 27th of February ; Lord 
 Cairns was sworn in on the 2nd of March, and on the 5th the former took 
 his place as First Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. 
 Before doing so, a meeting of his supporters was held at his official resi- 
 dence in Downing Street. It was more a friendly gathering than a formal 
 and official meeting, and the cordiality with which the new Premier was 
 cheered testified to his popularity with his supporters. He delivered 
 a short address lamenting the loss which the party had suffered by the 
 retirement of Lord Derby, and expressing a hope for his speedy return 
 to the scenes of his former triumphs. He admitted the difficulties 
 by which they were beset " but," said he, " past years- have given 
 us great triumphs, and with a firm front we may add to those triumphs 
 fresh victories in 1868." He urged his followers to carry the Scottish and 
 Irish Reform Bill as speedily as possible, so as to insure the removal of 
 that question from the field of politics. 
 
 From Downing Street the new Premier went down to the House of 
 
412 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Commons on foot. Palace yard was crowded, and the '%velcome accorded 
 to him was more than commonly cordial. The House was also very full, 
 and as he took his place the cheering was loud and general. The formal 
 business having been gone through, Mr. Disraeli rose to make his personal 
 statement. It was very brief. He paid an earnest tribute to Lord Derby's 
 many merits, and especially to his enormous capacity for work ; told how 
 it happened that he had been called upon to take office, and announced 
 that in succeeding to Lord Derby he succeeded also to his policy. " With 
 respect to the foreign policy of the present Administration," he continued, 
 *' we shall follow that course which has been pursued under the guidance 
 of my noble friend near me (Lord Stanley), I believe I may say with the 
 approbation of Parliament, and I think I may add with the confidence of 
 Europe. That policy is a policy of peace — not a peace-at-any-price, not a 
 peace sought for the mere interests of England, but a policy of peace from 
 the conviction that such a policy is for the general interest of the world. 
 We do not believe that that policy is likely to be secured by a selfish 
 isolation on the part of this country, but on the contrary, we believe it 
 may be secured by sympathy with other countries, not merely in their 
 prosperous fortunes but even in their anxieties and troubles. If such a 
 policy be continued, I have no doubt when the occasion may arise — and 
 periodical occasions will arise when the influence of England is necessary 
 to maintain the peace of the world — that influence will not be found to be 
 inefficient because it is founded on respect and regard. 
 
 " With reference to our domestic policy, I say at once that the present 
 Admistration will pursue a liberal policy. I mean a truly liberal policy — 
 a policy that will not shrink from any changes which are required by the 
 wants of the age we live in, while at the same time we will never forget 
 that it is our happy lot to dwell in an ancient and historic country rich in 
 traditionary influences which are the best security for order and liberty, 
 and which form the most valuable element of our national character and 
 our national strength." After deploring the wretched condition of Ireland 
 and promising to give every facility to private members, Mr. Disraeli sat 
 down, to be followed by Mr. Bouverie, who lamented dolefully over the 
 fact that the Government was being carried on by a party which could not 
 command a majority in the House of Commons. The fault lay, he assured 
 the House, with the Liberal party itself, composed as it was of " leaders 
 who did not lead and followers who did not follow ;" and which " instead 
 of being an organised party was little better than a rabble." The questions 
 which were to unite all sections of the Liberal party were not very remote. 
 Before Lord Derby had resigned, Irish affairs had assumed an unusual 
 prominence, and the question of the Irish Church had been seen to be that 
 upon which the Liberals, following the example of the Whigs after the 
 Eeform Act of 1832, intended to work upon the country. The Fenians 
 at the same time had kept Irish grievances before the country in a very 
 prominent and a very unpleasant fashion. When Lord Derby quitted office, 
 
THE CONDITION OF IRELAND. 413 
 
 a notice was on the paper in the name of Mr. Maguire— the member for 
 Cork — that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to take the 
 condition of Ireland into immediate consideration. Ministerial changes 
 prevented this matter from being brought forward so promptly as might 
 have been hoped, but on the 10th of March the discussion began. The de- 
 bate was a somewhat vehement one, Mr. Maguire, with all the fervour of 
 his temperament, painting the condition of his country in the darkest 
 colours. 
 
 He said — and to appreciate the force of his picture it must be remem- 
 bered that at this time the Fenian rebellion was at its height — that al- 
 though there was hardly any ordinary crime in the country, it was occupied 
 by an army as if it were a Poland or a province of European Turkey. 
 Constitutional liberty he declared to be " well nigh dead." The freedom 
 of the citizen was "on a par with that in Mexico or Abyssinia." Agri- 
 culture and manufactures were alike declining. In the United States 
 people could hardly believe the state of things in Ireland — as, indeed, was 
 not improbable if the conversation which Mr. Maguire reported himself to 
 have held with an American gentleman were a fair sample of the stories 
 told to our confiding cousins across the Atlantic. He had once conversed 
 with an American who had expressed his indignant wonder. " What ! the 
 majority of tenants without leases ! No security for their industry but 
 the honour and ^ood will of their landlords ! Men and women bought and 
 sold with the estates ! My God, why don't you put it down ? " " Unfor- 
 tunately we can't." " Why don't you change the laws ? " " Unfortunately 
 we can't." * Why don't you change the laws ?" " Unfortunately we 
 are in the hands of those who make the laws." " Well," said the 
 American, " we could settle that in our country very soon ; it is an 
 almighty grievance, and you ought to put it down." Mr. Maguire had, of 
 course, his own scheme for remedying the evil. He demanded the 
 absolute disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, "that 
 badge of conquest." On behalf of the Catholic clergy, he repudiated any 
 idea of wishing to share in her revenues, believing that a richly endowed 
 clergy would be fatal to religion and to the peace of the Empire. Educa- 
 tion would do much if it were put on a more just and liberal footing, and 
 Irishmen had a right to a greater expenditure of the national funds upon 
 public works. A Eoyal residence in Ireland would be useful but would 
 not be a panacea, whilst emigration was bleeding the country to such an 
 extent and was raising up such a host of enemies to England in the 
 United States, that common sense would suggest a styptic. 
 
 Lord Mayo announced the intended Irish policy of the Government after 
 an amendment by Mr. Neate to the effect that " the constant recurrence 
 of impracticable resolutions and the proposal or suggestion of extravagant 
 and impossible remedies are the great obstacles to the restoration of peace 
 in Ireland and to the prosperity of the Irish people " — had been moved 
 and withdrawn. Lord Mayo's proposals included first a Commission of 
 
414 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Inquiry into the relations of landlord and tenant, with the introduction in 
 the meantime of a Bill providing compensation for improvements, and of 
 a second Bill for the better management of Irish railways. The education 
 question was under the consideration of a Commission, but with regard to 
 the universities the Government would be prepared to bring in a Bill for 
 the creation of a Roman Catholic University, leaving Trinity College and 
 the Queen's Colleges as they were. With regard to maintenance it would 
 of course be necessary to ask Parliament to provide the funds for that 
 purpose, and probably Parliament would not refuse to endow certain 
 University scholarships also. As to the Irish Church, nothing could be 
 done in that Session, but a Commission was then sitting upon it, and its 
 report must form the basis of any future legislation. 
 
 The Prime Minister did not speak until the last night of the debate, or 
 until Mr. Gladstone had summed up the case of the Opposition in the 
 most solemn manner and with the most lugubrious action. As was after- 
 wards remarked, " the Irish debate had been unexpectedly justified by the 
 manifest influence it had had on Mr. Gladstone's mind." He had said that 
 he was not prepared for Mr. Stuart Mill's daring scheme for " the dismissal 
 of Irish landlords,'' nor was he quite willing to accept Mr. Blight's com- 
 pendious scheme for improving the condition of the Irish peasantry at the 
 expense of the British taxpayer ; but to the surprise of tl;ose who were not 
 accustomed to his gyrations on popular questions, he announced " that in 
 order to the settlement of the question of the Irish Church, that Church, 
 as a State Church, must cease to exist." The House felt it as somewhat 
 of a relief when the leader of the Government, with a gravely ironical air, 
 reminded his audience how his opponent had told them that the crisis of 
 Ireland had arrived, and how the moment was the culminating point of a 
 controversy which had lasted for 700 years. " I could not but feel," said 
 Mr. Disraeli, "that I was the most unfortunate of Ministers, since, at the 
 moment when I arrived, by her Majesty's gracious favour, at the position 
 I now fill, a controversy which had lasted for 700 years, had reached its 
 culminating point, and I was immediately called upon with my colleagues 
 to produce measures equal to such a supernatural exigency." He went on 
 to inquire how it was that matters had suddenly become so very desperate. 
 The first element of difficulty was Fenianism, but the Government could 
 hardly be held responsible for that. Fenianism had made its appearance 
 under the Administration of Lord Russell, and had been dealt with by him 
 by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and without any thought of 
 those " remedial measures," which the Liberal party now declared to be so 
 imperatively necessary. Another element of danger was Irish emigration, 
 but Mr. Gladstone had himself admitted that that emigration had sub- 
 sided ; and even when it was infinitely greater than it was at that time, it 
 had never frightened the House. " With two elements of his crisis the 
 right honourable gentleman had been as silent as a mouse the whole time." 
 There was a third element in the Education question. The people of 
 
DEFENCE OP CHURCH ENDOWMENTS. ' 415 
 
 Ireland were not educated only yesterday. They had had for a considerable 
 time somewhat exceptional advantages in this respect which were beginning 
 to display their effects. How was it that Mr. Grladstone had never yet 
 discovered the unsatisfactory state of this great question ? But there was 
 a fourth element in the Irish Reform Bill, which had been passed in spite 
 of the efforts of the right honourable gentleman, and the result of which the 
 House was told was to be that the Church of Ireland must be disestablished. 
 In a word — Mr. Gladstone had been a member of the most powerful Ad- 
 ministration which had sat in that House for many years, and he wanted 
 to know how it was that that Administration had done nothing for the 
 relief of these grievances which they now declared to be so pressing. Pass- 
 ing to the proposals of the Government, he remarked that there was no 
 intention of asking Parliament for a permanent endowment of the Catholic 
 University, but simply of calling upon it to pay the " Establishment 
 Charges," — some £7000 or £8000 a year — as in the case of the University 
 of London. This point, it may be remarked in passing, had not been 
 stated very clearly by Lord Mayo, and the Government were in consequence 
 attacked somewhat vehemently by the press for their supposed desire to 
 endow the Eoman Church to a large extent. 
 
 With reference to the Irish Church, Mr. Disraeli disclaimed in emphatic 
 terms the insinuation that the only object of the Commission was delay. 
 " Such a charge," he said, " belonged to the lees and refuse of factious 
 insinuation." He was ready to admit that the condition of the Irish Church 
 in not having a majority of the nation with her was far from satisfactory; 
 but he warmly defended the principle of endowments. Divorce political 
 authority from the principle of religion, and it becomes a mere question of 
 police. Admit that it is wise to connect the principle of religion with 
 Government, and endowment follows as a matter of course. It is a practical 
 mode of carrying the system into operation. It gives a corporate character 
 to the principles which influence men. A Church steadies faith. What- 
 ever might be the opinions of Nonconformists and "philosophers," a 
 religious people will always be in favour of ecclesiastical endowments 
 which give importance and precision to their convictions. He appealed to 
 the House as a body of representatives as well as of senators, with a warm 
 denial of their moral competence to undertake such a measure as the de- 
 struction of the Irish Church without an appeal to the nation. " I should 
 have thought," said he, "the best course would have been to close the 
 necessary business of the Session, as was the intention of the Government, 
 and hasten, as I am prepared cheerfully to hasten, to that appeal to the 
 enlarged sympathies of our countrymen which fortunately the Bill passed 
 last year has secured for us. But the idea that this House of Parliament 
 is to decide upon the question of continuing ecclesiastical endowments or 
 not, seems to be one too preposterous for a man of sense having opportunity 
 to consider it for one moment to debate." : 
 
416 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The plot now thickened rapidly. On the 19th of March, Lord Mayo 
 introduced the Irish Keform Bill, and on the 23rd Mr. Gladstone gave 
 notice of his intention to move the now historical series of resolutions on 
 the Irish Church — perhaps the most rapid act of political conversion on 
 record. The resolutions were three in number : — 
 
 " First, that in the opinion of this House it is necessary that the Esta- 
 blished Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment — due 
 regard being had to all personal interests and to all individual rights of 
 property ; 
 
 " Secondly, that subject to the foregoing considerations it is expedient to 
 prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public 
 patronage, and to confine the ojDerations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 
 of Ireland to objects of immediate necessity or individual rights pending 
 the final decision of Parliament ; 
 
 " And third, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty humbly to 
 pray that with a view to the purposes aforesaid Her Majesty be graciously 
 pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the tempo- 
 ralities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities 
 and benefices in Ireland and in the custody thereof." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli expressed his anxiety to meet the assaults of his opponents, 
 and appointed the 30th of the month for the commencement of the debates. 
 The announcement of those resolutions created an enormous amount of 
 excitement, and the Constitutional party not unnaturally regarded them as 
 a menace to the principles which they held most dear. Addresses to the 
 Premier were at once voted ; and in a letter to Lord Dartmouth, in reply 
 to one of them presented by him, he took the opportunity of placing the 
 question in its true light. " We have heard," he wrote, " something lately 
 of the crisis of Ireland. In my opinion the crisis of England is rather 
 at hand, for the purpose is now avowed, and that by a powerful party, 
 of destroying that sacred union between Church and State which has 
 hitherto been the chief means of our civilisation, and is the only security 
 for our religious liberty." The Premier's writing thus was censured most 
 furiously by the Liberal press, and it was loudly announced that nothing 
 was more improbable than that the proposed disestablishment of the Irish 
 Church should lead to an attack upon the Church of England. That he 
 gauged more accurately than his critics the true meaning of the line 
 adopted by the Liberal party can how be hardly open to question. One 
 specimen of criticism on this letter may be given here as a curiosity. After 
 quoting Mr. Disraeli's words, the Pall Mall Gazette writes : " To raise so 
 false and dangerous a cry as that— to evoke for poor party interests the 
 most intolerant prejudices, the most inflammatory passions of the nation — 
 is about the very worst part a Minister can play. Whatever may be the 
 opinion of thoughtful men as to the Irish Church, they must equally con- 
 demn a Minister who seeks support in a kind of incendiarism as formidable 
 
LORD STANLEY'S AMENDxMENT. 417 
 
 as any attempted by the wildest Eadical in our times." So that for Mr. 
 Gladstone to raise a religious question for party purposes in a moribund 
 House of Commons was statesmanship, but for Mr. Disraeli to defend a 
 religious position on religious grounds, was incendiarism. 
 
 Of course Mr. Gladstone was not to be allowed to carry everything 
 without opposition, and accordingly on the 27th of March Lord Stanley 
 gave notice of his intention to move as an amendment, that the House, 
 " while admitting that considerable modifications in temporalities of the 
 United Church in Ireland may, after pending inquiry, appear to be expe- 
 dient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment of 
 disendovvment of that Church ought to be reserved for the consideration or 
 the new Parliament." The announcement of the proposed amendment 
 was received with considerable cheering, and it was noticed that Minis- 
 terialists were not the only supporters of the Government. The Adullamites 
 were not altogether pleased with Mr. Gladstone's precipitate change of 
 front, and one of them (Mr. Laing) put a notice of another amendment, 
 referring the question to the new Parliament on the paper. 
 
 The debate began on the night of the 30th of March and continued until 
 that of the 3rd of April, when the Premier rose to reply. He spoke for 
 two hours and a half in the presence of a most distinguished audience and 
 in a very crowded House. Amongst the visitors to the House were the 
 Prince of Wales, Prince Arthur, Prince Christian, Prince Teck, the Duo 
 d'Aumale, and the Princesses Christian and Louise. Mr. Disraeli rose at 
 half-past ten. The first portion of his speech was a justification of the 
 course adopted' by the Government, and a reply to the various criticisms 
 with which he had been assailed. Lord Cranborne, who had attacked him 
 with no little acerbity, received an ironical compliment on his invective : 
 " The noble Lord is a man of great talent, and he has vigour in his 
 language. There is great vigour in his invective, and no want of vindic- 
 tiveness. I admit that now speaking as a critic, and perhaps not as 
 an impartial one, I must say I think it wants finish." Lord Cranborne had 
 found an echo in Mr. Lowe, who, " when the bark is heard from this side 
 . . . emerges, I will not say from his cave, but perhaps from a more cynical 
 habitation ... and ' hails with horrid melody the moon.' " Then followed 
 a very lively attack on Mr. Lowe, under cover of a refusal to vindicate his 
 own character and consistency. Mr. Disraeli described him as " a very 
 remarkable man. He is a learned man, though he despises history. He 
 can chop logic like Dean Aldrich ; but what is more remarkable than his 
 learning and his logic is that power of spontaneous aversion which particu- 
 larly characterises him. There is nothing that he likes and almost every- 
 thing that he hates. He hates the working classes of England ; he hates 
 the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; he hates the Protestants of Ireland ; he 
 hates her Majesty's Ministers ; and until the right honourable gentleman tho 
 member for South Lancashire placed his hand upon the ark, he seemed almost 
 
 2 E 
 
418 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to hate tlie righ.t honourable gentleman the member for South Lancashire. 
 But now all is changed. Now we have the hour and the man. But I believe the 
 clock goes wrong and the man is mistaken." With a word or two in passing 
 for the benefit of Mr. Bright, the speaker tiurned to Mr. Gladstone, who, 
 " when the late Parliament was dissolved not four years ago, was of opinion 
 that the Irish Church was a question totally out of the pale of modern 
 politics. He seemed to shrink from the profanation of the idea that he or 
 any human being could ever disturb it. And yet he is the man who now 
 comes forward to abolish that institution." He went on to express his 
 doubts as to the reality of the crisis. "Is the condition of the Irish 
 people now worse than it was before the Union ? So far as my researches 
 inform me, I find the people of Ireland are in a much better position. 
 They are in the enjoyment of social and political rights which they did 
 not then possess : they are better fed, better clothed and better paid than 
 they were. . . . The middle class are more wealthy and more enterprising, 
 and the landlords upon whom such attacks are made have, an advantage 
 which English landlords do not always enjoy — they get their rents paid. 
 . . . Well, Sir, all that has been urged : it has never been answered . . . 
 how are we met ? A statesman who in this position of affairs makes the 
 enormous sacrifice of all the convictions of his life, tells us that the state 
 of Ireland is so critical that he must do that which only three years ago, 
 when mentioned, struck him with such inexpressible horror, he said the 
 question was without the pale of political debate. I want to know on 
 what ground he does this." Then, showing *that even the Opposition 
 admitted that Ireland was prosperous, he turned to the remarkable fact 
 that the House was called to sanction this revolutionary measure on the 
 ground that Irish grievances were moral evils whilst they were really 
 sentimental evils. He protested against the ostentatious lamentations of 
 the Irish over the fact that they are a " conquered race." He denied 
 indeed that they were entitled to that character at all — they were con- 
 quered just as much and just as little by Cromwell and William III. as the 
 English themselves. But we are told that the Church is a " badge of 
 conquest." How, he asked, is the Church of Ireland more a badge of 
 conquest to the Irish Catholic than the Church of England to the English 
 nonconformist ? 
 
 Proceeding to lay down the guiding principles of his policy with regard 
 to Ireland, Mr. Disraeli contended that he had always aimed at concilia- 
 tion ; that his policy was one of creation rather than of destruction, and of 
 acknowledgment that the true way to strengthen Protestant interests was 
 to do justice to the Eoinan CathoUcs. After referring to the concession of 
 Eoman Catholic chaplains for the army and for prisons, he spoke of the 
 proposal to grant a charter to a Eoman Catholic University for Ireland — 
 a scheme by the way which might have been carried had it not been for 
 the extraordinary rapacity of the Irish Eoman Catholic Bishops. He 
 asked for what end the proposed spoliation of the Church was designed to 
 
THE END OF THE DEBATE. 419 
 
 serve ; " the right honourable gentleman goes to the Church of Ireland, he 
 takes all its property, and he does not tell us what he is going to do with it. 
 There is no restitution to palliate or excuse the proceeding — it is sheer 
 confiscation. ... I cannot under any circumstances agree that it should 
 be appropriated to what in Liberal language is called a ' secular purpose.' 
 A ' secular purpose ' is always a job." Then after a scene of considerable 
 liveliness in which Mr. Disraeli defended his letter to Lord Dartmouth 
 against the criticisms of Mr. Lowe, he proceeded to restate the conclusions 
 of that now celebrated document. " I repeat the expression that I used in 
 my letter to my Lord Dartmouth, that the crisis of England is now fast 
 arriving. High Church Eitualists and the Irish followers of the Pope have 
 long been in secret combination, and are now in open confederacy. 
 {Laughter.) Yes, but it is a fact. It is confessed by those who attempted 
 to prevent this combination, to mitigate the occurrence and to avoid the 
 conjuncture which we always felt would be most dangerous to the country. 
 They have combined to destroy that great blessing of conciliation which 
 both parties in the State for the last quarter of a century have laboured to 
 effect. Under the guise of Liberalism, under the pretence of legislating in 
 the spirit of the age they are, as they think, about to seize upon the 
 supreme authority of the realm. But this I can say, that so long as by 
 the favour of the Queen I stand here, I will oppose to the utmost of my 
 ability the attempt they are making." 
 
 The result of the debate was a foregone conclusion. Including pairs, 
 absentees, vacant seats, tellers and the Speaker, there were but 46 members 
 out of the 658 unaccounted for. The division showed 331 votes for the 
 resolutions and 270 against — majority for Mr. Gladstone's proposals 61. 
 No sooner were these figures made known than a chorus of execration 
 began. The Liberal press protested that as men of honour and statesmen 
 there was but one course open to Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues — that 
 course being resignation, in order that Mr. Gladstone might forthwith come 
 into ofiice and disestablish the Church of Ireland. The radical Kitualist 
 press followed the same lead, and in the midst of its all-absorbing discus- 
 sions on the shape of the chasuble, the cut of the alb and the meaning of 
 the biretta, treated its readers to dissertations on the iniquities of the clergy 
 of the Irish Church which afforded the strongest possible ex post facto 
 justification for Mr. Disraeli's accusation of an alliance of their party with 
 Irish Romanism. Mr. Disraeli soon found an opportunity for ex[)lanation. 
 After the division on Mr. Gladstone's resolutions, the House adjourned for 
 the Easter recess and in Easter week the Rev. Arthur Baker, vicar of 
 Addington and a constituent of the Prime Minister, addressed to him a 
 letter in which he appears to have criticised Mr. Disraeli's statement about 
 the Ritualists. The reply was dated "Maundy Thursday," and it was 
 made public in the Times of the 14th of April. Mr. Disraeli therein dis- 
 claimed all intention of casting a slur upon the High Church party gene- 
 rally, for which body he entertained indeed a great respect. "I have 
 
 2 £ 2 
 
420 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 never," he said, " looked upon the existence of parties in our Church as a 
 calamity. I look upon them as a necessity and a beneficent necessity. 
 They are the natural and inevitable consequences of the mild and liberal 
 principles of our ecclesiastical polity and of the varying and opposite 
 elements of the human mind and character. When I s|X)ke I referred to 
 an extreme faction in the Church of very modern date which does not 
 conceal its ambition to destroy the connection between Church and State, 
 and which I have reason to believe has been for some time in secret com- 
 bination and is now in open confederacy with the Irish Eomanists for that 
 purpose. The Liberation Society with its shallow and short-sighted 
 fanaticism is a mere instrument in the hands of this confederacy, and pro- 
 bably will be the first victim of the spiritual despotism the Liberation 
 Society is now blindly working to establish. As I hold that the dissolution 
 of the union between Church and State will cause permanently a greater 
 revolution in this country than foreign conquest, I shall use my utmost 
 energies to defeat these fatal machinations." 
 
 During the recess public meetings were held in various parts of the 
 country, and all the machinery of agitation, in the use of which Lord Rus- 
 sell had on former occasions shown himself so proficient, was brought out 
 and furbished up anew. The noble Earl presided over one of these gather- 
 ings in person, and with that facility which seemed to be his peculiar pre- 
 rogative he threw away his old pledges of concurrent endowment, and, in 
 obedience to the cry of his audience, declared himself in favour of the im- 
 partial disestablishment and disendowment of all sects as well as of the 
 Church of Ireland. The discussion of the Resolutions was resumed on the 
 27th of April, and on the 30th Mr. Disraeli closed the debate in a speech 
 mainly devoted to showing that the opponents of the Irish Church had 
 really made out no case against her, that the proposed measure would be 
 destructive of the rights of property, that it would be injurious to Ireland, 
 by stirring up old and happily forgotten animosities, that it was in reality 
 a concession to Fenianism, and that the necessary corollary to the dis- 
 establishment and disendowment of the Church of Ireland would be the 
 overthrow of the Scotch Kirk and of the Church of England. The main 
 question was put. Sir Frederick Heygate's amendment, which was in the 
 form of a direct negative, being withdrawn, and the Government once 
 more found itself in a minority of 65 — 330 to 265. The numbers were 
 announced amidst great cheering from the Opposition, and when it died 
 away the Premier quietly stated that it would be necessary for Ministers 
 to consider their position. He moved, therefore, that the House at its 
 rising should adjourn until the following Monday. 
 
 On that day he explained the determination at which the Government 
 had arrived to appeal to the country, justifying his course on three several 
 grounds. In the first place no conclusive legislation on the Irish Church 
 could take place in that Parliament ; in the second the question had never 
 been even hinted at in the last general election ; and in the third he and 
 
MR. AYRTON AS " CENSOR MORUM." 421 
 
 his colleagues entertained a profound conviction that the country was more 
 in accord with the Government than with the Opposition. Referring then 
 to the charge of unworthily clinging to ofiSce and of governing the country 
 by a minority, Mr. Disraeli declared himself so accustomed to aspersion 
 that he would have taken no notice of this accusation, even though it had 
 been repeated in the House, but for the public principle involved. He 
 then described at some length his various interviews with the Queen, and 
 related how he had been perfectly willing to resign, " with no other feeling 
 but that which every Minister who has served the Queen must possess- 
 namely, of gratitude to her Majesty for the warm constitutional support 
 which she always gives to her Ministers, and I may add — as it is a truth 
 which cannot be concealed — for the aid and assistance which every 
 Minister receives from a sovereign who has now had such a vast experi- 
 ence of public affairs." The dissolution was therefore to take place as 
 speedily as possible. The Ministry would enter on no protracted debates, 
 would offer no opposition to the second and third of Mr. Gladstone's reso- 
 lutions, regarding them as corollaries to the first, and would, in short, do 
 all that could be done to facilitate the performance of public business. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's statement was received with marks of decided disfavour by 
 the Opposition, and from this day forward the conduct of the Liberal party 
 was marked by an amount of factiousness, the discredit of which cannot 
 very readily be wiped out. The unworthy charge against the Ministry of 
 clinging to office was repeated and re-repeated on the very night of this 
 explanation, and when, a couple of nights later, Mr. Gladstone's remaining 
 resolutions came on for discussion, the Premier was loudly censured for 
 being absent during a discussion as to the withdrawal of the Maynooth 
 Grant and the llegium Donum. Mr. Ayrton posed as censor morum on 
 this occasion, and spoke in his accustomed acrid tone. Mr. Disraeli was 
 returning to his place at the time, but stopped to listen to what was being 
 said, after which he made a placid speech to the effect that he did not 
 think it necessary to obtrude his advice on the House on any and every 
 occasion ; that Mr. Ayrton would no doubt, when he became leader of the 
 House, be a much more rigid regulator of their destinies than he could pre- 
 tend to be, and that as to the debate which was then going on, it had 
 merely been a quarrel amongst honourable gentlemen opposite over the 
 division of the plunder, in which he did not think it advisable to inter- 
 fere. After a while Mr. Bright made another personal attack on the 
 Prime Minister, accusing him of putting the Sovereign in the forefront of 
 the great struggle on which the country was about to enter, and declaring 
 that in doing so he was guilty of a " high crime and a great misde- 
 meanour.'' The charge was a sufficiently preposterous one, but Mr. Glad- 
 stone made matters a good deal worse by a solemn declaration that Mr. 
 Disraeli, in saying that the resolutions when reported would show what 
 elements of confusion were introduced into the country had used lan- 
 guage "which had never before been used by a Prime Minister." Mr. 
 
422 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Disraeli's reply was simple enougli— lie laughed at Mr. Gladstone and told 
 Mr. Bright that he dealt in "stale invective," and that if he had any 
 charges to bring against him, he had better bring them and let them be 
 met in the regular way. 
 
 The Opposition grew more factious with every succeeding day. As Mr. 
 BailUe Cochrane put the matter when, after three perfectly unnecessary 
 defeats inflicted on the Government in the Committee on the Scotch 
 Eeform Bill, Mr. Disraeli moved to report progress, he said that " members 
 went down to the House night after night to support every piece of factious 
 opposition ingenuity could suggest. Were the Government to submit to 
 such treatment ? If Lord Derby had remained in office the factious oppo- 
 sition of the last four weeks would have had no existence, but immediately 
 the right honourable gentleman came into power an opposition was organized 
 for the purpose of ousting him from office." Then when Mr. Disraeli in the 
 exercise of his undoubted right opposed Mr. Gladstone's Suspensory Bill for 
 the Irish Church, he in turn was accused of factiousness on the ground that 
 he had offered no opposition to the second and third resolutions, and the 
 stale charge so often made and so often disproved that he had proposed the 
 payment of Irish Catholic priests by the State was again brought forward. 
 The Liberal press insisted that he had a scheme of his own for the dis- 
 establishment of the Irish Church, and those ingenious gentlemen who 
 supply provincial newspapers with the gossip of the London clubs pub- 
 lished minute details of the plan by which the Prime Minister hoped to 
 circumvent his opponents. The only fault in the story was, that it was 
 iitterly untrue. In the same spirit a charge was frequently made, and 
 frequently repeated, that Lord Beaconsfield, who has shown himself on 
 many occasions to be utterly superior to sordid motives, was clinging to 
 office for the sake of the pension to which Cabinet Ministers are entitled 
 after a certain period of service. Everything in short was done during the 
 remainder of the Session that the ingenuity of his opponents could devise 
 to discredit him. Mr. Bright made speeches and Mr. Gladstone wrote 
 letters with the object of proving the unworthiness of the Government and 
 the generally disreputable character of its chief. Sometimes, however, 
 the charges recoiled upon those who made them, as, for example, when Mr. 
 Gladstone wrote to the electors of Worcestershire, stating that — "the 
 Government proclaimed ten weeks ago that they were friendly to religious 
 equality in Ireland, provided it was brought about by endowing other 
 Churches, including the Eomish, in Ireland, not by disendowing the Pro- 
 testant Churches, and by way of earnest they propose at once to create a 
 Pioman Catholic University, and to pay the expenses out of the taxes of 
 the country." The letter was brought under the notice of the House, and 
 Mr. Disraeli expressed his belief that it was a mere caricature of Mr. 
 Gladstone's " usually happy style, containing assertions which could not 
 be proved, and which nothing but the excitement of an election could 
 justify." Mr. Gladstone, having owned to the authoi-ship of the letter, and 
 
SPEECH AT MERCHANT TAYLORS' HALL. 423 
 
 being challenged for proof of the assertions contained in it, quoted a letter 
 from Lord Derby's secretary promising that the Eegium Donum should be 
 taken into consideration before the estimates of the next year were prepared 
 — a reductio ad ahsurdum which Mr. Disraeli stigmatized as it deserved. 
 
 Before the close of the Sessions Ministers were entertained at dinner in 
 Merchant Taylors' Hall, and the Prime Minister took the opportunity of re- 
 peating in substance what he had said on many previous occasions of the 
 benefits derived from the union of Church and State. He further de- 
 fended the foreign policy of the Administration with vigour and effect. 
 " When we acceded to ofiSce," said he, '* the name of England was a name 
 of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was 
 no possibility of that cordial action with any of the Great Powers which is 
 the only security for peace ; and in consequence of that want of cor- 
 diality wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon office 
 and public affairs were administered by my noble friend ... I say that all 
 this has changed ; that there never existed between England and 
 foreign powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than 
 now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant 
 intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation; and the 
 result has been that there never was a Government in this country which 
 has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one 
 which now exists." Such a speech of course called down all the wrath of 
 outraged Liberalism, and the grave and judicial Mr. Grant Duff in his most 
 solemn tones rebuked the " wild words '* of the Premier, and asked him if 
 he knew that the Foreign Minister of the late Government was Lord 
 Clarendon, whom Lord Derby had wished to include in his Administration. 
 The Premier had a very simple reply to the member for the Elgin burghs. 
 He knew quite well that Lord Clarendon was Foreign Minister for a few 
 months at the end of Lord Russell's last Administration, but Lord Claren- 
 don had inherited difficulties and had bequeathed them to his successors. 
 The fact was that during his tenure of office, and for some time before he 
 acceded to it, the guiding spirit of the foreign policy of this country was 
 Earl Russell, and what he made of it has already been told in part in these 
 pages. The discussion — not a very dignified one, or one by any means to 
 the credit of the Opposition — was enlivened by a rattling speech from Mr. 
 Layard, who utterly refused to give Lord Stanley any credit for his inter- 
 vention in Luxemburg, and a ponderous one from Mr. Gladstone, who, as 
 he is wholly superior to such mortal weaknesses as vanity, pride and over- 
 weening self-confidence, was doubtless fully justified in severely rebuking 
 the Premier's inflated and exaggerated eulogy of himself and of his policy." 
 
 Apart from the more purely personal questions there were some parts of 
 Lord Beaconsfield's speech on this occasion which call for remark. He 
 had referred to the changes which the various measures of Reform had 
 rendered necessary, and to the approaching general election, which would 
 practically decide the question whether the Constitution was or was not 
 to be sustained. He went on :— " The Constitution of England is not a 
 
424 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 paper constitution. It is an aggregate of institutions, many of them 
 founded merely upon prescription, some of them fortified by muniments, 
 but all of them the fruit of the experience of an ancient and illustrious 
 people. The consequence of these political institutions is this — and it is 
 experienced by no other European nation — that in England society has 
 always been more powerful than the State. In moments of difficulty and 
 danger, in times of emergency there has always in this country been some- 
 thing round which men can rally, and by these means we have secured 
 the two greatest blessings of a civilised community — that is the enjoy- 
 ment alike of order and of liberty. Now among these institutions is the 
 Church, and it is in aUiance between the Church and the State, an alliance 
 between equal and independent powers that have entered into a solemn 
 covenant for the national good that we must seek for the principal source 
 from which have flowed these two great blessings of freedom and order. . . . 
 The union between Church and State, even in rude times, made power respon- 
 sible. Even in comparatively barbarous periods it prevented the Govern- 
 ment from degenerating into mere police. In the happier times in which 
 we live it has elevated, purified and ennobled the exercise of power. In 
 these days when the duties of the Government become every year more 
 social than political, I am at a loss to know how these duties could be ful- 
 filled unless there were in intimate relation with the State an order of 
 men set apart who, by their piety, their learning, and their zeal, not only 
 guide and control, but soften and assuage the asperities of human society. 
 But there is still another consequence which I think should be placed 
 before the country at this moment. It is that by the union of Church 
 and State the supremacy of the sovereign of the country is secured. 
 To that union we are indebted, and solely indebted, for the religious 
 liberty which has been the boast of and the source of happiness to the 
 country." Later on in his speech he added, with reference to the Church 
 of England, which he thought to be menaced quite as much as that of 
 Ireland by Mr. Gladstone's resolutions : — " I will venture to say that if 
 that Church were to fall the Protestant cause throughout Europe would 
 receive a wound from which, probably, it would never recover, ... On 
 former occasions — in old days — when the generation which preceded us 
 experienced the same struggle and the same peril, it was said that those 
 who upheld the cause of the Constitution of England — the union of Church 
 and State — were struggling in favour of penal legislation, and that under 
 the disguise of religious fervour they were, in fact, aiming merely at the 
 preservation of peculiar privileges. That can no longer be said. The legis- 
 lation of the last thirty years especially has terminated the possibility of 
 such misrepresentations. I maintain that in this country religious equahty 
 really exists. There is freedom for men — full freedom for the exercise and 
 enjoyment of their religion. No man among us is debarred from the exer- 
 cise and enjoyment of any civil right in consequence of his religion ; in the 
 courts of the sovereign he can vindicate the jjrivileges of the religious com- 
 munion to which he belongs, though it may not be that of the Church of 
 
AT THE LORD MAYOR'S DINNER. 425 
 
 England. We hear mncli of religious equality — I call that religious 
 equality, and I hold that that is perfectly consistent with the maintenance 
 of the union between Church and State." 
 
 Before Parliament was prorogued, Lord Beaconsfield did another of those 
 generous and gentlemanlike things which, like his conduct to Mr. Cobden, 
 to the late Earl Kussell, and indeed to all his political opponents, prove 
 how little room there was in his disposition for meanness and spite. For 
 years he had been the object of the attacks of Punch. Scarcely a week 
 went by without a caricature of him, or without some more or less spiteful per- 
 sonal attack. His principal assailant was, of course, the late John Leech, 
 whose admirable sketches familiarised the English public with the features 
 of the future Prime Minister many years before he had pressed the cushions 
 of the Treasury Bench. When poor Leech died in 1864, he — like so many 
 of his race — left his family in very impoverished circumstances, and Mrs. 
 Leech, his widow, was placed on the pension list. Mrs. Leech survived 
 her accomplished husband something less than four years, and the young 
 family were by her death left almost destitute. As soon as the facts were 
 made known to Lord Beaconsfield, he at once directed that the pension 
 which had been given to Mrs. Leech by the Liberal Government of 1864 
 should be continued to the children. 
 
 The Session drew to a close under circumstances hardly calculated to 
 impress the observer with the high character of English party warfare. 
 The Bribery Bill, which everybody professed to desire, was passed, but 
 only under circumstances of the most extreme difficulty and by dint 
 of the most cautious engineering on the part of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer. Practically, nothing else was done, and at one time there 
 were even threats of stopping the supplies. Factious opposition to the 
 Government on every possible occasion within the House was accompanied 
 by agitation of the old dangerous type outside. Demonstrations con- 
 tinued to be made under exalted patronage in Hyde Park, and on one 
 occasion Mr. Gladstone was induced to receive a deputation of roughs, 
 headed by one Finlen, the most notorious of the pro-Fenian orators 
 of Clerkenwell Green. Other Liberal leaders carried on the work of agita- 
 tion in the provinces, and by the time that Parliament dispersed, the 
 unpopularity of Mr. Disraeli was at its height. In accordance with the 
 usual custom, he was, however, entertained by the Lord Mayor, at a 
 banquet on the eve of the prorogation, and he then made a very striking 
 and interesting speech. He was able to congratulate liis hearers on the 
 friendly and peaceful relations which England under Lord Stanley's 
 guidance had been enabled to maintain with all foreign powers, and ho 
 pointed out that although public business in home affairs had been greatly 
 obstructed during the last few months it was utterly false to say that the 
 Session had been ban-en. The whole series of the lleform Bills had been 
 carried, the Bill for transferring the Telegraphs to the Post Office, and 
 many other considerable measures had been carried, and much more would 
 
426 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 unquestionably have been done had it not been for the opposition of others 
 — not members of her Majesty's Government. It was, however, with 
 respect to the then approaching general election that Lord Beaconsfield's 
 utterances were naturally most earnest. " It is impossible," said he, " not 
 to be sensible of the great occasion which is now at hand. I think he 
 would not be a wise man who for a moment would attempt to speak of 
 that occasion in other terms than those which would do justice to its 
 magnitude. But we have been told in the course of the struggle of the 
 last two years, that the confidence we reposed in the great body of the 
 people was misplaced, and that the moment they possessed the power of 
 the Suffrage we should find them giving rein to the wildest ideas, and 
 evidencing that they meant to exercise that power in a manner most 
 dangerous to the institutions of the country. I confess I see no evidence 
 before me which would justify this suspicion. On the contrary, I 
 believe the great body of the people are prepared to exercise the power with 
 which they have been invested in a spirit of prudence and patriotism. I 
 think it is most remarkable . . . that the great body of the people 
 invested with this privilege should be called upon to exercise it for the first 
 time under circumstances so peculiar as now obtain in this country ; that 
 the great body of the people should be called upon to exercise that right 
 upon the most important question that could be brought before their judg- 
 ment, and that on the first occasion upon which they have to exercise 
 that power they have virtually to decide upon the constitution of their 
 country. This I confess is a state of affairs which the boldest man must 
 admit to be critical. But when I remember what the Constitution of 
 England is — that the Constitution of England proposes to itself two great 
 objects, to maintain at the same time political liberty and religious freedom 
 — I have no doubt that the English people, who will thoroughly under- 
 stand the issue at stake, and what is involved in it, will behave in the 
 manner that becomes the descendants of a great people, and will prove that 
 they are worthy of the privileges which the present generation has 
 generously and wisely bestowed upon them. Therefore, instead of feeling 
 any apprehension of the issue which the people of this country are called 
 upon to decide, I must express my opinion, knowing how high and how 
 deep the interests affected are, that the decision is safer in their hands than 
 it would have been in a more contracted circle, probably of a more refined 
 and educated character. Over refinement and over education lead very 
 often to a perversity of opinion and an affectation of philosophy that do 
 not deal with those vigorous and robust principles upon which the nation 
 is now called upon to decide with the success and completeness which 
 attend an appeal to a larger and more national constituency." Lord 
 Beaconsfield's generous confidence in the English nation has been eventually 
 more than justified, but in 1868 even those who most admired him and 
 most cordially trusted and followed him were fain to confess, that there was 
 out too little reason for the trust to which he thus gave expression. 
 
PROROGATION. 427 
 
 Prorogation took place on the 31st of July, the Queen*s Speech being 
 read by commission. It congratulated the House and the country on 
 friendly relations with all foreign powers, on the success of the Abyssinian 
 Expedition, and on the fact that although the Habeas Corpus Act was still 
 suspended in Ireland as a matter of precaution, no prisoner was then 
 awaiting his trial for participation in the Fenian conspiracy. The charge 
 that the Session had been a wasted one was effectually disproved by the list 
 of work accomplished. The Irish and Scotch Keform Acts and the Act for 
 the Prevention of Bribery and Corruption would have been thought a few 
 years back a very fair allowance of work for one Session, but to these three 
 measures the Queen's Speech added Acts for " the better government of 
 Public Schools, the Kegulation of Eailways, the Amendment of the Law 
 relating to British Sea Fisheries and for the acquisition and maintenance of 
 the Electric Telegraphs by the Postmaster General, and several important 
 measures having for their object the improvement of the Law and of the 
 Civil and Criminal procedures of Scotland." One measure not mentioned 
 in the Speech — the Act for the abolition of public executions — was the 
 work of this Session. The dissolution was announced to take place on 
 " the earliest day that would enable the people to reap the benefit of the 
 extended system of representation which the wisdom of Parliament had 
 provided for them." 
 
 Almost immediately after the rising of the House for the Kecess, it fell 
 to Lord Beaconsfield's lot to nominate a new Viceroy for India. With that 
 knowledge of men and of their capabilities, which seems to be his strongest 
 point, the Prime Minister selected for this office the late Lord Mayo — a 
 selection which was more than justified by the result. No sooner had the 
 choice been made public, however, than a howl of opposition went up from 
 the Liberal press. The result everybody knows, and in spite of certain 
 disclaimers which have been rather ostentatiously paraded of late years, 
 there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Gladstone's Administration did for 
 some time entertain the notion of cancelling the appointment, and of 
 recalling, for party motives, the ablest Viceroy India has had since the days 
 of Lord Wellesley. In the same spirit Mr. Disraeli's action in the matter 
 of giving the Marquis of Abercorn his dukedom, was criticised by the 
 opposition press. It was objected that " his merit was not prodigious, his 
 power was not overwhelming, his wealth not enormous, his ambition not 
 dangerous, his arrogance not unbearable," and therefore, it was suggested, 
 his step in the peerage must have been conferred from some corrupt 
 motive. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli declined all invitations during the autumn of this year, and 
 made no statement of his opinions until the publication of his address to 
 the electors of Buckinghamshire. It was dated " Downing Street, October 
 1st, 1868," and was not merely the address of a county member seeking 
 re-election, but a state paper of no ordinary consequence. He begins by 
 claiming for his policy the credit of being distinctly the policy of the Earl 
 
428 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of Derby, with whom he had worked in unbroken harmony for twenty 
 years, and he goes on then to take " a comprehensive view of the conduct 
 of affairs since the accession of tlie Conservative Government to office in 
 1866." Parliamentary Reform, he points out, "had embarrassed and 
 enfeebled several Administrations, and had led to no satisfactory result. 
 We were of opinion," he goes on, " that this state of affairs should ter- 
 minate, and by a series of measures in the course of two years, we brought 
 about a settlement of the question; broad in its principles, large and 
 various in its provisions, but, as we believe, in unison with the character 
 of the country and calculated to animate the spirit of the community and 
 add strength and stability to the State." With regard to our foreign 
 relations and in the matter of Abyssinia, that "legacy of insult and 
 difficulty " bequeathed to the nation by Lord Eussell the Premier was safe 
 in challenging criticism. He was able also to boast that " the strength of 
 the navy was materially increased, the defences of the country much 
 advanced, the soldier admirably armed, and enlistment become so popular 
 that not only is the voted number of our forces no longer in arrear, but 
 many thousand veterans who were about to claim their discharge have 
 remained in the army. Such great results have, of course, not been 
 obtained without an increase of our expenditure, but the expenditure has 
 been an object of the first necessity; and while it has been defrayed 
 without adding to our taxation, it has entailed no burden on posterity." 
 
 Peferring next to the organisation of the expenditure of the War Office 
 by placing the control in the hands of a single individual, Mr. Disraeli 
 announced that a great economy had been effected in that way, and that 
 the same system would be extended to other departments of the State. 
 After mentioning the practical annihilation of Fenianism in Ireland, and 
 the earnest desire of the Government to do justice to that country, he went 
 on : — " In this state of affairs we had reason to hope, and it was generally 
 contemplated by the country, that we might have tranquilly wound up 
 the business of the Session, and then asked, according to the provisions of 
 the great statute which we had just passed, the public verdict on our 
 conduct. Had it been propitious we might, by the favour of the Sovereign, 
 have continued to serve her Majesty and enjoyed an opportunity of effect- 
 ing those legal and social improvements which are so much required and 
 to the necessity of which we had proved we were not insensible. Had the 
 verdict been adverse we should have retired from office without a murmur, 
 conscious that when we had the opportunity we endeavoured to do our 
 duty, and still prepared, as representing one of the great parties of the 
 State, to co-operate with our rivals in public life for the public good. This, 
 the natural current of events, was to be interrupted. The Leader of the Oppo- 
 sition in the House of Commons seized the occasion of an expiring Parlia- 
 ment, which had proclaimed its inadequate representation of the country, 
 to recommend a change of the fundamental laws of the realm and to propose 
 a dissolution of the union between Church and State. Her Majesty's 
 
ELECTION ADDRESS OF 1888. 429 
 
 Government offered and will ofifer to this policy an uncompromising resist- 
 ance. The connection of religion with the exercise of political authority 
 is one of the main safeguards of the civilisation of man. It instils some 
 sense of responsibility even into the depositaries of absolute power. But 
 under any circumstances the absence or the severance of such a tie will 
 lower the character and duties of government and tend to the degradation 
 of society. But it is urged that in the present instance, the application of 
 the new policy is only to be partial and that only one portion of her 
 Majesty's dominions — Ireland — is for the present to be submitted to the revo- 
 lution : — and on this plea that in Ireland the members of the Established 
 Church form only a minority of the population. If this numerical test is 
 to be accepted, its application cannot be limited to Ireland and if in a 
 country of entire toleration a local instead of an Imperial gauge be adopted, 
 the religious integrity of the community will soon be frittered away. 
 Instead of Ireland being made an exception to the fundamental condition 
 of our Constitution, there are many secondary reasons why the Established 
 Church should be maintained in that country. Its subversion would aggra- 
 vate religious hostility and party rancour ; would suppress a resident class of 
 men whose social virtues are conducive, as all agree, to the welfare of the 
 country, and would further diminish the security of property in a land 
 where its tenure and enjoyment are not as unquestioned as they have 
 hitherto been in other parts of her Majesty's dominions. But even in 
 Great Britain the spoliation of the Church of Ireland would not be without 
 its effect. Confiscation is contagious, and when once a community has 
 been seduced into plunder its predatory acts have seldom been single. 
 There are, however, weightier reasons why this new policy should be resisted. 
 The religious liberty which all her Majesty's subjects now happily enjoy is 
 owing to the Christian Church in this country having accepted the prin- 
 ciples of the Reformation, and recognised the supremacy of the Sovereign as 
 the representative of the State, not only in matters temporal, but in matters 
 ecclesiastical. This is the stronghold of our spiritual freedom. So long as 
 there is in this country the connection, through the medium of a Protestant 
 Sovereign, between the State and the National Church, religious liberty is 
 secure. That security is now assailed by various means and on different 
 plans ; but amidst the discordant activity of many factions there moves the 
 supreme purpose of one power. The philosopher may flatter himself he is 
 advancing the cause of enlightened progress ; the sectarian may be roused 
 to exertion by anticipations of the downfall of ecclesiastical systems. These 
 are transient efforts ; vain and passing aspirations. The ultimate triumph, 
 were our Church to fall, would be to that power which would substitute for the 
 authority of our Sovereign the supremacy of a Foreign Prince, to that power 
 with whose tradition, learning, discipline and organisation our Church alone 
 has hitherto been able to cope, and that too only when sup^wrted by a 
 determined and devoted people." 
 
 The Address called forth, as might have been anticipated, a storm of that 
 
430 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 intolerant and saugrenu criticism of whicb. Lord Beaconsfield has ever been 
 the victim. His complaint of the inappropriateness of the time at which 
 the question of the Irish Church had been brought forward was laughed to 
 scorn, though probably none would have been more ready to complain than 
 his critics had Mr. Gladstone been interrupted in the midst of a series of great 
 measures by the intrusion of a perfectly foreign matter, as Lord Beaconsfield 
 had been. The suggestion that it was somewhat singular that although the 
 Liberal party had been in office for seven years, they had never discovered the 
 urgency of Irish questions until they had gone into the cold shade of 
 Opposition was equally scouted, or, if not scouted, was met by the naive 
 remark that the Fenian conspiracy had hardly broken out whilst the 
 liiberals were in power — a suggestion which, by the way, afforded no small 
 ground for the subsequent boast of the Yankee Irish, that, however they 
 might have failed in making Ireland an independent State, they had at 
 least forced English Liberals to disestablish the Church, and to confiscate 
 no small proportion of the property of the landlords. Lord Beaconsfield's 
 suggestion that the Roman Church was likely to be the only body in the 
 State which would profit by the destruction of the Irish Church, was like- 
 wise treated as a matter for laughter, if not for more indignantly virtuous 
 vituperation. As a general rule, it was declared to be a mere outburst of 
 "sectarian bigotry and Protestant prejudice;" and the pious organs of the 
 Ritualistic sect varied their interesting discussions of ecclesiastical millinery 
 with dissertations upon the shortcomings of the Irish Church generally, 
 from the ultra-High Church point of view, and with disquisitions upon the 
 iniquities of an English statesman who could think that any harm would 
 be done to the Catholic faith in England by reason of a quasi-establishment 
 of Romanism as the dominant creed in Ireland. 
 
 In the contest which occupied the autumn, Mr. Gladstone found it 
 necessary to make a great number of speeches, and to hurry about from 
 place to place for several weeks, only to find himself defeated at the last, 
 and obliged to accept the seat which the Radical borough of Greenwich 
 placed at his disposal. Mr. Disraeli was able to take things more easily. 
 His connection with the countyof Buckingham was so firm and so well 
 assured that canvassing on his part was wholly unnecessary, and he was 
 able to spend the time intervening between the issue of his address and his 
 election in attention to the duties of his office in London. In the midst of 
 this period he was present at the Lord Mayor's Feast, and made a very 
 characteristic speech. The difficulties between France and Prussia had 
 begun to assume a very serious form, and considerable apprehension was 
 expressed with respect to them. Mr. Disraeli, in the course of his speech, 
 referred to those difficulties, and recalling to his hearers the fact that Lord 
 Stanley had just concluded a Convention with Mr. Reverdy Johnson on the 
 Alabama claims (which, by the way, would undoubtedly have been carried 
 out had Lord Stanley remained in office), he suggested that France and 
 Prussia could not do better than again invoke his aid in the settlement of 
 
AGAIN RETURNED FOR BUCKINGHAMSHIRE. 431 
 
 tlieir differences. In some later observations the Premier referred to the 
 Keform Bill (concerning the authorship of which he declined to contend), 
 and expressed a strong opinion that it would work satisfactorily. He 
 begged the City of London, whose representatives he saw before him, to 
 recollect that, as great owners of property, they were interested in main- 
 taining the rights of property. " I have never," he said in conclusion, 
 " found boastfulness and braggadocio of the slightest utility. Our oppo- 
 nents, indeed, have settled everything. They have exhausted all the arts 
 of unanimous audacity. But I think I have read somewhere that it is the 
 custom of undisciplined hosts on the eve of a battle to anticipate and 
 celebrate their triumph by horrid sounds and hideous yells, the sounding 
 of cymbals, the beating of drums, the shrieks and springs of barbaric 
 hordes. But when all has occurred it is sometimes found that the victory 
 is not to them, but to those who are calm and collected : the victory is to 
 those who have arms of precision, though they may have made no noise — 
 to those who have had the breechloaders, the rocket-brigade, and the Arm- 
 strong artillery." With a jocose allusion to his presence at the banquet 
 next year as the representative of her Majesty's Government — a sally 
 which, of course, elicited much laughter from the Lord Mayor and his pre- 
 decessor, both of whom were Liberals of an advanced type — the incident 
 came to end. 
 
 The election took place at Aylesbury on Thursday, the 19th of 
 November. There was no opposition, but a somewhat pronounced Liberal 
 in the person of Mr. N. G. Lambert was brought in as third candidate. Mr. 
 Disraeli made a speech of some length, in the course of which he defended 
 the dealing of the Tory iJarty with the question of Reform mainly on the 
 ground that they had settled it once and for all time. " We have been 
 charged with having opposed a moderate measure, and with having 
 carried a large one. . . . We opposed the small measure because it would 
 lead to no solution ; and if the country demanded a settlement, it was 
 necessary that it should be effected upon lasting principles." On the question 
 of education, he referred to the Bill introduced by the Government in the 
 last Session, which he believed would have settled matters for some time 
 to come had it not been crushed out by the pressure of the Reform agita- 
 tion. He reminded his hearers that, if they wanted State education, they 
 would have to pay and to pay pretty heavily for it, and he expressed 
 himself as opposed to compulsory education and to compulsory rating for 
 educational purposes, on the ground that those matters were likely to be 
 a source of great discontent and dissatisfaction, and were not likely to be 
 agreeable to the great mass of the population. After speaking of the 
 necessity for adequate preparations for the national defence, ho urged that, 
 though the people of this country are entitled to economical Government, 
 and, though the Administration had always striven to give them so much, 
 they could not expect a cheap Government, which " could only be secured 
 by endangering the country, by depriving the great body of the people of 
 
432 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 an expenditure which is really incurred to elevate them and to improve 
 their condition." Turning to foreign affairs, he remarked that he had 
 been attacked for having criticised Lord Clarendon's foreign policy 
 in an adverse sense. All that he cared to say was that, when Lord Derby 
 came into office two years before, he found that, thanks to Lord Russell's 
 foreign policy, England was estranged from France, from Germany, and 
 from Russia. " Our relations were relations of courtesy, but not of con- 
 fidence." They were now relations, not of estrangement, but of confidence 
 and of sympathy. The Tory policy was one of non-interference — " we 
 will not exhaust the energies and waste the treasure of the country by 
 interfering in continental struggles to uphold an imaginary or fallacious 
 balance of power. . . . All our interests lie in the preservation of the 
 peace of Europe, and we value our influence because by using it we believe 
 we can assist in the maintenance of that peace." After referring to the 
 success of the Abyssinian expedition, and to the Convention with the 
 United States which Lord Stanley had succeeded in making with Mr. 
 Reverdy Johnson, the Premier turned to Ireland, and urged the one fact 
 with regard to Fenianism which had always been present to his mind — the 
 fact that Fenianism was a plant of foreign growth, that it rose oui^Lthe 
 American Civil War, and that the Irishman—" an imaginati-ZeVbem^, who 
 lives on an island with a damp climate, contiguous to a melancholy ocean, 
 who has extraordinary talents, but no variety of pursuits," — was especially 
 liable to be influenced by foreign incendiaries. His argument was, there- 
 fore, that the duty of the Government was to put down foreign conspiracy, 
 and to administer Ireland in a manner favourable to the development of 
 the industry of the country, and that, he thought, the Government might 
 fairly claim the credit of having achieved. 
 
 Before the elections were over it was understood that the Queen, who 
 had long been anxious to confer some signal mark of her favour on the Prime 
 Minister, had created Mrs. Disraeli Viscountess Beaconsfield of Beacons- 
 field, and the Gazette of the 27th of November announced the fact to the 
 world. The announcement was received with very general satisfaction, 
 but some of the organs of the Liberal party chose to attack the Premier in 
 a very gross fashion. Their argument was to the efiect that Mr. Disraeli's 
 policy being in a certain sense on its trial it was improper for the Queen to 
 show in any way her appreciation of his services. Her Majesty's name 
 was very freely used by the organs of the party which has always been 
 anxious to claim her name as its own special property, but the climax was 
 not reached until a Liberal journal — long associated with the name of 
 Mr. Cobden — gravely assured the world that by granting this purely 
 honorary distinction the Queen had " overstepped the bounds which limit 
 her Constitutional action." It was the last honour that was to be con- 
 ferred on the Tory chief for several years. By the end of the month it was 
 known that the elections had gone disastrously against the Government, 
 Scotland and Ireland had declared for Mr. Gladstone in the most astonish- 
 
THE GOVERNMENT RESIGN. 433 
 
 ing way. Of the members for the former country only 7, and of those for 
 the latter only 37 were classed as Conservatives. In England 263 Liberals 
 were returned as against 208 Conservatives, although Lancashire showed a 
 majority of two to one in favour of the Government and although the 
 Marquis of Hartington had been beaten in the county where his local 
 interest was strongest by 1500 votes, the verdict of the country was unmis- 
 takable. It was calculated that the majority against the Government was 
 not less than 112, or 60 more than that upon which the Liberal whips had 
 been able to rely in the purely party divisions of the last Parliament. 
 There was of course nothing to be done but to submit to the inevitable. 
 On the 2nd of December Mr. Disraeli went to Windsor, where he had an 
 audience of the Queen and returned to town in time for a Cabinet Council. 
 The Council sat for an hour and a half, and when it rose the Government 
 of the Conservative party was at an end. A statement was at once put 
 forth by the Prime Minister, in which he wrote : — " Although the general 
 election has elicited in the decision of numerous and vast constituencies, an 
 expression of feeling which in a remarkable degree has justified their 
 anticipations and which in dealing with the question in controversy no 
 wise statesman would disregard, it is now clear that the present Adminis- 
 tration cannot expect to command the confidence of the newly-elected 
 House of Commons. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Ministers 
 have felt it due to their own honour and to the policy they support not to 
 retain office unnecessarily for a single day. They hold it to be more con- 
 sistent with the attitude they have assumed and with the convenience of 
 public business at this season, as well as more conducive to the just 
 influence of the Conservative party, at once to tender the resignation of 
 their offices to Her Majesty rather than wait for the assembling of a 
 Parliament in which in the present aspect of affairs they are sensible they 
 must be in a minority. In thus acting Her Majesty's Government have 
 seen no cause to modify those opinions upon which they deemed it their 
 duty to found their counsel to the Sovereign on the question of the dis- 
 establishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. They remain con- 
 vinced that the proposition of Mr. Gladstone is wrong in principle, 
 probably impracticable in application and if practicable would be disastrous 
 in its effects. While ready at all times to give a fair consideration and 
 willing aid to any plan for the improvement of the Church in Ireland, to 
 the policy which they opposed last Session — rife as they believe it to 
 be with many calamities to society and the State— they will con- 
 tinue, in whatever position they occupy, to offer an uncompromising 
 resistance." 
 
 Strictly speaking there was no precedent for the course thus taken by 
 Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues. The only occasion on which anything of 
 the kind had occurred, was when after the death of Mr. Canning in 1828, 
 the Cabinet formed by the Earl of Ripon fell to pieces from internal weak- 
 ness and dissensions before the meeting of Parliament. It proved, how- 
 
434 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ever, a wise course to adopt, and it may after all be questioned whetlier 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his ignominious defeat in South Lancashire, did not 
 suffer quite as great a loss of prestige as did his rival. The verdict of the 
 country was for the time in favour of the principles of Liberalism as 
 embodied in Mr. Gladstone's policy, and it was obviously the most digni- 
 fied and sensible course which the Administration could adopt to accept 
 that verdict and to march out with the honours of war. It was .as obvi- 
 ously wise and dignified on the part of Mr. Disraeli to advise the Queen to 
 send at once for Mr. Gladstone. Under ordinary conditions it might have 
 been advisable to recommend as the future minister one of the well-placed 
 dummies of the Whigs. This, however, was no ordinary occasion. The 
 defeat of the Government was entirely the work of Mr. Gladstone and his 
 Radical followers ; the principle which had brought about that defeat — the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church — was notoriously opposed to the 
 views and wishes of the Whigs as a party, and it was only in accordance 
 with custom that the spoils of office should belong to the victor. 
 
( 435 ) 
 
 CHAPTEE XIIT. 
 
 MB. Gladstone's government, 1868-74. 
 
 The new Administration — Meeting of Parliament — Queen's Speech — The debate 
 on the Address — Mr. Disraeli's speech — Opinions of the Press — Dangers 
 to private property — Debate on the Irish Church Bill — Speech on the third 
 reading — Trinity House banquet — Mr. Lowe rebuked — Prorogation — Session 
 of 1870 — Queen's Speech — Irish Land Bill — The Irish policy of the Govern- 
 ment — Irish Land Bill — The Ballot — " Lothair " — The critics — Mr. Goldwin 
 Smith — The fables of the Edinburgh — The Saturday Review — Coincidences 
 — Public demand for the Book — Speech on the State of the Continent — 
 Lord Granville's " surprise " — Buckinghamshire manifestoes — Session of 
 1871 — Queen's Speech — Debate on the Address — Mr. Disraeli's speech — 
 Appreciation of Lord Clarendon — Fenianism and the United States Govern- 
 ment — An incompetent Administration — On the Declaration of Paris — Mr. 
 Lowe's Budget — The Match Tax — The leader of the Opposition and his 
 criticism — The Charge of " hounding on the country " — War Taxation in 
 time of Peace — Direct v. Indirect Taxation — Military Reform — The Abolition 
 of Purchase — Mr. Gladstone's coup d'etat — Mr. Disraeli's comment — Appeals 
 to the Prerogative of the Crown — Ballot — The Government determined to 
 force the Bill through the House — Tactics of the Government — A Pythagorean 
 system of legislation — Prorogation — A Confession of Failure — Mr. Disraeli 
 at Hughenden — The Health of the Queen — Telegraph absurdities — Minis- 
 terial Apologies and Explanations — The new Session — Debate on the Address 
 — The Collier scandal — The Ewelme Rectory job — Personal Government 
 in excelsis — The Washington Treaty — Mr. Disraeli in Manchester — The 
 Pomona Palace demonstration — Speech in the Free Trade Hall on Reform — 
 On the improved condition of the working classes — The Policy of the 
 Government — The Treaty of 1856 — A Policy of Sewage — No sign of a 
 return to office — Constitutional dinner at the Crystal Palace — Mr. Disraeli's 
 speech — A Wasted Session — Session of 1873 — The San Juan award — ^The 
 Geneva award — The debate on the Address — National indignation — Mr. 
 Disraeli's speech — Irish University education — The Government Bill — Why 
 the Tories opposed it — Mr. Disraeli's speech — What the Government had 
 done — The Fate of the Government sealed — In a Minority of three — Resig- 
 nation of Ministers — Mr. Disraeli summoned — Refuses to take office without 
 a dissolution of Parliament — Mr. Gladstone's ingenious explanations — Mr 
 Disraeli's reply — His letter to the Queen— Position of the Tory party— The 
 Burials Bill — Mr. Lowe's last Budget — Amendment on the Report— Close 
 of the Session — The Bath Election— Lord Beaconsfield at Glasgow— Speech 
 as Lord Rector — Banquet in the City Hall — The Tories not anxious to be 
 rid of him— Rest and Retirement— Mr. Gladstone dissolves Parliament on 
 the eve of its meeting — His manifesto to Greenwich— Mr. Disraeli's address 
 to the Electors of Bucks— The Election of 1874— Speech at Aylesbury— 
 
 2 r 2 
 
436 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Foreign policy — The State of the Elections — The Liberal Government abandons 
 its intention of meeting Parliament— Mr. Gladstone gives up the seals of 
 office — The Session opens on the 19th of March. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli having thus gracefully made way for his successful oppo- 
 nent, Mr. Gladstone had an audience of the Queen at Windsor on the 4th 
 of December, and on the following day arrangements were so far matured 
 that the new Premier was able to submit a tolerably complete list of his 
 Cabinet for acceptance. On the 9th the outgoing Ministers delivered up the 
 seals of office, and on the same day the members of the new Administra- 
 tion were sworn in. It will probably be sufficient to recall the fact that 
 Mr. Gladstone was supported by Lord Hatherley (Sir W. Page Wood) as 
 Lord Chancellor, Mr. Lowe as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Claren- 
 don at the Foreign Office, Lord Granville at the Colonial, and Mr. Bruce 
 (now Lord Aberdare) at the Home. Mr. Childers was First Lord of the 
 Admiralty, and Mr. Chichester Fortescue Chief Secretary for Ireland. The 
 appointment which excited most comment was, however, that of Mr. 
 Bright, who, in spite of many and reiterated protestations that nothing 
 would induce him to accept office, consented to accept the comparatively 
 minor post of President of the Board of Trade. Higher office was under- 
 stood to have been pressed upon him but steadfastly refused. Lord 
 Eussell had been asked to take part in the Administration, but refused. 
 Sir George Grey also preferred to give to the new Government an indepen- 
 dent support, and Sir Koundell Palmer, whom everybody had expected to 
 see elevated to the Chancellorship, found himself compelled, by reason of 
 his conscientious views on the Irish Church question, to remain outside the 
 Cabinet. 
 
 Parliament met for the election of the Speaker and in order to swear in 
 the new Lord Chancellor in the middle of December, and new writs having 
 been issued for the re-election of those members of the Government who 
 sat in the House of Commons, an adjournment was taken to the 16th of 
 February, 1869. On that day Parliament was opened by Commission, the 
 chief point of interest in the Queen's Speech being of course the Irish 
 Church question, concerning which "My Lords and Gentlemen" were in- 
 formed that " the ecclesiastical arrangements of Ireland will be brought 
 under your consideration at a very early date, and the legislation which 
 will be necessary in order to their final adjustment will make the largest 
 demands upon the wisdom of Parliament. I am persuaded that in the 
 prosecution of the Avork you will bear a careful regard to every legitimate 
 interest which it may involve, and that you will be governed by the con- 
 stant aim to promote the welfare of religion through the principles of equal 
 justice, to secure the action of the undivided feeling and opinion of Ireland 
 on the side of loyalty and law, to efface the memory of former contentions, 
 and to cherish the sympathies of an affectionate people" — a sentence 
 which drew from even friendly critics the remark that the first act of the 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH BILL. 437 
 
 new Government was one of disrespect to the Sovereign, inasmuch as they 
 had put an amazing piece of bad grammar into her mouth. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli spoke on the Address, criticising it briefly, but moving no 
 amendment. Except on this occasion, he did not again address the House 
 at any length until the 18th of March, when Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church 
 Bill came on for second reading. He had not opposed the bringing in of 
 the Bill, on the ground that the verdict of the country had been that the 
 new Government should have an opportunity of dealing with the matter, 
 and he therefore asked only for sufficient time for consideration. Three 
 days later Mr. Gathorne Hardy gave notice that the Leader of the Oppo- 
 sition would, as an amendment to the Second Reading, move that the Bill 
 be read a second time on that day six months. In opposing the Bill he 
 dwelt chiefly upon its confiscatory character, pointing out that the relations 
 of the State with regard to corporations are mainly those of a trustee to 
 his ward, and that if the precedent of confiscation by such an officer were 
 once set, there would be an end to the security of property and a collapse 
 of the credit of the country. Further — corporate property, whether the 
 gift of the State (which is rare) or the donation of private persons (which 
 is usually the case), is the property, not of the State, but of the nation. 
 If such property be confiscated, the worst results usually ensue, either on 
 the one hand, civil disturbance or insurrection, or on the other, a chronic 
 state of discontent and disaffection. The Government, recognising the 
 existence of discontent in Ireland, already proposed to cure it by disendow- 
 ing one of the three Churches existing in the country, a step which pro- 
 mised less to allay disaffection than to create it amongst a class hitherto 
 untouched by it. Those whq had anticipated that Lord Beaconsfield would 
 bring forward a counter-scheme of disestablishment — and there were a good 
 many who had innocently swallowed the gobemouche stories of the London 
 correspondents — were a good deal disappointed by the discovery that the 
 criticism to which the measure was subjected was purely negative in its 
 character. The House was unusually full, and a good deal of disappoint- 
 ment was expressed that no greater surprise awaited it. 
 
 On the question of disendowment, the Leader of the Opposition asked 
 why this step should be taken. "Does anybody claim the property? 
 Nobody claims it. Does the right honourable gentleman believe that any 
 other Church would use the property with more advantage ? Certainly 
 not, for he does not propose to give the property to any other Church. Is 
 the tenure of the property of the Church unsatisfactory and feeble? 
 Quite the reverse. It is the strongest tenure in the country, and it does 
 not merely depend on the Act of Settlement, as the estates of most gentle- 
 men do, because it has a prescription of three centuries. One is naturally 
 and necessarily anxious to know, under these circumstances— when nobody 
 asks for the property, when the right honourable gentleman does not pre- 
 tend that any other Church would carry out the intention of the founders 
 better than the Protestant Church, and when he does not deny that the 
 
438 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 tenure of the Protestant Church is a complete and powerful tenure — why 
 he deprives it of its property. ... So far as I could collect from the 
 right honourable gentleman's speech . . . the reason is . . . that the 
 feelings of the Eoman Catholics in Ireland are hurt by the Protestants 
 having endowments, although the Eoman Catholic Church wishes to 
 depend on voluntary contributions, and although they are clearly of 
 opinion that because the Protestant Church is endowed is the reason why 
 the Protestant Church in Ireland is a comparative failure. I may say that 
 this is the most extraordinary reason that has ever yet been adduced by a 
 Minister for a great act of confiscation. ... It is an entirely new principle 
 to take away the property of one corporation because there is another body 
 — to which he does not propose to give it — jealous of that corporation 
 having the property." 
 
 Mr. Disraeli in a passage of his speech, which is perhaps more thickly 
 marked with notes of approving " laughter and cheers " than any other in 
 the pages of the newspapers of the day, went on to show how, on Mr. 
 Gladstone's principle, private property as well as public would be open to 
 confiscation. " There are," said he, " many private properties in Ireland — 
 some of them large and some of them rich — and they belong to Irish 
 gentlemen, most of them living in Ireland, accomplished men, the most 
 witty, entertaining and eloquent in the world — but there are gentlemen 
 who have not estates that are either large or rich. Now, after the 
 announcement of this principle of sheer forfeiture, without the application 
 of that forfeiture to anybody which could carry out the original intention 
 of the founders, . . . what would be the natural course which Irish 
 gentlemen having no estates would take ? . . . Let me suppose that there 
 is a deputation to the right honourable gentleman of Irish gentlemen 
 in this unfortunate position — their ariiument would be this : — ' We find 
 ourselves in an anomalous position ; our breeding is not inferior to that 
 of our habitual companions ; our education is the same ; our pursuits are 
 similar ; we meet in the same hunting-field ; we drink the same claret ; 
 we stand opposite to one another in the same dance ; and our feelings are 
 hurt because some of our companions have estates of £6000, £8000 or 
 £10,000 a year — broad acres and extensive woods. We know the spirit of 
 the age in which we live. We know that selfishness is not for a moment 
 to be tolerated. We therefore don't ask for the estates of our more fortu- 
 nate companions, but we only ask you to take them away from them ; 
 establish as one of your great measures of Irish regeneration social equality, 
 and let all Irish gentlemen, like the Irish Roman Catholic Church, live 
 upon voluntary contributions.' " Proceeding then to apply the principle to 
 corporate property, he went on to point out that if this principle of confis- 
 cation were to be adopted there was nothing to prevent a minister in quest 
 of popularity from confiscating the revenues of London hospitals — which 
 admittedly amount to about £120,000 a year — and presenting them "in 
 the handsomest manner " to the farmers of England towards the reduction 
 
THE DIVISION ON THE BILL. 439 
 
 of county rates. " And I ask you seriously," lie went on, " if you adopt 
 these principles for Ireland, is it possible that you should not apply them 
 also to England ? . . . There are still English members with some influ- 
 ence in this House, and I hope they will consider on both sides of the 
 House the position in which they will be placed with reference to this 
 question. They are asked to make ducks and drakes of millions in Ireland, 
 to assist persons who have only to meet the same duties and difiBculties 
 experienced in this country." Then, after pointing out that the proposals 
 of Mr. Gladstone with regard to the disposal of the Irish Church surplus 
 really meant little if anything more than the benefit of the landowners and 
 tenants of Ireland at the expense of the Church, and that if the boon 
 demanded were at once conceded, there was no reason why the Church of 
 England should not also be disestablished and disendowed, the Leader of 
 the Opposition sat down. 
 
 The task of opposing this Bill was a hopeless one from the first, but the 
 debate upon it lasted for four nights, the division being taken on the 23rd 
 of March, and showing a majority for the Government of 118 — Ayes 368 ; 
 Noes 250. After so convincing a proof of the way in which the supporters 
 of the Government intended to vote on this question, Mr. Disraeli made 
 but little effort to stay the progress of the Bill. He tried, indeed, to obtain 
 some recognition of the Act of Union, and — in Committee — better terms 
 for the dispossessed members of the Irish Church, but the Government 
 majority was too strong for temperate counsels to have any chance of 
 prevailing. On the third reading of the Bill (on the 31st of May) he 
 delivered a characteristic speech, in the course of which he referred to the 
 Fenian movement, and implicitly, if not explicitly, accused the Govern- 
 ment of misapprehending the true nature of that conspiracy ; of believing 
 against all evidence that it was a national movement, and not a foreign 
 importation, and of casting the Irish Church to it as a sop, the result being 
 a fresh disturbance of all the elements of Irish disaffection. All attempts 
 to struggle against Mr, Gladstone's mechanical majority were, however, 
 so obviously useless as to deprive the debate of anything approaching to 
 interest. A division was taken pro forma and the third reading was carried 
 by a majority of 114 in a House of 608. With a majority such as this 
 opposed to him, it was probably wise on the part of the Leader of the 
 Opposition to refrain, during this Session, from frequently demanding the 
 attention of the House. 
 
 On the third reading of the Bill he delivered his final protest. He had 
 been taunted with dealing with the Irish Church Question exclusively 
 from the religious point of view, but he now argued upon it on grounds 
 altogether apart from the ecclesiastical side of the matter. He repeated and 
 enforced his theory that the evils from which Ireland was suffering were 
 traceable to physical causes, and he asserted — what nobody could reasonably 
 contradict — that the ^kindly and conciliatory policy of the Imperial 
 Government had ameliorated the condition of the Irish people to a very great 
 extent during the last few years. The policy of Mr. Gladstone was a violent 
 
440 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 one — one of sudden and revolutionary change, one of conBscation of 
 the public property, one dictated by the Fenian conspirators of the 
 United States. It could not, he considered, end with the destruction of 
 the Church. The agitators who had forced on the measure now before the 
 House, would not be content with what had already been practically con- 
 ceded, but would urge their demands with respect to the land with 
 renewed energy. As for the Church itself, he did not believe that even 
 amongst Irish Eoman Catholics there was any burning desire for her 
 downfall. Had there been, something would surely have been heard of 
 outrages perpetrated on Irish clergymen, but it was a very striking fact 
 that throughout the whole of this movement no single outrage had been 
 reported. The situation was, however, a dangerous one. The policy of 
 the Government was practically Socialism, and when gentlemen like 
 Mr. Bruce (now Lord Aberdare) talked about the " infernal land laws " of 
 Ireland, it became interesting to know where they would stop. In summing 
 up his argument Lord Beaconsfield justified his own position and that of 
 the party which he led. " What I fear," said he, " in the policy of the 
 right honourable gentleman is that its tendency is to civil war. ... Is 
 it natural and probable that the Papal power in Ireland will attempt to 
 obtain ascendency and prominence ? I say it is natural, and what is more 
 it ought to do it and will do it. Is it natural that the Protestants of 
 Ireland should submit without a struggle to such a state of things ? You 
 know they will not ; that is certain. Is England to interfere ? Are we 
 again to conquer Ireland ? Are we to have a repetition of the direful 
 history which on both sides we now wish to forget ? Is there to be 
 another battle of the Boyne? another siege of.Derry? another treaty 
 of Limerick ? These things are not only possible but probable. You 
 are commencing a policy which will inevitably lead to such results. It 
 was because we thought that the policy of the right honourable 
 gentleman would lead to such results that we opposed it on princii)le, 
 but when the House by a commanding majority resolved that the 
 policy should be adopted, we did not think it consistent with our duty 
 to retire from the great business before us, and endeavoured to devise 
 Amendments to this Bill, which I do not say would have effected our 
 purpose, but which at least might have softened the feelings, spared 
 the interests and saved the honour of those who were attacked by the 
 Bill. In considering these amendments we were most scrupulous 
 to propose nothing that could counteract and defeat the main principles 
 of the policy of the right honourable gentleman. We felt that to 
 do that would be to trifle with this House ; would not be what was 
 due to the right honourable gentleman, and could not effect the 
 purpose we had before us. ... I ask the House to recollect at this 
 moment the tone and spirit in which these amendments were received. Rash 
 in its conception, in its execution arrogant, the policy of the right honour- 
 able gentleman, while it has secured the triumph of a party, has outraged the 
 feelings of a nation." After a strong and not unwarranted complaint of the 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF DISESTABLISHMENT. 441 
 
 total want of all conciliatory temper as regarded the Protestants of Ireland, 
 Lord Beaconsfield announced the intention of his party to divide upon the 
 question, though he was perfectly well aware that by so doing he would 
 simply register defeat. The occasion was, however, too great a one for 
 personal considerations. " We know very well you will have a great party 
 triumph, a large majority, and we shall have what is called ' loud and 
 continued cheering.' But remember this, that when Benjamin Franklin's 
 mission was rejected there was loud and continued cheering and Lords of 
 the Privy Council waved their hats and tossed them in the air; but that 
 was the commencement of one of the greatest struggles this country ever 
 embarked in ; it was the commencement of the greatest disasters Eng- 
 land ever experienced. . . . You may have a great majority now, you 
 may cheer, you may indulge in all the jubilation of a party triumph ; 
 but this is a question as yet only begun, and the time will come, and come 
 ere long, when those who have taken part in the proceedings of this House 
 this night, whatever may be their course and whatever their decision, will 
 look upon it as one of the gravest incidents of their lives, as the most 
 serious scene at which they have ever assisted." Mr. Gladstone replied 
 in a speech in which he compared the glory of the Disestablished Church 
 of the future with the glory of the second Temple at Jerusalem, and 
 marched into the Division Lobby with an obsequious following of 361. 
 The Tory party mustered but 247 adherents, and the triumph of the revo- 
 lutionary policy was thus assured by a majority of 114. 
 
 Outside the walls of the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition 
 spoke scarcely at all. The only exception was at a Trinity House banquet 
 held at a i)eriod when the Lords had the Irish Church Bill under their con- 
 sideration. Mr. Lowe had complained in his speech of the difiSculties in 
 which the Government were placed by the action of the Upper House in 
 the matter of this Bill. Mr. Disraeli, speaking in the name of the honorary 
 brethren, of whom he was one, administered a stinging reproof. " Perhaps 
 in the execution of your duties, Mr. Deputy Master," said he, " you may 
 experience cares and anxieties not less than those which the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer has with so much tact and taste recalled to our recollection 
 — and I am sure you will feel this. Whatever may be your public duties, 
 you may encounter them successfully with the temper and forbearance 
 which generally in public affairs meet their due reward ; and you may feel 
 sure that in the transactions of public life, there is no wiser rule that it is 
 oiu- duty more sedulously to observe, than that it is unwise to introduce 
 difficult subjects upon which men may, differ when it is unnecessary to 
 obtrude them on public notice." 
 
 Parliament was prorogued by Commission on the 11th of August, the 
 Speech from the Throne being almost as incoherent and almost as im- 
 giammatical as that with which the Session had begun. The Irish Church 
 Act was described as an important measure, which might " hereafter be 
 rpmembered as a conclusive proof of the paramount anxiety of Parliament 
 to pay reasonable regard, in legislating for each of the three kingdoms, to 
 
442 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the special circumstances by whicli it may be distinguished, and to deal on 
 principles of impartial justice with all interests and all portions of the 
 nation." There was very little else on which to congratulate the tired 
 House. The Assessed Kates Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, the Endowed 
 Schools Bill and the Cattle Importation Bill were the only " legislative 
 conclusions " of the Session, and it must be admitted that they were not 
 much of which to boast. 
 
 The Session of 1870 was opened on Tuesday the 8th of February. The 
 Queen's Message — read by Commission, in consequence, as it was ex- 
 plained, of Her Majesty's recent indisposition — remarked upon the continued 
 assurances of friendliness which the Government was receiving from all 
 foreign powers, and promised an Irish Land Bill in two of those remark- 
 ably involved sentences in which Mr. Gladstone delights. " It will be 
 proposed to you to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acqui- 
 sition of land in Ireland in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances 
 of that country, and calculated, as Her Majesty believes, to bring about 
 improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish agiicul- 
 ture which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people. The 
 provisions, when matured by your impartiality and wisdom, as Her Majesty 
 trusts, will tend to inspire among persons with whom such sentiments may 
 still be wanting, that steady confidence in the law and that desire to render 
 assistance in its effective administration which mark her subjects in 
 general, and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire." Bills 
 on the subjects of National Education, Appellate Jurisdiction, Univer- 
 sity Tests, Local Eating, Licensing, the Transfer of Land, the Succession 
 to Real Property, Trades Unions and Merchant -Shipping were also 
 promised. The outbreaks of Agrarian Crime in Ireland were referred to, 
 and the possible necessity for exceptional measures for their repression 
 hinted at. In the debate on the Address, Mr. Disraeli spoke at greater 
 length than usual, referring especially to those portions of the Speech from 
 the Throne which related to Ireland, and which in his opinion were 
 " neither adequate nor accurate." " They tell us," he continued, " that 
 they have employed freely the means at their command for the prevention 
 of outrage — a statement which the House must have heard with satisfaction 
 from so authoritative a quarter, because certainly the popular and general 
 impression was the contrary. As I understand the language, which to me 
 seems involved and certainly is ambiguous, the Government inform us 
 that contingently on their passing certain measures, they will resume the 
 duty of a Government and protect life and property." He admitted the 
 existence of Irish disaffection, but strenuously denied that it was attribu- 
 table to the mal-administration of justice, to Protestant Ascendency or to a 
 seditious priesthood. Nor, indeed, did he consider that disaffection the 
 result of agitation. As a matter of fact there were no agitators in Ireland, 
 and yet the country was disturbed. " It strikes me as the most remarkable 
 circumstance in the present condition of Ireland that she is agitated with- 
 out agitators." The reason for this state of things he believed to be that 
 
IRISH POLICY OF THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. 443 
 
 the Government had not rightly apprehended the true character of the 
 Fenian movement, while on their part, the Irish people had misunderstood 
 the policy of the Government, and had expected from it a variety of con- 
 cessions which no Government could reasonably make, chief amongst 
 which was the release of the Fenian prisoners. Then came the agitation 
 on the Land question which was unquestionably stimulated, if not actually 
 created, by the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and now the Govern- 
 ment allowed it to be understood that no measures would be taken for the 
 protection of life and property until the Land Bill had passed. 
 
 The whole policy of the Government with regard to Ireland was in short 
 emphatically condemned by Lord Beaconsfield. He censured Lord Spencer's 
 stump-oratory and especially a certain speech in which he had made 
 allusion to " the glories of Vinegar Hill." Nor was he less sarcastic upon 
 the elevation of Colonel Greville-Nugent to the peerage immediately after 
 his having given proof of his loyalty by declaring for a complete amnesty 
 for the Fenian prisoners, and of his legislative capacity bj"- supporting the 
 demand for fixity of tenure. Again — the Law adviser of the Castle had 
 in his election speech called for and led three cheers for the Fenians in 
 prison, and had declared himself a staunch advocate of *' fixity of tenure," 
 which, as Mr. Disraeli explained, means " the transfer of the property of 
 one class to another." Then referring to the defeat of Mr. Barry, he went 
 on : — " I must call the attention of the House to what occurred when the 
 Government candidate was defeated, though he had pledged himself to all 
 those revolutionary doctrines. At this time . . . horrible scenes of 
 violence had been occurring in Ireland, but the Government would never 
 move. Landlords were shot down like game ; respectable farmers were 
 beaten to death with sticks by masked men ; bailiffs were shot in the 
 back ; policemen were stabbed ; the High Sheriff of a county, going to 
 swear in the Grand Jury, was fired at in his carriage and dangerously 
 wounded ; households were blown up, and firearms surreptitiously obtained. 
 All this time the Government would not move, but the moment the 
 Government candidate was defeated on the hustings — a Government candi- 
 date pledged to confiscation, pledged to a course of action which would 
 destroy all civil government — the moment that occurred there was panic 
 at the Castle, there was confusion in the Council ; the wires of Aldershot 
 were agitated, troops were put in motion, sent across from Liverpool to 
 Dublin and concentrated in Waterford, Tipperary and Cork. , . . I remem- 
 ber one of her Majesty's ministers saying, I think last year, ' Anyone can 
 govern Ireland with troops and artillery.' So it seems— even that right 
 honourable gentleman." The drift of the whole speech may be gathered 
 from this quotation,— it was that the Liberal Government had not hesi- 
 tated to stimulate Irish disaffection and to use it for their own ends, and 
 then when disaffection had taken a disagreeable form to use for its repression 
 those identical means the use of which by their political rivals they had 
 represented as a justification for treason itself. 
 
444 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 When the Irish Land Bill was brought in, Mr. Disraeli was absent from 
 the House in consequence of one of the few really serious attacks of 
 illness from which he had suifered in the course of his long political career, 
 but Mr. Gathorne Hardy expressed on his behalf his desire to give to the 
 measure a candid and even favourable consideration. The leader of 
 the Opposition came down to the House on the night of the 11th 
 of March, the fourth night of the debate on the second reading, and 
 though obviously very ill made a telling speech, in the course of 
 which he vindicated the character of Irish landlords, and defended 
 the various Governments which had been in office since the Devon 
 Commission had made its report, against the attacks of Mr. Horsman, 
 upon whom, by the way, Mr. Disraeli then fastened that apt characterisa- 
 tion of " superior person" which clung to him ever afterwards. He 
 showed how, when the Tory party was in office in 1852, they had brought 
 in four Bills embodying the recommendations of that Commission ; how 
 the change of Government had prevented those Bills from passing into 
 law, and how in the succeeding eight years their provisions became law, 
 not as a complete code but piecemeal. After entering at length into the 
 details of the measure and dwelling upon the proposal to make the Ulster 
 custom of tenant-right the law for the whole of Ireland, he concluded by 
 saying, " Sir, I know well that the condition of Ireland may act upon the 
 decision of this House in the conduct of this Bill. I who am offering to 
 this Bill no factious opposition, who have given to it as I promised a can- 
 did consideration, and who, I trust, with the modifications which argument 
 and reason may bring about, will yet be able to give it a cordial support, am 
 most anxious that honourable gentlemen on whatever side they sit will 
 not decide upon the fate of Ireland in the most interesting and important 
 relations of its most important classes in a spirit of panic. Do not let us 
 vote upon this subject as if we had received threatening letters — as if we 
 expected to meet Eory of the Hills when we go into the lobby. No. Let 
 us decide upon all those great subjects which will be brought under our 
 consideration in Committee as becomes members of the House of Com- 
 mons ; for depend upon it, if we are induced in a hurry and with precipita- 
 tion to agree to such monstrous enactnaents as that the Irish people should 
 not have the power, for instance, of entering into contracts with each 
 other, the time will come — a more tranquil and genial hour as regards 
 Ireland than the present — when the reproach we shall receive upon the 
 subject will be made from Ireland itself, and they will say of the English 
 people, * They treated us in our hour of difficulty as men who neither 
 comprehended justice nor deserved freedom.' " 
 
 Partly from ill-health, partly also no doubt from a profound conviction 
 of the uselessness of attempting to exercise the functions of opposition in a 
 
 House of Commons where the majority were pledged, as a Eadical member 
 
 for a Lancashire borough once said, to " cry ditto to Mr. Gladstone," Mr. 
 
 Disraeli's speeches in the House during this Session were neither numerous 
 
"LOTHAIR." 445 
 
 nor important. He watched vigilantly the progress of the Irish Land Bill 
 and of the Education Bill through Committee, and when on the 27th of 
 July the Government announced its conversion to the Ballot, he spoke in 
 befitting terms of the indecorum of making so large a question the subject 
 of a " scrambling debate " on a " crotchety Wednesday " at the fag end of 
 the Session. He protested, moreover, against the reasons which Mr. 
 Gladstone had put forward for his conversion, arguing that the extension 
 of the franchise was a reason against the Ballot as making it less necessary, 
 since the larger the constituency the greater its moral power and the less 
 open it was likely to be to improper influences. The Ballot was dropped 
 for the year, but the time was coming when it would be necessary to 
 repeat these and similar arguments against a Government Bill. 
 
 The event of the year both in a jjolitical and in a literary sense was the 
 reappearance, after a long interval, of Mr. Disraeli as a novelist. 
 ** Lothair," which made its first appearance on the 2nd of May, 1870, was 
 eagerly read and was reviewed in every newspaper in the kingdom. No 
 sooner was it known that the Leader of the Opposition had written another 
 novel than the wildest stories were circulated about it. The London cor- 
 respondent outdid himself on this occasion. A house in " the Eow " was 
 said to have offered £16,000 for the copyright ; another to have raised the 
 bid to £20,000. The hero was declared to be the young Marquis of Bute, 
 and the whole story was reported to turn upon what had been going on in 
 society for the last half-dozen years. A curious misprint on page 254 of 
 the third volume, where the name " Capel " is substituted for " Catesby " 
 in the first issue, was thought to give a clue to the entire plot, and the 
 English public were speedily edified by the identification not merely of the 
 minor personages of the story with certain well-known personages, but with 
 other appropriations quite as numerous as those of " Coningsby," already 
 referred to in these pages. The reviewers were fairly puzzled. The 
 Quarterly^ for example, described " Lothair " as a " failure ; " "a bid for 
 the bigoted voices of Exeter Hall ; " an "outrage ; " "a sin against good 
 taste and justice;" a "vast maze of verbiage which can seldom be called 
 English ; " and a variety of other pretty things of the same type. Perhaps 
 the most elegant and the most characteristic phrase of this great organ is 
 that which describes "Lothair" as being "as dull as ditch water and as 
 flat as a flounder " — a verdict which those who, like Mr. Goldwia Smith, 
 writhed under its lively satire,* will hardly be disjtosed to endorse. 
 
 ♦ Mr. Goldwin Smith had, before the publication of " Lothair," betaken him- 
 self to New York, where it was hoped that his transcendent genius would find a 
 better and wider field for its exercise. Irritated at the lively caricature of himself 
 in *' Lothair," — where a certain " Oxford professor " was described as a " social 
 parasite," — he fitted the cap to his own head and wrote a letter to Lord Beacons- 
 fleld, dated from the " Cornell University," which was duly published in the 
 Daily News, and in which he described his portrait as " the stingless insult of a 
 coward." Whether the letter was ever answered is as yet unknown, but probably 
 
446 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Something of course must be allowed to those critics whom Mr. Phoebus 
 compendiously describes as " those men who have failed in literature and 
 art," but even they can hardly pretend with any chance of being believed 
 that " Lothair " is wanting either in wit or in vivacity. The Edinburgh, 
 as is its wont, tells its tale " with a circumstance." From the remarkable 
 production which figures in its pages in the number for July 1870, we learn 
 that " soon after Mr. Disraeli ceased to be Prime Minister of this country, 
 he received from the responsible editor of a popular weekly periodical, the 
 offer of a larger sum of money than, it is beUeved, was ever tendered for 
 an English work of fiction if he would contribute to that publication a 
 novel of the character of ' Coningsby ' and ' Tancred.' " The story may or 
 may not be true : Lord Beaconsfield has never given a sign one way or 
 the other, but judging from the readiness with which the Edinburgh picked 
 up gobemouche stories about him, it is probably as true as that fable about 
 the Representative to which reference was made in a previous page. So 
 also with another apocryphal story with which the reviewer garnishes his 
 pages. " When Mr. Disraeli wrote his first novel, his accomplished and 
 amazed father is said to have exclaimed, ' Dukes ? Sir, what does my son 
 know about dukes ? he never saw one in his life.' " This kind of criti- 
 cism tells its own tale — anything to discredit Lord Beaconsfield. Yet 
 even the Edinburgh is constrained to admit that " Lothair " " is the work 
 of no ordinary artist." The Saturday Beview loftily condescends to 
 " Lothair " as a novel, " not of the highest order of art," and makes a 
 desperate blunder about the " Secret Societies with which Mr. Disraeli 
 still believes for the purposes of romance Italy is honeycombed." According to 
 this infallible critic, Theodora, the object of Lothair's platonic adoration was 
 "an Italian revolutionist known among French Secret Societies by the name 
 of Mary Anne as their eponymic saint." Had the critic known a little more of 
 his trade and read the novel a little more carefully, he would have escaped 
 such a disgraceful blunder as this. The name Mary Anne is never in "Lothair" 
 applied to Theodora. Lord Beaconsfield knew what he was writing about 
 if his critics did not, and he probably obtained the name from M. de la 
 Gueronniere's pamphlet, "L'Empereur Napoleon III. et I'Angleterre," 
 where in a passage quoted by the writer from one of the productions of 
 Felix Pyat " Mary Anne " is spoken of as the embodiment of revolution. 
 The name is probably derived from a certain Mary Anne Walker who in 
 1840 had a good deal to do with English Chartist and other secret societies. 
 The same reviewer complains that the surname and title of Lothair are 
 " left in whimsical mystery " — as though it were the duty of the novelist 
 to work out everything to the nt\\. The subject is, however, an interesting 
 one. As has already been mentioned, " Lothair " is the hero of a story 
 " by the author of * Vivian Grey ' " in the " Book of Beauty " for 1835, and 
 ten years later Punch in his 8th volume (p. 45) gives a sketch of a panto- 
 it was not. The author of " Lothair "might not unreasonably think that it 
 answered itself. 
 
EDITIONS OF « LOTHAIR." 447 
 
 mime called " The Miller and his Men," in the cast of characters of which 
 appears the following curious line : — 
 
 " LOTHAiR (sometimes called FoMW i;/i7/a?ic?, after- 1 ,, ^^ 
 
 wards Harlequin) . . . . . . . . . . j ^^^- ^ISRAELI." 
 
 How the coincidence arose, or how the name suggested itself to the 
 humourist of Punch is a question which it is now probably impossible to 
 solve. On the whole, however, the Saturday reviewer shows an infinitely 
 more just appreciation of the merits of the book than his more ponderous 
 quarterly contemporaries. He can do justice to the "cool playfulness" 
 with which Lord Beaconsfield speaks of politics, and he can appreciate the 
 delicate wit with which the late Bishop Wilberforce is portrayed — wit 
 which that most estimable prelate would have been the last man in the 
 world to resent. The purely literary reviews treated "Lothair" with 
 scant courtesy. 
 
 If, however, the critics were not very warm in their welcome of " Lothair," 
 the public made up for their coolness. So great was the demand for the 
 book that Messrs. Smith & Sons took 1200 copies of the first edition for 
 their library, and Mr. Mudie about the same number. In America its 
 success was even greater and more rapid than at home. A single firm is 
 said to have sold 25,000 copies within one month of publication, and 
 on the Continent the work excited immediate attention. A fortnight after 
 its appearance it was criticised at length in the Augsburger Zeitung, and 
 the Bibliografia Italiana announced beforehand that " Lord Disraeli 
 pubblicherk il 2 maggio il suo nuovo romanzo intitolato * Lothair.' " Of 
 the reviews Lord Beaconsfield, in his preface to the edition of 1877, with 
 pardonable pride records the fact, after referring to the information given 
 to him by an American gentleman that probably every one of the five 
 thousand newspapers of the United States would have notices of his book, 
 that *' though we have not yet five thousand newspapers, the aggregate of 
 articles is in amount perhaps unprecedented," and by way of excusing 
 himself for not giving his own views as to the purport of " Lothair," he 
 mentions that it has " been more extensively read both by the people of 
 the United Kingdom and the United States than any work that has 
 appeared for the last half century." This it may readily be believed is 
 quite true. The editions were extraordinarily large. Seven were exhausted 
 within a few weeks, and the book speedily passed into that condition in 
 which "editions" do not count. It has long been stereotyped in two 
 forms, and the writer has been informed by a person of some authority 
 that there is no novel which has a more steady sale at the railway stations 
 and similar places. Abroad its success has been equally marked. It has 
 been reproduced half a dozen times in a separate form in America, and has 
 been reprinted as a feuilleton many scores of times in United Stjvtes and 
 Colonial newspapers. It has been translated into French, German, Italian , 
 Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Polish, and it has been in many ways 
 
448 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 one of the most remarkable books of the century. The most remarkable 
 feature about it is, however, that unlike the majority of books which create 
 a sensation on their first appearance, it still lives and is still read. 
 
 The only occasion upon which Mr. Disraeli came in any way con- 
 spicuously before the House during this Session was on the 1st of August, 
 1879. The resolutions of the Committee of Supply being reported, he took 
 the opportunity of offering certain observations on the critical condition of 
 affairs on the Continent, believing that there is nothing more valuable to 
 a Minister than the intelligent and discriminating sympathy of the House 
 of Commons. Silence under such conditions as those then existing, would 
 have been an embarrassment rather than an aid to Government. In his 
 capacity, therefore, as Leader of the Opposition, he proceeded to give his 
 views of the situation. The pretexts for the war he put entirely on one 
 side. " Whether there was a pretender to the Spanish Throne, or whether 
 there was a breach of etiquette at a watering-place, or whether Europe was 
 to be devastated on account of the publication of an anonymous paragraph 
 in a newspaper — these are causes which I do not think it becomes the 
 House of Commons to consider." France had, by the admission of the 
 President of the Senate, been preparing herself for the struggle for four 
 years, and Prince Bismarck had admitted to the English Minister at 
 Berlin, that the withdrawal of the German candidate for the Throne of 
 Spain had had nothing to do with what was about to occur. Referring 
 then to the Treaties mentioned in the papers before the House, he pointed 
 to the fact, that that which guaranteed the independence of Belgium, 
 and that which neutralised Luxemburg, were alike treaties in favour of 
 peace and in the interests of England, in that they limited the warlike 
 area of Europe. Furthermore, by the Treaty of Vienna, England had 
 entered into a solemn guarantee to Prussia of the Saxon provinces which 
 were apportioned to her, so that if it should so happen that Prussia were 
 defeated in the struggle. Great Britain might be called upon to fulfil her 
 guarantee. Therefore, he argued, with these three treaties to which she 
 was a party still in existence, England had a right to protest against the 
 Franco-German war, and he did not find that advantage had been taken 
 of her position in that respect. " I would say," he continued, " with regard 
 to the guarantee of the neutrality of Luxemburg, that that guarantee was 
 not given hastily ; it was given with much hesitation, after anxious inquiry 
 from both the belligerents with respect to all those points of difference 
 between them which might possibly arise ; and it was ultimately given on 
 their representation, that if war was thus prevented, all other points of 
 controversy might in all probability be settled satisfactorily by diplomatic 
 means." England, he argued, had thus a claim on the forbearance and 
 deference of both belligerents, and even, in the extreme difficulty of her 
 position, it might not be impossible to restore peace. The war, it was 
 true, had destroyed the guarantee of France as formulated in the Treaty of 
 Vienna, and Austria had been released by the war of 1866, but England 
 
LORD CARDWELL'S MILITARY « REFORMS." 449 
 
 and Enssia were still bound by it, and a cordial understanding between 
 those Powers— Mr. Disraeli expressly guarded himself against the use of 
 the word alliance— might bring about the restoration of peace. Everybody 
 was agreed as to the advisability of a policy of neutrality, but " the policy 
 of neutrality which cannot on the right occasion speak with authority to 
 the belligerents, is really a policy not entitled to respect. Therefore," he 
 continued, "the policy of England should be not only neutrality, but 
 armed neutrality, and if the policy of Kussia happens to be the same— and 
 on the representation of England it might be the same— then when the 
 opportunity comes, and an opportunity may come sooner than those who 
 believe in long and severe wars contemplate — the joint representation of 
 two such Powers as Groat Britain and Eussia .... no one can doubt 
 might exercise a profitable effect on the course of public affairs." He had 
 heard with satisfaction of the votes for the increase of both Army and 
 Kavy, but since he had heard of the squadrons of the belligerents passing 
 in sight of our cliffs, he should like to hear of a strong Channel fleet. He 
 wanted to know whether the forts upon which 13 millions had been 
 spent were properly armed, and what was the real condition of our 
 stores, especially as regarded our coaling stations — questions which were 
 especially opportune, seeing that the country was at that time suffering 
 from the economical crotchets of Mr. Lowe, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Baxter. 
 He went on to express his satisfaction with the declaration of Ministers, 
 that there never had been a greater number of troops in the country 
 than at that moment, but he inquired whether the troops in question 
 were efficient — not by any means an unnecessary question in view of Lord 
 Cardwell's military "reforms" — if the battalions were of becoming 
 strength, if the numbers of the cavalry regiments were what they ought 
 to be, if the batteries were complete, if the Army were properly supplied 
 with arms of precision, and how the great Volunteer Aimy of which so 
 much was heard were armed ? Then, with fine irony, he commented on 
 Lord Glanville's " surprise " at the outbreak of the war, declared that it was 
 utterly impossible to believe that Lord Clarendon and the Prime Minister 
 were not perfectly well informed of what was going on, and that they 
 had not used every power at their command for the preservation of the 
 peace of Europe. But giving Mr. Gladstone full credit for his knowledge 
 and foresight, he asked how he could reconcile it to his sense of public 
 policy, to his duty, to his country and to the House, to have followed 
 the course he had done during the last two years, as to the reduction of 
 our armaments. " Why were our forces reduced ? Why was our only 
 factory dock which would allow of the reception of our disabled ships — 
 Woolwich— dismantled, thus forcing our ships to go round to Portsmouth, 
 and, were it war, to run the gauntlet of Cherbourg ? Why, I ask, was that 
 dockyard closed before Chatham was prepared? Why were reductions 
 made in the public service, and especially among the skilled artizans, whoso 
 experience and abilities we require at this exigency ? Why were they 
 
450 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 banished to Canada or other parts of the world ? Why did not the right 
 hon. gentleman, instead of making reductions and dealing as he did with the 
 ilevenue of the country come forward, and upon his responsibility, recom- 
 mend at least that armaments should be given to the forts that are to pro- 
 tect our ships? With the knowledge which he had of the affairs of 
 Europe, he ought not to have been so confident that he could avert the 
 storm." He protested that he spoke in no spirit of factious hostility to the 
 Government — and indeed it would be difficult to imagine an important 
 piece of criticism less tainted by faction than this address — but he warned 
 the House, that even a stronger Government than that of Mr. Gladstone had 
 drifted into war in 1853, and he entreated its members not to allow them- 
 selves to be put into the humiliating position which led to the Crimean 
 War. If the Government would but rise to the situation he promised a 
 hearty support. " Let them speak to foreign powers with that clearness 
 and firmness which can only arise from a due conception of their duties, 
 and a determination to fulfil them. If that course is taken by the Govern- 
 ment, I more than hope, I believe that this country will not be involved in 
 war. I believe more than that — I believe that the influence of England, 
 especially if combined with the influence of the other great neutral powers, 
 may speedily secure the restoration of peace." 
 
 The calm, temperate and patriotic tone of this speech did not secure for 
 it a very friendly reception. Mr. Gladstone made an angry reply, and the 
 debate degenerated, as Mr. Bernal Osborne said, into a squabble over the 
 ^avy Estimates, after which it languished and was finally extinguished 
 under the assurance of Mr. Gladstone that the Government would give to 
 the Belgian guarantees " the most careful consideration that time per- 
 mitted." Lord Beaconsfield did not speak again, and Parliament was pro- 
 rogued by Commission on the 10th of August, when the Queen's Speech 
 assured the two Houses that " her Government would direct a constant and 
 anxious attention to the strict observance of the duties and maintenance of 
 the rights of neutrality." Before Parliament again assembled the Leader 
 of her Majesty's Opposition found two opportunities of making his voice 
 heard and his influence felt by the country. The first occasion was the 
 'dinner of the Buckinghamshire Agricultural Society, when he seized the 
 opportunity of expressing his undiminished faith in the eventual operation 
 of that Reform Bill with which his name is inseparably connected. The 
 second opportunity was at a meeting called at Aylesbury by the Church 
 Diocesan Board of Education for the county, to consider the Education Act. 
 At that meeting Mr. Disraeli described the surrender of the Goverment 
 under the pressure of its Secularist supporters, and expressed his belief 
 that Mr. Forster's Bill was but a measure of transition. "It would," 
 he said, "put an end to some difficulties and help on to some 
 advantages, but he could not believe that the people of this country 
 would in the long run be entirely satisfied with the existing provision for 
 education. They would require richer and more various elementary edu- 
 
QUEEN'S SPEECH OF 1871. 461 
 
 cation, and when they obtained that they would require a religious educa- 
 tion, because as their intelligence expanded and was cultivated they would 
 require information as to the relations which exist between God and man as 
 the most interesting portion of the knowledge they would seek to acquire." 
 
 The Session of 1871 was opened on the 9th of February by Her Majesty 
 in person, but the Queen's Speech was so extraordinarily prolix — it occupies 
 seven columns of Hansard — that she allowed Lord Hatherley to read it for 
 her. One third of this remarkable address was devoted to the war and to 
 the announcement of the approaching conference on the English surrender 
 to Eussia in the matter of the Treaty of 1856 ; a long and verbose para- 
 graph was given to the news that the American fishery questions and the 
 Alabama claims were to be considered by a joint Commission ; Greece, 
 Spain and China had a paragraph a-piece ; the revenue was declared to be 
 in a satisfactory condition, and the Estimates were promised " promptly ' " 
 the army was to be reorganised; University Tests got rid of; Trade combi- 
 nations to be legalized ; local taxation adjusted ; licensing regulated anew; 
 the Ballot brought in ; and education in Scotland dealt with. Parliament 
 was, in conclusion, congratulated on the ^success of the Irish Church and 
 Land Acts as proved by the diminution of agrarian crime. The general 
 tone of the Speech was indeed complacent in the extreme. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, however, in the course of the debate on the Address, 
 took occasion to point out that there was not really quite so much to 
 boast of as Ministers appeared to think. If England had been stronger, 
 and had interfered to more purpose in the quarrel between France and 
 Prussia, there need have been no war. Had the advice tendered by the 
 Chief of the Opposition to ally England with Russia for the purpose of 
 diplomatic intervention on the basis of the Treaty of Vienna been followed, 
 peace might again have been made much more readily and securely. The 
 want of energy on the part of the Government^ was, he contended, due 
 mainly to that cheese-paring economy which Mr. Gladstone had adopted 
 as the rule of his Government — an economy which Mr. Disraeli described 
 as " one of the greatest mistakes any Minister could possibly have made." 
 And this mistake, he went on to say, was made in spite of the information 
 of which Mr. Gladstone must have been constantly in the receipt from 
 Lord Clarendon. He took the opportunity of describing the noble Lord 
 to the House in terms which, coming from a political opponent, cannot but 
 be gratifying to his friends. " There may be differences of opinion," said 
 he, " as to the position of the late Lord Clarendon as a statesman, as there 
 will be upon the character and career of every public man. Perhaps Lord 
 Clarendon was more adapted for an ambassador than a Minister of State ; 
 others may differ from this view, but no one will dispute that Lord 
 Clarendon was a consummate man of the world, with a quick perception 
 of character, and gifted with that versatile and captivating sympathy 
 which extracts secrets from the most reserved and obtains the confidence of 
 the most close." And having such a Minister, the Opposition leader con- 
 
 2 G 2 
 
452 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 tinued, " I cannot understand how a person filling the position of the right 
 honourable gentleman should have deemed himself bound by the rash rhetoric 
 of the hustings to continue those reductions of what he calls expenditure, 
 but which are, practically speaking, establishments. . . . How is it possi- 
 ble that the right honourable gentleman could, possessing this knowledge, 
 have pursued such a course, and countenanced the framing of harum-scarum 
 budgets which have dissipated the resources of the nation." 
 
 Turning, then, to the effects of the war, he pointed out that it had com- 
 pletely destroyed the balance of j^ower in Europe, the first result being the 
 repudiation by Kussia of the Treaty of 1856. He refused to join in the 
 outcry against the designs of Russia, but he pointed out that her policy 
 though legitimate was a disturbing one for the peace of Europe. The 
 Treaty of 1856 he considered to be a most magnanimous one on the part 
 of the Allies. He did not pretend to know or even to guess at what was 
 passing at the Conference, but, said he, " I cannot understand or conceive 
 it possible that a British Minister, after the immense sacrifices made by 
 the Allies, and especially by this country, in order to obtain that treaty of 
 1856, will consent in Conference to give up the whole point for which those 
 sacrifices were incurred. There really is nothing in the Treaty of 1856 of 
 vital importance — nothing that did secure and can maintain the general 
 peace of Europe with regard to that part of the world, except the termina- 
 tion of the naval preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea by a plan which 
 spared the pride of a great country. To obtain that result, the Allies 
 expended 300 millions of treasure. I cannot trust myself to tell what was the 
 loss in human lives, infinitely more valuable." Then, after a touching 
 reference to the consolation which the bereaved mothers, wives and sisters 
 of our Crimean heroes found in the knowledge that they had died for their 
 country, he said : " But now you are going to tell them that they are not 
 to have that proud consolation — that they did not die either for the honour 
 or the interest of their country — that it was all moonshine." There were 
 other subjects of national humiliation on which Mr. Disraeli dwelt, as well 
 as the destruction of the balance of power in Europe. He laid especial 
 weight on the insolence with which this country was treated by the repre- 
 sentatives of the United States. They were civil enough to Russia and to 
 Germany, but England was only mentioned by Mr. Sumner in tenns of the 
 most violent invective, and the President had used language which was 
 neither friendly nor respectful. England, on her part, had afi'orded an 
 excuse for this disrespect by the action of its Government in releasing the 
 Fenian prisoners, " sending them to America as first-class passengers in a 
 Cunard boat, and landing them in New York with a £5 note in their 
 pockets." The fact simply was that there was a party in America which 
 thought it could insult England with impunity. " As there is to be a 
 commission, it would be a very good opportunity for us to come to some 
 clear understanding on the subject, and let it be known that England can- 
 not be insulted or injured with impunity. Though I should look upon it 
 
Ji. 
 
 THE SESSION OF 1871. ' -'.458 
 
 
 as the darkest hoiir]of my life if I were to counsel or even support iti.this i^ 
 House a war with the United States, still the United States should kuov 
 that they are not an exception to the other countries of the world— tl^t '""* 
 we do not permit ourselves to be insulted by any other country in '^Iwe 
 world — and that they cannot be an exception. If once our naval and 
 military establishments were in that condition in which I hope on Thurs- ' 
 day on some early day we shall find they are — if once it is known that her 
 Majesty's dominions cannot be assaulted without being adequately defended 
 — all this rowdy rhetoric which is addressed to irresponsible millions, and 
 as it is supposed with impunity will I believe cease." 
 
 Unhappily even Lord Beaconsfield. failed to foresee how utterly and 
 hopelessly incompetent was the administration which three years later he 
 was to displace. The Session of 1871, which opened with such a flourish 
 of trumpets and with so elaborate a programme, turned out one of the 
 most barren on record. Its history was one long tale of failure and defeat. 
 Every member of the Government from Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Ayrton by 
 turns gave evidence of his incompetency, while the mechanical majority 
 elected to support the Irish policy of the Premier did its utmost to discredit 
 the party whose name it bore. The organs of the Government — or rather, 
 perhaps, the Liberal press — endeavoured to lay the blame of the wasted Ses- 
 sion upon some one or other of the subordinates of the Ministry, but although 
 fault might very justly be found with individual ministers, the real secret 
 of the failure of the Session lay primarily in the fact that the policy of the 
 Administration was one purely of destruction, and secondarily in the 
 exceedingly second-rate character, politically speaking, of the great mass 
 of Mr. Gladstone's supporters. When the only qualification demanded of 
 a public man is his unhesitating acceptance of a very small series of political 
 dogmas and undeviating faith in a single leader, it is not probable that any 
 very high level will be attained, nor as a matter of fact was it in 1871. 
 In its foreign policy Mr. Gladstone's Government was exceptionally weak, 
 and it found a critic of no small power in Mr. Disraeli, who at various times 
 during the Session reverted to the action of the Administration in the 
 matter of the Black Sea Treaty, concerning which he spoke more than 
 once and always in the same sense ; the Declaration of Paris and the 
 Alabama claims arbitration. We have seen in what light the leader of the 
 Opposition regarded the conduct of the Government with resjxjct to tho 
 Treaty of 1856. A little later (21st April) a motion brought forward by 
 Mr. Cavendish Bentinck afforded him an opportunity of still further criti- 
 cising the action of the Government with regard to the Conference. Tho 
 
 Declaration of Paris " — that famous document which abolished privateer- 
 ing, protected the goods of neutrals and required blockades to be effective — 
 had been impugned, and the Leader of the Opposition was decidedly of 
 opinion that the subject was one which ought to have been brought before 
 the Conference, especially since it dealt with a question in which all the 
 concessions were on our side, and all the advantages on tho side of the 
 
454 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 possible adversaries of England. " I am quite certain," said Mr. Disraeli, 
 in the course of tlie short speech which he made on this subject, " that 
 sooner or later it is impossible that this ' Declaration of Paris ' can be up- 
 held, but ... we must emancipate ourselves from its fatal trammels in a 
 regular manner, which will be approved by the public law and morality of 
 Europe. I regret very much that the opportunity, the golden opportunity 
 offered by the recent conference in the Treaty of Paris of 1856, has been 
 lost, and that it was not taken advantage of by the Government to achieve 
 the object my honourable and learned friend had in view. I regret that 
 the Conference was held. I have expressed my opinion that it is to be 
 lamented we ever agreed to calling it ; but having agreed to its assembling, 
 we should at least have obtained some advantage from a circumstance in 
 itself so calamitous. In the course of its proceedings we have registered 
 the disgrace and recorded the humiliation of this country, but if we could 
 by its means have released ourselves from the fatal engagements of the 
 Declaration of Paris, it would have thrown one gleam of light upon what 
 I shall ever consider a dark page in the history of England." 
 
 Mr. Lowe's Budget for this year was a prodigious piece of imbecility. 
 It was chiefly distinguished by the Match Tax — a crotchet of the great 
 Liberal financier which nearly created a rebellion amongst the poorest 
 class of London operatives, and which was eventually withdrawn after 
 sundry " demonstrations," in the course of which the police authorities 
 showed very clearly that if they were not capable of coping with Pieform 
 League Demonstrations and Hyde Park rioters, they were quite equal to a 
 conflict with the half-starved match-makers of Bethnal Green. When the 
 Budget was brought in on the 20th of April, 1871, it was sharply criticised, 
 but Mr. Disraeli made no sign. A day or two later he gave notice of his 
 intention to introduced a motion on the unsatisfactory nature of the 
 Budget, and on the 27th he came forward with his criticisms. The Budget 
 by that time had been practically dropped, and Mr. Lowe, emulating Mr. 
 Pitt on a celebrated occasion, had taken his financial propositions back for 
 alteration. " The right honourable gentlemen," said Mr. Disraeli, " has 
 given up the succession duties together with that original proposition . . . 
 the tax on matches. In intimating the substitute that will be proposed, 
 namely, an income tax at 2d. in the pound, in addition to the present tax, 
 he has given up the proposed new mode of assessment. ... In the first 
 place we have a budget which proposes to provide for the whole deficiency 
 of the year, a deficiency amounting to £2,700,000 — by direct taxation. . . . 
 At this time last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the 
 indirect taxation of the country to the amount of nearly three millions, 
 and this year he is proposing to increase the direct taxation by nearly the 
 same amount." Then entering somewhat into detail Mr. Disraeli showed 
 that taking into account the fact that the receipts under the heading 
 '* Miscellaneous " were savings on the Estimates for the Abyssinian Expedi- 
 tion, and that £1,200,000 were required " to satisfy the local cravings of 
 
MR. LOWE'S BUDGET. 455 
 
 obscure bodies, who, if they are known for anything are known for the pain- 
 ful notoriety of their administration of public funds," the deficiency 
 would probably amount before very long to five or six millions. To meet 
 that possible deficiency in the future Mr. Lowe had proposed " to tax the 
 machinery employed in the cultivation of the soil " — Anglice, the horses and 
 carts of the farmers — a'process against which Mr. Disraeli earnestly protested. 
 He further jjrotested against the suggestion of Mr. Lowe, that having 
 " deeply considered " the question of succession, he was not prepared to 
 recognise the principle of consanguinity. In other words, Mr. Lowe's finance 
 consisted in a proposal to over-ride one of the most cherished traditions of 
 the people of this country, and to subject her agriculture to an impost from 
 which every other trade in the country is free. These, said Mr. Disraeli 
 in effect, were most grievous changes and they called for careful considera- 
 tion from both sides of the House. " It was," he added, " only this time 
 last year that in the most wanton and unnecessary manner, in a manner 
 which very slightly benefited any class, and so far as one branch of the 
 Eevenue was concerned, benefited none, we lost by the advice of the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer three millions of indirect taxation, and now this 
 identical Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to inflict upon us three 
 millions of direct taxation." 
 
 When on the 1st of May the new Income Tax was again discussed, the 
 Leader of the Opposition again offered an earnest protest against a Budget 
 which consisted solely of that impost. He pointed out that the speech of 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely beside the mark, seeing that 
 it dealt mainly with the Terminable Annuities, whichjiad nothing what- 
 ever to do with the question before the House, and he laid stress upon the 
 fact that the Income Tax is peculiarly a war tax, and had as such been 
 resorted to with perfect propriety by the Conservative Government of 1868^ 
 to whose precedent Mr. Lowe had appealed in extenuation of his method of 
 raising revenue. And finally he dwelt, with not undeserved severity, on 
 the habit which Mr. Gladstone had adopted of treating every question 
 from the highest to the lowest as involving a vote of want of confidence. 
 " The right hon. gentleman is ready to test the opinion of the House as a 
 question of confidence in his Government, not upon the duty on matches 
 with regard to which he had the support of a majority, not upon the suc- 
 cession duties, on which its decision was never asked, but to show, I sup- 
 pose, the strength of the ministry upon a tax which he and his colleagues 
 have told us they reprobate." Mr. Disraeli concluded his speech by asking 
 the Government to give up certain very costly projects which they had in 
 hand, and by a protest against the way in which all criticism was resented 
 by the Government and its supporters. " A habit has grown up on the 
 Treasury Bench," said he, " of intimating to the House and the country 
 that the difiSculties of a pecuniary character in which its occupants arc in- 
 volved are due to our having excited the country and produced a demand 
 for great expenditure. I want to know what is the authority for a state- 
 
45G THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ment of that kind. It cannot be that he has "been forced into this expen- 
 diture by the Opposition. What is the use of having a majority of 120 if 
 you are to be forced into expenditure by the minority. It cannot be that 
 the Tory press has produced this extreme feeling, for there is only one Tory 
 newspaper.* . . . Who is it that takes any lead in our party who has, to 
 use an expression that has twice caught my ear, ' hounded on the country ' ? 
 ... Is it to be endured that these statements are to be made, night after 
 night ; that it is to be said we have ' hounded on the country ' ; and that it 
 is in consequence of our rash and unprincipled conduct that we are in this 
 difficult position ? . . . Thereissomethingshabby after you have entrapped 
 the House of Commons into this vast expenditure with which you cannot 
 cope — which you cannot control after the exposure of last week — in making 
 these unauthorised statements and these attacks on your opponents." 
 
 All through the Session Lord Beaconsfield kept up these attacks on the 
 profligate financial policy of Mr. Lowe. On the report of the Com- 
 mittee granting the Sixpenny Income Tax (May 4) he spoke again and 
 with something more nearly approaching to indignation than he usually 
 permitted himself to indulge in. He protested against Mr. Stansfeld's 
 doctrine that the Government should provide for all increase of expendi- 
 ture by means of the Income Tax, except in case of war ; he protested 
 even more earnestly against the way in which the Government had 
 brought in a Budget and had withdrawn its most important proposi- 
 tions without even taking the opinions of the House of Commons upon 
 them ; and he spoke with earnest regret of the way in which the Government 
 showed that it had no distinct opinion on financial matters. This speech 
 was furthermore remarkable as being one of the first in which Mr. Glad- 
 stone became the victim of Mr. Disraeli's unrivalled powers of sarcasm. 
 The Liberal Premier had, in 1868, made a somewhat personal attack on 
 his great rival on account of his raising the Income Tax for the purposes 
 cf the Abyssinian war. " The right hon. gentleman became positively 
 furious. I should like to hear him propose a war tax ; for if upon a 
 subject so essentially peaceable as this he has dissertated upon to-night he 
 
 could work himself up to such a pitch of indignation but I forgot. 
 
 He did propose a war tax with regard to the Crimean war, but then he 
 was as mild as a lamb. I quite forgot that. I quite forgot, and I sujv 
 pose he quite forgot . . . that that war was mainly owing to the timidity 
 of that Government of which he was a member. This is the Minister who 
 now reproaches the Conservative party, and who says that when he was a 
 member of the Conservative party they looked to the future. I hope the 
 Conservative party will always [have a due regard to that which may 
 occur, but I always thought it was rather characteristic of the Conserva- 
 tive party that it looked to the past and reverenced the past. And, Sir, 
 
 * The Morning Herald having terminated its not too glorious career by absorp- 
 tion in the Standard. 
 
MILITARY REFORM. 467 
 
 animated by the remem'brance of what the Tory party has done, T may 
 say we shall not be put down by the gibes of the right hon. gentleman, 
 although he once stood in our ranks. I shall not forget the traditions of 
 that party, and I therefore will never give my consent to raising the Ways 
 and Means of the year entirely by direct taxation. I will, remembering 
 the traditions of that party, remember that it is my duty to support the 
 interests of the poorer class of the community. I will not be prevented 
 in a Committee of Ways and Means brought forward in this preposterous 
 manner from endeavouring to ascertain why a Government defeated and 
 discomfited propose measures which they themselves have denounced. I 
 will . . . not be afraid of opposing a Minister who has shown this evening 
 that he has no regard for those classes of the country for whom he always 
 affects to have so peculiar a sympathy." 
 
 The Customs and Income Tax Bill went into Committee on the 18th 
 of May, and on that occasion Mr. Disraeli renewed his protest. He began 
 by recalling Mr. Lowe's Budget speech, with its professions of a desire to 
 spare the lower middle class, its avowed dislike of the Income Tax and its 
 proposal to raise the necessary funds for the service of the State by the 
 Match Tax and by the modification of the Succession Duties. Then, after 
 going over the objections which had been previously brought forward to 
 Mr. Lowe's proposal to supply all deficiencies by direct taxation, he com- 
 plained somewhat forcibly of the strangely imperfect way in which the pro- 
 posals of the Government were laid before the House. He dwelt at some 
 length upon the injustice of meeting the requirements of a Peace Budget 
 with a War Tax, of the inquisitorial and obnoxious character of the Income 
 Tax, and he complained in even stronger terms of the way in which the 
 renewal of the Tea Duties was being carried out. Then, turning to the 
 question of direct versus indirect taxation, he proceeded to show that Mr. 
 Lowe's principal justification for casting the burden of providing for the 
 deficit on the shoulders of the payers of Income Tax was that the direct 
 taxation was little more than half the indirect, and that in making this 
 calculation the rates had been wholly left out of account, though they are 
 direct taxation of the heaviest and severest kind. With an earnest plea on 
 behalf of the contributors under Schedule D to the Income Tax, wliich tho 
 financial policy of the last few years has proved to be no mere matter of 
 rhetoric or of party tactics, the leader of the Opposition closed his criticism 
 of the most si^iteful financial measure ever submitted to the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 One of the principal subjects of debate in the prolonged and busy 
 Session of 1871 was the scheme of military reform devised by the Govern- 
 ment—a scheme which included the principle of short service, tho forma- 
 tion of a reserve and the abolition of the Purchase System. To the propo- 
 sitions of the Government as regarded the two former, Mr. Disraeli gave a 
 loyal support, but he naturally opposed the third part of the scheme, the 
 credit of which it should be remembered, though claimed for Mr. Gladstone, 
 
458 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 is really due to Mr. G. 0. Trevelyan. In the debate on the second reading 
 of the Bill, Mr. Disraeli did not speak until the fifth night— the 17th of 
 March, 1871. He then put the question of abolishing xjurchase in a prac- 
 tical shape, and reminded the House that the question before it was not 
 whether it was politic or expedient to promote these arrangements, but 
 whether it was within the power of the legislature to put an end to them, 
 and whether there was not a probability that the Government might 
 induce the House to pledge itself to a vast expenditure, only to find in the 
 end that the system for the abolition of which such great sacrifices had 
 been made flourished in spite of Parliament and of its votes. The expendi- 
 ture proposed was' eight millions, but that sum was probably not more 
 than one half of what the abolition of purchase would cost, and he there- 
 fore asked whether the country could afford to pay such a sum, and 
 whether, supposing it to be rich enough, there was any desire on the part 
 of the nation so to expend it. Everybody remembers the fate of this Bill : 
 how as time went on it became increasingly obvious that the cost of the 
 change would be almost indefinitely greater than the Government antici- 
 pated, how the majorities ia favour of the Government dwindled, and how, 
 the constructional part of the scheme having been lopped off, the truncated 
 and imperfect measure was sent up to the Lords. There its further pro- 
 gress was stopped by a perfectly legitimate movement on the part of the 
 Opposition. A resolution was brought forward by the Duke of Kichmond 
 and carried by a large majority, to the effect, that without expressing any 
 opinion on the proposals of the Government, the House would prefer to 
 deal with them as a whole and not piecemeal. The Eadical press burst into 
 fury ; language was used with regard to the Lords which in the last 
 century would have insured for those who uttered it the cart's tail or the 
 pillory, and some things were said in the House of Commons which can 
 only be spoken of with sincere regret. 
 
 Suddenly Mr. Gladstone cut the knot. A Eoyal Warrant appeared, 
 doing by a stroke of the pen that which the Government had spent 
 the best part of the Session in trying to persuade Parliament to do. The 
 indignation with which this piece of arbitrary insolence was received by 
 the public found some expression in a speech by the Leader of the Oj^posi- 
 tion on the night of the 20th of July." Sir George Grey was put up to ask 
 a question, to which Mr. Gladstone replied with sublime assurance that 
 there was no purchase save such as was permitted by the Queen's Regula- 
 tions ; that the House of Commons had condemned the Purchase System ; 
 and a Royal Commission having affirmed that over-regulation prices could 
 not be got rid of save by its abolition, the Government had advised her 
 Majesty to issue a Royal "Warrant to that effect. Purchase therefore 
 would cease to exist on the 1st of November. With astonishing courage 
 Mr. Gladstone, amidst the derisive laughter of the House, went on to say that 
 " the Government had no other object in view than simplicity, despatch, 
 and the observance of constitutional usage." This extraordinary speech 
 
THE ABOLITION OF PURCHASE. 459 
 
 brought Mr. Disraeli to his feet with a protest against the First Minister of 
 the Crown making the most important communication he had ever heard 
 in Parhament in answer to a question — he would not say a prearranged ques- 
 tion. He complained of this as treatment disrespectful to the House of 
 Commons, and went on to remind the House of the exact position of affairs. 
 The Army Kegulation Bill had heen carried by " moderate majorities " — 
 majorities, that is to say, of less than half those by which Government 
 measures were usually supported. It had been sent to the other House, 
 where it met with an amendment which stopped the way, and no one had 
 presumed to doubt that the House of Lords had acted strictly within its 
 right. " We are now told by the right honourable gentleman that the 
 motion in the other House is to be set at defiance, and he says that the 
 decision of the other House is of no importance, as he can effect the object 
 he has in view by other means than by constitutionally appealing to the 
 Estates of the Realm, for he can advise her Majesty to exercise her Pre- 
 rogative. This is a very high-handed course — I will not now say illegal 
 course, for I reserve that point for future consideration. But it occurs to 
 me to ask, if the right honourable gentleman can deal with the question in 
 the speedy and satisfactory mode he has announced to-night, why he did 
 not do so at once ? There was nothing in the Bill but abolition of pur- 
 chase, and night after night we were assured by the Minister with a trium- 
 phant air that the reorganization of the army could be secured without 
 Parliamentary interference. Then why did not the right honourable 
 gentleman take the course he has now announced at once, and why not 
 have saved at least that paralysis of Parliament during the last six months, 
 which was mainly caused by appealing to the House of Commons to pass 
 the Army Regulation Bill ? .... Is it not the fact that this House has 
 been deprived of its principal Constitutional privilege during the whole of 
 this Session, and has had no complete opportunity in Committee of Supply 
 of controlling the expenditure? Is it not the fact that, at this moment, 
 questions of the utmost interest to the country, only to be brought forward 
 by the instrumentality of Supply, cannot in consequence of the House 
 being about to be scattered, be properly considered ? " H.M.S. " Captain" 
 had gone down with all hands in the Bay of Biscay during this unhappy 
 Session, and Lord Henry Lennox could not get an evening for his 
 motion on the subject " in consequence of the whole time of the House 
 having been absorbed by this Army Bill, which, we are now told, the 
 Minister can settle in his secret councils and offices." The Washington 
 Treaty, too, had been negotiated, and no allusion had been made to it in 
 the House of Commons. Sir Charles Adderley had wished to bring that 
 Treaty before the House because of its bearing on the Colonies, but he had 
 been unable from the insistence on the Abolition of Purchase. " I sr.y," 
 went on Mr. Disraeli, "that the conduct of the Government in thus 
 wasting six months of the Session has been most culpable — that it has 
 been most injurious to the influence, character, and reputation of the House 
 
460 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of Commons." He pointed to the way in which all domestic legislation 
 had been postponed, and how the Mines Eegulation Bill in particular had 
 been thrown aside for the purposes of this measure, which, after all, had 
 proved to be unnecessary. " I am not here," he said, in concluding his 
 speech — " I am not here to dispute the prerogative of the Crown, but that 
 is a very delicate subject, and I very much doubt the wisdom of the 
 Minister who attempts to cut the Gordian knots which every now and 
 then have to be encountered in dealing with popular assemblies by an 
 appeal to the prerogative of the Crown. I hope the prerogatives of the 
 Crown may long exist and be long exercised for the advantage of the 
 country, for the maintenance of our liberties, and the general welfare and 
 interest of the community at large. But no Minister acts in a wise manner 
 who, on finding himself baffled in passing a measure which he no doubt 
 believes of importance, but which it is impossible, after all that has 
 occurred in this House, can be considered free from something of the 
 passion of politics, comes forward and tells the House that he will defy 
 the opinion of Parliament, and appeals to the Prerogative of the Crown to 
 assist him in the difiBculties which he himself has created." 
 
 In the same spirit the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government 
 on account of its persistency in forcing the Ballot upon an unwilling House 
 of Commons. The measure was not included in the original programme 
 of the Government, but was taken up in obedience to Mr. Gladstone's 
 fondness for doing startling and surprising things. No sooner had the 
 measure been brought in than its passing was made a matter of vital 
 consequence. Parliament was to sit until it was passed, or to be called 
 together for an autumn Session for the purpose of passing it. The House, 
 however, felt somewhat strongly on the matter, and by no means relished 
 the manner in which it was made to feel its complete subserviency to the 
 will of the Liberal leader. On the very evening when this subject of the 
 Koyal Warrant was discussed, there was a most tempestuous scene when the 
 Committee on the Ballot came on. Mr, Forster, whose usually calm judg- 
 ment seemed to have forsaken him, remarked that it was necessary to pass 
 this Bill in the Commons in order to throw the odium of rejecting it upon 
 the House of Lords, to which Mr. Liddell not unnaturally retorted, that 
 perhaps the Government thought it saw another opportunity for the exercise 
 of the prerogative, and for discrediting the Upper House. Sir John Pakington 
 had previously complained of the waste of time over the measure, but Mr. 
 Liddell's sarcasm brought Mr. Gladstone to his feet, and drew from him 
 a denial that the Government intended to appeal to prerogative in the 
 matter, a vehement accusation against the Opposition of wasting time, and 
 an assurance — for which he had not the shadow of a justification — that 
 " the Bill was regarded by the constituencies at large as a most important 
 measure." That being so, of course in his view the only thing for the 
 Opposition to do was to abnegate its function of criticism, and to follow 
 the example of the supporters of the Government, who had obeyed orders, 
 
■ THE BALLOT BILL. 46! 
 
 and wlio had all through the evening given a silent vote in accordance 
 with the directions of the Liberal whips. Naturally enough Mr. Disraeli 
 replied in somewhat forcible terms. He asserted that " anything more 
 disgraceful to the House of Commons had never happened," and he pro- 
 tested against Mr. Forster's unconstitutional manner of dealing with this 
 question in casting upon the Lords the imputation that they would 
 assuredly reject the Bill. Mr. Forster " explained," whereupon the Leader 
 of the Opposition, in words which were held to be unparliamentary, but 
 which were none the less justifiable, accused the Government of entering 
 into " an avowed and shameful conspiracy against the undoubted privileges 
 of the other House of Parliament." As a matter of course a member of 
 the Government — in this case Sir W. Vernon Harcourt — was found to tell 
 Mr. Disraeli that he ought to move a formal vote of censure, but with that 
 the incident came to an end. 
 
 When the Bill came on for its third reading on the 8th of August, Mr. 
 Disraeli returned to the charge in an exhaustive speech, in which he 
 reviewed its history throughout the Session, and criticised its dangerously 
 obstructive character. It had, he reminded the House, helped to close the 
 Committee of Supply to the House throughout the whole Session, and it had 
 prevented sanitary measures of the highest importance from being brought 
 forward. Allegations had been made that everything must stand still 
 until this Bill was passed because of the public anxiety for it, but he 
 found that at the last general election the number of members who had 
 referred to the subject in their addresses or speeches, or who had pre- 
 viously voted for the principle of the Ballot, did not exceed 151, or hardly 
 one-fifth of the House of Commons. The Ballot was no doubt in one 
 sense an old question. It had been talked about for thirty-five or forty 
 years, " but it had been a mere abstract and general question, a discussion 
 of the comparative merits of open and secret voting, a question discussed 
 like a schoolboy's theme — ut dedamatio fiat. This was the first time the 
 question had ever been considered in a practical manner, and how immature 
 opinion was in that respect was proved by the fact that the Government 
 had changed their mind in regard to the whole scope of the Bill since last 
 year, and that on both sides of the House an immense number of 
 amendments had been put forth," He had hoped that under the circum- 
 stances the House would have had a well-criticised and well-matured 
 measure, but instead of that the Leader of the'.House called a meeting of 
 his party, and imposed upon them a regimen of silence. " Honourable gen- 
 tlemen opposite were not incited to make speeches in favour of their Leader, 
 but on the contrary the right honourable gentleman seems to have adopted 
 as the foundation of the discipline of his party the principle of Pythagoras, 
 that the basis of success is silence.* ... I thought at the time that the 
 
 * Referring of course to the celebrated scene of the 6th of July, when in com- 
 mittee on this Bill, as soon as Mr. Newdegate rose to address the House the whole 
 
462 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 prototype adopted by the riglit honourable gentleman was not a happy one, 
 because as far as we can have accurate information of what occurred at so 
 remote a period as that in which Pythagoras lived, it is understood that he 
 was not a disciple of the Ballot. I believe the most learned commentators 
 of his career are on opinion that he would not have supported this Bill — 
 at least if his great apophthegm be rightly interpreted "Beware of Beans." 
 Defending the Opposition from the charge of factiousness, he showed that 
 many parts of the Bill which had been attacked had completely broken 
 down, and that Mr. Forster had in consequence been compelled to recast 
 them, and to adopt several of the amendments which were moved on the 
 Conservative side of the House. During the last fortnight of their labours 
 the mysterious silence on the Liberal benches had been suddenly broken. 
 " Honourable members will recollect a little story in ' Munchausen's Travels.* 
 Amid much talking there is silence under a frost, for the accents were 
 frozen ; the frost subsides, and it is astonishing what entertaining sounds 
 are suddenly heard. So it was in Committee, when the Pythagorean sys- 
 tem was no longer persisted in." In conclusion Mr. Disraeli protested 
 against the Ballot as a retrograde measure. " We have been now for nearly 
 fifty years trying to get politics out of holes and corners. We began by 
 getting them out of Old Sarum and Gatton. There was real * secret 
 voting.' I acknowledge that thirty-five or forty years ago there a plausible 
 case to be made out for the Ballot, and I think the case might be strong if 
 the principle be just that the franchise is a trust — a principle in politics 
 which has unfortunately been accepted by this House for a long time, but 
 against which I have always protested, . . . But, Sir . . . it is acknow- 
 ledged now that the franchise is not a trust but that it is a political 
 privilege, and like all political privileges it must be exercised for the 
 common good, and cannot be exercised for the common good unless it is 
 exercised publicly. Without publicity there can be no public spirit, and 
 without public spirit every nation must decay." 
 
 The Session came to an end on the 21st of August, when Parliament 
 was prorogued by Commission, with a Speech which was a melancholy 
 confession of failure. " I observe with concern," Her Majesty was made to 
 say, " that you have not been able to bring to a definite issue the treat- 
 ment of some of the subjects which were recommended to you in the 
 Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session." Outside the House 
 of Lords the comments were a little less euphuistic, and a very general 
 opinion was expressed that the House of Commons had failed both in 
 legislation and in its function of supervising administrative business, the 
 
 of the Liberal members walked out, leaving only two or three Ministers. The 
 debate was carried on entirely by members of the Conservative party, but when 
 the division was taken, Liberal members came from the smoking-room, the 
 library, and other places to the number of 154 — enough to defeat the Conserva- 
 tive amendment. 
 
ON THE QUEEN'S HEALTH. 463 
 
 consequence being that the confidence of the country in Parliamentary 
 government had been seriously impaired. The Session had, in fact, been 
 the dreariest, weariest, most unsatisfactory and most barren since 1832, 
 while on all hands the extremely democratic tendencies of Mr. Gladstone's 
 government were both criticised and lamented. His half expressed belief 
 that the Eeform Act of 1867 was not a final one, and that further con- 
 cessions might become necessary, his pliability on the question of allowing 
 political meetings in the public parks, and his tone with regard to the 
 Church of England, were all regarded as dangerous signs alike for the 
 future of the Liberal party, and for the country at large. 
 
 The autumn of 1871 was unusually fertile in political utterances, but to 
 their number the Leader of the Opposition contributed only one — perhaps 
 one of the mildest he ever made, but one which was, in the absence of a 
 more exciting topic, made the subject of a good deal of exceedingly foolish 
 controversy. It has already been seen in these pages in what terms he 
 spoke of Mr. Gladstone's use of the Eoyal prerogative for getting his own 
 way in the matter of the abolition of purchase. For reasons of their own, 
 certain critics of the baser sort chose to represent Lord j.Bcaconsfield's 
 attitude on this question as one of disloyalty and disaffection. Whether 
 absurd charges of this kind troubled him or not, is a question which is not 
 of much consequence. When presiding over the dinner of the Hughenden 
 Horticultural Society, however. Lord Beaconsfield took occasion to deliver 
 a somewhat warm eulogium of the Sovereign, whose broken health at that 
 time caused a good deal of uneasiness. *' The health of the Queen," said 
 he, "has for several years been a subject of anxiety to those about her, 
 but it is only this year that the country, generally, has become acquainted 
 with the gravity of her condition. I believe I may say that there is some 
 improvement in Her Majesty's health, but I fear it will be a long time 
 before it will recover the average condition, and I do not think we can 
 conceal from ourselves that a still longer time must elapse before Her 
 Majesty will be able to resume the performance of those public and active 
 duties which it was once her pride and pleasure to fulfil — I say her pleasure 
 to fulfil, because they brought her into constant and immediate contact 
 with her people. The fact is, we cannot conceal from ourselves that Her 
 Majesty is physically and morally incapacitated from performing those 
 duties ; but it is some consolation to her Majesty's advisers to know that 
 with regard to those much higher duties which Her Majesty is called upon 
 to perform, she still performs them with a punctuality and a precision 
 which have certainly never been surpassed, and rarely equalled by any 
 monarch of these realms. . . . There is not a despatch received from 
 abroad, or sent from this country abroad, which is not submitted to the 
 Queen. The whole of the internal administration of this country greatly 
 depends upon the sign manual, and of our present Sovereign it may be 
 said that her signature has never been placed to any public document of 
 which she did not know the purpose, and of which she did not approve. 
 
464 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Those Cabinet Councils of whicli you all hear, and which are necessarily 
 the scene of anxious and important deliberations, are reported and com- 
 municated on their termination by the Minister to the Sovereign, and they 
 often call from her critical remarks requiring considerable attention, and I 
 will venture to say this, that no person likely to administer the affairs of 
 this country would treat the suggestions of Her Majesty with indifference, 
 for at this moment there is probably no person living who has such com- 
 plete control over the political condition of England as the Sovereign her- 
 self." After pointing out that the era of great statesmen seemed to have 
 gone by, and that the Queen herself had profited in the past by the 
 services of such ministers as Sir Eobert Peel, Lord Derby, and Lord 
 Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli spoke of the Queen's imdeviating respect for the 
 Constitution. " All who have served her will admit that when her 
 Ministers have been selected by her in deference to what she believes to be 
 the higher interests of the State and the opinion of the country, she gives 
 to them a complete confidence and an undeviating support. But although 
 there never was a Sovereign who would less arrogate to herself any power 
 or prerogative which the Constitution does not authorize, so I will say there 
 was never one more wisely jealous of the prerogatives and privileges which 
 the Constitution has allotted to her, because she believes that they are for 
 the welfare of her people." 
 
 Such was the substance of Mr. Disraeli's speech, and it will probably be 
 thought by those who now read it that it is all that such a speech should 
 be — felicitous in diction, loyal and gentlemanlike in tone, and accurate with 
 regard to all questions of fact. It will, however, be noticed that he said 
 that Her Majesty was " physically and morally incapacitated." The 
 reporters who took down his speech doubted whether they had heard 
 aright, and asked him afterwards whether he had used the words. Mr. 
 Disraeli's reply was that he did not think iTe had, but that if he had said 
 " morally " the word should be expunged. He had certainly never intended 
 to say anything of the kind. All the reporters but two promised com- 
 pliance with this request. They printed the speech of the Tory leader as 
 they believed him to have spoken it, and a prodigious pother was forth- 
 with raised. Mr. Disraeli was charged by one of his critics with having 
 made an accusation against the Queen " both pointed and precise," and 
 with having followed in the lead of certain rather notorious persons who in 
 the days of Liberal ascendency struggled to keep themselves before the 
 public by dint of unscrupulous attacks upon Her Majesty, and by repeated 
 hints at the advisability of abdication. The object of all this was of course 
 to discredit the leader of the Opposition, and in so doing to exalt the 
 Premier, whose reputation at this time was beginning to show signs 
 of wear. 
 
 Ministers lived during the autumn in a continuous round of apologies 
 and explanations, and when Parliament reassembled on the 6th of February, 
 they were tolerably discredited in the eyes of all impartial men. The 
 
THE COLLIER SCANDAL. 465 
 
 Queen's Speech, after reference to the recovery of the Prince of Wales from 
 illness, the thanksgiving in St. Paul's, the murder of Bishop Patteson, the 
 meeting of the arbitrators on the Alabama Claims, the reference of the San 
 Juan question to the Emperor of Germany, and the meeting of the Com- 
 mission at Washington, offered a somewhat meagre programme of legislative 
 ■work. Public Education in Scotland, the Regulation of Mines, Licensing, 
 the Ballot, and a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Sanitary 
 Commission, with some unspecified measures relating to Ireland, were all 
 that the Government proposed to deal with. Not unnaturally Mr. Disraeli 
 availed himself of the debate on the address to criticise the Government 
 with his wonted vivacity. It was, he said in effect, a considerable time 
 since the House had separated, yet the period had seemed short. He 
 attributed this fact to the new system adopted by Ministers of vindicatino- 
 their characters and their policy during the recess. " We really have had 
 no time to forget anything. Her Majesty's Ministers may be said during 
 the last six months to have lived in a blaze of apology." Preaching what 
 he practised, he argued that the House and the House only is the proper 
 place for such explanations. " Besides," he went on, " the notices of 
 motion plentifully given this evening will afford her Majesty's Government 
 ample opportunities of defending their conduct past or present. If it is in 
 the power of the Government to prove to the country that our Naval 
 administration is such as befits a great Naval power, they will soon have 
 an occasion of doing so ; and if they are desirous of showing that one of 
 the transcendental privileges of a strong Government is to evade Acts of 
 Parliament which they have themselves passed, I believe, from what 
 caught my ear this evening, that that opportunity will also soon be 
 furnished them." This was a reference to two very flagrant appointments 
 made by Mr. Gladstone. By the provisions of the Act for strengthening 
 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — an Act passed by Mr. 
 Gladstone's Government — it was distinctly laid down that the only person 
 eligible for appointment to that Committee should be Chancellors, ex- 
 Chancellors and Judges of the Superior Courts. The provision was 
 explained by Sir Eobert Collier as expressly designed to prevent those 
 appointments from being made a shelf for incompetent or unpopular Law 
 Offices of the Crown. Those epithets were at that time very freely applied 
 to Sir Robert himself, and it was consequently not surprising that Mr. 
 Gladstone should have been very willing to promote him to the Bench. 
 But the country was certainly hardly prepared to find the immaculate chief 
 of a Liberal Government making a Law Officer of the Crown a Judge for 
 a day in order that he might be pitchforked into the Judicial Committee. 
 Nor did people regard with any very great gratification a deliberate evasion 
 of an Act of Parliament by which a piece of patronage — the Rectory of 
 Ewelme — had been diverted from the University of Oxford and given to a 
 Cambridge man in defiance of a special clause in the Act of Parliament 
 by which the Regius Professorship of Divinity had been disendowed. Both 
 
 2 H 
 
466 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 matters were speedily made the subjects of debate in both Houses of 
 Parliament. In the Lords the debate on Sir Eobert Collier's appointment 
 was a sufficiently curious one. The Government had no case, and its 
 members accordingly vilified their critics. The Duke of Argyll in par^ 
 ticular suffered himself to be betrayed into abuse of Sir Alexander Cock- 
 burn, for which he had to apologise in a somewhat humilitating fashion. 
 Lord Hatherley made a whining defence, in which he relied chiefly on his 
 personally immaculate character — to which, by the way, he had appealed 
 with quite sufficient frequency — and saved himself by his own vote, the 
 direct vote of censure being lost by a majority of one. Tn the Commons 
 the feeling was equally strong, and had it not been for the indisposition of 
 the House to change the Government at so critical a time, the majority of 
 27 by which it was saved would hardly have been gained. The same 
 result followed in the case of the Ewelme Rectory Scandal. It was felt 
 that the question was not one upon which the Government could well be 
 turned out, and the Houses consequently contented themselves with allow- 
 ing Mr. Gladstone to hear a little more plain truth than his flatterers in the 
 Press and in Parliament had accustomed him to. 
 
 The Administration was in fact in a perilous condition, and the system 
 of personal Government of which Mr. Gladstone was a devotee was far 
 from giving unminglcd satisfaction to the country. Its mismanagement of 
 the Geneva arbitration excited universal dissatisfaction. The English case 
 had been prepared, and that of America had been forwarded to this country 
 before the end of 1871. The preposterous "indirect claims" were known 
 to the whole world, with the solitary exception of Mr. Gladstone, who, as 
 ho afterwards admitted, had not thought it any part of his duty to read 
 the American case. Mr. Disraeli of course mentioned the subject in the 
 debate on the Address, reverting to the Convention made by Lord Stanley 
 with Mr. Eeverdy Johnson, and pointing out that Treaty was rejected on 
 the ground that it explicitly excluded those indirect and construc- 
 tive claims which were at that time causing so much uneasiness. 
 Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville were, he argued, distinctly responsible 
 for the Washington Treaty, which, drawn up "in less eaxct language" 
 than that usually employed in diplomacy, afforded a pretext for the indirect 
 claims. As the treaty was legally complete when it was signed, he and 
 his friends had not challenged it in Parliament, though they strongly 
 objected to several of its points, especially to those claims which it was easy 
 to foresee might be made, " preposterous and wild " though they might be. 
 He inquired when the American case had been received by the Govern- 
 ment, and when the " friendly communication " mentioned in the Queen's 
 Speech had been made to the American Government. 'J'he case had 
 notoriously been in the hands of private persons for at least a month, but 
 Mr. Gladstone in his reply deliberately stated that it had not been in the 
 hands of the Cabinet for more than a week or two, and it was therefore 
 only on the Saturday preceding the meeting of Parliament that the 
 
SPEECH IN THE MANCHESTER FREE TRADE HALL. 467 
 
 " friendly communication" in question had been made. The extraordinary 
 prevarication of the Government on the subject — the explanations which 
 explained nothing, and the naive admissions of Mr. Gladstone in answer 
 to his critics, will probably be fresh in the mind of every student of 
 politics. 
 
 The important event of this Session was, however, less what was done in 
 Parliament than out of it. When the Easter recess set members free, the 
 Conservative leaders paid a visit to Manchester, where Mr. Disraeli became 
 the guest of the late Mr. W. Eomaine Callender, afterwards member for 
 that City. He arrived there on Easter Monday (the 1st of April 1872), 
 and from the moment of his alighting from the train until his final 
 departure, he must have been convinced of the reality of that Conservative 
 reaction at which the Liberals were scoffing. The crowd — a holiday crowd 
 of remarkably good temper — thronged the station and its approaches, and 
 when Mr. Callender's carriage drove up, the horses were at once taken out, 
 Eopes were produced to which a thousand willing hands attached 
 themselves, and when the train came in the cheering and shouts of wel- 
 come were deafening. Lady Beaconsfield and Mr. Disraeli at once took 
 their seats with their host, but it was some little time before the crowd 
 would allow their guest to leave the station. When he passed out at last, 
 it was only to find fresh crowds ready to cheer the Tory chief, whose 
 emotion betrayed him out of his usual impassivity. He had recovered his 
 calmness, however, by the following afternoon, when he attended a 
 " demonstration " at the Pomona Palace, which, in spite of wretched 
 weather, was attended by the representatives of about two hundred Con- 
 servative and Constitutional associations from all parts of Lancashire. 
 Deputation from each of these associations presented addresses, and some 
 idea of the enthusiasm which prevailed may be formed from the fact that 
 the " Palace" was crowded. What that implies may be estimated when it 
 is mentioned that the building is the largest under one roof in England. 
 The floor area is 45,800 square feet, and 28,000 people can comfortably 
 find standing room upon it. Altogether it was believed that in the 
 " Palace " and grounds there were not less than 35,000 persons, besides 
 enormous crowds in the street. 
 
 The event of the week was, however, the speech delivered by Mr. 
 Disraeli on the Wednesday in the Free Trade Hall. The audience was 
 enthusiastic in no common degree, and the address was worthy of 
 the occasion. How it was appreciated may be judged from the fact 
 that although it lasted for three hours and a half, and although the 
 audience numbered between COOO and 7000 persons, most of whom had 
 to stand, scarcely one person left the Hall until the proceedings were over. 
 At that time Sir Charles Dilke was beginning the attacks on royalty by 
 which he has made himself somewhat notorious. It was therefore natural 
 that a Constitutional statesman should begin by vindicating the principle 
 of monarchy, the comparative economy of the monarchical system and 
 
 2 H 2 
 
4G8 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 tlie advantage to the nation of having at the head of affairs a Sovereign of 
 such wide and varied experience as the Queen. The House of Lords was 
 next vindicated on the ground of its indeiDcndence, which is founded on 
 visible responsible and territorial property. Having referred to life peers 
 as being less fitted to discharge the duties of a second chamber than an 
 hereditary nobility, he went on to speak of the House of Commons. Lord 
 Grey's Reform Act was, he pointed out, a statesmanlike measure, but it 
 had the great defect of disfranchising the working classes. The effect had 
 been, first, the growth of Chartism, and next, that electoral uneasiness 
 which had existed in this country more or less for the last thirty years. 
 The Liberal party had not dealt fairly with the question. In their adver- 
 sity they had held out hopes to the working classes, but when they had 
 a strong Government they laughed their vows to scorn. What, how- 
 however, he asked, had been the result of Lord Derby's Eeform Bill. 
 "In 1848 there was a French revolution and a Eepublic was estab- 
 lished. No one can have forgotton what the effect was in this country. I 
 remember the day when not a woman could leave her house in London, 
 and when cannon were planted on Westminster Bridge. A year ago there 
 was another revolution in France, and a Eepublic was established of the 
 most menacing character. What happened in this country ? You could 
 not get half a dozen men to stand in the street and grumble. And why ? 
 because the peoi)le had got what they wanted. They were content and 
 they were grateful." // Turning then to the connection of Church and State, 
 he refused to admit that the existence of Nonconformity proves the 
 Church to be a failure. On the contrary, to have secured a national pro- 
 fession of faith, with the unlimited enjoyment of private judgment in 
 matters spiritual, is the solution of the most difficult problem, and one 
 of the triumphs of civilisation. He would not admit either that the exist- 
 ence of parties in the Church was any proof of its failure. He doubted 
 much whether religious liberty would be promoted by the separation of 
 the Church from the State, and he riveted his audience by what he said 
 on religious education — a question always of the deepest interes in Lanca- 
 shire. *' I have," he said, " a great respect for the Nonconformist body ; I 
 acknowledge their services to the country, and though I believe that the 
 pioUtical reasons which mainly called them into existence have entirely 
 ceased, it is impossible not to treat with consideration a body which has 
 been eminent for its conscience, its learning and its patriotism ; but I 
 must express my naortification, that from a feeling of envy or of pique the 
 Nonconformist body, rather than assist the Church iu her great enter- 
 prise, should have absolutely become the partizans of a merely secular 
 education. I believe myself that without the recognition of a superin- 
 tending Providence in the affairs of this world, all national education will 
 be disastrous, and 'I feel confident that it is impossible to stop at that mere 
 recognition. Religion is demanded by the nation generally and by the 
 instincts of human nature." 
 He congratulated the working classes of the country on their improved 
 
A POLICY OF CONFISCATION. 469 
 
 condition, and then turned to contemporary politics. He inquired how it 
 was that, at a period of immense prosperity, with a people contented and 
 naturally loyal, we found the most extravagant doctrines professed and the 
 fundamental principles of our most valuable institutions impugned, and 
 that, too, by persons of some authority. He accounted for this startling 
 inconsistency by the circumstances under which Mr. Gladstone's adminis- 
 tration had been formed. For the first time within his knowledge a 
 British Government had been formed avowedly on the principle of violence. 
 The policy of the Ministry when they came into office was, with regard to 
 Ireland, to despoil churches and to plunder landlords ; and not satisfied 
 with the spoliation and anarchy of Ireland, they began to attack every 
 institution and every interest, every class and every calling in the country. 
 He recalled what they had done with the jjrmy ; how the old and consti- 
 tutional jealousy towards a powerful standing army had been cast aside ; 
 how the local connections of the militia had been dissolved; and all this 
 amid the acclamations of the Liberal party. Nor were matters otherwise 
 with the navy. " It is only a few weeks since that, in the House of Com- 
 mons, I heard the Naval Statement made by a new First Lord, and it 
 consisted only in rescinding all the revolutionary changes of his pre- 
 decessor, every one of which, during the last two years, has been pressed 
 upon the attention of Parliament and the country by that constitutional 
 and necessary body the Opposition." 
 
 Speaking jifioreign politics, Mr. Disraeli repeated what he had said on 
 the authority of Mr. Cobden more than once, that if Lord Derby had 
 remained in office the Crimean war^ would have been averted — and then 
 recalled to the atte'ntion of his hearers the fact that the Liberal Adminis- 
 tration had deliberately thrown away the entire fruits of that struggle. 
 Having first threatened war, they threw over their plenipotentiary, and 
 agreed to arrangements by which the violation of the Treaty of 1856 should 
 be sanctioned by England, and in the form of a Congress he showed them 
 guaranteeing their own hum.iliation. " What will be the consequences of 
 this extraordinary weakness on the part of the British Government it is 
 difficult to foresee. Already we hear that Sebastopol is to be refortified, 
 nor can any man doubt that the entire command of the Black Sea will 
 soon be in the hands of Russia. The time may not be distant when we shall 
 hear of the Russian power in the Persian Gulf, and what effect that may 
 have upon the dominions of England and upon those j^ossessions on the 
 productions of which you every year more and more depend are questions 
 which it will be well for you on proper occasions to meditate." 
 
 One portion of this speech calls for somewhat special notice, partly 
 because of its bearing on what had happened previously, and partly on 
 account of the criticism to which it was at once subjected. A few months 
 before some of those busy bodies who get up societies for social and philan- 
 thropic objects, in the hope of obtaining appointments as secretaries with 
 snug salaries, and large allowances for expenses, had promoted what they 
 were pleased to call a " new social departure." To this movenicnt they 
 
470 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 succeeded in obtaining the adhesion of sundry noblemen and gentlemen of 
 well-known philanthropy. Amongst others who were waited upon and 
 asked to join in the movement was Lord Beaconsfield, who listened to what 
 was said and who found as the reward of his civility that he was represented 
 as an advocate of schemes of these projectors. The usual result followed. 
 He was attacked in the journals of the Liberal party as an advocate of 
 Socialism, of Communism, and of a host of other terrible things all grossly 
 outraging the immutable principles of political economy. As usual he 
 disdained to answer his assailants, but when he came to make his speech 
 at Manchester, he availed himself of the opportunity of formulating his 
 position. After speaking of the case of the Agricultural Labourer, whose 
 claims had at that time been brought to the front in a somewhat surprising 
 manner, and after saying that when every class in the country were com- 
 bining to defend their interests against encroachment, he could not see why 
 the class which lived by the land should not follow the example of their 
 brethren in the towns, he went on to deprecate agitation, chiefly on the 
 ground that the condition of the working class generally was infinitely 
 better than when he first entered political life. " The new friends of the 
 agricultural labourer," said he, " call him Hodge and describe him as infirm 
 in body and stolid in mind. I have some knowledge of the agricultural 
 population of the country : all I know are a stalwart race with rosy chil- 
 dren. I must say, I do entirely protest against gentlemen of the press or 
 gentlemen of the House of Commons, whether the commissioners of journals 
 with which we are acquainted, or even Mr. Auberon Herbert going down 
 and dining with the agricultural labourer when he has a family of seven 
 children and only one red heiTing for their repast. . . . Gentlemen," he 
 went on, " we know in life there are always clever fellows who do nothing, 
 but have the art of what they call ' selling ' persons in the walks with which 
 they are not very well acquainted, and you may depend on it the broad- 
 shouldered man in velveteens who gives these descriptions of dinners of 
 families of seven children upon a single red herring, with tea made for a 
 whole family with a single teaspoonful of that herb with which you are all 
 well acquainted in Manchester — you may rely upon it that these are de- 
 ceptions which are the greatest obstacles to an improvement in the condi- 
 tion of the great body of the people." 
 
 Having thus protested against the false sentimentality with which 
 the case of the Agricultural Labourer has been invested, Lord Beacons- 
 field went on to say what he considered to be the duty of every Govern- 
 ment with regard to the nation at large. " In my mind," said he, " the 
 great social question which should engage the attention of statesmen is the 
 health of the people. This is a question which really confuses almost 
 every object which we wish or desire. Properly conducted it refers 
 to human habitations, to purity of water, to pu^-ity of air, it refers to the 
 adulteration and the non-adulteration of food, it refers to all those subjects 
 which if properly treated may advance the comfort and the happiness of 
 
" SANITAS SANITATUM OMNIA SANITAS." 471 
 
 man. ... I consider the health of the people to be the most important 
 subject which can engage the attention of statesmen. A very great man 
 and a very great scholar— he would have been considered a great wit if he 
 had not been so great a scholar — two or three hundred years ago said that he 
 always thought that in the Vulgate that wise and witty king of Israel when 
 he said Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas should really have said Sanitas 
 sanitatum omnia sanitas. Gentlemen, I am sure that had King Solomon 
 said that he could not have said a wiser thing." These words be it 
 remembered were spoken in Manchester in the spring of 1872 : that they 
 were sincere, the legislation of the Tory Government on sanitary subjects 
 after 1874 probably affords sufficient proof. It affords, however, a suffi- 
 cient evidence of the spirit in which the sentiments and actions of Lord 
 Beacon sfield have uniformly been criticised to remark, that when this 
 speech was given to the world the universal comment of the Liberal press 
 upon it was to the effect that they had expected that he would give them 
 a definite Tory programme, but that instead of doing so he apparently 
 wished to go to the country upon " a policy of sewage." 
 
 It was generally expected that Mr. Disraeli would give some hint of his 
 probable return to power, but from everything of that kind he carefully 
 abstained. Lord Derby, however, supplied the deficiency in the very brief 
 speech with which he wound up the proceedings. He first told his audience 
 that between his friend and chief there was the most perfect harmony, and 
 then he went on to say that when the opportunity for a return to power 
 came, there was no intention of exhibiting haste on the part of the Con- 
 servative leaders. He asked the great body of the party to be equally 
 forbearing. "It may very likely be the game of the Kadical party to try 
 and turn out the present Ministry if they can, and to put a Conservative 
 Government in its place, that Conservative Government being in a minority, 
 hoping that by so doing they shall bo alble to reconstruct their own party 
 on a new platform pledged to more extreme and more violent measures, 
 and then to have a Cabinet formed of the most thorough-going Iladicals. 
 These may be their tactics. But just because it is their game it ought 
 not to be ours." The result was fully to justify the opinion of the noble 
 Earl, though not immediately. It was not necessary for the Opposition to 
 do anything. The Government was rapidly falling to pieces through the 
 inherent weakness of its constitution. Not a day went by without tho 
 perpetration of some ungracious fault or the discovery that past blunders 
 were more serious than had been anticipated. Gross pergonal rudeness 
 was the order of the day in tho House, and the principal feature in tho 
 management of foreign affairs was a secretivencss which Mr. Disraeli could 
 hardly overcome by persistent inquiries for papers and for information. 
 The failures of the Session were endless, and curiously enough tho ono 
 really valuable Act upon which the Queen's Speech at the prorogation 
 could congratulate the House was a Public Health Act, which the Govern- 
 ment were quite wiUing to have dropped, but which Mr. Disraeli absolutely 
 
472 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 forced through, though in a most imperfect form. The other measures of 
 the Government were Army Localisation, the Ballot, the Scottish Educa- 
 tion Act and the Mines Eegulation Act — as to the value of two if not three 
 of which it will be quite possible to entertain two opinions. 
 
 From the date of the Manchester speech Mr. Disraeli took a much more 
 prominent part in public business outside the House of Commons. At a 
 constitutional dinner at the Crystal Palace on Midsummer Day he defined 
 the principles of the party, and claimed for it the distinctive character of 
 National as opposed to Continental and Cosmopolitan Liberalism. " I 
 have always," he went on, " been of opinion that the Tory party has three 
 great objects. The first is to maintain the institutions of the country — 
 not from any sentiment of political superstition, but because we believe 
 that the principles upon which a community like England can along safely 
 rest — the principles of liberty, of order, of law, and of religion — ought not 
 to be entrusted to individual opinion, or to the caprice and passion of 
 multitudes, but should be embodied in a form of permanence and power. 
 We associate with the Monarchy the ideas which it represents — the 
 majesty of the law, the administration of justice, the fountain of mercy 
 and of honour. We know that the Estates of the Kealm, by the privileges 
 they enjoy, are the best security for public liberty and good Government. 
 We believe that a national profession of faith can only be attained by 
 maintaining an Established Church, and that no society is safe unless 
 there is a practical recognition of the providential government of the world 
 and of the future responsibility of man." After controverting the positions 
 maintained by Cosmopolitan Liberalism with reference to popular repre- 
 sentation, the Church, the value of the Colonies and the importance of 
 India, he closed by reminding his hearers that the time was approaching 
 when they would have to decide between the principles upon which ho 
 acted and those of his opponents, and then, assuming that the Conservative 
 party would put forth its united strength, he predicted for it a great and 
 real triumph. "You will," said he, "maintain your country in its 
 present position. But you will do more than that — you will deliver to 
 your posterity a land of liberty, of prosperity, of power and of glory." 
 
 At the end of the Session of 1872 it was commonly said that no year 
 within living memory had been more utterly wasted. The country had 
 yet before it the Session of 1873, in which it learned how completely one 
 could be lost through the blundering and incompetence of those to whom 
 the Government of the country had been entrusted. Other lessons had 
 also to be taught to unwilling pupils. Englishmen had to discover how a 
 Liberal Government could cling to office in spite of defeat, humiliation and 
 disgrace ; how a Ministry, boastfully described by its admirers in the day 
 of its prosperity as composed of " all the virtues," could betray every hope 
 of its followers, and how men who had won the confidence of the country 
 by unlimited promises, could deliberately break every pledge, cast every 
 tradition of honour to the wind?, and refrain office by the friendly aid of 
 
ON THE GENEVA AWARD. 473 
 
 packed Committees. All these things were achieved by Mr. Gladstone 
 and his colleagues. They degraded English political life in a manner 
 never before dreamed of, and after overwhelming defeat, and with the 
 knowledge that in the House of Commons the once docile majority of 120 
 had faded into nothing, they clung to office with prehensile tenacity, and 
 refused their appeal to the country until they assured to Mr. Disraeli and 
 his supporters such a majority as the Tory party had not known since the 
 days of Pitt. 
 
 Popular indignation against the Government was not diminished by the 
 results of the negotiations with the United States. The reference of the 
 San Juan dispute to the German Emperor had resulted in a diplomatic 
 defeat and loss of territory, while the Geneva Award mulcted England in a 
 preposterous amount, and brought her under the operation of a rule of 
 international law which was made for the occasion and immediately after- 
 w^ards repudiated by the country for whose benefit it had been devised. 
 When on the 6th of February Parliameent was opened by Commission, 
 " My Lords and Gentlemen " were informed in a speech of singular mild- 
 ness that the Geneva Tribunal " in part established and in part repelled 
 the claims allowed to be relevant," while the award of the German Emperor 
 was spoken of as the result of " pains and care bestowed ... on the peace- 
 ful adjustment of controversies such as could not but impede the full 
 prevalence of national goodwill in a case where it was especially to be 
 cherished." These were euphemistic words in which to speak of the two 
 most humiliating events of a period of bitter humiliation, and Mr. Disraeli 
 gave utterance to the national feeling in the debate on the Address. 
 Whilst expressing his belief that the country was bound to treat the Arbi- 
 trators with respect and the award with dignity, he pointed out that the 
 Government must not expect to be exempted from all criticism. He 
 expressed his regret that the famous three rules had been interpreted by 
 the Geneva Tribunal in a sense so very different from that which was 
 placed upon them by Sir Koundell Palmer, and — as was understood — by the 
 late Lord Palmerston. That Tribunal had, however, placed upon them a 
 meaning infinitely more burdensome than the English one, and he wished to 
 know whether in 'communicating them to other Powers in accordance with 
 their undertaking, the Government had done so in their own sense or in tliat 
 of the Geneva Tribunal. In the former case it would result that, while wo 
 should pay under the onerous interpretation, America might appeal under 
 similar circumstances to the English interpretation as against herself. 
 Mr. Disraeli went on to complain that a treaty which established new rules 
 of international arbitration, created public law, and compelled the country 
 to change its municipal law, should have been entered into without con- 
 sulting Parliament. " What could be more to be deprecated," he continued, 
 " than that it should be in the power of a Minister to force a neutral country 
 to change a municipal law ? Yet that is about to happen and must happen 
 ia this country in conseque^ce of the ;^Treaty of Washington. Your 
 
474 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 municipal law must be reconstructed ; it must be modified ; it must bo 
 expanded to work with the interpretation placed upon your rules by the 
 Tribunal of Geneva. And you therefore, a free Parliament, are absolutely 
 forced to change your municipal law because your Ministers have made a 
 Treaty which renders that course absolutely necessary. ... I say it is not 
 a proper position for a country like England to be j^laced in — that it may 
 be in the power of a Minister by negotiating a Treaty of this kind to force 
 a Parliament to change its municipal law. I hope there is nothing revolu- 
 tionary in the suggestion I have thrown oat, because we have I am glad to 
 say, a very efficient precedent to guide us. Take the question of Extra- 
 dition Treaties. Her Majesty's Grovernment cannot conclude an Extradition 
 Treaty without an Act of Parliament, and for the very same reason, under 
 circumstances almost analogous, where you are entering into a treaty which 
 creates rules of arbitration and lays down principles of public law, her 
 Majesty ought equally to be advised to consult her Estates of the Eealm." 
 It is a matter of history how this difficulty was got rid of. Mr. Gladstone 
 had said, in one of the speeches which he delivered during the Kecess, that 
 the effect of the decision would be that the new rules would be " binding 
 upon no one," and in the course of a protracted debate on the 21st of March 
 on this subject, the Government announced that they were prepared to 
 disavow the interpretation placed upon the "three rules " by the arbitrators 
 at Geneva, but did not propose, in communicating them to any foreign 
 Government, to accomj)any their communication with any counter-inter- 
 pretation — a course of which Mr. Disraeli expressed his approval. 
 
 Before this could happen, however, an event of great importance had 
 occurred. The first paragraph of the legislative programme in the Queen's 
 Speech announced a measure on the subject of Irish University Education, 
 to be " framed with a careful regard to the rights of conscience." On the 
 loth of February accordingly Mr. Gladstone brought in his proposals, which 
 he expounded with his accustomed eloquence. Trinity College was to be 
 separated from Dublin University. The Theological Faculty of Trinity 
 College was to be handed over to the representative body of the Disesta- 
 blished Church, with a fund to be held in trust for the purposes for which 
 the Faculty had existed. The new University was to be a teaching as 
 well as an examining body, but the Irish mind being particularly sensitive, 
 on certain topics, theology, modern history, and moral and metaphysical 
 philosophy were to be excluded from the curriculum. The governing body 
 was to consist of twenty-eight members, to be nominated in the first place 
 by Parliament, but it was hoped that in ten years time the University 
 Avould be in a fit state to take a share in nominating its own goverfiors. 
 The University funds were to be obtained in varying proportions from the 
 revenues of Trinity College, from the Consolidated Fund, from the fees of 
 students, and from the Irish Church surplus. Trinity College, the Colleges 
 at Cork and Belfast, and the Magee College and the " Catholic University," 
 if the managers of those institutions thought fit, would become at once 
 
THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL. 475 
 
 members of the New University, whicli would afterwards be made far more 
 comprehensive by the inclusion of sundry other colleges belonging to the 
 Koman Church in various parts of Ireland. 
 
 The Bill was received with almost universal dissatisfaction ; and on the 
 3rd of March, when it came on for second reading, it was met by 
 the Opposition with an amendment, brought forward by Mr. Bourke, ex- 
 pressive of regret that the Government had not stated the names of the 
 proposed governing body— the meaning of which was that it was suspected 
 that the scheme was neither more nor less than one for endowing the 
 Catholic University at the expense of Trinity College and the Irish Church. 
 Cardinal CuUen, however, objected to it on the ground of its exclusively 
 secular character, and gave orders to his representatives in the House to 
 oppose it. The debate on the second reading lasted four nights, the 
 division being taken at two in the morning of fhe 12th of March. Mr. 
 Disraeli spoke on the last night, cautioning the House not to be led away 
 by the specious argument that the Bill must be a good one because it was 
 opposed by Catholics and Protestants alike. "Here is the honourable 
 member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King)," said he, " who, after recent pro- 
 ceedings, could scarcely refuse to propose a vote of confidence.* But this 
 I can say for myself and many gentlemen on this side, we have no wish to 
 oppose it. If her Majesty's Government have not the confidence of the 
 House of Commons, I want to know what have they the confidence of? 
 It is a House returned under their auspices. (Loud cries of No ! No !) 
 Well, elected under the exciting eloquence of the right honourable 
 gentleman. When I remember that campaign of rhetoric, I must say I 
 think this House was formally as well as spiritually its creation. 'J'he 
 course to which I have referred would be the natural course of proceeding, 
 but really, to ask the House to vote for a Bill which it does not approve, 
 in order to prove its confidence in the Government, is not one which I 
 think would be satisfactory." He went on to say that he objected to the 
 Bill because it proposed to institute a University which was not universal. 
 Not, indeed, that he complained of a University not teaching everything, 
 but he asserted that there was no instance in mediaival or modern history 
 of a University being established with the Faculty of Arts mutilated and 
 emasculated as the Bill proposed. He complained also of the removal of 
 the Theological Faculty from Trinity College, pointing out the danger that 
 there would be no power of conferring Protestant degrees in divinity in 
 Ireland. Then speaking of the exclusion of mental and moral philosophy 
 and modern history from the curriculum at the order of a des^wtic and arbi- 
 trary council, he said :— " This is essentially a material age. The opinions 
 
 * Said with reference to a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone at a dinner given 
 to Mr. Locke King by his constituents on the preceding Wednesday, in the course 
 of which he had eulogized the honourable gentleman as one who had " pre- 
 eminently succeeded iu combining political independence with due regard to 
 party ties." 
 
476 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 which are now afloat, which have often been afloat before, and which have died 
 away as I have no doubt these will die in due time, are opposed in my 
 opinion to all those sound convictions which the proper study of mental 
 and moral philosophy has long established. But that such a proposition 
 should be made in the land of the University which produced Berkeley 
 and Hutchinson makes it still more surprising. We live in an age when 
 young men prattle about Protoplasm, and when young ladies in gilded 
 saloons unconsciously talk Atheism. And this is the moment when a 
 Minister called upon to fulfil one of the noblest duties which can fall to 
 the lot of the most ambitious statesman — namely, the formation of a great 
 University, formally comes forward and proposes thejomission from public 
 study of moral and mental philosophy." After commenting in the same 
 spirit on the omission of the study of history, he took up the question of 
 the governing body. " They are all to be distinguished men. They are 
 all to be — and I thought the expression was a happy one — they are all to 
 be ' eminent men of moderate opinions.' The House is pretty well aware 
 how twenty-eight gentlemen would be obtained under the circumstances. 
 I suppose that Cardinal Cullen would be one of them, and his Eminence 
 would be paired off with the Primate of the Protestant Church. Then, 
 under the circumstances, the provost of Trinity College would be a most 
 admirable councillor, and Mgr. Woodlock would be another. Then would 
 come Lord Chancellor O'Hagan, who would probably pair off with the 
 right honourable gentleman who filled the same ofiSce for us. And then 
 you would have in your Council very much what we have in this House 
 — two parties organised and arrayed upon each side, with two or three 
 trimmers thrown in on each side." When the laughter and cheering had 
 subsided, Mr. Disraeli went on in graver tones to explain the negotiations 
 on the subject of " concurrent endowment " of which so much had been 
 heard when he was in office. They were not concluded when Mr. Gladstone 
 came into office, with his cry of confiscation — and here the leader of the 
 Opposition made a telling hit when he accused Mr. Gladstone of " mistak- 
 ing the clamour of the Nonconformists for the voice of the nation." They 
 were broken off not to be renewed, and the country had been thrown into 
 the arms of the Roman Catholics and of the extreme Liberal party. " You 
 have now," he went on " had four years of it. You have despoiled 
 churches. You have threatened every Corporation and every endowment 
 in the country. You have examined into everybody's affairs. You have 
 criticised every property and vexed every trade. No one is certain of his 
 property, and no one knows what duties he may have to perform to-mor- 
 row. This is the policy of confiscation as compared with that of concur- 
 rent endowment. The Irish Roman Catholic gentlemen were perfectly 
 satisfied when you were despoiling the Irish Church. They looked not 
 unwiUingly upon the plunder of the Irish landlords, and they thought that 
 the time had arrived when the great drama would be fulfilled and the 
 spirit of confiscation would descend upou^the celebrated walls of Trinity 
 
DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT. 477 
 
 College, would level them to the ground and endow the University of 
 Stephen's Green. I ventured to remark at^the time when the policy of 
 the right honourable gentleman was introduced, that confiscation was 
 contagious. I believe that the people of this country have had enough of 
 the policy of confiscation. From what I can see, the House of Commons 
 elected to carry out that policy are beginning to experience some of the incon- 
 venience of satiety, and if I am not mistaken, they will give some intima- 
 tion to the Government to-night that that is their opinion also." After 
 referring to the form and origin of the motion, and after dealing with 
 Mr. Gladstone's expressed determination to stand or fall by his Bill, Mr. 
 Disraeli concluded by saying : — " Although I have not wished to make this 
 a party question ; although I certainly have no wish to disturb the right 
 honourable gentleman in his seat, although I have had no communication 
 with any section or with any party in this House but my own immediate 
 colleagues, I must do my duty when I am asked — ' Do you or do you not 
 approve of this measure ? ' I must vote against a measure which I 
 believe to be monstrous in its general conception, pernicious in many of 
 its details, and utterly futile as a measure of practical legislation." 
 
 This speech sealed the fate of Mr. Gladstone's Government, though its 
 immediate effects were less startling. The division was taken after a 
 lengthy and bitter speech from Mr. Gladstone, and the Government found 
 that its majority had melted aM'ay, and that instead of winning by 120 as it 
 had done in 1869, it was now in a minority of three, in spite of a strong 
 party whip, the figures being 284 for and 287 against the Government. 
 There was a great tumult of cheering, and then Mr. Gladstone explained 
 that " the effect of the vote was to lay aside the Bill for the moment," but 
 that, as the House could not proceed with secondary matters Avhile the 
 existence of the Ministry was in peril, he would move that the House 
 should adjourn until Thursday. 
 
 The week which followed was a busy one. Mr. Gladstone's official 
 organ in the daily press announced with appropriate solemnity that a dis- 
 solution was possible, but, to use a common locution, " there was nothing 
 to dissolve upon." The rejected Bill was certainly out of the question, and 
 there was literally nothing else with which to face the constituencies, 
 unless, indeed, the Government chose to go to the country with the Berlin 
 and the Geneva awards in their hands. The Teleg7'aph, it is true, sug- 
 gested that Mr. Gladstone might appeal to the constituencies upon the 
 general policy of his Government during the past four years, but that 
 suggestion was commonly thought a little too naif for adoption. It was, 
 of course, at once seen that such a state of things was impossible, and the 
 House was, therefore, not surprised when, on Thursday the 13th, Mr. 
 Gladstone announced that the Ministry had resigned, and that Her 
 Majesty had been pleased to accept their resignations. As Mr. Disraeli 
 was entering the House, he was summoned to Buckingham Palace. Ac- 
 cording to his own account of what followed, he immediately obeyed, and 
 
478 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 was asked forthwith by Her Majesty whether he was prepared to form a 
 Government. " I then informed Her Majesty distinctly and decidedly that I 
 was quite prepared to form an Administration Avhich I believed would 
 conduct Her Majesty's aifairs efficiently and in a manner entitled to Her 
 Majesty's confidence ; but that I could not undertake to conduct the Govern- 
 ment of the country in the present House of Commons. That was the 
 information I gave distinctly and clearly to Her Majesty, and from the 
 position I then took up I have never for a moment faltered." 
 
 When the House met again on the 20th, Mr. Gladstone made his state- 
 ment in a manner which called the Leader of the Opposition to his feet to 
 reiterate his previous account, in order that he might not be misconstrued, 
 and to add certain details necessary for a perfect comprehension of the 
 situation. Mr. Gladstone's theory seemed to be that a Leader of the 
 Opposition should not take part in defeating the Government unless he is 
 prepared to take office. Mr. Disraeli explained that he had pointed out to 
 Her Majesty the impossibility of governing the country with the existing 
 House of Commons, in which Ministers had a majority even then of at 
 least 88. The division which had overthrown the Government was an 
 accident, and was caused by the association of certain elements between 
 which there was no possibility of permanent cohesion. If he had appealed to 
 the Koman Catholics of Ireland for support, they would have reiterated their 
 demand for a Catholic University, which he held to have been condemned 
 at the last general election, and to be impossible after the disestablishment 
 of the Irish Church. Of taking office with a minority he had had some 
 .experience, and he was of opinion that such an experiment weakened 
 authority and destroyed public confidence. He had not advised a dissolu- 
 tion because, though a Minister in office could perform it with great 
 promptitude, the case was different with a Minister in the act of acceding 
 to office. If he had accepted office he could not have formed his Administra- 
 tion until Easter ; then^ would have come the holidays, and after that, by 
 having recourse to provisional finance, and by accepting the Estimates of 
 his predecessors, to both of which steps he had the greatest repugnance, he 
 could have dissolved in May. Then would have come the question, what 
 they were to dissolve upon. The Government could not appeal to the 
 country without a policy. The function of an Opposition was essentially 
 one of criticism, and it was totally impossible for them to have a policy 
 matured. The strongest obstacle to an immediate dissolution was, how- 
 ever, the necessity for a critical examination of the Estimates, which were 
 now quite as large as those denounced so vehemently by Mr. Gladstone in 
 18G8. Were he to have taken office with a minority in the House, 
 Mr. Gladstone would arrange his thumbscrews and other instruments of 
 torture, the Government would never get a vote without a lecture, or be 
 suffered to perform the most routine office without some pedantic and 
 ignominious condition. Next would come the Paradise of abstract resolu- 
 tions ; somebody would move to discontinue the Income Tax, and, though 
 
POSITION OF THE TORY PARTY. 479 
 
 every gentleman now on the Treasury Bench would scout such an idea, 
 they might find it convenient to dine out that evening. Then another 
 gentleman, distinguished for his knowledge of " men and things," might 
 move the abolition of the Diplomatic Service. Though the same gentle- 
 men might be laughing in their sleeve, they would yet support the motion. 
 Some sultry afternoon another gentleman, rushing in " where angels fear 
 to tread," might successfully assimilate the county and borough franchise. 
 Then would come the dissolution, and the Government would be received 
 as a defeated, discredited and degraded Ministry whose services could 
 no longer be of any value to the Crown or to the country. Under these 
 circumstances, with the concurrence of his friends, he had arrived at the 
 conclusion that it was not for the public interest that he should attempt to 
 form a Government. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone had complained that he had not exhausted all the means 
 in his power before refusing to take office. The Leader of the Opposition 
 read in reply the following passage from his letter to the Queen : — 
 
 " The charge against the Leader of the Opposition personally, that 
 by his ' summary refusal ' to undertake your Majesty's Government he 
 was failing in his duty to your Majesty and the country, is founded alto- 
 gether upon a gratuitous assumption by Mr. Gladstone which pervades his 
 letter, that tlie means of Mr. Disraeli to carry on his Government were 
 not ' exhausted.' A brief statement of facts will at once dispose of this 
 charge. Before Mr. Disraeli with due deference offered his decision to your 
 Majesty, he had enjoyed the opportunity of consulting with those gentle- 
 men with whom he acts in public life, and they were unanimously of 
 opinion that it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country for a 
 Conservative Administration to attempt to conduct your Majesty's affairs 
 in the present House of Commons. What other means were at Mr. 
 Disraeli's disposal ? Was he to make overtures to the considerable section 
 of the Liberal party who had voted against the Government — namely, 
 the Irish lloman Catholic gentlemen ? Surely Mr. Gladstone could not 
 seriously contemplate this. Impressed from experience obtained in the very 
 instances to which Mr. Gladstone refers of the detrimental influence upon 
 Government of a crisis unnecessarily prolonged by hollow negotiations, 
 Mr. Disraeli humbly conceived that he was taking a course advantageous 
 to the public interests, and tending to spare your Majesty unnecessary 
 anxiety by at once laying before your Majesty the real position of affairs." 
 He believed, he went on to say, that the Tory party occupied the most 
 satisfactory position which it has held since the days of its greatest states- 
 men Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville. It has divested itself of those excrescences 
 which are not indigenous to its native growth, but which in a time of long 
 prosperity were the consequence, sometimes of negligence, and someliines 
 perhaps, in a certain degree, of ignorance. " We are now emerging from 
 the fiscal period in which almost all our public men have been brought up. 
 All the question of Trade and Navigation, of the Incidence of Taxation 
 and of Public Economy are settled. But there are other questions not less 
 
480 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 important and of deeper and higher reach and range, which must soon 
 engage the attention of the country. The attributes of a Constitutional 
 Monarchy — whether the aristocratic principle should he recognised in our 
 Constitution, and if so, in what form — whether the Commons of England 
 shall remain an Estate of the Realm — numerous but privileged and quali- 
 fied, or whether they should degenerate into an indiscriminate multitude — 
 whether a National Church shall be maintained, and if so, what shall be its 
 rights and duties ; the functions of Corporations, the sacredness of endow- 
 ments, the tenure of landed property, the free disposal and even the exist- 
 ence of any kind of propertj^ All those institutions and all those prin- 
 ciples which have made this country free and famous and conspicuous for 
 its union of order with liberty are now impugned, and in due time will 
 become ' great and burning ' questions. I think it is of the utmost import- 
 ance that when that time arrives, there shall be in this country a great 
 Constitutional party distinguished for its intelligence as well as for its 
 organisation, which shall be competent to lead the people and to direct the 
 public mind. And, Sir, when that time arrives and when they enter upon 
 a career which must be noble and which I hope and believe will be trium- 
 phant, I think they may perhaps remember, and not perhaps with unkind- 
 ness, that I at least prevented one obstacle from being placed in their way 
 when, as the trustee of their honour and their interests, I declined to form 
 a weak and discredited Administration." 
 
 It has been thought necessary to dwell at some length in this place on 
 the details of this incident since they have been repeatedly misrepresented 
 by Lord Beaconsfield's opponents, and are imperfectly understood by many 
 even of his professed supporters, who on platforms and in the press have 
 occasionally declared their inability to understand why, having put the 
 Government in a minority, he should not at once have taken office and gone 
 to the country. He would probably have obtained a majority even in the 
 spring of 1873, it is true, but the event has more than justified the wisdom 
 of his course, and the soundness of the argument by which he supported it. 
 He had only to allow the Administration of Mr. Gladstone to go on in the 
 course they had marked out for themselves to secure their utter downfall. 
 A curious illustration of this remark and of Lord Beaconsfield's statement 
 about " great and burning questions " was afforded on the following 
 Wednesday, when Mr. Osborne Morgan's Burials Bill — that most obnoxious 
 of Radical proposals — was read a second time by 283 to 217, having been 
 supported by the full strength of the Government. It is hardly necessary to 
 say that Lord Beaconsfield protested energetically against it, and expressed 
 an earnest hope for the cessation of the war between Church and Dissent, 
 in order that both might join in combating scepticism, the common enemy 
 to all churches and all religious bodies, " which if it succeeded would 
 degrade the country and destroy religion." 
 
 Mr. Lowe's budget was brought in on the 7th of April, and was some- 
 what more favourably received than that of the preceding year. As, how- 
 ever, he rejoiced in the possession of a surplus of almost four millions and 
 
CLOSE OF THE SESSION. 481 
 
 three-quarters, lie was not called upon to raise revenue by arbitrary finan- 
 cial proposals, and could offer a sop to those whom Mr. Bright had stimu- 
 lated to demand a " free breakfast table " by reducing the sugar duty, 
 whilst the taxpayers were conciliated by the abatement of a penny on the 
 Income Tax. He was met by an amendment on the report brought for- 
 ward by Mr. W. H. Smith, that " before deciding on the further reduction 
 of indirect taxation, it is desirable that the House should be put in 
 possession of the views of the Government with reference to the mainte- 
 nance and the adjustment of direct taxation both Imperial and local." 
 This amendment was so notoriously in harmony with the views of the 
 Leader of the Opposition that it was a mere matter of course that he should 
 support it. It was equally natural that the Government should announce 
 that the resolution if carried would be considered as a vote of censure— a 
 course which Mr. Disraeli most strongly and as most people will think 
 most reasonably condemned. He traced the history of the question 
 through Mr. Goschen's Bills, and Sir Massey Lopes' defeat of the Govern- 
 ment on the question in the year just ended, and plainly told Mr. Lowe 
 that ho was trifling with the House when he said that he had no 
 materials for forming an opinion on the subject. He rebuked Mr. Lowe 
 for his habitual rudeness in the House in terms which were none the less 
 pungent for their very politeness, and in reply to his question " What was 
 to be done if the House should accept the resolution ? " told him that he 
 might take back his budget and reconsider it. Turning then to the merits 
 of the question, he pointed out how unjustifiable was the assertion that 
 direct taxation weighed upon the rich and indirect upon the poor, illustra- 
 ting his proposition by the fact that local taxation, which is j)urely direct 
 in its incidence, amounts to about 25 millions, one half of which is paid by 
 men who are not rich, and one-fifth by the working classes — a fact the 
 recognition of which in 1878 swelled the Imperial expenditure by the trans- 
 fer to it of all charges for pauper lunatics, county prisons and constabulary 
 clothing. 
 
 During the remainder of the Session, which ended on the 5th of August, 
 the Leader of the Opposition, though constant in his attendance in the 
 House, spoke very rarely and very briefly. Nor were his utterances out- 
 side either numerous or important. He was in fact patiently awaiting that 
 call to high office which he knew must come sooner or later. In the 
 meanwhile he kept up occasional communication with local leaders, writing, 
 for example, in May to Mr. Cubitt urging the necessity for efficient party 
 organisation — a matter about which the Tory party in London and in the 
 metropolitan boroughs have been strangely indifferent. Later on in the 
 year, the seat for Bath being contested by Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., in the Con- 
 servative interest, he wrote a letter to Lord Grey de Wilton, his chairman 
 of Committee, which gave rise to a 'great deal of comment, and made 
 ardent Liberals very angry indeed — all the more so since they could not 
 deny its truth. " For nearly five years," he wrote, " the present ministers 
 
 2 I 
 
482 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 have harassed every trade, worried every profession, and assailed or menaced 
 every class, institution and species of property in the country. Occasionally 
 they have varied this state of civil warfare by perpetrating some job which 
 outraged public opinion or by stumbling into mistakes which have always 
 been discreditable and sometimes ruinous. All this they call a policy, and 
 seem quite proud of it, but the country has, I think, made up its mind to 
 close this career of plundering and blundering." 
 
 In November, 1871, the students of the University of Glasgow had 
 elected Lord Beaconsfield Lord Kector for 1873, and in the autumn of this 
 year he consequently delivered an address to them on the principles to be 
 observed for the attainment of success in life, which is chiefly remarkable 
 for the prominence which is given to the religious idea and for the protest 
 uttered against the modern sceptical philosophy. " It is not true," said 
 he, "that the only real happiness is physical happiness ; it is not true that 
 physical happiness is the highest happiness ; it is not true that physical 
 happiness is a principle upon which you can build up a flourishing and 
 enduring commonwealth. A civilised community must rest on a large 
 realised capital of thought and sentiment ; there must be a reserved 
 fund of public morality to draw upon in the exigencies of national life. 
 Society has a soul as well as a body : the traditions of a nation are a part of 
 its existence. Its valour and its discipline, its religious faith, its venerable 
 laws, its science and erudition, its poetry, its art, its eloquence and its 
 scholarship are as much portions of its existence as its agriculture, its com- 
 merce, and its engineering skill. ... If it be true, as I believe, that an 
 aristocracy distinguished merely by wealth must perish from satiety, so I 
 hold it is equally true that a people who recognise no higher aim than 
 physical enjoyments must become selfish and enervated. Under such cir- 
 cumstances the supremacy of race, which is the key of history, will assert 
 itself. Some human progeny distinguished by their bodily vigour or their 
 masculine intelligence, or by both qualities, will assert their superiority and 
 conquer a world which deserves to be enslaved. It will then be found 
 that our boasted progress has only been advancement in a circle, and that 
 our new philosophy has brought us back to that old serfdom which it has 
 taken ages to extirpate. But the still more powerful, indeed the insur- 
 mountable obstacle to the establishment of the new opinions, will be fur- 
 nished by the essential elements of the human mind. Our idiosyncrasy is 
 not bounded by the planet which we inhabit. We can investigate space 
 and we can comprehend eternity. No considerations limited to this sphere 
 have hitherto furnished the excitement which man requires, or the sanctions 
 for his conduct which his nature imperatively demands. The spiritual 
 nature of man is stronger than codes or constitutions. No Government can 
 endure which does not recognise that for its foundation, and no legislation 
 last which does not flow from that fountain. The principle may develop 
 itself in manifold forms — shapes of many creeds, and many Churches — but 
 the principle is Divine. As time is divided into day and night, so religion 
 
A CITIZEN OF GLASGOW. 483 
 
 rests upon the Providence of God and the responsibility of man. One is 
 manifest, the other mysterious, hut both are facts." 
 
 In the evening of the same day (the 19th of November) the new Lord 
 Eector was entertained at a great banquet in the City Hall. His health was 
 proposed by the Lord Provost — a Liberal — in a very cordial speech, which 
 touched briefly on his literary as well as on his political career. Lord 
 Beaconsfield declined to follow him into the former subject, but expressed 
 a certain amount of pride and satisfaction in the fact that he had been the 
 leader of his party for twenty-fiv^e years — the longest period of leadership 
 on record. Sir Kobert Peel held the office for eighteen years — though un- 
 fortunately, the party twice broke asunder. " There was also an instance 
 of one who is still spared to us and who I hope may long be spared to us, for 
 he was the pride of this country as he was the honour of the House 
 of Commons — Lord John Eussell. He led one of the great parties in 
 the State in the House of Commons for seventeen years, though at last 
 it slipped out of his hands. Do not suppose for a moment that 1 am 
 making these observations as any boast. The reason that I have been 
 able to lead a party for so long a period and under some circumstances 
 of difficulty and discouragement is, that the party that I lead is really the 
 most generous and most indulgent party that ever existed. I cannot help 
 smiling sometimes when I hear the constant intimations that are given, by 
 those who are in the secrets of the political world, of the extreme anxiety 
 of the Conservative party to get rid of my services. The fact is, the Con- 
 servative party can get rid of my services whenever they give me an 
 intimation that they wish it. Whenever I have desired to leave the 
 leadership of the party they have too kindly requested me to remain Avhere 
 I was, and if I make a mistake the only difference in their conduct to me 
 is that they are more indulgent and more kind." Of course this was the 
 right and modest thing to say, but it may be remarked that something 
 more is required than the forbearance of friends to keep a statesman in the 
 position of leader of his party for nearly a third of a century. Those 
 qualities Lord Beaconsfield unquestionably possessed and they may be 
 briefly summarised as consisting, first, in a profound knowledge of human 
 nature — a knowledge, as Mr. llylands would say, of " men and things;" 
 secondly, undeviatiug courtesy to friends and opponents alike, consideration 
 and temper ; and thirdly, knowing when to be silent as well as when to 
 speak— three qualities which these pages will it is hoped have amply 
 illustrated. 
 
 On the next day the City of Glasgow presented the Tory chief with its 
 freedom, and on the 22nd he made a lively speech to the Conservative 
 Association in reply to an Address. He defended the Bath letter as being 
 perfectly true, though it had the fault of not being original, and he 
 declared that it contained the whole history of the preceding five years in 
 five lines ; " chaffed " — there is no other word for it — Mr. Lowe for his 
 exaggerated attacks on the late Government on account of the Abyssinian 
 
 2 2 
 
434 THE t'UBtIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 question, and warned his audience that Home Eule might mean, at no very 
 distant date, something much more serious than it now appeared. 
 
 Then came a period of rest and retirement. It was thought possible 
 and even probable that Mr. Gladstone might risk an appeal to the country, 
 but time went on and he made no sign. The popular disgust daily in- 
 creased. The record of the scandals of the past Session was constantly 
 called up against the Administration, as well by their professed friends as 
 by their avowed opponents, and everything in brief appeared to point to 
 some great catastrophe as certain to overtake the Government. There 
 were rumours of an Amendment to the Address, and of very active steps 
 on the part of the Opposition, but Lord Beaconsfield afforded no hint 
 of his intentions. He knew perfectly well, as a pamphlet of the period 
 put the matter, that "a few more months of .misgovernment, of jobbery, 
 and of gross and inexcusible blundering were all that was needed to fill 
 up the Ministerial measure. The continuance of such a policy as that 
 with which the country had been treated for the last three years would as 
 effectually discredit the Liberal party as the most ardent Tory could 
 desire, and \vould raise such a storm of popular indignation as would 
 infallibly drive the present Administration from office, no matter how 
 tenaciously its members might cling to it, or with how much skill they 
 might shufde the Ministerial pack." 
 
 The recess dragged on, it being understood, in spite of appearance, 
 that there would be no dissolution, and that Mr. Gladstone's govern- 
 ment would be prepared to meet Parliament at the usual time. The 
 day w^as fixed for the 5th of February, and in anticipation of it the 
 Conservative leader issued his customary circular to his supporters 
 on the 19th of January. To the astonishment of everybody, however, on 
 the 24th of January — a Saturday — Mr. Gladstone issued an address to the 
 electors of Greenwich, in which he announced that Parliament; was to be 
 dissolved forthwith. The address was prodigiously voluminous, occupying 
 about three newspaper columns, but its substance might have been given 
 in a comparatively small space. He admitted that the authority of the 
 Government had sunk very low, and in order to obtain a renewal of popular 
 confidence he proposed two schemes. By one he hoped to strengthen his 
 position in the boroughs ; by the other to gain support in the counties. 
 The electors of the former were to be conciliated by a repeal of the Income 
 Tax ; those of the latter by a scheme for the creation of what he was 
 pleased to describe as " peasant boroughs," composed of groups of rural 
 villages. The event happened so recently that it is unnecessary to recall 
 the spontaneous burst of indignation with which this proceeding was re- 
 ceived throughout the country. It was openly denounced as an '' election 
 dodge ; " great regret was expressed on account of the extreme lateness of 
 the Session and the consequent loss of time for useful legislation, while the 
 proposals of the address were utterly derided. One influential Liberal 
 j ournal indeed declared of them that they were " made with a frankness 
 
ADDRESS TO THE BUCKS ELECTORS. 485 
 
 and simplicity which has never been rivalled since the days when the 
 * great heart of the people ' was stirred by the promise that the three- 
 hooped pot should in future contain ten hoops." Whether Mr. Gladstone 
 relished the comparison with Jack Cade has not been told. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's address to the electors of Buckinghamshire was promptly 
 issued. He did not think it necessary, he told them, at present to consider 
 whether Mr. Gladstone had advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament as a 
 means of avoiding the humiliating confession that he had, by a fresh violation 
 of constitational law, persisted in retaining for several months a seat to 
 which he was no longer entitled (a reference to Mr. Gladstone's having 
 doubled the posts of Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the 
 Treasury, without presenting himself to his constituents for re-electiou), 
 or to postpone or evade the day of reckoning for a war carried on without 
 communication with Parliament, and the expenditure for which Parliament 
 had not sanctioned (an allusion to the expedition to Ashantee). " It is 
 sufficient," he went on, " to point out that if under any circumstances the 
 course — altogether unprecedented — of calling together Parliament by special 
 summons for the despatch of business, and then dissolving it before its 
 meeting, could be justified, there is in the present case no reason whatever 
 suggested why this was not done six weeks ago, and why the period 
 of the year usually devoted to business before Easter, which must now 
 be wasted, should not thus have been saved." Of explanation or ex- 
 tenuation of this course Mr. Disraeli could find no trace in Mr. Glad- 
 stone's " prolix narrative," nor did he find more in his proposal to abolish 
 the Income Tax if he had a large surplus, than that he would follow the 
 ordinary course of Ministers and apply a surplus to the reduction of 
 taxation. He deprecated the "harassing legislation" to which the 
 country had been subjected, and he expressed a wish that "there had 
 been a little more energy in our foreign policy and a little less in our 
 domestic legislation." He complained of the "equivocal and entangling 
 engagements" by which we had been dragged into the Ashantee war and 
 of the " folly of ignorance " by which the freedom of the Straits of Malacca, 
 for our trade with China and Japan, had been sacrificed. On the suggested 
 lleform Bill or the Premier, he expressed his opinion that it was certainly 
 premature. The late Reform Act was a large measure, which, in conjunc- 
 tion with the ballot, had scarcely been tested by experience, and the 
 Conservative party, who had proved that they were not afraid of popular 
 rights, would oppose further legislation, which, if sanctioned, would amongst 
 other changes disfranchise at the least all boroughs with less than 40,000 
 inhabitants. "Gentlemen," he said in conclusion, "the impending 
 general election is one of no mean importance for the future character of 
 this kingdom. There is reason to hope from the address of the Prime 
 Minister, putting aside some ominous suggestions which it contains as to 
 the expediency of a local and subordinate legislature, that he is not, 
 certainly at present, opposed to our national institutions, or to the nmn- 
 
486 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 tenance of the integrity of the Empire. But unfortunately among liis 
 adherents some assail the Monarchy, others impugn the independence of 
 the House of Lords, while there are those who would relieve Parliament 
 altogether from any share in the government of one portion of the United 
 Kingdom. Others, again, urge him to [pursue his peculiar policy by dis- 
 establishing the Anglican as he has despoiled the Irish Church ; while 
 trusted colleagues in his Cabinet openly concur with them in their desire 
 to thrust religion from the place which it ought to occupy in national 
 education. These, gentlemen, are solemn issues, and the impending 
 general election must decide them. Their solution must be arrived at 
 when Europe is more deeply stirred than at any period since the Eeforma- 
 tion, and when the cause of civil liberty and religious freedom mainly 
 depends upon the strength and stability of England. I ask you to return 
 me to the House of Commons to resist every proposal which may impair 
 that strength, and to support by every means her Imperial sway." 
 
 The election of 1874 was the most keenly contested since the Kefomi 
 Bill of 1832, and the number of speeches reported was extraordinary. Mr. 
 Gladstone taxed the patience of the electors of Greenwich a great number 
 of times, and contradictions, corrections and affirmations flew about in 
 marvellous profusion. Lord Beaconsfield himself found it unnecessary to 
 do much in this way. His speech at Aylesbury on the 31st of January, 
 brought upon him a correspondence with the Duke of Argyll, on the 
 subject of the recall of Lord Mayo from the Governor-Generalship of India. 
 Mr. Disraeli had affirmed that such a step had been contemplated by the 
 Liberal Government. The Duke wrote to ask for his authority, and in. 
 reply was informed that it was " a communication from Lord Mayo him- 
 self, appealing to him, to make some demonstration in the House of Com- 
 mons, if possible, to prevent it." The Duke repeated his denial, and 
 asserted that such a step had not been even contemplated by the Govern- 
 ment — a statement which induced a good many people to express some 
 surprise that no Liberal official should have dreamed of contradicting a 
 rumour which, at the time of its currency, was universally believed. 
 
 The speech at Aylesbury was mainly a criticism of the doings of the 
 moribund Government, which led to one from Mr. Gladstone, challenging 
 Mr. Disraeli to produce his polic3^ He replied accordingly in a speech at 
 Newport Pagnell on the 4th of February, in which he repeated his well- 
 known views on that subject — that the Income Tax is a war tax, and, 
 therefore, temporary only in its action, yet that it was not advisable to 
 repeal it by the imposition of new taxes — which was probably the meaning 
 of Mr. Gladstone's " readjustment of taxation." As to the vaunted sur- 
 plus, he thought it unadvisable to discuss what should be done with it 
 until it was realised. On the subject of economy — Mr. Gladstone's trump 
 card in 1868 — it may be worth while to recall some sentences. " All 
 Ministers of all parties," said he, " are in favour of economy, but a great 
 deal depeuvls u^ion what you mean by economy. I venture to say, as I 
 
NECESSITY FOR A STRONG FOREIGN POLICY. 487 
 
 have been challenged to say, that I do not believe you can have economical 
 government in any country in which the chief Minister piques himself 
 upon disregarding the interests of this country abroad, because such 
 neglect must inevitably lead us into expenditure, and an expenditure of 
 the kind over which we have the least control. We are in the habit of 
 hearing it said (and nothing is more true) that the most economical Govern- 
 ment we ever had was the Duke of Wellington's — and why was it ? It 
 was because the Duke of Wellington paid the greatest possible attention, 
 more than any Minister who ever ruled in this country, to the interests 
 and position of England -abroad. . . . Now Mr. Gladstone's view of 
 economy, or rather the view of his own party, and of the school which he 
 represents, is of another kind. He says : — ' The English people do not 
 care for their aifairs abroad. I don't much care for them myself, but I 
 must have economy. I must discharge dockyard workmen. I must 
 reduce clerks. I must sell the Queen's stores. I must starve the Queen's 
 services. I must sell the accumulations of timber in the Dockyards and 
 Arsenals. I must sell all the anchors belonging to the Navy. I must 
 sell ' — which we*were selling for the first year or two — ' half the ships in 
 the navy. And this is economy.' But allow me to say that when Mr. 
 Goschen the other day, in addressing his constituents, as a sort of defence 
 of the Government, said that the expenditure upon the Ashantee war was 
 not more than a million, one could not help reflecting that perhaps all the 
 discharged dockyard labourers, all the reductions of clerks, would not pay 
 the interest upon that million which had been wasted entirely by a mistake 
 of the Government. I say a mistake of the Government, because Mr. 
 Gladstone himself said * we had involved ourselves in equivocal and 
 entangling engagements, and by that means we got into the Ashantee war, 
 and I hope it will be a lesson to us.' But who involved us in * equivocal and 
 entangling engagements ' ? The minister who made this arrangement. Ho 
 condemns himself from his own mouth. He ought not to have involved 
 us in equivocal and entangling engagements. If you employ a person in 
 your business as a traveller, or if any of the farmers in this room sent a 
 person to act for him in some distant market to buy stock — we will say in 
 Scotland — and he came back and told you, * I have bought the stock, but I 
 have bought it with equivocal and entangling engagements,' what would 
 you say ? You would say, ' This will never do ' ; and when you began to 
 rate your agent for getting you into equivocal and entangling engagements, 
 would it be any answer if he said, * Oh, I am sorry for this : it will be a 
 lesson to me for the future : but 1 assure you I have been most economical 
 in my personal expenses. I have always travelled by a second-class train, 
 and as for any refreshments on the road, I have taken the Temperance 
 pledge'? Now, gentlemen, that is the economy of which Mr. Gladsiono 
 is so proud." Probably no one will deny the wit of this apologue, which, 
 in view of some recent events, has an application of double force. 
 
 On the 10th of February Lord Beaconsfield made the last speech of his 
 
488 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 canvass at Buckingham. The Conservative triumph was already assured, 
 and his accession to office was no more a matter " looming in the future." 
 The net Conservative gain was then 52 seats, counting 104 on a division, 
 and returns were yet to come in from many important places. The leader 
 of the party was therefore more than justified, when in asking the electors 
 to repose their confidence in him for the tenth time, the said, " the county of 
 Bucks had always been a political county, and he hoped it would main- 
 tain its reputation in that respect. Since the accession of the House of 
 Hanover there had been thirty Prime Ministers, and five of them had been 
 supplied by the county of Buckingham. Surely, then, there must be 
 something in the air of Buckinghamshire that was favourable to tho 
 growth of Prime Ministers." 
 
 The end soon came. On the 16th of February, 1874, the journals of 
 the day were able to announce that, putting out of account the half dozen 
 unfinished Irish elections, the returns showed a genuine Conservative 
 majority in England of 115, and, though the Liberal majorities of 8 in 
 Wales, of 20 in Scotland, and of 23 in Ireland (in which were reckoned all 
 Home Kulers who had not expressly declared themselves to be Conserva- 
 tives), considerably reduced the majority on a division, the Tory party 
 might still claim a net majority of more than 50. A Cabinet Council was 
 accordingly held on that day, at which all intention of formally appearing 
 before Parliament as Ministers of the Crown was definitely abandoned. 
 One Minister only dissented — Mr. Lowe. The Queen left Osborne for 
 Windsor on Tuesday the 17th of February, and there Mr. Gladstone 
 attended on the following day to tender his resignation and the resignations 
 of his colleagues. But one thing remained to be done — to send for Mr. 
 Disraeli, and that step was taken in the usual course. In view of even- 
 tualities, arrangements had already been made to a considerable extent, 
 and on the 20th he was able to submit a provisional list of his new 
 Administration to her Majesty. On the 23rd, Mr. Gladstone having first 
 rewarded several of his faithful followers with peerages gave up the seals 
 of office, and Mr. Disraeli assumed his place. The business of constructing 
 the Government went on, and early in March all arrangements were com- 
 pleted. Mr. Disraeli's address to his constituents appeared on the 13th, 
 and, as a matter of course, he was returned without opposition. Parlia- 
 ment was opened by Commission on the 19th, and after a remarkably 
 short debate on the Address, in which the leader of the House expressed 
 his disinclination to enter upon any " captious controversy," the work of 
 the Session began. 
 
( 489 ) 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 The New House and the New Ministry — A late Session — Deputations — Mr. 
 Gladstone's Retirement — The " Five Million " Sui'plus — The Queen's Speech — • 
 Debate on the Address — The Budget — Licensing Act Amendment — Irish 
 Fisheries — The Factory Acts Amendment Bill — Public Worship Regulation 
 Bill — " Mass in Masquerade " — Home Rule — Patronage in the Scotch Kirk — • 
 Mr. Disraeli at Merchant Taylors' — Prorogation — The Queen's Speech — A 
 quiet Autumn — The Lord Mayor's Dinner — Lord Beaconsfield on English and 
 Continental liberty — Mr. Gladstone's final retirement — Is replaced by Lord 
 Hartington — The Session of 1875 — Debate on the Address — John Mitchel's 
 Return for Tipperary — The Regimental Exchanges Act — Privilege and petitions 
 — Dr. Kenealy — The Foreign Loans Committee — Mr. Disraeli at the Mansion 
 House — Lord Hartington on public business — The Prorogation — Accomplished 
 Legislation — The Ninth of November — The Prince of Wales in India — 
 Mr. Disraeli's Indian Policy — Suez Canal Shares — The Session of 1876 — The 
 explanation of the Government — Empress of India — A popular idea — 
 A ludicrous episode ; Mr. Lowe at Retford — The Eastern Question once more — 
 Bulgarian Atrocities — Newspapers v. Official Reports — Mr. Disraeli's " levity " 
 — Sir Henry Elliot's despatches — Mr. Ashley's motion on the Appropriation 
 Bill — The defence of the Government — Sir W. Harcourt's " Rhodian Elo- 
 quence " — Mr. Disraeli's last words in the House of Commons — Earl of 
 Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden. 
 
 S« many attempts have been made to discredit the genuineness and the 
 magnitude of the revolution caused by Mr. Gladstone's manifesto of 
 January, 1874, that it may be well to place on record the exact state 
 of things when Mr. Disraeli took his seat on the Treasury Bench in the 
 following month. The House of Commons then consisted of 652 members, 
 of whom 351 were distinctly Conservative, while but 301 were described 
 as Liberal, among whom were, of course, included a certain number of 
 " free lances," who held themselves at liberty to vote for the Government 
 on good cause being shown. In the Parliament of 1868 there were at tho 
 close of the General Election 493 English members, composed of 268 
 Liberals and 225 Conservatives. The boroughs of Bridgevvater and of 
 Beverley having been disfranchised, the Parliament of 1874 contained but 
 489 English members, of whom 296 were Conservatives and 193 Liberals, 
 thus giving to the Conservative party a majority of no fewer that 103 in 
 England alone; the difference being of course accounted for by the 
 preponderance of Liberals amongst the Irish and Scotch members. Scot- 
 land rQturj;9d 41 Liberals to 19 Conservatives, Five years before, no 
 
490 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Scotch borough had returned a Conservative, and 7 only found county- 
 seats. Leaving out Ireland, Great Britain was represented in 1874 by 549 
 members, of whom 315 were Conservatives and 234 Liberals, thus giving 
 the Government a majority of 81. It was in Ireland that the difference 
 was found, that country returning 67 Liberals to 36 Conservatives. Of 
 the total of 103, thirty members were returned as Home Kulers, and were 
 of course claimed by the Liberals. 
 
 With a Parliament thus constituted, Mr. Disraeli was naturally able 
 to form a strong Government. For the sake of convenience it may 
 be well to give in this place a list of the new Ministry : — 
 
 Mr. Disraeli First Lord of the Treasury. 
 
 Lord Cairns • Lord Chancellor. 
 
 Duke of Richmond Lord President of the Council. 
 
 Earl of Malmesbury Lord Privy Seal. 
 
 Earl of Derby Foreign Secretary. 
 
 Marquis of Salisbury Secretary for India. 
 
 Earl of Carnarvon „ „ the Colonies. 
 
 Mr. Gathorne Hardy „ „ War. 
 
 Mr. R. Assheton Cross „ „ Home Department. 
 
 Mr. Ward Hunt First Lord of the Admiralty. 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 
 Lord John R. Manners Postmaster-General. 
 
 The offices outside the Cabinet were filled in the same way. Lord Henry 
 Lennox became Commissioner of Works; Colonel Taylor, Chancellor 
 of the Duchy of Lancaster; Lord Sandon, Vice-President of the Com- 
 mittee of Council for Education ; Sir Charles Adderley, President of the 
 Board of Trade ; Mr. Sclater-Booth, President of the Local Government 
 Board; Lord Mahon, Mr. llowland Wynn and Sir J. D. Elphinstone, 
 Lords of the Treasury ; Mr. W. H. Dyke and Mr. W. H. Smith, Secre- 
 taries of the Treasury; whilst the minor offices were filled by Messrs. 
 G. C. Bentinck, C. S. Read, James Lowther, Stephen Cave, Sir Michael 
 Hicks-Beach, Lord George Hamilton, the Earl of Pembroke, Sir H. Selwin- 
 Ibbetson, the Hon. R. Bourke, and the Hon. A. T. Fulke Egerton ; Sir J. 
 B. Karslake was the Attorney-General, and Sir R. Baggallay, Solicitor- 
 General. 
 
 It was generally admitted that the Government had been well and 
 wisely selected. There had been rumours that the Conservatives intended 
 to expend money lavishly upon the naval and military services, but they 
 were hushed when it was found that those departments were to be placed 
 under two of the most practical and businesslike men in the House of 
 Commons. Mr. Gathorne Hardy had been very successful at the Home 
 Office in the last Conservative administration, and some regret was 
 expressed that he was replaced there by an untried man. People recollected, 
 however, that Mr. Disraeli has always been accredited with the quahty 
 usually associated with Queen Elizabeth of "knowing aman," and the country 
 
THE NEW CABINET. 491 
 
 took Mr. Cross upon trust. The event has not proved disappointing. Lord 
 Salisbury's appointment was received with universal satisfaction, both in 
 India and in England : while Lord Carnarvon was considered at the time 
 to be practically the only available statesman for colonial work. One 
 little matter was very amusing. Ever since the Edinlurgh Beview, under 
 the malicious inspiration of Lord Brougham, had circulated the foolish 
 story about Isaac Disraeli and his son's parvenu aspirations after knowledge 
 of Dukes, it had been an accepted tradition amongst Liberals that a Con- 
 servative Government would, of necessity, [have a very large infusion of 
 the most exalted members of the Upper House. There was something 
 really ludicrous in the dismay which was manifested in certain quarters 
 when it was discovered that there was but one Duke in the Cabinet, and 
 that the position assigned to him, though dignified and honourable, was 
 not very responsible, whilst of the remaining five peers one was the recently 
 ennobled Lord Chancellor ; another was Lord Malmesbury, whose claims 
 to high office could not be passed over ; and the remaining three were 
 pointed out by public opinion as the only possible incumbents of the places 
 they held. 
 
 Thanks to Mr. Gladstone's autocratic use of the Royal prerogative the 
 Session could not be opened until the 5th of March. At first, of course, 
 the business was purely formal, nevertheless the scene was not without 
 interest. " It was remarked," says an eye witness, " that the average age 
 of members seemed higher than in any former Parliament, and that a young 
 member meant a middle-aged man." There were a few old members who 
 had survived the wreck ; a few members who had lost their seats in the 
 confusion of 1868, and who had now regained them, but the mass were 
 men who were returned for the first time, and who were distinguished by 
 their shyness and their air of expectancy. Mr. Brand Avas of course 
 re-elected -Speaker. Had Mr. Gladstone carried out the intention with 
 which his friends accredited him of waiting for an adverse vote of the 
 House before resigning, the future of the Government would have been 
 decided upon this question. Happily wiser counsels prevailed, and Mr. 
 Brand was re-elected without a pretence of opposition. Mr. Chaplin, a 
 comparatively young member, proposed him in a neat and clearly spoken 
 address, and Lord George Cavendish seconded the resolution with much 
 tact and good feeling. Sir Percy Herbert, in the place of the leader of tho 
 House, congratulated Mrf Brand, and Mr. Gladstone confirmed the unani- 
 mous choice of the House. It was remarked at the time that although a 
 small group around him cheered the fallen chieftain, the applause though 
 continued was very feeble, and was not taken up below the gangway. 
 The extreme section of the Liberal party in short took this mode of 
 expressing its disapproval of the statesman who declined to follow thorn on 
 such questions as the Repeal of the 25tli Clause of the Education Act of 
 1870, and the Disestablishment of the English Church. 
 
 Scarcely had Mr. Disraeli taken possession of his oflScial residence in 
 
492 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Downing Street when he was waited upon by a deputation from the " Anti- 
 Income Tax League " — one of those societies which apparently exist for 
 the benefit of their officials — who exhorted him with much eloquence to 
 carry out the programme which Mr. Gladstone had dangled before the con- 
 stituencies in his Greenwich manifesto. They asked in one word for the 
 total abolition of the Income Tax. The Premier listened to several speeches 
 and replied with a levity rather characteristic. " I have had the advantage," 
 said he, " of hearing your sentiments expressed by able representatives. It 
 is impossible to deny the importance of the subject which you have urged 
 upon our attention, and I can assure you in the grave consideration we are 
 giving to it the objections you have made will have due attention. I can 
 say no more at present." The deputation withdrew—" quite astonished," 
 as some of its members afterwards declared, at the extreme levity with which 
 their eloquence had been answered. The nation at large was, however, not 
 ill satisfied to find that the first effort of the new Government w^as not to be 
 an overthrow of the fiscal system. One member of this redoubtable depu- 
 tation — a certain Alderman Green, of Leicester — promised the Premier 
 " sounder sleep " if he would but remove the obnoxious impost. Mr. 
 Disraeli took no notice of the generous promise, but quietly asked his 
 interviewer what taxes he proposed to substitute for that to which he 
 objected. Mr. Green abjectly withdrew — "he respectfully declined to 
 mention any, but would leave the consideration of that matter to the 
 Administration." After such a speech the reply of the Government was a 
 matter of course. 
 
 A few days later came the question of the leadership of the Opposition. 
 Mr. Gladstone was understood to be before all things anxious for repose* 
 at all events for twelve months, and a report was assiduously disseminated 
 that he proposed to travel on the Continent until the opening of the next 
 Session. Then followed the news that he intended altogether to relinquish 
 the Liberal leadership. The committee of the Refoi'm Club met and 
 begged him to do nothing of the kind, and the organs of the party urged 
 that he should, if he would, take a year's rest and leave his duties to be 
 discharged by the Marquis of Hartington. All remonstrance was useless. 
 On the 13th of March a letter appeared bearing the signature of the leader 
 of the Opposition and announcing — though unfortunately in that vague 
 and inconclusive way which seems natural to him — his retirement from 
 that onerous post. " For a variety of reasons personal to myself," he said, 
 "I could not contemplate any unlimited extension of active political 
 service. And I am anxious that it should be clearly understood by those 
 friends with whom I have acted in the direction of affairs, that at my age 
 I must reserve my entire freedom to divest myself of the responsibilities of 
 leadership at no distant time. The need of rest will prevent me from 
 giving more than occasional attendance in the House of Commons during 
 the present Session. I should be desirous, shortly before the commence- 
 ment of the Session of 1875, to consider whether t^ierc would be ad- 
 
OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. 403 
 
 vantage in my placing my services for a time at the disposal of the Liberal 
 party, or whether I should then claim exemption from the duties I have 
 hitherto discharged." He further expressed himself as willing to retire 
 even from a provisional and occasional leadership, and to become an 
 independent member. And so Achilles retired to his tent. 
 
 Until the opening of Parliament ministers had no easy task. Mr. 
 Gladstone's sanguine anticipations of a surplus of five millions had stirred 
 *' the great heart of the country" to a somewhat unusual extent, and every 
 class appeared to think it had a right to share in the spoil. The result 
 was, that, for about a fortnight, deputations of every sort and kind waited 
 upon the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest 
 that the interests which they represented were in a special degree entitled 
 to consideration. Mr. Disraeli had said that the late Government had 
 " worried every trade and harassed every profession : " the trades and the 
 professions in retuin worried the new Administration. In addition to the 
 Anti-Income Tax deputation already mentioned, deputations demanding 
 the total and unconditional repeal of half a dozen other imposts waited upon 
 members of the Government from day to day, and would hardly be con- 
 tented with the vague generalities in which it was necessary to veil the 
 refusal of the new Administration to listen to their representations. 
 
 The formal opening of Parliament for the despatch of business took place 
 on the 19th of March, 1874, the Queen's Speech being as usual read by 
 Commission. It was hardly an important State paper. " My Lords and 
 Gentlemen " were informed that they were brought together as early as 
 possible considering the change of Government; that the Duke of 
 Edinburgh had been happily married ; that the Ashantee War was over 
 and that^the Indian Famine had begun in real and serious earnest. " Gentle- 
 men of the House of Commons " were informed that the Estimates for the 
 year would be submitted to them, but there was no mention of economy, 
 probably for the simple reason that the reckless economies of the last five 
 years had rendered necessary a considerable expenditure. As regarded the 
 future, the promises of the new Government were equally modest. The 
 law relating to the transfer of land was to be amended ; the Judicature 
 Acts were to be extended to Ireland and to Scotland ; a Iloyal Commission 
 was to be appointed to deal with the law of Master and Servant ; the 
 Licensing Act, which had produced a great deal of needless irritation, was 
 to be amended, and the laws relating to friendly and provident societies 
 were to be dealt with. Such was the modest programme of the Govern- 
 ment, and considering that the Session did not really begin until three- 
 fourths of the month of March had expired, it is probable that those who 
 were responsible for it were well advised in not attempting too much. 
 
 The conversations in both Houses on the Address in reply to the Queen's 
 Speech — it would be mockery to call them debates — were of little interest. 
 The Duke of Somerset made the only speech calling for notice in the 
 Lords. He reminded the House that Mr. Gladstone had once said tliat 
 
494 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the members of the Upper House appeared to be " up in a balloon," and 
 he declared that it appeared to him as if the late Government had not 
 merely gone up in a balloon, but had tumbled out of it. He did not com- 
 plain of the Dissolution, though it had made it necessary for him to cross 
 the floor of the House, but he did complain very seriously that Mr. 
 Gladstone should have thought it becoming to submit his Budget to the 
 country before presenting it to the House of Commons. Nor was he 
 better satisfied to find the leader of the Liberals coquetting with the Home 
 Eulers, and appearing to consent to a dismemberment of the Empire for 
 the sake of securing a few votes. The attack upon the late Government 
 was mildly repeated in the House of Commons by Sir W. Stirling Maxwell 
 and Mr. W. Eomaine Callender, whose speeches brought up Mr. Torrens with 
 an amendment. Mr. Gladstone then entered upon the anticipated defence of 
 his administration. His defence was feeble, consisted mainly in an assertion 
 that the late Government had resolved upon the dissolution because it 
 had felt that the by-elections of the Eecess had proved that it -was out of 
 harmony with the general feeling of the country. How it had happened 
 that the view of the case had not impressed him at an eai'lier period, he, 
 perhaps wisely, refrained from attempting to explain. Mr. Disraeli's 
 reply was brief, and was marked by all the urbanity towards his fallen 
 rival which might have been anticipated. Mr. Torrens had proposed an 
 amendment to the Address on the subject of the Indian Famine; that 
 amendment the Leader of the House gently deprecated. Then, after 
 touching on sundry minor matters, such as the Eoyal Marriage and the 
 Constitution of the Eoyal Commission on the law of Master and 
 Servant, he took up the question of the Ashantee War, which it will be 
 remembered had been carried through by the late Government without any 
 appeal whatever to Parliament. Mr. Disraeli's tone in speaking of this 
 matter was generous and worthy. "It does appear to me," said he, 
 " that the position of the right hon. gentleman that the summoning of 
 Parliament involved the postponement of warlike proceedings for a year is 
 not consistent with the principles of the Constitution or Parliamentary 
 practice. The war, however, has now been brought to a successful ter- 
 mination, and we are willing to give the right hon. gentleman and his 
 Government " every praise for the preparations they had made." Eepu- 
 diating all intention of dealing with the matter in a captious spirit, he 
 asked the House " to do justice to the spirit and energy of the eminent 
 commander of the forces employed, and to the gallantry and endurance 
 and admirable qualities which were signally displayed by both ofiicers and 
 men in an expedition which, though not on a large scale, will, nevertheless, 
 rank in the future among our glorious deeds of arms. 
 
 Turning then to Mr. Gladstone's justification -he expressed his admiration 
 of the good taste and good feeling which characterised the course pursued 
 by the Liberal party, adding that if he had been a follower of a Parlia- 
 mentary chief as eminent as Mr. Gladstone, even if he thought he had 
 
/. 
 
 -._ ^ </ 
 
 THE BUDGET. i t-l 49^ '^^ ^ 
 
 erred he would have been disposed rather to ofifer sympathy\tE^''^'tJd H i 
 venture upon criticism. "I should remember," said he, "his illustrious" "" 
 career, its continuous success and splendour, not its accidental or even - 
 
 disastrous mistakes." When the language which Mr. Gladstone has some- 
 times permitted himself to use with reference to Lord Beaconsfield is 
 remembered, the contrast afforded by these words becomes very r?marfe= ^- f^ 
 able. 
 
 When the Report on the Address was brought up, the first of the Irish 
 debates for which this Parliament will be remembered in history, was 
 raised upon a motion of Mr. Butt, which declared that the Irish people 
 under the present system of government did not enjoy the full benefit of 
 the Constitution, and pledged the House to consider any measures pro- 
 posed to remove the dissatisfaction. There was a long debate, and Mr. 
 Gladstone, annoyed by some remarks made by Mr. Chaplin concerning the 
 confiscatory policy of the late Government, made a rather vindictive 
 speech, in which, however, he refrained from supporting Mr. Butt's pro- 
 posals. The question was pressed to a division, and eventually Mr. Butt's 
 amendment was rejected by 314 votes to 50. The Government proposal 
 of the same evening to empower the Indian Government to raise a loan of 
 ten millions for the relief of the Indian famine, met a better fate, and was 
 agreed to after next to no hesitation. Before the end of the month the 
 measure was read a third time and passed. 
 
 When on the 16th of April Sir Stafi"ord Northcote brought in his 
 Budget it was found to be neither so exhilarating nor so depressing as had 
 been expected. There was a surplus, which, if not so large as Mr. Glad- 
 stone had anticipated, was at least sufiiciently satisfactory. The expendi- 
 ture of the year, including the payment of the Alabama award and a vote 
 of £800,000 for the Ashantee expedition, was £76,460,500, which was 
 £1,156,000 over the estimates. The actual revenue had been £77,335,067, 
 which, when the Post Office irregularity of £800,000 had been allowed for, 
 showed a surplus not of " at least five millions," but of £2,773,000, chiefly 
 produced by the Customs, Excise, and Stamp duties. Under these heads 
 respectively the increase was £736,000, £1,435,000, and £500,000. Nearly 
 half a million was due to the increased consumption of spirits alone, a suf- 
 ficiently gratifying proof of the growing prosperity of the country and of 
 the way in which the British working man expends his surplus earnings. 
 Sir Stafford Northcote estimated the expenditure for the year upon which 
 the country had just entered at a little over seventy-two millions and a 
 half, or — allowing for the cost of the Ashantee expedition and for tho 
 Alabama claims — a reduction of nearly four millions on the preceding 
 year. By keeping the taxation precisely as it was, it would be possible to 
 extract from the pocket of the taxpayer a surplus of about five and a half 
 millions. Innumerable schemes had been invented for disposing of this 
 surplus, and as a matter of fact, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad 
 listened to the advice which had been so liberally tendered to him since his 
 
496 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 accession to office, he might readily have disposed of a surplus ten times as 
 great as that of which he found himself in possession. He had, however, 
 his own plans for settling the matter, and the pledges of his party leaders 
 to redeem. He therefore proposed to relieve local taxation to the extent 
 of a million and a quarter by contributing 4s. per head per week for the 
 maintenance of pauper lunatics, by adding 50 per cent, to the imperial 
 contribution to the police rates, and by submitting to the rating of Govern- 
 ment buildings. He entirely abohshed the Sugar Duties, which had 
 grown troublesome to collect and which produced an inadequate return; 
 and he threw over the horse duty, the horse dealers duty, and the racehorse 
 duty, at a cost of nearly half a million, and then, mindful of the principle 
 on which the Government had taken office, he took a penny off the 
 Income Tax. 
 
 The Budget was on the whole well received. There was, as usual, a 
 little captious criticism, and people who still retained their belief in Mr. 
 Gladstone's financial capacity, amused themselves with speculations as to 
 the glorious scheme which he would have brought forward had he found 
 himself in possession [of such a surplus. On the whole, however, it was 
 felt that although there was nothing startling in the proposals of the Go- 
 vernment, there was every reason to believe that they were eminently 
 reasonable and workable, and that although they might not excite great 
 enthusiasm they were certain not to provoke violent opposition. The 
 public-house interest, it is true, was discontented. It would have liked to 
 see the Malt Tax partially repealed, and the duty on brewers' licences 
 taken off, as well as another penny off the Income Tax, leaving the Sugar 
 Duty and the Horse Duty as they were. Those complaints, however, 
 attracted no attention, and the general neglect with which they were 
 received affords an instructive commentary on the often repeated assertion 
 as to the influence of the publicans on the general election. 
 
 The Budget was followed after a brief interval by the Navy Estimates, 
 which were introduced by Mr. "Ward Hunt, on the night of the 20th of 
 April (1874), in a speech which affords an interesting commentary on the 
 rage for economy which possessed Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues when 
 they took office in 1868. On the vote for the dockyards Mr. Ward Hunt 
 explained that there was an increase of 800 men employed, owing to the 
 extensive repairs of the iron-clad fleet which were very necessary, repairs which 
 rendered absolutely essential the expenditure of an amount equivalent to 
 one-third of the original cost of the ships themselves. On the other vote 
 he explained that £70,000 had to be spent at once on naval stores, and 
 £90,000 on steam machinery and ships built in private yards. In the 
 preceding year votes had been taken for building 8,500 tons of iron-clads, 
 but only 5,592 had been actually built. For this year he proposed to 
 build 19,470 tons — 13,852 in the dockyards, and 5,618 in private yards 
 There were in commission 123 ships, consisting of 23 iron-clads, 8 frigates, 
 14 corvettes, 27 sloops, 32 gun vessels, and 18 gun-boats. The effect of 
 
CONDITION OF IRISH FISHERIES. 497 
 
 Liberal economies on the fleet was somewhat striking. Out of 41 sea- 
 going iron-clads 18 were effective, and of the 14 which were available for 
 coast and harbour defence, only 9 were in a really serviceable condition. 
 More than all this, the provision for the future had been so scandalously 
 neglected, that only one iron-clad could be finished in 1874, one in 1875, three 
 in 1876, and two in 1877. In spite of all the economy thus indicated, Mr. 
 Childers's last estimates had been but a quarter of a million below the sum 
 at which he had found them on his accession to office, and had the Liberal 
 Government but done its duty with regard to the Navy, it was generally 
 felt that the boasted surplus left in the Treasury would have been of ex- 
 tremely modest dimensions. 
 
 At the end of April (27th) Mr. Cross brought in his Bill to amend the 
 Licensing Act. It was a very modest affair, granting an extra half-hour 
 at night for the benefit of those tired way-farers who might need refresh- 
 ment so late. The Act of the late Government had caused infinite annoy- 
 ance without producing the smallest appreciable benefit, and there was a 
 general feeling that it would be well to diminish complaints upon this 
 score. As a matter of course. Sir Wilfrid Lawson denounced the Bill in 
 energetic terms, proclaiming it as his opinion that the " Conservative re- 
 action " meant nothing more than half-an-hour's extra drinking at night. 
 The common sense of the country approved the Bill, however, and the 
 smoothness with which it has worked has abundantly proved the neces- 
 sity for it. 
 
 The Government was not, however, to have everything its own way, 
 and on the 1st of May it was subjected to a defeat of a peculiarly annoying 
 character. Mr. Synan, member for the County of Limerick, called the at- 
 tention of the House on that day to the cruel neglect with which Irish 
 fisheries had been treated. There w^ere those in the House and out of it 
 who thought that the greatest and most cruel neglect of these fisheries was 
 that of which Irishmen themselves were guilty, and that if the peasants 
 who professed to live by fishing would but take the trouble to fish the seas, 
 and to carry their harvest to market, they would find little to complain of. 
 This view was unfortunately not that of the Irish members, who obtained the 
 support of Dr. Lyon Playfair. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach admitted that 
 there might be something in the Irish complaint, and suggested that the 
 Irish Eeproductive Loan Fund might be borught under Treasury control 
 and utilised for the purpose of granting small loans — a course which in the 
 name of the Opposition was approved by the Marquis of Hartington. The 
 division, however, showed the nature of the disturbing element which had 
 been introduced by the Home Bule members. That body, then numbering 
 about 50, voted en masse for the resolution, carrying with them a number 
 of members whose convictions on Irish afl'airs may be described as being 
 in a chronic state of fluidity, and a few English and Scotch members 
 whose sentimental ism is greater than their logical power. The result was 
 that by a niajority of two in a House of 187 the House was pledged, not 
 
 2 K 
 
498 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 indeed to Mr. Butt's modest proposal to give £20,000 to Irish fishermen 
 out of the year's revemie, hut to a resolution declaring it ready to give the 
 fullest consideration to any measure which might be introduced on the 
 subject. 
 
 Early in the Session it became abundantly evident that the new Govern- 
 ment had no intention of allowing Mr. Disraeli's promises that the condi- 
 tion of the people should receive immediate attention to fall into abeyance. 
 Early in May Mr. Mundella moved the second reading of the " Factory 
 Acts Amendment Bill." It related only to factories where textile fabrics 
 were produced, and introduced several important modifications of existing 
 statutes. The age for half-timers was raised from 8 to 10, and of full- 
 timers to 14, except in cases where Standard 3 had been passed. The hours 
 of labour were reduced to 54 per week, and the privileges of silk manu- 
 facturers in the employment of young children were abolished. Such a 
 Bill obviously could not be accepted by the Government. Its concessions, 
 though not perhaps too great from the point of view of mere sentiment, 
 were obviously too certain to handicap English industry to a serious extent. 
 Mr. Cross in opposing the Bill expressed the determination of the Govern- 
 ment to take up the question, and laid much stress on the necessity for 
 proceeding with caution. The scheme which he proposed was, therefore, 
 a compromise. The first proposal was that the hours of labour should be 
 between six and six, or seven and seven, no spell of work being for longer 
 than four and a half hours. On five days in every week two hours out of 
 every twelve should be deducted for meals, and on Saturday the hours of 
 work should be six. The hours of work for children and young women 
 were thus fixed at six per day ; half-timers were to work thirty-three 
 hours and a half per week, with a holiday every alternate Saturday, and 
 the age of the latter class was raised to nine years until 1875, after Avhich 
 it was to be ten. Two or three days later Mr. Cross explained the anxiety 
 of the Ministry to deal with the question of Artizans' Dwellings, and 
 pointed out how a step in advance had been made by jjrevcnting the Mid- 
 land Eailway from carrying their Bill for the dispossession of a great body 
 of working men. He promised a comprehensive and practical measure on 
 the subject, which promise was before long fulfilled. 
 
 Meanwhile in the Upper House the Archbishop of Canterbury was 
 pressing forward his Public Worship Eegulation Bill, for the purpose of 
 bringing to an end a scandal which many devout and quiet Churchmen 
 found to be simply intolerable. The antagonism which from the time of 
 Henry VIII. to the present has existed between the ecclesiastical class and 
 the laity had grown to such a degree that the latter were in many cases in 
 open revolt against their spiritual guides, whilst the former were pressing 
 innovations upon unwilling congregations, with the avowed object of bring- 
 ing about an Eirenicon — a reconciliation, that is to say, with Kome. The 
 actual law had failed to achieve its purpose. It was tedious in no common 
 measure, and its cost was exorbitant. In seconding the motion for the 
 
"YOUNG ENGLAND." 499 
 
 second reading of the Bill, the Archbishop of York mentioned that a 
 decree of the highest court of the realm had cost £3477 to obtain, and 
 being obtained had further cost £1459 to enforce, no small proportion of 
 which sum had been paid by the Bishop. The Bill Avas designed to remedy 
 this state of things by making legal procedure more easy, and by strengthen- 
 ing the hands of the Bishops. As usual when religious matters are 
 brought into question there was considerable difference of opinion, and all 
 the usual party boundaries were put on one side. The Government 
 reserved their opinion, but the Duke of Marlborough opposed the Bill, 
 while Lord Ebury and Lord Selborne supported it. It was universally 
 felt that legislation on this subject was extremely difficult. At the same 
 time, however, there was so earnest a feeling on the question of clerical 
 lawlessness and insubordination that the support which Lord Beaconsfield 
 afterwards gave to the proposals of the Archbishop undoubtedly strengthened 
 their hold on the popular good will. The great objection to the Bill which 
 was felt by those who strive to act impartially in ecclesiastical matters 
 was that it was confessedly directed against one party in the Church, and 
 one only. Those who sinned by excess were to be liable to vexatious, 
 costly and irritating legal proceedings, whilst there was no question of 
 punishing those who erred by defect. It was feared — not without reason 
 — that certain well-known men of saintly lives, who from conscientious 
 motives adopted an excessive ritual, might be subjected to persecution, 
 whilst other clergymen of by no means saintly character, who did as little 
 work in return for their stipends as they conveniently could, would have 
 nothing to fear from the operation of the Act. The event has proved 
 that these fears were by no means unfounded, but at the same time it is 
 not to be denied that in 1874 the vagaries of a few members of the more 
 advanced school of High Churchmen had created a considerable amount of 
 public uneasiness, and had paved the way in the popular mind for very 
 drastic legislation. 
 
 The course taken by Lord Beaconsfield with respect to this measure 
 has been so frequently and so unscrupulously misrepresented that it may 
 be well in this place to refer to it more particularly. It has already been 
 mentioned that in his earlier days Lord Beaconsfield allied himself with 
 the "Young England" party, one of whose primary articles of faith was a 
 belief that the amelioration of the condition of the working classes might 
 best be effected by the help of the Church. With that view ho threw 
 himself into the Oxford movement, hoping] to see the clergy become tho 
 real leaders of the people once again. The opportunity was a great one, but 
 the clergy unhappily proved themselves unequal to it. What might have 
 amounted to a new and more perfect Reformation faded out into a series of 
 angry controversies on minute points of technical theology, the final result of 
 which was the withdrawal from the Church of England of some of the men 
 of the finest intellect of whom she could boast. It may be doubted 
 whether the Church has, indeed, ever recovered from the shock inflicted by 
 
 2k 2 
 
500 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the secession of Dr. Newman and his friends. The disappointment felt by- 
 Lord Beaconsfield was deep and bitter, and traces of this feeling may be 
 found scattered through his later writings. Nor is that feeling unnatural 
 in one who, lilce him, uniformly viewed the connection of the State with the 
 Church rather from the point of view of a statesman than from that of a 
 devotee. To him, therefore, the vagaries of the extreme High Churchmen 
 were naturally distasteful in the highest degree, and when the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury introduced his Bill, Lord Beacoasfield gave to it — not indeed 
 the support of his Government — but all the assistance which he, as an 
 individual member of the House of Commons, could lend. On the second 
 reading — 15th July, 1874 — he made a somewhat remarkable speech 
 in which he denied that the object of the Bill was the extinction of 
 parties in the Church. Parties had always existed from Apostolic times, and 
 would continue to exist as long as the Church existed. But the Eitualistic 
 party had departed from the principles and practice of the ReformatioD, 
 and it was to meet that jjarty that the Bill had been brought forward. Its 
 object, as he plainly stated, was to "put down Ritualism." That it 
 had been altogether successful in coping with the evil may perhaps bo 
 considered somewhat doubtful at the present time ; but it is beyond 
 question that since the passage of the Act there has been a conspicuous 
 falling off in the interest excited by the more extreme men. As a matter 
 of course, this determination to "put down Ritualism" excited bitter 
 opposition amongst the supporters of the party, but the argument used by 
 Lord Beaconsfield in this speech has never been refuted. Briefly stated 
 that argument was as follows : — " A great struggle was going on in Europe 
 between the temporal and the spiritual power. The disturbance and 
 possible disasters which must affect Europe, must to a certain extent 
 sympathetically affect England also, and it would be wise therefore for 
 Englishmen to rally upon the broad platform of the Reformation. I'hat 
 Reformation was never so completely and so powerfully represented as by 
 the Church of England, and against its principles the clergy, whom it is 
 the custom to call Ritualistic, direct their most ardent efforts. To certain 
 articles of faith, such'as the worship of the Virgin and the use of the Con- 
 fessional, Mr. Disraeli expressed himself as offering no objection so long as 
 they were held by Roman Catholics ; but he objected to " Mass in 
 Masquerade." " To the solemn ceremonies of our Roman Catholic friends," 
 he went on, " I am prepared to extend that reverence which my mind and 
 conscience always give to religious ceremonies sincerely believed in ; but the 
 false position in which we have been placed by I believe a small, but 
 powerful and well-organised body among those who call themselves 
 English clergymen in copying those ceremonies is one which the country 
 thinks intolerable." 
 
 Later on, when the Bill had passed the Commons, and had been sent up 
 to the House of Lords, it was returned with sundry modifications of the 
 amendments of the Lower House. It seemed for a time as though there 
 
RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 501 
 
 were something more than a probability that the Bill would be ship- 
 wrecked on these points, and Lord Beaconsfield made an urgent appeal to 
 the House to give way, rather than allow a measure which he considered 
 as a vindication of the Protestantism of the Church of England to be 
 defeated. In the course of his speech he emphatically repudiated the 
 claim of the Kitualistic clergy to be considered a portion of the High Church 
 party, " The most eminent vindication of that Protestantism which they 
 denounce may be found amongst authors who profess High Church opinions. 
 The most able vindicators of Protestantism and the most able oppo- 
 nents of the Church of Eome are to be found amongst divines of High 
 Church princii^les. In the most critical period of the Church of England, 
 and I may also add of our public liberties in general, when the Bishops 
 were sent to the Tower, the majority of those Bishops were Bishops of 
 High Church principles." The Eitualists he described as a " small but 
 pernicious sect ; " and for the sake of putting them down, he earnestly 
 counselled the House to accept the amendments of the Lords. 
 
 Another noteworthy speech of this Session was made on the 2nd of July, 
 on Mr. Butt's proposal that the House should go into Committee for the 
 purpose of considering the Parliamentary Relations of Great Britain and 
 Ireland. The debate had been a somewhat warm one, but it was chiefly 
 remarkable from the circumstance that, although three or four of the more 
 advanced English Radicals supported Mr. Butt in the division lobby, none 
 of them ventured to speak in favour of his proposals. At the close of the 
 debate, Lord Beaconsfield rose to sum up, and at once asserted the position 
 with reference to this subject which he has invariably maintained. He 
 emphatically denied that the Irish people had any right of exclusively 
 managing Irish affairs. The English people, the Welsh, the Scotch 
 possessed no such right, and did not even claim it. The demand on behalf 
 of Ireland was therefore inadmissible. Even supposing, however, that the 
 principle might be conceded, the question arose of howit was to be worked 
 out in practice. The Act of Union was not to be repealed, yet Irish 
 members were asking for a Federation — an arrangement which could bo 
 made only between equal and independent states. If such a scheme could 
 be carried out, it would be necessary to have three local parliaments as 
 well as an imperial parliament, the result of which would be competing 
 and co-ordinate authorities. The practical difficulties in the way of 
 Mr. Butt's scheme having been thus proved to be insuperable, the Leader 
 of the Plouse went on to ask upon what grounds the country was called 
 upon to accept the resolution. These upon inquiry turned out to be 
 flimsy in the extreme. Mr. Butt had said that Irishmen were not advanced 
 to high office. It happened to be true at that moment, but as Lord 
 Beaconsfield reminded the House, the Duke of Abercorn was an Irish duke, 
 and Irishmen, if they are men of ability, find no difficulty in obtaining 
 recognition of their powers. He himself had known three Prime Ministers 
 who were Irishmen ; three Viceroys of India who were Irishmen ; the 
 
502 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 present Lord Chancellor of England was an Iris!lman ; the Secretary for 
 Ireland in the late Government was an Irishman, and the Secretary for 
 Ireland in the Government of Lord Derby was of the same nationality. 
 Then again it was said by Irish members that they had a right to Home 
 Eule because their country was governed by Coercion Bills. That fact 
 was admitted, but the Prime Minister was able to remind the House that 
 those Bills had been passed with the consent of Irish members. As 
 regarded Irish poverty and emigration he spoke with considerable tender- 
 ness, but he was careful to point out that so long as there are periodical 
 outbreaks of rapine and outrage, English capital will not choose Ireland 
 as a field for investment. The most striking part of the speech was, 
 however, the reply to Mr. MacCarthy, who had openly announced 
 that he wanted Home Eule to put an end to Irish " subjugation." 
 On this point "I must say," said Lord Beaconsfield, "there is to 
 me nothing more extraordinary than the determination of the Irish 
 people to proclaim to the world that they are a conquered race. 
 I have been always surprised that a people gifted with so much 
 genius, so much sentiment, such winning qualities should be . . . 
 so deficient in self-respect. I deny that the Irish people are con- 
 quered, as they are proud to tell us : I deny that they have any ground 
 for that pride. . . I deny that the Irish have been conquered more than, 
 or even as often as, the English. You never hear of an Englishman going 
 about, and boasting of his subjection. He boasts sometimes of having 
 come over with William the Conqueror, or rather of his ancestors having 
 done so. The Irish have been conquered by the Normans and so have 
 we, and in modern times I will not deny that Oliver Cromwell conquered 
 Ireland, but it was after he had conquered England. . . . Allow me to point 
 out to the House that this morbid sentiment is the only real foundation for 
 this violent change which is now proposed." After a bantering reference 
 to the little care for historical study which characterises the present day, 
 he advised Irish gentlemen to hold their tongues, promising them that if 
 they did so, nobody in the course of a generation would know that they 
 had been conquered at all. The religious question it was, of course, 
 impossible to leave out of account, and, as Lord Beaconsfield pointed out, 
 it is impossible to conceal the fact that the Eoman Church is the most 
 powerful religious organisation in existence. Supposing that a movement 
 for the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope were to make itself 
 felt in Europe, what would be the conduct of a Parliament, the majority 
 of which was composed of Eoman Catholics, and how would that Parlia- 
 ment work with the Imperial Parliament in its foreign relations ? These 
 were grave questions, and the considerations which they suggested were 
 alone sufficient to cause him to oppose the proposition, to create " a vast 
 vestry " in Ireland. " I am opposed," he concluded, " to this motion, 
 because I think there are involved in it the highest and dearest interests of 
 our counti-y. 1 am opposed to it for the sake of the Irish people as much as 
 
BANQUET BY MERCHANT TAYLORS. 503 
 
 for the sake of the English or the Scotch. I am opposed to it, because I 
 wish to see united at an important crisis of the world — a crisis that is 
 perhaps nearer arriving than some of us suppose — because I wish to see a 
 united people welded in one great nationality, and because I feel that if we 
 sanction this policy — if we do not cleanse the Parliamentary bosom of all 
 this ' perilous stuff ' — we shall bring about the disintegration of the king- 
 dom and the destruction of the empire." 
 
 Four days later ecclesiastical affairs once more occupied the attention of 
 the House. The occasion was the Lord Advocate's Bill for the Abolition 
 of Patronage in the Scottish Kirk — a Government measure which had 
 been very favourably received in the Lords, but which for some unknown 
 reason Mr. Gladstone thought it advisable to oppose. The ex-Premier 
 made a very long speech, to which his successor rephed with considerable 
 brevity. His case was a very simple and a very fair one. The Bill then 
 under consideration was merely a measure for entrusting the appointments 
 of Scottish Ministers to the communicants instead of leaving it in the 
 hands of patrons, who as a matter of fact exercised only a very limited 
 right of patronage, the value of which, crippled as it was by Lord Aber- 
 deen's Act, was really infinitesimal. The speech of the Premier was in no 
 way remarkable, save for the determination which it displayed to carry 
 the Bill in the interests of the Kirk itself He anticipated as the result of 
 the measure a return on the part of the Free Kirk and of the United 
 Presbyterians, to the bosom of the Mother Kirk. If that consummation 
 has not yet been attained, there are abundant signs that it is not far distant. 
 Before the Session ended the Merchant Taylors entertained the Ministry 
 at a great banquet, previously conferring the freedom of the Company upon 
 the three principal members of the Government. Mr. Disraeli, in respond- 
 ing to the toast of his health, made a somewhat striking speech, in the 
 course of which he claimed for the Tory party the credit of having 
 effectually solved three great political problems: — "We have," said ho 
 "combined religious equality with a National Church: we have main- 
 tained the authority of monarchical and aristocratical institutions, with a 
 large distribution of political power amongst the people ; and wo have made 
 a free exchange of commodities consistent with the existence of a pros- 
 perous, because an untaxed, native industry." On ecclesiastical questions 
 with which the public mind was then somewhat severely exercised, he 
 pointed to the fact that the Church Establishment was menaced, but 
 expressed a strong belief that the existence of parties within its limits was 
 no proof of disunion or want of strength, and he argued that all the three 
 great parties in the Church might have fair play without disloyalty to the 
 principles of the Eeformation. Lord Derby, in responding for the new 
 honorary members of the Company, pointed out that diplomatists were 
 always at a disadvantage, since the world, though it heard much of their 
 failures, heard nothing of their successes, and ho laid down as the rule for 
 an English Foreign Minister the principle that it was his " first duty to 
 
504 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 maintain the peace of England, while second, and only second to it in 
 importance, is that of maintaining the peace of Europe." 
 
 The Session of 1874 came to an end on Friday, August 7, the Queen's 
 Speech being read by the Lord Chancellor. The interruption to public 
 business consequent upon the sudden dissolution of Parliament in the 
 spring had rendered the task of legislation more than ordinarily difficult, 
 yet in addition to the ecclesiastical measures referred to above, the 
 Government were able to show a very fair list of accomplished works. 
 In finance they could point to the removal of the duties on sugar and on 
 horses ; to the reduction of the Income Tax, and to a beginning in that 
 work of relieving local at the 'cost of general revenue which the last 
 Parliament had emphatically declared to be just and necessary, but which 
 Mr. Gladstone had scarcely attempted. In domestic legislation Mr. 
 Disraeli's Government could boast of having passed an Act for improving 
 the condition of women, young persons and children employed in manu- 
 factures, whilst Acts of great importance to several classes of the commu- 
 nity, though of small general interest, had been passed 'for the limitation 
 of actions for real property ; the modification of the law of vendor and 
 purchaser, and land rights and conveyancing in Scotland. The Licensing 
 Act of the late Government, which in its original form was a pedantic 
 and fussy measure, had been modified, and though several matters such as 
 land transfer and law reform were unavoidably held over, considerable 
 progress had been made in their discussion. 
 
 With regard to foreign affairs the Queen's Speech was sufficiently plain. 
 Purely in the interests of humanity, of course, the Emperor of Eussia had 
 made proposals for a Conference at Brussels, the object of which was " to 
 lessen by judicious regulations the severities of war." It was shrewdly 
 suspected that the meaniug of this happy phrase really was to restrict the 
 conduct of naval operations. England had therefore sent a delegate, but 
 only upon the understanding that existing conditions were not to be 
 disturbed, and with a reservation of the right of acceptance or rejection. 
 The negotiations for the renewal of the Eeciprocity Treaty between Canada 
 and the United States ; the Treaty for the suppression of the Slave Trade 
 in Zanzibar; the arrangements for meeting the distress caused by the 
 Indian Famine, and the restoration of order on the Gold Coast, formed the 
 subjects of the remaining paragraphs of the Speech. 
 
 The autumn of 1874 was a season of quiet. The fierce contentions of 
 the past two years had faded into silence, and men of every type of political 
 thought were anxious rather for peace than for controversy. With the rest 
 Lord Beaconsfield retired to the country. There were rumours of a visit 
 to Ireland, but they came to nothing, and as a matter of fact his voice 
 was not heard in public until the 9th of November, on which day, following 
 the immemorial custom. Ministers shared in the hospitality of the Lord 
 Mayor at the Mansion House. The speech of the Prime Minister was 
 worthy of remark for more reasons than one. Mr. Disraeli began by 
 
THE WORKING CLASSES CONSERVATIVE. 505 
 
 recalling the great events of which England had been the scene since he 
 returned thanks on a similar occasion six years before, and referred with a 
 natural pride to the fact that the people of this country were contented 
 because their demands had been acceded to in no grudging spirit. Then 
 came a passage which created not a little excitement both at home and 
 abroad. " I have been alarmed," said Mr. Disraeli, " by learning, from 
 what I suppose is the highest Liberal authority, that a Conservative 
 Government cannot endure because it has been returned by Conservative 
 working men, and that a Conservative working man is an anomaly. We 
 have been told that a working man cannot be Conservative for he h as 
 nothing to conserve — he has neither laud nor capital — as if there were not 
 other things in the world as precious as land or capital ! . . . I may be 
 allowed to observe that there are things even more precious than land and 
 capital, without which even land and capital would themselves be of little 
 worth. What, for instance, is land without liberty ? and what is capital 
 without justice? The working classes of this country have inherited 
 personal rights which the nobility of other nations do not yet possess. 
 Their persons and their homes are sacred. They have no fear of arbitrary 
 arrests or domiciliary visits. They know, as the Lord Chancellor has 
 justly reminded us, that the administration of the law in this country is 
 pure, and that it is no respecter of individuals or classes. They know 
 very well that their industry is unfettered — that by the law of the country 
 they may combine to protect the interests of labour, and, as the Commander- 
 in-Chief has well reminded us, they know that though it is open to all of 
 them to serve their Sovereign by land or sea, no one can be dragged from 
 his craft or his hearth to enter a military service which is repugnant to 
 him. Surely these are privileges which are worthy of being preserved ! 
 Can we therefore be surprised that a nation which possesses such riglits 
 should wish to preserve them ? And if that be the case, is it wonderful 
 that the working classes are Conservative ? " 
 
 Singularly enough these words were seized upon by the opponents of the 
 Government as a proof of the hostility of Ministers to the German Empire. 
 It happened that only a few months before Count Harry Von Arnim had 
 been arrested by the German police over a singularly trumpery charge. 
 The Count had been the German Ambassador in Paris, and in that capacity 
 had received from Prince Bismarck a number of private letters in addition 
 to official despatches. When he retired from his post the latter were given 
 up, but the former were retained. As a sequel to a political quarrel, the 
 return of these letters was imperiously demanded. On refusal, a domiciliary 
 visit of the police was ordered, and the Count— one of the first men in the 
 German Empire it should be remembered— was dragged off to prison, whore 
 he was treated with a severity which is not always the lot of a convicted 
 misdemeanant in England. Such a state of things naturally excited no 
 small attention, and when Mr. Disraeli spoke of the i^ersonal rights of the 
 Englishman, and of his freedom from domiciliary visits, it was not, perhaps, 
 
506 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 altogether unnatural that he should be believed to have made special re- 
 ference to the case of Count Von Amim. Under the circumstances it was 
 thought desirable to put forth a disclaimer, and accordingly the Times 
 of the 16th of November published the following paragraph : — 
 
 " An entirely unwarranted construction having been in one quarter placed on 
 the expressions used by the Prime Minister at Guildhall on the subject of 
 arbitrary arrests, we are authorized to state that in making these observations the 
 case of Count Amim was not present to his mind, for the sufficient reason that 
 the arrest of Count Amim was not arbitrary but in accordance with the laws of 
 his country." 
 
 The validity of this explanation needs no elaborate defence. Lord 
 Beaconsfield's argument at Guildhall went simply to show that the British 
 working man was more than justified in his Conservatism, for the simple 
 reason that the law of England preserves his liberties, while the laws of 
 other countries expose him to certain infractions of individual liberty, 
 examples of which he duly specified. 
 
 The winter passed quietly on, and with the new year (1875) Mr. Glad- 
 stone formally retired from the leadership of the Liberal party. On the 
 12th of January he addressed a letter to Lord Granville announcing the 
 fact, and proclaiming his determination to spend the closing years of his 
 life " on a special matter which occupied him closely." A few days later 
 his letter was taken into consideration by a meeting of the Liberal party 
 at the Reform Club, at which a communication from Mr. Forster was read 
 declining nomination to the vacant post on the ground that he could not 
 reckon on that general support without which he could not fulfil the office 
 of leader. The name of the Marquis of Hartington was submitted to the 
 meeting, and met with general acceptance. 
 
 The Session of 1875 began on the 5th of February, on which day the 
 Royal Speech was read by Commission. There was little in it that was 
 remarkable ; the calm which precedes a storm had settled down upon 
 foreign politics, while the exhaustion consequent upon a long period of 
 sensational legislation was visible in domestic alfairs. The only point 
 calling for special remark was the notice taken of the fact that the trade of 
 the country showed signs of decreasing after four years of inflation under 
 the Liberal Government. In the House of Commons the speech was well 
 received. Mr. Stanhope and Mr. Whitelaw respectively moved and 
 seconded the Address, and Lord Hartington, as leader of the Opposition, 
 made a straightforward and candid speech. Exercising the right of criti- 
 cism which belongs to his position, he remarked that the Government 
 would have done better to take the sense of the House before formally 
 recognising the accession of King Alfonso to the throne .of Spain. As 
 regarded the annexation of Fiji he was not disposed to complain, but 
 expressed a hope that the circumstance did not point to indefinite terri- 
 torial aggrandisement. He expressed his surprise at the omission of all 
 reference to economy in the preparation of the estimates ; and in his pero- 
 
IRISH WRONGHEADEDNESS. 507 
 
 ration characterised the proposals of the Government as on the whole wise, 
 salutary and beneficent. Mr. Disraeli's reply began with a courteous com- 
 pliment to the leader of the Opposition ; and after dealing with his varied 
 criticisms, wound up with a protest against the exaggerated notions abroad 
 as to the intentions of the Conservative party. Lord Hartington had 
 quoted sundry very absurd sayings from different quarters, from which it 
 might be imagined that they proposed nothing less than to revolutionise 
 the Government of the country. Mr. Disraeli's reply was in these terms : 
 — " I will not attempt to vie with the noble Lord in the masterly picture 
 which he drew of the contrast between the measuies brought forward by 
 the Conservative Government and the speeches made, I know not where, 
 and the articles written which I never read, by what he calls the Conserva- 
 tive party. There is a most ingenious but, at the same time, most 
 inconvenient course. ... of seeking out the most violent speeches made 
 by the most uniniiuential persons in the most obscure places, and the most 
 absurd articles appearing in the dullest and most iminfluential newspapers, 
 and saying * These are the opinions of the great Conservative party.' The 
 great Conservative party has been legitimately and, I believe, very fairly 
 represented on the bench opposite, when we were enjoying that freedom 
 which is the noble appanage now of those whom I see before me. The 
 opinions of the Conservative ministry are now expressed from this bench ; 
 and we who are responsible for them will not shrink from that responsi- 
 bility." The old feud between Lord Beaconsfield and his misrepresenta- 
 tives in the press here breaks out once more ; and looking to the way in 
 which he has been treated with very little intermission for about half a 
 century, it is impossible to be surprised at the slight acerbity of his tone. 
 A curious sequel to the speech was afforded some ten days after it was 
 delivered, in the shape of a Treasury Minute from the First Lord of the 
 Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, calling attention to the 
 connection of various gentlemen in public offices with the newspaper press. 
 The rule that the communication of official intelligence to the public 
 journals would be followed by the instant dismissal of the offender was 
 insisted upon, and a sharp intimation of the intention of the Government 
 to enforce it was also added. 
 
 Very early in the Session the Government was placed in a position of 
 great and unnecessary difficulty by a piece of Irish wrongheadedness. 
 Some time before, John Mitchel, to whose connection with Irish disaffection 
 reference has been made in an earlier page of the present volume, returned 
 to his native country. He had been sentenced to transportation for four- 
 teen years; had escaped from the penal colony to which ho had been 
 committed, and had spent several years in the United States. Altogether 
 twenty-six years had passed away between the time of his leaving his 
 native country and his return to it. Under such circumstances the 
 Government of the day not unnaturally thought it undesirable to take any 
 active steps. They knew, of course, all about Mitchel's return, but thcr 
 
508 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 was no very valid reason why anything should be done with a man who 
 might in mercy be thought to have expiated his youthful errors by a long 
 exile. Mitchel, however, persisted in thrusting himself forward, and certain 
 fixtremely injudicious friends of his having put him in evidence as a can- 
 didate for the representation of Tipperary, he was duly returned by the 
 electors of that enlightened constituency. Left to themselves the Govern- 
 ment would naturally have done nothing, but this course was now im- 
 possible. Accordingly Mr. Disraeli gave notice of a motion to the effect 
 that John Mitchel, being a convicted felon, who had not served his full 
 period of transportation or received a pardon under the Great Seal, was 
 incapable of sitting in Parliament. The debate came on upon the night of 
 the 18th of February. There was little in it that was remarkable, except 
 that certain members, amongst whom Mr. Forster was unfortunately one, 
 professed ignorance of what constituted a " convicted felon." Mr. Disraeli's 
 answer was crushing. " When I look," said he, *' to the language of the 
 resolution I read, ' that John Mitchel returned as a member for the county 
 of Tipperary, having been adjudged guilty of felony,' &c. What more 
 could the Right. Hon. gentleman expect? He appears not to know what a 
 felon is. I contend that it is no part of my duty to teach the Right Hon. 
 gentleman what a felon is ; but it is a part of my duty, if a felon is returned 
 to Parliament, comes to this table, and claims to be a representative of the 
 people, so long as I am sitting in this place, to call upon the House of 
 Commons to avenge its outraged privileges and to say that ' until either by 
 the favour of the Crown, or by your own dutiful conduct, you shall have 
 cleared yourself from this flaw you shall not take your seat in the House 
 of Commons.' " It is only necessary to add that this indecent attempt of 
 the Irish members to sacrifice the dignity of Parliament met with prompt 
 rebuke, and that the refusal to receive Mitchel as Member for Tipperary 
 was carried by a majority of 167 in a House of 371. There was some dis- 
 cussion at to what should be done with Mitchel, but his death of the 20tli 
 of the following month put an end to the difficulty. 
 
 Curiously enough on the same evening the notorious Dr. Kenealy pre- 
 sented himself at the bar of the House to be sworn in as member for Stoke, 
 and being unable to find two members bold enough to introduce him in 
 accordance with the ancient order and custom of the House, he was 
 indebted to Lord Beaconsfield for a resolution by which on that occasion 
 the custom of the House was dispensed with. 
 
 Amongst the measures of this Session a prominent place must be given 
 to the Regimental Exchanges Act. Mr. Gladstone's high-handed exercise 
 of the Royal Prerogative had inflicted a vast amount of injury upon ofticers 
 who had acquired their commissions by purchase, and had deprived officers 
 of the poorer class, who had been raised from the ranks, of the chance of 
 earning money by exchanging with wealthier men, who did not care for 
 foreign service in time of peace, and were willing to pay for exemption 
 from it. The proposal to sanction the renewal of the practice was stoutly 
 
PUBLISHING PROCEEDINGS. 509 
 
 combatted by the tbeorists who had supported the reorganisation of the 
 army under Lord Cardwell, and who vehemently affirmed that it would 
 speedily prove to be the " thin end of the Avedge" for the introduction of 
 the Purchase system. The Premier took a somewhat unusual interest iu 
 the matter, and spoke more than once upon it, his principal speech being 
 in the debate on going into Committee on the Bill. He then pointed out 
 that the question was not one of purchase at all, but of whether the House 
 would sanction the system of exchanges as part of the military machinery. 
 *' That was the whole question ; and believing it to be so, he was not 
 frightened by the bursts of artificial eloquence to which he had had to 
 listen." The measure passed as a matter of course, and that it has worked 
 well is evident from the fact that no complaints of its operation have, at 
 any time, made themselves heard. 
 
 Throughout this Session the business of the House of Commons was 
 continually interrupted by discussions upon personal questions, matters of 
 privilege, and impracticable petitions. Dr. Kenealy, the member for the 
 Tichborne claimant, lost no time in placing a notice of motion with 
 reference to that notorious personage, and kept it there a considerable time, 
 much to the annoyance of everyone concerned. Later on. Colonel Makins 
 inadvertently presented a petition on the same subject, couched in ex- 
 tremely offensive language, and necessitating a long discussion. On another 
 occasion, Dr. Kenealy raised a debate upon a question of privilege, arising 
 out of some rather stringent remarks made by Mr. Evelyn Ashley at a 
 meeting of his constituents. The Irish members, as usual, availed them- 
 selves of the forms of the House for the purpose of obstructing public 
 business, and of displaying their unconquerable aversion to the rule of the 
 Saxon. The greatest occasion was, however, when Mr. Lewis complained 
 of the publication in certain journals of the evidence and documents laid 
 before a Commission then sitting upon Foreign Loans. The House then 
 decided, as it was in a manner compelled to do, that such publication 
 was a breach of the privileges of the House ; but when it was further 
 proposed to require the printers to appear at the bar, Mr. Disraeli remarked 
 that the question was one which must be approached in a very different 
 spirit from the former, and in a quiet and impressive speech argued that it 
 would be impossible to proceed vindictively, because the printing of pro- 
 ceedings, though technically a breach of j)rivilege, was for the public 
 advantage. In this case it unfortunately happened that a libel on certain 
 members had been laid before the Committee in question, and by tlie 
 publication of the evidence that libel had been widely disseminated. It 
 was, of course, eminently undesirable that such libels should be published, 
 but at the same time it must not be forgotten that it would be more easy 
 to get at the facts relating to them by inquiring of members of the Com- 
 mittee, than by summoning to the bar the innocent printers and publishers 
 of these journals. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, invited the Chairman of the 
 Foreign Loans Committee or any of its members who might be present, to 
 
510 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 impart his information to the House. The invitation failed to elicit the 
 necessary explanation, and Mr. Disraeli voted, therefore, for the original 
 motion calling for the appearance of the printers. The incident came to 
 an end on the following Friday night, when, the printers of the obnoxious 
 papers being in attendance, Mr. Lewis moved that they should be called 
 in. Mr, Disraeli replied with an amendment that the Foreign Loans 
 Committee should be instructed to report to the House whether a certain 
 letter was produced and read before the Committee, and whether, and 
 under what circumstances, that letter was communicated to the press. The 
 Opposition in vain attempted to show that the action of the Government 
 was designedly hostile to the Committee, Mr. Hardy, speaking for the 
 Government, pointing out that if Mr. Lowe had explained matters on the 
 former occasion, there would have been no necessity for calling upon the 
 printers. In the end the Leader of the House carried his point, and the 
 printers were discharged from further attendance. 
 
 It is not necessary to go into the details of the various cases of useless 
 and irritating debates to which reference has already been made : it will 
 probably be sufficient to say that throughout the Session the Leader of the 
 House displayed the same tact in dealing with the obstructive strategy of 
 the Opposition, and that the result was that before the prorogation arrived 
 the Government was able to congratulate the country upon a goodly amount 
 of accomplished legislation. The first opportunity was afforded at the 
 usual dinner at the Mansion House on the 4th of August, when Mr. Disraeli 
 spoke at some length in vindication of the Ministerial policy. Having 
 pointed out that the peculiar circumstances of the preceding Session had 
 precluded the Government from fairly announcing their policy, and de- 
 scribed the Session then on the eve of closing as the crucial test of the 
 capacity of the party in power, the Prime Minister went on to point out 
 some of the difficulties under which Ministers had laboured. " The late 
 Administration," said he, " had one advantage over the present which 
 cannot be denied. They had to encounter a homogeneous Opposition. 
 They brought forward their measures and discussed them with the ability 
 which men of commanding talents possessed ; we offered no comments, and 
 the House and the country gave the verdict upon the issue. But in bring- 
 ing forward our measures we do not meet a homogeneous Opposition. 
 We have to meet three Oppositions. We have to meet first our prede- 
 cessors in office, who would fain also be our successors. We have to meet 
 those who with great ability develope and advocate what may be called 
 still the Whig policy of the hour ; and when we have combatted — I will 
 not say conquered — them in argument, a new class of argument on the same 
 question is brought forward by the powerful Kadical party in the House of 
 Commons, and we have again to encounter this second Opposition. But 
 even when that task is fulfilled the Irish party rise, and they view the 
 question of the hour according to their aspect and according to their views 
 and wishes ; and this third Opposition must be encountered by the Govern- 
 
"COVERING THE RETREAT." 511 
 
 ment." Mr. Disraeli would not say that this state of things was altogether 
 useless or undesirable ; but he pointed out that it was exceedingly costly in 
 the item of time, and as such needed to be considered in judging the work 
 of the Government for the Session. In spite of all he could congratulate 
 the country on a fair tale of legislative work. By the Labour Law Bills 
 employer and employed for the first time sit under absolutely equal laws. 
 By the Judicature Bill the entire Judicial system had been reconstructed 
 and reformed. The Agricultural Holdings Bill — one of the most important 
 measures ever passed in our time — had conferred immense and unquestion- 
 able benefits upon the Agricultural classes. The Merchant Shipping Bill 
 had indeed been withdrawn, but it was simply held over, because of the 
 superior importance of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. 
 
 In the House of Commons a night or two afterwards Lord Hartington 
 assailed the Government in a vigorous commentary on this speech, attack- 
 ing generally the conduct of business in the House during the Session. 
 Mr. Disraeli's reply was forcible and pointed. Lord Hartington's address 
 he compared with some elaborateness to the military manoeuvre known as 
 "covering the retreat." As for Lord Hartington's own conduct, the 
 Leader of the House confessed himself unable to criticise it, for the simple 
 reason that he had done nothing. The catalogue of the doings of the 
 Opposition was, in fact, barren and ignominious. It had attempted 
 nothing ; it had given no counsel ; it had developed no policy ; and, if it 
 had not been for the special qualities of its Leader, that important element 
 in the constitution of the House could scarcely be said to have been repre- 
 sented at all. Keplying in detail to Lord Hartington's criticisms, ho con- 
 tended that, although a certain amendment to the Labour Laws Bill was 
 unquestionably an able one, it had nothing to do with the principle of 
 the Bill. The Artisans'Dwellings Bill was a most valuable and imi^ortant 
 one, under which he believed that, before the year was out, many millions 
 of money would be invested. With regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill 
 and the Unseaworthy Ships Bill, he showed by a comparison of dates that 
 the Ministry had actually considered the question of introducing another 
 Bill before the original Bill was withdrawn. After touching upon all the 
 Bills which Lord Hartington had assailed, and defending the permissive 
 principle upon which they were founded, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to consider 
 Lord Hartington's defence of the Opposition against the charge of faction, 
 pointing out in effect that he had made no such charge, although, had he 
 been disposed to do so, he would have found a certain amount of justifica- 
 tion in the fact that the front Opposition bench had spent five nights in 
 debating one clause of the Kegimental Exchanges Bill. Lord Hartington 
 had complained that Supply was backward. That fact was to be explained 
 by the Government not having asked for those restrictions upon private 
 members by which the late Administration had profited. With regard to 
 the management of the business of the House, ho asked whether the noble 
 Lord wished to fasten upon the Government the responsibility for the 
 
512 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 vagaries of Messrs. Kenealy and Sullivan, while, as to the results of the 
 Session, he asked whether the noble Marquis had proved that the Govern- 
 ment had done nothing or that he himself had done anything. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued on the 13th of August, the speech from the 
 throne being somewhat longer than usual. Her Majesty congratulated 
 " my Lords and Gentlemen " on the cordial relations which had been main- 
 tained with all foreign powers, and upon the conclusion of a treaty with 
 the Sultan of Zanzibar for the suppression of the slave trade. The murder 
 of Mr. Margary in Burmah was referred to in feeling terms, and mention 
 was made of the progress of Lord Carnarvon's scheme of colonial confedera- 
 tion in South Africa. The list of accomplished measures upon which 
 Parliament was congratulated afforded a complete answer to the standard 
 sneer of the Liberal party at the impossibility of expecting domestic legis- 
 lation from a Conservative Administration. Those measures comprised the 
 Artisans' Dwellings Act ; Acts for the consolidation and amendment of 
 the Sanitary Laws ; of the laws relating to Friendly Societies ; to master 
 and servant and the amendment of the law of conspiracy in Trades 
 Unions ; for facilitating the Transfer of Land ; for the amendment of the 
 law of entail and of the Judicature Act. The Agricultural Holdings Act 
 was also mentioned, and the great scheme for creating a Sinking Fund 
 and reducing the National Debt was referred to in terms of satisfaction. 
 Amongst the remaining measures of the Session were one for the regula- 
 tion of loans for public works, one for the registration of trade-marks, and 
 one constituting the Bishopric of St. Albans. It was generally felt that 
 a Government which had succeeded in passing in one Session a dozen 
 important acts of constructive domestic legislature was free from the 
 reproach of neglecting domestic affairs in the interests of a sensational 
 foreign policy. 
 
 The 9th of November saw Ministers again at the Mansion House, the 
 Prime Minister, as usual, making a speech which attracted a good deal of 
 public attention. The state of the country he described as " not unsatis- 
 factory," which was, perhaps, as much as could be said, seeing that the 
 inevitable reaction after the years of inflation had, by the close of 1875, 
 begun to make itself unpleasantly felt. Speaking of English relations 
 with China, he expressed his satisfaction at the continuance of peace, 
 because the more the people were enriched by commerce with Europe the 
 less likely they were to wish for war. Affairs nearer home were less 
 promising, the state of Turkey being anything but satisfactory, and the 
 prospects of the not distant future dreary in the extreme. *' It would be 
 affectation to deny," said he, "that a partial revolt in a province of 
 European Turkey has brought about a state of affairs which, in that part 
 of the Avorld, very often becomes critical. In the present instance the 
 wise forbearance of the Great Powers immediately interested in the ques- 
 tion — a wise forbearance to which I beg to offer my sincere testimony, and 
 which cannot be too highly appreciated — produced an effect so happy that 
 
THE PRINCE OF WALES'S VISIT TO INDIA. 513 
 
 at one moment, some months ago, we bad a right to believe that this 
 serious disturbance would immediately cease. An unfortunate event 
 which I will not dwell upon — the financial catastrophe of one of our allies 
 — revived the expiring struggle, gave a new aspect to all the circumstances, 
 and created hopes and fears in quarters and in circles which before that did 
 not exist." In language which, read by the light of later events, has a 
 much deeper meaning than was understood at the time, the Premier went 
 on to express his hope that peace might yet be maintained, and that in a 
 manner satisfactory to the public opinion of Europe. " My Lord Mayor," 
 he added, " I will not contemplate any other result, and therefore I will 
 only say that the interests which the Imperial powers have in this ques- 
 tion no doubt are more direct than those of Great Britain, but though 
 more direct they are not more considerable, and those to whom the conduct 
 of your affairs is now entrusted are deeply conscious of the nature and 
 magnitude of those British interests, and those British interests they are 
 resolved to guard and to maintain." 
 
 The Prince of Wales's tour in India, which was then on the point of 
 commencing, he refused to regard as a " mere journey for pastime or 
 pleasure," and then turning to Colonial affairs, he expressed his complete 
 satisfaction with their existing condition, reminding his hearers that the 
 great and growing loyalty of the Canadas was due in no small degree to 
 the success of that great scheme of Confederation, which had been the 
 work of the Conservative Government seven years before. For the rest he 
 referred with satisfaction to the sanitary and social legislation of the past 
 Session, concerning which — it having been said that they had been told 
 on some occasions that their policy was not sufficiently startling or melo- 
 dramatic — " I cannot," said Mr. Disraeli, " say that I concur in that 
 opinion. I believe that a policy that diminishes the death-rate of a great 
 nation is a feat as considerable as any of those decisive battles of the world 
 that generally decide nothing." 
 
 It had long been evident to those who had followed the course of the 
 Prime Minister with attention that the consolidation of our Indian Empire 
 was one of the objects which would receive his earliest attention. The 
 speech upon the Indian Mutiny, to which reference was made in a previous 
 page, was not altogether forgotten, and there were some who recognised in 
 the journey of the Prince of Wales a partial fulfilment of the policy of 
 generosity and friendship foreshadowed in it. A glimpse of the same 
 policy may also be detected in the speech with which the Premier had pre- 
 luded his appeal to the House for the necessary funds to enable the heir to 
 the throne to make his appearance amongst his future subjects with befit- 
 ting splendour. Another point in connection with the Indian policy of the 
 Government was taken before the end of the year. On the 25th of 
 November a telegram was received by the Bank of Egypt from their 
 agents in Alexandria stating that " the Egyptian Government had sold 
 to the English Government Suez Canal Shares for £4,000,000 sterling. 
 
 2 L 
 
5U THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Minister is authorised to draw this amount on Rothschild at sight." The 
 transaction simply amounted to this— That the Khedive having offered to 
 sell to her Majesty's Government the shares which he held in the Suez 
 Canal the Government had accepted the offer subject to the approval of 
 Parliament. The arrangement met with general applause, since it secured 
 to England the practical control of the Canal and of everything connected 
 with it. The stock of the undertaking was divided into 400,000 shares, of 
 which Ismail Pasha owned 177,000. By the payment of this four millions 
 the whole of these shares became English property. The boldness of the 
 step took the country somewhat by surprise, but, the first shock over, its 
 wisdom and prudence were universally recognised. Nor was the ix)pular 
 approbation diminished when Sir Stafford Northcote explained the financial 
 operation by which the purchase entailed absolutely no charge upon the 
 tax-payer. 
 
 Parliament reopened for the Session of 1876 on the 8th of February. 
 The Speech from the Throne, which was delivered by the Queen in person, 
 was unusually long, and was remarkable for the small amount of domestic 
 legislation which was proposed. Foreign afi'airs had, during the recess, 
 assumed so threatening a character, that it had become obvious to Ministers 
 that much time must necessarily be occupied in their discussion. The first 
 place was of course given to the Eastern Question which, during the 
 ecess, had been complicated by the impossibility of repressing the Bosnian 
 and Herzegovinian insurrections by the troops at the disposal of the 
 Sultan. The policy of the British Government had been, according to the 
 Queen's Speech, to join with allied and friendly Governments in bringing 
 about a restoration of peace, and, while recognising the independence of the 
 Porte, in urging the necessity for administrative and social reforms. The 
 purchase of the Suez Canal Shares was mentioned, and general references 
 were made to the tour of the Prince of Wales in India, to the murder 
 of Mr. Margary, to the Royal Commission on the subject of the Slave 
 Trade, and to the Colonies. 
 
 In replying in the debate upon the Address, Mr. Disraeli naturally gave 
 the greatest prominence to the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. He 
 pointed out that this was not the first time that the Government had been 
 called upon to consider the position of England with regard to that under- 
 taking. Only a short time before the proprietary had refused to submit to 
 the decision of the International Commission on the question of tolls, and 
 it had been found necessary by the English Government to put pressure 
 upon the Khedive and also upon his Suzerain, the Sultan, in order to 
 prevent the stoppage of the navigation of that highway to our Indian 
 Empire. Then the English Government heard by a telegram from Cairo 
 that the Khedive was anxious to raise a large sum of money upon his 
 shares, and offered the refusal of the transaction to England. The reply of 
 the Government had been that they were perfectly willing to help the 
 Khedive, but that they could do so only upon the^coudition of buying thq 
 
THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES. 515 
 
 shares outright. In answer to this suggestion came a declaration from the 
 Khedive of his^ntention to hypothecate the shares for as much as he could 
 raise upon tl^m, but that he was very anxious to keep them in his own 
 hands. / There the matter rested until information was received by the 
 Government that a French company — the Societe Generale — had offered 
 a loan to the Khedive of nearly four millions, but on very onerous condi- 
 tions. Communications were opened up afresh between the Khedive and 
 the English Government ; he asserting that he would rather sell his shares 
 outright than submit to the terms of the Societe Generale. There was but 
 little time for delay. Ministers knew on the 20th of November that a 
 French company were prepared to give four millions for the shares, and it 
 was so fully believed in France that the success of the scheme was assured 
 that the " French Minister — not the ambassador, who was absent — but a 
 gentleman we know and respect highly — M. Gavard — was absolutely 
 instructed to call upon Lord Derby — I do not say for the purpose of 
 pumping him — but to sound him whether England would tolerate the 
 purchase of these shares by the French society in question." Lord Derby 
 had spoken with great frankness ; had said that the point was a very grave 
 one, and had expressed a wish that the status quo might be maintained. 
 M. De Lesseps was entitled to all the/glory of the work, and we did not 
 want the shares, but we could not allow an undertaking like the Suez 
 Canal to be exclusively in French hands. On the 27th of November the 
 Marquis d'Harcoun jailed on Lord Derby on the same subject, but on this 
 occasion to ask why England had bought the shares and what was her 
 intention in so doing. The explanation was that the magnitude of the 
 transaction raised it from the rank of investment to that of high finance. 
 Mr. Disraeli declined to say what England might do in the event of war, 
 although he pointed out the value of the Canal in the chain of fortresses 
 between England and her Empire in the East. The purchase must be 
 looked at with reference to a time of peace only, but " we may form such 
 conclusions as we like as to what might bo its worth in a time of war. 
 And in times of peace no one can doubt the advantage of this purchase, 
 when you remember that when we had not a share we were menaced with 
 the shutting of the Canal. We know how there are a thousand ways, 
 without authorising the use of preponderating force, to assert our rights ; 
 there are a thousand ways of obstructing the navigation of the Canal, and 
 if the interest we have obtained is merely for the time of peace it is a most 
 important result." 
 
 The subject was revived on the following Monday night (15th Feb- 
 ruary), when the House went into Committee of Supply and the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer moved for the necessary vote to complete the purchase 
 of the shares. Lord Derby had, he explained, so arranged the matter that 
 the Khedive, on receiving the £4,000,000, bound himself to pay interest 
 on the purchase money at the rate of five per cent, per annum. That 
 interest, amounting to £200,000, would be carried to a separate account. 
 
 2 L 2 
 
516 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 The money for the purchase would be boiTowed from the Commissioners 
 for the reduction of the National Debt, and the difference between the 
 interest paid to them and the interest receivable from the Khedive would 
 go to form a sinking fund, which in thirty-five years' time would extin- 
 guish the debt. There was, of course, some discussion of the various 
 questions arising out of this transaction, and out of the condition of Egypt, 
 but the policy of the Government met with no real opposition, and on the 
 second night of the debate the resolution was agreed to without a division. 
 It is not a little interesting to recall the fact that one of the most interesting 
 incidents in Parliament before the Easter recess of the present year was 
 the confession extorted from the unwilling lips of Mr. Gladstone that the 
 transaction already showed a profit of considerably more than cent, per cent., 
 and that if it is carried out on the lines originally laid down, it will in the 
 end be equivalent to a londfide surplus of at least ten millions sterling. 
 
 The third feature of the Indian policy of the Government was fore- 
 shadowed in the speech from the throne. The paragraph referring to the 
 Prince of Wales's Indian tour was as follows : — " I am deeply thankful for 
 the uninterrupted health which my dear son, the Prince of Wales, has enjoyed 
 during his journey through India. The hearty affection with which he 
 has been received by my Indian subjects of all classes and races assures 
 me that they are happy under my rule and loyal to my throne. At 
 the time that the direct government of my Indian empire was transferred 
 to the crown no formal addition was made to the style and title of the 
 sovereign. I have deemed the present a fitting opportunity for supplying 
 the omission, and a Bill upon the subject will be presented to you." The 
 Bill in question was one giving formal authority for the assumption by the 
 Queen of a title, with regard to her Indian empire, of a higher degree than 
 that which is implied by the Persian or Hindustani equivalent for Queen. 
 The word usually employed means simply " inmate of a royal hareem," or 
 concubine, and for many years past Indian Governors-General had been in 
 the habit of altering it. So thoroughly understood had the custom 
 become that in the India Ofiice at home the Duke of Argyll himself had 
 a short time before altered the wording of a telegram to " Empress of 
 Hindostan." Lord Mayo, who was as punctilious on questions of form and 
 precedent as a high official ought to be, had found some difficulty in deal- 
 ing with these various titles, and it is generally understood that it was 
 partly in consequence of his representations that the Government deter- 
 mined upon the introduction of this proposal. 
 
 At the outset it was received with every mark of satisfaction. The 
 press warmly approved the proposal to declare the Queen of England 
 Empress of India ; but when on the 17th of February Mr. Disraeli moved 
 for leave to bring in the Bill embodying the proposed change, the aspect of 
 affairs was modified. His speech was very short, and was based first upon 
 the desirability of gratifying the people and the Princes of India, who had 
 expressed in various ways their desire that this step should be taken ; and 
 
THE TITLE OF " EMPRESS OF INDIA." 517 
 
 secondly upon the fact that formally endowing the Queen with a supreme 
 title would be an answer to those mere economists and foreign diplomatists 
 who announce that India is to us only a burden or a danger. The Oppo- 
 sition at once commenced a factious and querulous attack. As a general 
 rule, the first reading of a measure is a mere matter of form, but the Liberal 
 party, led by Mr. Lowe, broke through the established custom, and raised 
 an elaborate debate, the tone and temper of which may be guessed from the 
 fact that one of Mr. Lowe's arguments was to the effect that it was unwise 
 to load her Majesty's titles with an addition which she " would not be able 
 to retain." The opposition to the Bill was renewed on the second reading 
 on the 9th of March, but its utter factiousness was shown by the fact that 
 the " Noes " numbered only 31 in a House of 315. The effect on the 
 Indian people of this act of policy may be read, by those who are curious in 
 such matters, in a book by the wife of the celebrated explorer Captain Burton. 
 In one of the chapters of her " A. E. I." she describes in somewhat striking 
 terms the enthusiasm with which the proclamation of Empire had been 
 received, and its effect in stimulating the loyalty of the native Princes. All 
 this had been foreseen by Lord Beaconsfield, who in his speech on the 
 second reading said of this assumption of the Imperial dignity, " ILJ^ 
 desired in India ; it is anxiously expected. The Princes and nations of 
 India, unless ITT areilScHve^'-^^^^^ami we have omitted no means by which 
 we could obtain information and obtain opinions — look to it with the 
 utmost interest." These words were derided at the time. Mr. Gladstone 
 remarked that if they were true " the Princes and the people of India would 
 appear to have been much more in the confidence of the right hon. gentleman 
 than the British Parliament has been ;" and the press, which during the 
 whole life of the Parliament of 1874 was absurdly out of harmony with 
 public feeling, echoed the speculative opinion of the ex-Premier. Time 
 has, however, proved on which side wisdom had found her seat, and there 
 is certainly now no disposition to depreciate the value and the usefulness of 
 this latest addition to the style and titles of the sovereign of these realms. 
 The matter was not allowed to pass over without its ludicrous episode. 
 In the course of the Easter recess Mr. Lowe attended a dinner at Retford, 
 and it is hardly necessary to say that in his speech he attacked the 
 Government on every conceivable topic, and said a great many very 
 bitter things. Amongst others he ventured upon an assertion that the 
 question of the Queen's title was not brought forward for the first time, but 
 that at least two Ministers had entirely refused to have anything to do with 
 a change, though strongly urged to make one. *' More pliant persons have 
 now been found," he went on, " and I have no doubt the thing will be 
 done." Such a statement naturally attracted a good deal of attention, and 
 Mr. C. E. Lewis displayed a particular resolution in bringing the offender 
 to account. Mr. Lowe was at first unwilling to take any notice or give 
 any explanation of his indecent speech, but the Premier was, of course, 
 compelled by his position to take the matter up. In a speech of much 
 
618 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 sarcastic power he expressed his regret that the Ex-Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer should have thought fit to seize the occasion of a convivial 
 meeting to make comments on the conduct of the Sovereign. The state- 
 ments of Mr. Lowe he spoke of as " monstrous if they were true, but which 
 if they were not true must be described by an epithet which he could not 
 find in his vocabulary. Sir," Mr. Disraeli went on, " did the right hon. 
 gentleman, or did he not, not merely intimate, not insinuate, but I say 
 broadly state to the people of this country that the Royal Titles measure 
 was introduced to the notice of Parliament by the unconstitutional and 
 personal influence of the Sovereign ? Did he or did he not take that occasion 
 to hold up to public prejudice and I will say public infamy the Chief 
 Minister, asserting, under circumstances detailed by the right hon. gentleman 
 with minuteness, that after that Gracious Sovereign had been balked and 
 baffled in her appeals to previous Ministers, she had found a pliant and servile 
 instrument who was now ready to do her will ? *' Then, after stating that the 
 question of an alteration of the Royal Title had been under consideration at 
 the time when India was transferred from the Company to the Crown, and 
 that the matter had been postponed by himself, and after going through 
 the list of Ministers of recent times, to whom he could vouch for no such 
 idea having been suggested, he closed his speech with a statement on behalf 
 of her Majesty, " that there was not the slightest foundation for the state- 
 ment that proposals such as were described in the Retford speech were ever 
 made to any Minister at any time. Sir," he added, " the whole thing is 
 utterly unfounded — merely that sort of calumnious gossip which unfor- 
 tunately, I suppose, must always prevail, but which one certainly did not 
 suppose would come from the mouth of a Privy Councillor and one of her 
 Majesty's late Cabinet Ministers." 
 
 The irrepressible Eastern Question came to the front once more in the 
 spring of this year. Reference has been incidentally made at various 
 times in these pages to the growth of insurrection in the Northern provinces 
 of Turkey, an insurrection which was indubitably stimulated by Russian 
 agents. Early in April Parliament adjourned for the Easter holidays, and 
 during their continuance grave reports were brought to this country of 
 atrocities perpetrated by the insurgents and by the troops sent to repress 
 the rising. It was at first assumed that the cruelties were exclusively the 
 work of the Bosnian rebels, and there is but little doubt that they acted 
 with a certain amount of barbarity. After a while, however, the tables were 
 turned, and common report ascribed to the Bashi-Bazoucks, who had been 
 sent to quell the insurrection, the most atrocious cruelties. Later on came 
 the famous letters in the Daily News, in which, as might be expected, the 
 character of the Turkish troops was painted in the darkest colours. Some 
 confirmation of this correspondent's communications was afibrded by the 
 reports of Mr. Consul Baring, but no step was taken in either House of 
 Parhament until the 26th of June, when questions were asked in the 
 Lords by the Duke of Argyll, and in the Commons by Mr. Forster. The 
 
__THE3IiJ^(^ARIAN MASSACRES. 619 
 
 member for Bradford very quietly and temperately referred to the letters 
 in the Daily News, and especially to one which had appeared two or three 
 days before, in which a number of very serious outrages were stated to have 
 been perpetrated in Bulgaria. He added that from information in his own 
 possession he had reason to believe that the accounts in question were not 
 exaggerated. In his reply to this question the Prime Minister stated that 
 the Government had no information which justified the statements made 
 by Mr. Forster. "Some time ago when troubles first commenced in 
 Bulgaria they appear to have been begun by strangers entering the country 
 and burning the villages without reference to religion or race. The Turkish 
 Government at that time had no regular troops, and the inhabitants were, 
 of course, obliged to defend themselves. The persons who are called 
 Bashi-Bazoucks and Circassians are persons who had settled in the country 
 and who had a stake in it. I have not the slightest doubt myself that the 
 war, if you can call it a war, between the invaders and the Bashi-Bazoucks 
 and Circassians, was carried on with great ferocity. One can easily under- 
 stand, under the circumstances under which these outrages occurred and 
 with such populations, that that might happen. I am told that no quarter 
 was given and no doubt scenes took place which we must all entirely 
 deplore. But in the month of May the attention of Sir Henry Elliot was 
 called to this state of things from some information which reached him> 
 and he immediately communicated with the Porte, who at once ordered 
 some regular troops to Bulgaria, and steps to be taken by which the action 
 of the Bashi-Bazoucks and Circassians might be arrested. Very shortly 
 after the disturbances in Bulgaria seem to have ceased. That is all the 
 information I have to give the right hon. gentleman on the subject, and I 
 will merely repeat that the information which we have at various times 
 received does not justify the statements made in the journal he has 
 named." 
 
 It has been thought desirable to quote this speech at length for two 
 reasons. In the first place it emphasizes the fact, of which the hostile 
 critics of Lord Beaconsfield have, especially during the last six or seven 
 years, too often lost sight, Jhat it is by no means the duty of a Minister of 
 the Crown to spend one half of his time in reading the newspapers and the 
 other half in shaping his policy in accordance with their suggestions. 
 Ministers of State can act only upon ofiScial information, and are dependent 
 not upon the wild and often exaggerated stories of correspondents whose 
 very bread may depend upon their daily supply of sensational marvels, but 
 upon the sober and restrained reports of responsible subordinates whose 
 interest it is to tell the truth and the truth only. Under such conditions 
 their action may sometimes be less rapid than their more impetuous critics 
 may think desirable ; but on the other hand they are saved from those 
 errors into which a too great and too hasty credulity might lead them. In 
 the second place this speech proves plainly that the Eastern Qaestion was 
 from the first neglected neither at home nor abroad, but that from the 
 
520 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 earliest rumour of excessive severities the attention of our representatives 
 in the East was constantly directed to it. 
 
 Mr. Forster returned to the attack on the 10th of July. In his reply Mr. 
 Disraeli stated that the Government had received no reply to the inquiries 
 which had been addressed to Sir Henry Elliot, but that certain information had 
 been obtained with respect to the Bulgarian atrocities, which would speedily 
 be laid upon the table of the House. With respect to the terrible atrocities 
 spoken of by Mr. Forster, he expressed a hope that for the sake of human 
 nature itself it would be found that the stories told were unwarranted. 
 Sir Henry Elliot was one of the humanest of men, and might be trusted to 
 interfere energetically if he were aware of such events as those reported. The 
 consuls too, he pointed out, were in constant communication with her 
 Majesty's government, and they had as yet reported nothing of the kind. 
 That there had been atrocious proceedings in Bulgaria he had never doubted. 
 Wars of insurrection are always atrocious, and they are likely to be doubly 
 so when they are carried on not by regular troops but by a sort of posse 
 comitatus of an armed population. " I cannot doubt," he added, " that 
 atrocities have been committed in Bulgaria ; but that girls were sold into 
 slavery or that more than 10,000 persons have been imprisoned I doubt. I 
 doubt whether there is prison accommodation for so many, or that torture 
 has been practised on a great scale among an Oriental people, who seldom, 
 I believe, resort to torture, but generally terminate their connection with 
 culprits in a more expeditious manner. These are circumstances which 
 lead me to hope that in time we may be better informed." Upon these 
 words the assailants of Lord Beaconsfield have based a charge of levity in 
 dealing with the sufferings of the Eastern Christians. How far such a 
 charge is reserved may be left to the consciences of those who first made it. 
 A week later, in answer to Mr. Baxter, the Premier gave in a condensed 
 form the substance of the despatches received from Sir Henry Elliot and from 
 the Consuls in the disturbed districts on this nnhappy subject. He stated 
 that the war, which was a wholly irregular guerilla, had been commenced by 
 I the Christian insurgents, who had attacked the Circassian villages, and had in 
 I consequence been attacked in turn, not by the irregular troops of the Turkish 
 ' or any other government, but by the men who, on the conquest of their 
 country by Eussia twenty years ago, had taken refuge in Turkish territory. 
 Excesses had no doubt been committed on both sides, as might be exi^ected 
 where the belligerents differed so entirely in race and religion ; but from all 
 that Sir Henry Elliot had been able to learn, the stories were most grossly 
 exaggerated and in many instances were entirely fictitious. One striking 
 point remains to be noticed Sir Henry had stated that the instigators of 
 the insurrection — presumably the Eussian agents to whose machinations 
 1 the insurrection and the consequent war were unquestionably due — had 
 1 begun by committing atrocities on Mussulmans and burning Christian 
 \ villages in the hope of creating a religious war. That hope had been entirely 
 I disappointed, and the last despatch from Sir Henry Elliot in the hands of 
 
REPLY TO MR. FORSTER. / t-'521<:* ^ c^ 
 
 the Government spoke in strong terms of the loyalty displayec 
 Christian populations in volunteering for service against the Serviiisds 
 
 Before Parliament was prorogued the subject was again brought tei^re l/l = 
 the House. Mr. Evelyn Ashley, on the order for the third reading ot the >-« ;^ 
 Appropriation Bill, on the 11th of August, called attention to the del^yjn >-3 Nj-^ 
 obtaining information from Bulgaria, and followed up his opening remarks 
 by a vigorous general denunciation of the Government, in which he was 
 supported by the combined forces of Mr. Forster, Mr. Jenkins, and Sir 
 William Harcourt. Mr. Disraeli wound up the debate in a very striking 
 speech, commenting upon its unusual character, and upon the way in 
 which Mr. Ashley had insinuated his offensive opinion of the Government, 
 and of a distant Ambassador, instead of testing the feehng of the House 
 by a vote of censure.. He denied that the Government had no knowledge 
 of what was going on in Bulgaria until they were instructed by the news- 
 papers. What he had disclaimed in his reply to Mr. Forster was not the 
 existence of atrocities, but certain specific statements which were brought 
 forward, of which he said that the knowledge in the possession of the 
 Government did not justify them. It was stated by the newspapers upon 
 which Mr. Forster relied, that 32,000 Bulgarians were slain and 10,000 
 prisoned, that 1000 girls had been sold in the open market, that 40 girls 
 had been burned, and that *' cartloads of heads " had been carried about, , 
 &c. All these statements were fabrications. There had been no open sale ^ 
 of women, and no burning of women, and neither Mr. Forster nor his 
 journal ever produced the slightest evidence of any such atrocities. With _ 
 regard to newspaper evidence Mr. Disraeli commented somewhat sarcasti- 
 cally upoit the implicit faith which the opponents of the Government 
 placed in the statements of the Daily News, and on the scepticism which 
 awaited the Levant Herald whenever its information went to suppt)rt that 
 at the disposal of the Government. Sir William Harcourt, who had made 
 an acrid speech full of elaborate impromptus and unstudied rudenesses, 
 was sharply bantered upon his " Rhodian eloquence," and upon the profound 
 consideration which he had evidently given to Eastern affairs. Mr. Disraeli 
 then went on to disclaim for England the character of a special ally of 
 Turkey. " We are, it is true, the allies of the Sultan of Turkey ; so is 
 Eussia; so is Austria ; so is France, and so are others. We are also their 
 partners in a Tripartite Treaty, in which we, not only generally but singly, 
 guarantee with France and Austria the territorial integrity of Turkey. If 
 these engagements, renovated and repeated only four years ago by the 
 wisdom of Europe, are to be treated as idle wind and cliaff, and if we are 
 to be told that our poUtical duty is by force to expel the Turks to the other 
 side of the Bosphorus, then politics cease to be an art, statesmanship 
 becomes a mere mockery, and instead of being a House of Commons 
 faithful to its traditions, and which is influenced, I have ever thought, by 
 sound principles and policy, whoever may be its leaders, we had better at 
 
522 THE PUBLIC LIFE 6h' THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 once resolve ourselves into one of those revolutionary clubs which settle all 
 political and social questions with the same ease as the hon. and learned 
 member." Passing on to the rejection of the Berlin Note by which the 
 three Emperors proposed to settle the Eastern question without allowing 
 England a voice in the matter, and the acceptance of which would have 
 resulted in handing over Constantiiiople to Russia, with the combined 
 support of Germany and Austria, Mr. Disraeli spoke of the British Fleet 
 in Besika Bay. He denied that the Porte was ever misled by its presence 
 there, or that there was at any time an intention to prop up the abuses of 
 the decaying and obsolete Government of Turkey. The speech concluded 
 in the following terms : — " What may be the fate of the Eastern part of 
 Europe it would be arrogant for me to speculate upon, and if I had any 
 thoughts upon the subject I trust I should not be so imprudent or so 
 indiscreet as to take this opportunity to express them. But I am sure that 
 as long as England is ruled by English parties who understand the 
 principles upon which our Empire is founded, and who are resolved to 
 maintain that Empire, our influence in that part of the world can never be 
 looked upon with indifference. If it should happen that the Government 
 which controls the greater portion of those fair lands is found to be in- 
 competent for its purpose, neither England nor any of the great powers 
 will shrink from fulfilling the high political and moral duty which will then 
 devolve upon them. But, Sir, we must not jump at conclusions so quickly 
 as is now the fashion. There is nothing to justify us in talking in such a 
 vein of Turkey as has been, and is being at this moment entertained. The 
 present is a state of affairs which requires the most vigilant examination 
 and the most careful management. But those who suppose that England 
 ever would uphold, or at this moment particularly is upholding, Turkey 
 from blind superstition, and from a want of sympathy with the highest 
 aspirations of humanity, are deceived. "What our duty is at this critical 
 moment is to maintain the Empire of England. Nor will we ever agree to 
 any step, though it may obtain for a moment comparative quiet and a 
 false prosperity, that hazards the existence of that Empire." 
 
 These were the last words spoken by Mr. Disraeli in the House of 
 Commons. The next morning the newspapers announced that the first 
 Minister of the Crown, following an illustrious example, would pass to 
 the Upper House with the titles of Earl of Beaconsfield and Yiscount 
 Hughenden. The change was cordially welcomed by the English people, 
 who recognised, in the honour conferred by the Sovereign upon her Prime 
 Minister, not merely the reward of well-nigh half a century of faithful 
 service to the State, but a sign of that perfect and entire confidence in the 
 wisdom of the Minister on the part of Her Majesty, which is the best and 
 surest guarantee for a strong Government. 
 
 The letter in which Lord Beaconsfield resigned his seat in Parliament is 
 not less worthy of being remembered than his final speech in the House of 
 
Pinal address to his constituents. 52"^ 
 
 Commons. Writing to the electors of Buckinghamsliire on tlie 21st of 
 August, 1876, he said : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, — The Queen having been graciously pleased to summon 
 me to the House of Peers, I return to you the trust which for so many 
 years you have confided to me as your member in the House of Com- 
 mons, an assembly in which I have passed the greatest part of my life. 
 It has been a period of trying occasions and memorable events, and if 
 I have been permitted to take some part in their management and con- 
 trol, next to the favour of our Sovereign I am deeply conscious I am 
 indebted for that opportunity to the fidelity of your feelings. Throughout 
 my public life I have aimed at two chief results. Not insensible to the 
 principle of progress, I have endeavoured to reconcile change with that 
 respect for tradition which is one of the main elements of our social strength ; 
 and in external afiairs I have endeavoured to develop and strengthen our 
 empire, believing that a combination of achievement and responsibility 
 elevates the character and condition of a people. It is not without emotion 
 that I terminate a connection endeared to me by many memories and many 
 ties ; but I have the consolation of recollecting that, though I cease to be 
 your member, I shall still have the happiness of living among you, and 
 that though not directly your representative, I may yet, in another House 
 of Parliament, have the privilege of guarding over your interests and your 
 honour. 
 
 " Your deeply obliged and ever faithful servant, 
 
 " B. Disraeli." 
 
524 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE EAEL OP BEAC0N8FIELD. 
 
 A partial retirement — Speech from the tlirone — Mr. Gladstone on "Bulgarian 
 Horrors" — Accusations against the Government — Liberal sympathy with 
 Eastern Christians — Lord Beaconsfield's defence of his policy — Speech at Ayles- 
 bury — Why he accepted a peerage — The state of the country — Work of the 
 Government — A Policy of peace — Mr. Gladstone's " bag and baggage " policy — 
 A silent Minister — Russian pressure on the Porto — At the Lord Mayor's dinner 
 — Why the Berlin Note was rejected — The Andrassy note — A Policy of Peace 
 — Russia defiant — Lord Salisbury at the Conference — The Turkish Consti- 
 tution — Collapse of the Conference — The Session of 1876 — The Queen's Speech 
 — Debate on the Address — Speeches of the Duke of Argyll and Lord Granville 
 — Lord Beaconsfield's reply — Russian negotiations — Declaration of war- 
 Mr. Cross's explanation — JIx*. Pigott's case — A declaration of policy — Pro- 
 rogation — The Government misrepresented — At the Guildhall — England's 
 policy a patriotic one — Speeches of Sir Stafford Northcote and Lord Salisbury — 
 The patience of the Government — Surrender of Plevna — Mr. Layard's appoint- 
 ment — Opening of Parliament — Lord Beaconsfield's Speech — The Fleet ordered 
 to Besika Bay — Retirement of Lords Carnarvon and Derby — The vote of 
 £6,000,000— Treaty of San Stefiino— Calling out the Reserves— The Queen's 
 Message — Indian troops brought to Malta — The Congress decided on — The 
 Cyprus Convention — Lord Beaconsfield's statement — The Congress at Berlin — 
 Return of the Plenipotentiaries — Speech in the Lords — Banquet at Knights- 
 bridge — Lord Beaconsfield on the " sophistical rhetorician " — Freedom of the 
 City — Trouble in Afghanistan — Session of 1878 — An Amendment to the 
 Address — Division in the Lords — Zulu War — Sir Bartle Frere — Why not 
 recalled — At the Guildhall — Imperium et Libertas — Mr. Gladstone in Mid- 
 Lothian — Session of 1880 — A Meagre Programme — Home Rule — Letter to the 
 Duke of Marlborough— The elections of 1880— Out of office once more — 
 Rural retirement — Endymion — On the abandonment of Candahar — Failing 
 strength — Last weeks — Conclusion. 
 
 With the retirement of Lord Beaconsfield from the House of Commons to 
 the serener atmosphere of the Upper Chamber, his public life naturally be- 
 came somewhat circumscribed. Up to the close of 1876 he had lived in 
 the fullest blaze of publicity, but thenceforward he was, though as power- 
 ful in all respects, hidden to a great extent from public view. Until the 
 history of our times comes to be written by the help of those documents, of 
 which so great a mass is accumulating from day to day, it is, of course, 
 impossible for even the most zealous biographer to follow in detail the in- 
 fluence which he brought to bear upon public affairs. All that can be 
 done is to trace as accurately as may be the course of his public appear- 
 ances, remembering always that throughout his Administration the Prime 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S PAMPHLET. 525 
 
 Minister was, as Mr. Bernal Osborne said on a memorable occasion, " the 
 Government in himself." 
 
 When the House adjourned on the 15th of August, 1876, the Speech 
 from the Throne naturally gave an important place to the Eastern Ques- 
 tion. The first paragraph, after the usual assurances of friendship with 
 foreign Powers, ran as follows :—" The efforts which, in common with 
 other Powers, I have made to bring about a settlement of the differences 
 unfortunately existing between the Porte and its Christian subjects in Bosnia 
 and Herzegovina have hitherto been unsuccessful, and the conflict begun 
 in those provinces has extended to Servia and Montenegro. Should a 
 favourable opportunity present itself I shall be ready, in concert with my 
 allies, to offer my good offices for the purpose of mediation between the 
 contending parties, bearing in mind alike the duties imposed upon me 
 by treaty obligations, and those which arise from considerations of 
 humanity and policy." A paragraph such as this may be thought to be 
 open to no hostile criticism, and certainly to require no defence. The 
 claims of humanity are recognised; considerations of policy are not 
 neglected, and treaty obligations are placed, as they should be, in a promi- 
 nent position. Mr. Gladstone, however, saw in this declaration of the 
 attitude of the Government an opportunity for making an effective attack. 
 Early in the month of September therefore he brought out the first of that 
 series of pamphlets and magazine articles in which he expounded his 
 hostility to the Government and his Panslavonic leanings. " Bulgarian 
 Horrors and the Question of the East " was dedicated to Lord Stratford de 
 Eedcliffe, and may be summed up as consisting in a violent assault upon 
 the Tory Government in the shape of an attack upon the mal-administration 
 of the Ottoman Empire. Mr. Gladstone is compelled at the outset to 
 admit that the policy of England was " entangled by many cross purposes," 
 and that the people of England, recognising this fact, had reposed great 
 confidence in the Government. That confidence, he does not hesitate to 
 say, was abused, and as a result England was " involved in some amount, 
 at least, of moral complicity with the basest and blackest outrages upon 
 record within the present century, if not within the memory of man." The 
 Government was accused of ousting the House of Commons from its legiti- 
 mate share of influence in the matter, and then Mr. Gladstone went on to 
 describe certain excited Liberal meetings at which the subject had been 
 dealt with as having *' shown that the great heart of Britain had not ceased 
 to beat." What followed is perhaps a little surprising. The nation, 
 having demonstrated this interesting physiological fact, was bound, accord- 
 ing to the ex-Leader of the Liberals, " to teach its Government, almost 
 as a lisping child, what to say. Then;' went on Mr. Gladstone, in 
 emphatic italics, " then will be taken out of the way of an United Europe 
 the sole efficient obstacle to the punishment of a gigantic wrong." 
 
 The object of the pamphlet here is allowed to appear. " There have 
 been perpetrated," said Mr. Gladstone, " under the immediate authority of 
 a Government to which all the time vvc have been giving the strongest 
 
526 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 moral, and for the time even material support, crimes and outrages so 
 vast in scale as to exceed all modern example, and so unutterably vile, as 
 well as fierce, in character that it passes the power of heart to conceive, 
 and of tongue and pen adequately to describe them. There are the Bul- 
 garian horrors ; and the question is, * What can and should be done, either 
 to punish, or to brand, or to prevent ? ' " The Porte he holds to be mainly 
 responsible. But the English Ministry are hardly less to blame. " They 
 have been remiss when they ought to have been active ; namely, in efforts 
 to compose the Eastern revolts by making provision against the terrible 
 mis-government which provoked them. They have been active where they 
 ought to have been circumspect and guarded. It is a grave charge which 
 cannot be withheld, that they have given to a maritime measure of humane 
 ]irecaution the character of a military demonstration in support of the 
 Turkish Government." Then follows the definite indictment against the 
 Ministry. They did not, it would seem, at once swallow all the stories told 
 by the special correspondent of the Daily News and of Mr. Schuyler which 
 Mr. Gladstone, as " one who was among the authors of the Crimean War," 
 considers sufficiently to establish " the facts in gross." The gravest part 
 of the inquiry Mr. Gladstone considers to be as to the share of the 
 British Government in these horrors. First, he indicts the despatch 
 of the British Fleet to Besika Bay — not because such a step was unne- 
 cessary, but because it encouraged the Turk, " in the humour of resistance.* 
 The Government had been silent, and that in Mr. Gladstone's eyes was 
 even worse than for the Government to have spoken. Apparently he 
 wished the whole world to be taken into the confidence of the administra- 
 tion whose policy he naturally desired should be shaped by the views of 
 the Opposition. The presence of the British Fleet in Besika Bay must, 
 he said, be " distinctly declared to be in the interest of humanity alone.** . 
 " The hobgoblin of Kussia is out of repair and unavailable," but in what- 
 ever quarter responsibility may bs fixed, " do not," said Mr. Gladstone, 
 " do not let us ask for, do not let us accept Jonahs or scapegoats, either 
 English or Turkish. It is not a change of men that we want, but a change 
 of measures. ... If we are to talk of changing men, the first question 
 that will arise will be that of our Ministers at home, to whose policy and 
 bias both Ministers and subordinate officers abroad always feel a loyal 
 desire as far as may be to conform." Mr. Gladstone then went on to 
 express his confidence in Lord Derby's " clear impartial mind and unosten- 
 tatious character," and his conviction that the Foreign Secretary would 
 carry out the wishes of the Opposition, which were : — 
 
 " 1. To put a stop to the anarchical misrule (let the phrase be excused), 
 the plundering, the murdering, which, as we now seem to learn upon 
 sufficient evidence, still desolate Bulgaria. 
 
 " 2. To make effectual provision against the recurrence of the outrages 
 recently perpetrated under the sanction of the Ottoman Government, by 
 excluding its administrative action for the future not only from Bosnia 
 and the Herzegovina, but also and above all from Bulgaria ; upon which 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S EASTERN PROGRAMME. 527 
 
 at best there will remain for years and for generations the traces of its foul 
 and bloody hand. 
 
 " 3. To redeem by these measures the honour of the British name, which 
 in the deplorable events of the year has been more gravely compromised 
 than I have known it to be at any former period." 
 
 The summing-up of the whole matter may best be given in Mr. Glad- 
 stone's own words. " I entreat my countrymen," he says, " upon whom 
 far more than perhaps any other people of Europe it depends, to require 
 and to insist that our Government which has been working in one direction 
 shall work in the other, and shall apply all its vigour to concur with the 
 other States of Europe in obtaining the extinction of the Turkish Executive 
 power in Bulgaria. Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the 
 only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. If it be allow- 
 able that the Executive power of Turkey should renew at this great crisis, 
 by permission or authority of Europe, the charter of its existence in 
 Bulgaria, then there is not on record since the beginnings of political 
 society a protest that man has lodged against intolerable Government or 
 a stroke that he has dealt at loathsome tyranny that ought not hence- 
 forward to be branded as a crime. But we have not yet fallen to so low 
 a depth of degradation ; and it may cheerfully be hoped that before many 
 weeks have passed the wise and energetic counsels of the Powers again 
 united may have begun to afford relief to the overcharged emotion of a 
 shuddering world." 
 
 It is not necessary to enter at any length into an analysis of the motives 
 which very obviously underlie^this somewhat remarkable pamphlet. Its 
 meaning so far as Englishmen are concerned lies upon the surface, while 
 as regarded the Eastern races it was at once accepted as an indication that 
 the Liberal party — then regarded as a formidable foe to the Government 
 of the day — had definitely espoused the side of the soi-disant Christians of 
 the Turkish Empire, and were ready to aid and abet them in those insur- 
 rections against the Ottoman rule of which so many were in preparation 
 under Muscovite auspices. Ere long the tide of complimentary resolutions 
 and addresses from the Eastern Christians began to flow in upon Mr. 
 Gladstone, and under his inspiration the agitation against the Government 
 began to assume somewhat formidable proportions. Under the circum- 
 stances a special interest therefore attaches to the only defence which Lord 
 Beaconsfield could put forward at this time. The occasion was a dinner 
 at Aylesbury, offered to him by the agriculturists of the county which 
 he for so long a time represented, in which his popularity remained 
 undiminished from the commencement of his connection with it. In 
 replying to the toast of his health, he explained that his retirement had 
 been caused simply by physical warnings that he could not disregard, and 
 that he was not so young as he had been when he first solicited their 
 suffrages forty-three years before. He had wished, he explained, to retire 
 altogether from the luiblic service, but at the express solicitation of the 
 
-528 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 Queen he had accepted a peerage and had remained at the disposal of his 
 country. It had been expected that he would speak on political subjects; 
 that he proposed to do, but he intended to make a speech which should be 
 political without being a party address. " I can truly say," he went on, 
 " that I believe there never was a Government in this country which had 
 more difficult matters to deal with than the Government of the Queen at 
 this moment. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State, who on the part of 
 the Government is now conducting negotiations, has to fulfil two most 
 difficult tasks and to accomplish two most important ends. He has at the 
 same time to secure permanent British interests of the highest importance, 
 and he has to secure the maintenance of peace in Europe. Under ordinary 
 circumstances a British Minister so placed, whatever might be his diffi- 
 culties, would have the consolation of knowing that he was backed by the 
 country. It would be affectation for me to pretend that this is the position 
 of her Majesty's Government at this moment. Unquestionably there is a 
 large party, a large portion of her Majesty's subjects, whose thoughts and 
 sentiments are attracted and absorbed by other things than the maintenance 
 of the permanent interests of the country or the maintenance of peace. 
 These are matters which require and are receiving the most earnest and 
 constant attention of the Government. But unhappily a great portion of 
 the people of this country, prompted by feelings which have drawn their 
 attention to extraneous matters, have arrived at a conclusion which, in the 
 opinion of her Majesty's Government, if carried into effect would alike be 
 injurious to the permanent and important interests of England, and fatal to 
 any chance of preserving the peace of Europe." Lord Beaconsfield had, of 
 course, no distrust of his fellow-countrymen in the long run. They were 
 the most enthusiastic in the world, if not the most excitable, and a well- 
 informed and well-directed enthusiasm was the most valuable support a 
 Ministry could possess, but at that moment the danger was " that designing 
 politicians might take advantage of such sublime sentiments and might 
 apply them for the furtherance of their sinister ends. I do not think," he 
 went on, " that there is any language which can denounce too strongly 
 conduct of this description. He who at such a moment would avail him- 
 self of such a commanding sentiment in order to obtain his own individual 
 ends, suggesting a coui'se which he may know to be injurious to the interests 
 of the country and not favourable to the welfare of mankind, is a man 
 whose conduct no language can too strongly condemn. He outrages the 
 principle of patriotism, which is the soul of free communities. He does 
 more — he influences in the most injurious manner the common welfare of 
 humanity. Such conduct, if pursued by any man at this moment, ought 
 to be indignantly reprobated by the people of England, for in the general 
 havoc and ruin which it may bring about it may, I think, be fairly described 
 as worse than any of those Bulgarian atrocities which now occuj^y 
 attention." 
 
 Turning now from Mr. Gladstone and the atrocity agitation, to which he 
 
SPEECH ON THE SERVIAN WAR. 529 
 
 had lent his support, Lord Beaconsfield dwelt upon the actual work accom- 
 plished by the Government. /'After referring to the rejection of the Berlin" 
 Memorandum, and to the factihat the Government had been blamed for 
 not accompanying this rejection with a proposal of their own, he pointed 
 out how far this was from bting a true statement of the case. " Lord 
 Derby," said he, "who is described every day in the newspapers as a 
 Minister who does nothing and suggests nothing, lost no time in laying 
 down the principles upon which he thought the tranquillity of the East of 
 Europe might be secured. He laid down the principles upon which the 
 relations between the Porte and its Christian subjects might be established 
 These communications were occurring constantly, I may say, between her 
 Majesty's Government and the five other Powers." As a result of these 
 negotiations, in which he was careful to say that England had been met by 
 no Power so cordially as by Russia, he had seen reason to hope that 
 peace might have been secured by the spring — a peace which would have 
 been based upon principles that every wise and good man might have 
 espoused. But unhappily Servia — or rather the secret societies of Europe 
 —declared war upon Turkey, and with that war came an end to the nego- 
 tiations. Of that war he said that it was " outrageous and wicked," that 
 "there never was a war less justifiable," and that it outraged "not only 
 every principle of international law, not only every principle of public 
 morality but every principle of honour. Then when Servia was beaten down 
 and this iniquitous war had placed the country at the feet of Turkey, the 
 Servians came to England to mediate for them, and Lord Derby, "the 
 Minister who does nothing," not merely induced the other Powers to join 
 with him in mediation, but obtained an armistice. The next step was for 
 the English Government to recur to the position which it occupied before 
 the Servian war. That was to attempt to settle, with the concurrence of 
 the Powers, the future relations between the Poite and its Christian sub- 
 jects. " Why," asked Lord Beaconsfield, " why are we to be opposed, why 
 are we to be attacked because such is our object, such our aim ? The 
 country in some of its exhibitions has completely out-Heroded the most 
 extravagant conceptions. They tell us that nothing will satisfy them but 
 the expulsion of the Turks from Europe and the institution of Sclavonic 
 Governments — whether Imperial, Royal, or Republican I am at a loss to 
 know. Now her Majesty's Government," he went on, " and as I believe 
 the Government of every country, are perfectly aware that if such plans 
 are attempted to be carried into effect we shall be landed in a Euroi3eau 
 war of no slight duration. As far as I can form an opinion, there is a sin- 
 cere desire on the part of all the Great Powers at this moment at once and 
 without any unnecessary waste of time to come to general conclusions on 
 the subject, and the principles of the English settlements are, in my mind, 
 principles which are favoured by the other Powers. 
 
 Finally, with regard to Mr. Gladstone's modest proposal for the expul- 
 sion of the Turks from Turkey, Lord Beaconsfield said : " Sending a million 
 
 2 M 
 
530 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE ^ARL OF BEACONSFIELI). 
 
 Moors and Jews out of Spain a good many years ago so convulsed tHat 
 nation that it has never recovered itself, and Europe suffers even at this 
 moment from that act. I am quite convinced that Mr. Gladstone on 
 reflection never intended anything of the kind. If he had gone to the 
 House of Commons and had proposed to the House of Commons and the 
 Speaker to attend Greenwich Fair and go to the top of Greenwich Hill and 
 all roll down to the bottom, I declare he could not have proposed anything 
 more absurdly incongruous." 
 
 It was obviously impossible for the Prime Minister to be continually on 
 his defence throughout the autumn. During the exciting months which 
 followed the outbreak of hostilities in the East, Lord Beaconsfield was 
 therefore silent, though the Government of which he was the leading 
 spirit was sufficiently active. On the 21st of September a despatch was 
 addressed by Lord Derby to Sir Henry Elliott, the British Ambassador at 
 Constantinople, directing his attention to the report of Mr. Consul Baring 
 on the atrocities perpetrated by the irregular Turkish troops in Philip- 
 popolis, and requiring him to submit that report to the Sultan. He was 
 to use the strongest terms of reprehension at his command, and to demand 
 the punishment of the offenders, one of whom — Achmet Agha, whom Mr. 
 Baring described as having rivalled Nana Sahib himself in atrocity — had 
 received the order of the Medjidie. Sir Henry Elliott was also instructed 
 to propose as a basis for peace negotiations " administrative autonomy in 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina and guarantees against mal-administration in Bul- 
 garia. Sir Henry found, it is hardly necessary to say, enormous difficulties 
 in carrying out the instructions of the Government, and early in October 
 was compelled to threaten to leave Constantinople if the Porte persisted in 
 its refusal to grant an armistice. Before the middle of the month conces- 
 sions were made, the Porte offering to grant an armistice for six months, 
 and to promulgate a scheme of reform. Eussia, however, rejected this 
 proposal, and insisted on the acceptance of the English proposals. On the 
 30th General Ignatieff presented an ultimatum to the Porte, and made all 
 his preparations for leaving Constantinople. A Eussian despatch-boat 
 anchored off Tophanieh, and the Eussian mail steamer, which should have 
 sailed on that day, was countermanded until further orders. The ulti- 
 matum was presented in the evening with an intimation that unless it 
 was accepted within forty-eight hours a complete rupture of diplomatic 
 relations would follow. Just as General Ignatieff was on the point of 
 sailing, however, the armistice was accepted, and negotiations were 
 renewed. England was, of course, compelled to interpose diplomatically, 
 and two days afterwards Lord Loftus had an interview with the Czar at 
 Livadia, in the course of which the latter " pledged his sacred word of 
 honour in the most serious and solemn manner that he had no intention of 
 acquiring Constantinople, and that if necessity should compel him to 
 occupy a portion of Bulgaria, it would be only provisionally, and until the 
 peace and safety of the Christian population were secured." The Czar 
 
• SPEECH AT THE LORD MAYOR'S BANQUET. 531 
 
 furthertnore begged that the ambassador would do his utmost to dispel the 
 cloud of suspicion and mistrust of Kussia which had gathered in England. 
 Lord Loftus promised to do so, and his Government at home loyally sup- 
 ported him by publishing the despatch on the 21st of November. - -, 
 
 In the meanwhile the Lord Mayor's dinner of the 9th had allowed / 
 Lord Beaconsfield an opportunity of explaining the position and policy of / 
 the Government. As was but natural, the whole of his speech, except for / 
 the usual complimentary references to his host, was devoted to the Eastern / 
 Question. He explained that the two great objects which the Government I 
 had kept in view during the past twelve months of anxiety and agitation I 
 had been the maintenance of the general peace of Europe and the ameliora- j 
 tion of the condition of the inhabitants of the Christian provinces of 
 Turkey. Peace, the Government had thought, would be best secured by 
 insisting on the faithful performance of treaties. The Treaty of Paris had 
 recognised the integrity and independence of Turkey as one of the best 
 guarantees of European peace. The Cabinet had, therefore, placed the 
 Treaty of Paris in the forefront. They had assented to the Andrassy Note \ 
 though they were not very sanguine as to the possibility of its proving \ 
 effectual, but they had rejected the Berlin Memorandum because it called 
 Upon Turkey to perform tasks which it was utterly impossible for it, in its 
 then condition, to accomplish, and announced that in the event of her 
 failing to do these things the Powers must have recourse to " ulterior pro- 
 ceedings" — which the Government interpreted as implying a military 
 occupation of the Turkish provinces. "That," said Lord Beaconsfield, 
 " would have been a violation of the independence and territorial integrity 
 of Turkey, and therefore we felt it our duty to reject the proposition. 
 Subsequently, almost simultaneously, we were called upon by the Queen's 
 Ambassador at the Porte, in the state of anarchy which prevailed in Turkey, 
 to guarantee the Christian population of Constantinople from menaced 
 dangers, and we agreed that the Mediterranean squadron should repair to 
 Turkish waters. . . . The next occasion on which we had to come to a 
 decision which involved the maintenance of this principle of the integrity 
 and territorial independence of Turkey was when a proposition was made 
 that Austria should occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina — that Russia should 
 occupy the great region of Bulgaria, and at the same time that the united 
 fleets of Europe should proceed to Constantinople. To that proposal we could 
 not assent because it violated the most solemn treaties to which England 
 was a party and, a year having now elapsed, you will perceive that trying 
 as have been the emergencies and searching as have been the circum- 
 stances, so far as Great Britain is concerned, the independence and 
 territorial integrity of the Turkish Empire have been maintained, and the 
 general peace upheld." Passing then to the second object of the English ] 
 Government — the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects 
 of the Porte, Lord Beaconsfield explained that the Andrassy Note had been ; 
 accepted because, though ineffective for the moment, it remained a recoi-d '^ 
 
 2 M 2 
 
532 - THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 to which even Turkey had given her adhesion, of the measures that wfere 
 necessary for the great object contemplated. Having referred to the 
 successful mediation of the English Government between Turkey and her 
 rebellious province of Servia, and having stated the proposals for the 
 restoration of the status quo in Montenegro, and for the carrying out of the 
 principles of the Andrassy Note in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lord Beacons- 
 field went on to show that under the circumstances there was in the pre- 
 ceding September no valid reason why peace should not have been re- 
 established. " Every power acceded to these propositions, and, I am bound 
 to say, no power with more readiness and cordiality than Kussia. But 
 what happened ? An indignant burst of feeling in this country excited by 
 horrible events created such a sensation and excitement that the people of 
 Servia, and the friends of the peojile of Servia, really believed that the 
 people of England had suddenly determined to give up the traditional 
 policy of the country which the eminent statesmen of Europe only five 
 years ago— including the members of the late Government — thought so 
 lightly of; and Servia was induced to retract what she had expressed and 
 once more to engage in a sanguinary struggle which every friend of 
 humanity must lament." 
 
 This reference to the Conference called by Mr. Gladstone's Government 
 to cover the humiliation of the repudiation of the Treaty of 1856 by 
 Eussia, excited a certain amount of cheering and laughter, which having 
 subsided. Lord Beaconsfield went on to speak of the negotiations for an 
 armistice, and of the proposition to submit the matters in dispute to the 
 consideration of a Conference. The Marquis of Salisbury was, he an- 
 nounced, to be the representative of England at this Conference, and while 
 expressing the fullest confidence in the ability and integrity of the noble 
 Marquis, Lord Beaconsfield warned his hearers against supposing that the 
 difficulty could be settled by *' mere pen and ink work." What followed 
 was of the nature of a manifesto urbi et erbi. It excited immense atten- 
 tion at the time, and it has since been made the pretext for so many 
 attacks upon the Premier that it may be well to give it at length. " I am 
 hopeful in the present temper of Europe that we shall be able to accom-' 
 plish the objects we have in view without those terrible appeals to war of 
 which I think we have heard too frequently and too much. There is no 
 country so interested in the maintenance of peace as England. Peace is 
 especially an English policy. She is not an aggressive Power, for there is 
 nothing which she desires. She covets no cities and no provinces. What 
 she wishes is to maintain and to enjoy the unexampled Empire which she 
 has built up, and which it is her pride to remember exists as much upon 
 sympathy as upon force. But although the policy of England is peace, 
 there is no country so well prepared for war as our own. If she enters into 
 conflict in a righteous cause — and I will not believe that England will go 
 to war except for a righteous cause — if the contest is one which concerns 
 ^er liberty, her independence, or her Empire, her resources, I feel, are in- 
 
LORD SALISBURY A^SaHgTMTIN OPLE]^ 533 
 
 exhaustible. She is not a country that, when she enters into a campaign, 
 has to ask herself whether she can support a second or a third campaign. 
 She enters into a campaign which she will not terminate until right is done." 
 
 The Emperor Alexander answered by a trumpet note of defiance. 
 Speaking a couple of days later to the Nobles and Communal Council of 
 Moscow, he referred first to the impending Conference, and expressed his 
 desire that the deliberations of that Assembly should have a peaceful ter- 
 mination. « But," he added, " should this not be achieved, and should I 
 see that we cannot obtain such guarantees as are necessary for carrying out 
 what we have a right to demand of the Porte, I am firmly determined to 
 act independently ; and I am convinced that in this case the whole of 
 Russia will respond to my summons should I consider it necessary and 
 should the honour of Russia require it." 
 
 On the 20th of November, Lord Salisbury left London for Constnntinople 
 to attend the Conference. On his way he had interviews Avith the repre- 
 sentatives of the governments of France, Germany, Austria, and Italy 
 finally arriving at Constantinople on the 5th of December. Before that 
 date, however Russia, which by the mouth of her Emperor, had been pro- 
 testing her peaceful intentions, had afforded Europe an opportunity of 
 estimating their value by concentrating her army at Kischenefi" on the Rou- 
 manian frontier, where, at the beginning of December, the Grand Duke 
 Nicholas assumed the command. While the Conference was thus preparing 
 for its deliberations under the threats of Russian violence, the hands of 
 the British Government were weakened by the anti-patriotic party, who, 
 in the name of humanity, held a so-called " National Conference " at 
 St. James' Hall on the 8th of December. The gathering was composed of 
 the extremest section of the Liberal party, the philosophical Radicals, the 
 ultra-High Churchmen, and representatives of the dissenting interests, and 
 the nature of the speeches may be guessed from the known opinions of 
 those who delivered them. One utterance ought not however to be for- 
 gotten. " Will you fight for the integrity and independence of the Empire 
 of Sodom?" exclaimed Mr. Freeman. "Perish the interests of England, 
 perish our dominions in India sooner than we should strike one blow or 
 speak one word on behalf of the wrong ngainst the right." Mr. Gladstone 
 ostentatiously proclaimed his admiration for the Emperor of Russia, " a 
 gentleman and a sovereign who had distinguished his reign by some of the 
 noblest acts in the annals of civilisation." Naturally enough such a 
 gathering as this misnamed "National Conference" strengthened tho 
 hands of Russia, and created, as the Nord remarked, a wide-spread belief 
 on the' Continent that " if the situation were more threatening and more 
 complicated than at the beginning of the troubles in tho East, it was 
 because Lord Beaconsfield's Cabinet had neglected to follow the advice 
 tendered by Mr. Gladstone. The conviction," the Russian organ went on, 
 " is evidently beginning to penetrate the mass of the English people that it 
 is Lord Beaconsfield's Government which lias enlarged the field of lattlo 
 
534 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EABL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 and transformed what was originally the Turco-Servian question into the 
 Eastern Crises." 
 
 When at last the Conference met, its action was naturally found to be 
 hampered not a little by the^ weakness of the English representation. The 
 first meetings were held by the representatives of the Powers without the 
 assistance of the Turkish Foreign Minister. When he was at last admitted 
 to their deliberations, he found prepared for him a stringent scheme of 
 reforms and guarantees which he was expected to accept en Hoc. As a 
 matter of courtesy, Safvet Pasha was elected President of the Conference, 
 and his opening speeches, after dealing with recent events, and especially 
 with what had happened in Bulgaria, turned upon the Liberal views of the 
 Sublime Porte, and its willingness to concede to its subjects all rights and 
 privileges which were not contrary to the dignity and power of the Empire. 
 Whilst the Conference was sitting, salvos of artillery without announced 
 the proclamation of the new constitution of the Turkish Empire — a great 
 reform which was due to the initiative of Midhat Pasha and which created 
 considerable perplexity in the minds of those English Liberals who, follow- 
 ing the example of Mr. Gladstone, were dissolved in admiration of Kussian 
 humanity. At the second sitting of the Conference, on Thursday, the 
 I 28th of December, it was agreed that the armistice should be prolonged for 
 j two months, but the Turkish Government firmly and definitely refused the 
 one guarantee for which Russia was most urgent — its sanction namely to the 
 occupation of any of its provinces by Russian troops. It was urged that 
 all necessary guarantees might be afforded by the creation of a force of 
 Turkish troops officered by Europeans, and with that view it was under- 
 stood that the representatives of the Western Powers were contented. 
 
 On the 30th of December the Conference met again, when the representa- 
 tives of the Porte announced that they had a counter proposition to make 
 which would render further consideration of the proposals of the guarantee- 
 ing Powers unnecessary. The document was not yet translated, but it was 
 announced that it would be delivered to the Plenipotentiaries the same 
 evening. General Ignatieff again protested. His instructions were to 
 demand a categorical reply to the demands of the Russian Government, 
 backed as they were in most important respects by the representatives of 
 the Great Powers. The dispute waxed warm, but in the end the Ottoman 
 Ministers, by dint of quiet persistency, carried their point, and the meeting 
 of the Conference was adjourned without any definite conclusions having 
 been arrived at. By the 20th of January, 1877, the Conference had com- 
 pletely collapsed. The counter proposals of the Turkish Government were 
 submitted at the meeting on New Year's Day, but they were not found 
 acceptable by the representatives of the Powers. The scheme submitted 
 by the Porte was based upon the Constitution granted at the instance of 
 Midhat Pasha. That Constitution the Turkish representatives considered 
 to be the best guarantee for the carrying out of the proposed reforms, but 
 the representatives of the Powers contended that in the grave circum- 
 
OPENING OF THE SESSION, 1876. 535 
 
 stances of the case a mere promise on the part of the Porte was insuffi- 
 cient. It was therefore urged that an International Commission for the 
 internal Government of Turkey should be provided ; that a complete 
 amnesty to the Bulgarian prisoners should he conceded, and that Turkey 
 should offer guarantees for the execution of her promised reforms. On the 
 15th of the month, the Porte having refused the International Commission 
 for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the proposals of the Powers, now reduced to 
 two points, were submitted. These points were an International Commis- 
 sion nominated by Europe without executive powers, and the appointment 
 by the Sultan of Walis (Governors) for five years, subject to the approval 
 of the Guaranteeing Powers. These terms were rejected by the Turkish 
 representatives as " contrary to the integrity, independence, and dignity of 
 the Empire," and their decision having been communicated to the Plenipo- 
 tentiaries the Conference came to an end. 
 
 The Session opened on the 8th of February (1876). The Speech from 
 the Throne, as might be anticipated, was mainly occupied with the Eastern 
 Question ; and, in view of their probable authorship and of the existing 
 political situation, it may be well to quote in extenso the paragraphs relating 
 to this subject. " The hostilities," said Her Majesty, " which before the 
 close of last Session had broken out between Turkey on the one hand and 
 Servia and Montenegro on the other engaged my most serious attention, 
 and I anxiously waited for an opportunity when my good offices, together 
 with those of my allies, might be usefully interposed. This opportunity 
 presented itself by the solicitation of Servia for our mediation, the offer of 
 which was ultimately entertained by the Porte. In the course of the 
 negotiations I deemed it expedient to lay down and, in concert with the 
 other Powers, to submit to the Porte certain bases, upon which I held that 
 not only peace might be brought about with the Principalities, but the 
 permanent pacification of the disturbed provinces, including Bulgaria, and the 
 amelioration of their condition might be effected. Agreed to by the Powers, 
 they required to be expanded and worked out by negotiation or by Con- 
 ference, accompanied by an Armistice. The Porte, though not accepting the 
 bases, and proposing other terms, was willing to submit them to the 
 equitable consideration of the Powers. While proceeding to act in this 
 mediation, I thought it right, after inquiring into the facts, to denounce to 
 the Porte the excesses ascertained to have been committed in Bulgaria, and 
 to express my reprobation of their perpetrators. An annistice being 
 arranged, a Conference met at Constantinople for the consideration of 
 extended terms in accordance with the original bases, in which Conference 
 I was represented by a Special Envoy as well as by my Ambassador. In 
 taking these steps my object has throughout been to maintain the peace 
 of Europe, and to bring about the better government of the disturbed 
 provinces without infringing upon the independence and integrity of the 
 Ottoman Empire. The proposals recommended by myself and my allies 
 have not, I regret to say, been accepted by the Porte ; but the result of 
 
536 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 the Conference has been to show the existence of a general agreement 
 among the European Powers which cannot fail to have a material effect 
 upon the condition and Government of Turkey. In the meantime the 
 armistice between Turkey and the Principalities has been prolonged, and is 
 still unexpired, and may, I trust, yet lead to the conclusion of an honour- 
 able peace." 
 
 The debates on the Address were very short. In the Lords the Opposi- 
 tion exercised its function of criticism in much the usual fashion, and 
 Lord Beaconsfield, who had taken his seat with the customary formalities 
 on that evening, replied in a curiously brief speech. He characterised the 
 speech of the Duke of Argyll — who, disclaiming asperity, had dealt with 
 the policy of the Government in terms of unusual violence — with a certain 
 indolent sarcasm far more effective than the most violent attack, and then 
 turning to the question at issue, contended that if coercion had been used 
 as regarded Turkey, the massacres which the country had to deplore would 
 have been extended and aggravated. The Duke had charged the Govern- 
 ment with neglecting the interests of the Christian subjects of the Porte ; 
 that accusation he entirely denied, urging, however, that the amelioration 
 of the condition of those Eastern Christians was by no means the only 
 question with which the statesmen of Europe had to deal. " If this matter 
 is really to be treated," said he, " it must be treated by statesmen ; we 
 must accurately know who are to be responsible hereafter for the condition 
 of this population ; we must know what changes in the distribution of 
 territory in the most important part of the globe are to be made as the 
 consequence of this attempted solution ; and it is only by considerations 
 of that kind — it is only by bringing our minds, free from all passion, to a 
 calm and sagacious consideration of this subject and viewing it as states- 
 men, that we can secure the great interests of this country, which are too 
 often forgotten in declamatory views of circumstances with which we have 
 to deal practically — it is in this way only we can secure an amelioration 
 of the condition of the population of the Ottoman Empire." 
 
 On the 20th of February, the Duke of Argyll brought the subject once 
 more under the notice of the House of Lords in a speech in which he 
 charged the Government with having pursued an " unhappy policy " up 
 to the end of August ; with having then adopted a totally different policy 
 at the bidding of the country, which new policy they had carried out in a 
 half-hearted and vacillating fashion. The charges of inconsistency, in- 
 coherence, feebleness, and political immorality which have become the 
 stock in trade of Liberal agitators were made in all their fullness by the 
 noble Duke, the only really patriotic speech on the part of the Opposition 
 being made by Lord Granville, who promised a loyal support to the Govern- 
 ment in their attempts to keep the peace of Europe and to secure the 
 rights of the Cliristian populations of Turkey. Lord Beaconsfield summed 
 up the debate in a speech which set put by admitting the right of the 
 Opposition to criticise the conduct of the Governmeut, whilst urging tl e 
 
■ LORD BEACONSFIELD AND THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. / ,^ :63r** 
 
 / /)■. 
 inexpediency of impugning its policy in a vague and abstract ^»hiou 
 without bringing forward any definite motion. One of the principal g|rotiuds. ,,, 
 of complaint against Ministers was, that they had not resorted to {(A-&BJt6^j\ 
 compel the Ottoman Government to carry out their promised reforn^a^but'^ 
 that their policy was assuredly not one which could be commended \^iie ^ 
 country. The policy of the Government, he went on to say, in effect^s^ *'^ 
 the traditional policy of Europe and not merely that of England, -^i^ 
 that policy was based upon the principle that the peace of Europe mi^ 
 best be kept by maintaining the integrity and independence of Turkey. 
 The integrity of the Ottoman Empire he regarded as, in its way, as im- 
 portant to the general peace as the integrity of France or Austria. Her 
 independence was furthermore recognised by Treaties, and especially by 
 the Treaty of Paris. What might happen in the future it was, of course, 
 impossible to foresee, but for the present Turkey must be treated as a 
 member of the European concert and must be dealt with on the basis of a 
 full recognition of her rights and of our own. It was not difficult to find 
 a parallel to the existing state of things. In 1862 there had been an 
 insurrection in Herzegovina, stimulated and encouraged by the Prince of 
 Montenegro. On that occasion the Chancellor of Russia — the statesman 
 who, at that moment, controlled her policy — addressed to the Powers re- 
 monstrances precisely similar to those which he had despatched within the 
 last few weeks. On that occasion Sir Henry Bulwer — afterwards Lord 
 Calling — had plainly expressed his belief that the revolt in Herzegovina 
 was a conspiracy, and in a despatch to Lord Napier, then British Ambassador 
 at St. Petersburg, he had expounded this view with great fulness, and had 
 declared that the English policy was that of maintaining the independence 
 and integrity of the Ottoman Empire as provided in the various Treaties 
 on the subject. The question had been discussed in the House of Commons, 
 and Lord Palmerston being unable to be present through indisposition, this 
 view had been maintained by Mr. Gladstone. Again, when the Treaty of 
 1856 was torn up, and the Conference hastily summoned to cover that 
 defeat of English foreign policy, although four months were occupied in its 
 deliberations, found no reason for taking active steps on behalf of the 
 Christian subjects of the Porte, whilst Lord Enfield, in the course of his 
 vindication of the conduct of the Governments of England and of Turkey, 
 distinctly stated that "the Danubian provinces had secured autonomy, 
 and the Christian subjects of the Porte were no longer as hostile to her 
 rule as formerly." As late as 1871 therefore— during the ascendency of 
 Mr. Gladstone — the traditional policy of England had not changed. What 
 had since occurred to change the views of the Opposition ? " There has 
 been another revolt in Herzegovina, another stimulative action from the 
 principality of Montenegro and fresh complaints from the Government of 
 St. Petersburg of the conduct of the Porte towards its Christian subjects.'' 
 Having briefly vindicated the conduct of the Government with regard 
 to the Andrassy Note and the Berlin Memorandum, Lord Beaconsfield went 
 
538 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 on to point out that there were two great policies open to the Government 
 with regard to the Christian subjects of the Porte. One was the Russian 
 plan of a chain of autonomous states, tributary to the Porte, but other- 
 wise independent. To that scheme the British Government could not give 
 in its adhesion for the simple reason that if the Ottoman Government were 
 to be limited to " Constantinople and a cabbage garden," the Turkish 
 Empire would probably share before long the fate of the Empire of Con- 
 stantinople, and fall once more before an invading power. Against this 
 plan of the Eussian Government England proposed what had been called 
 by some one " administrative autonomy," in other words " institutions 
 which would secure to the Christian subjects of the Porte some control over 
 their local affairs, and some security against the excesses of arbitrary 
 power." Those views were adopted by Russia, but the breaking out of the 
 Servian war prevented them from being carried into effect. After a brief 
 vindication of Lord Salisbury, and a passing criticism of Lord Granville's 
 exploits at the Conference of 1871, the Premier concluded his speech by 
 saying that " when we are told that the Conference was a failure there 
 certainly was no failure in the principal object of Lord Salisbury's visit to 
 Constantinople. When he went there what was the situation? Then the 
 first sine qua non was that Bulgaria should be occupied by a Russian 
 army. We had a great many other demands of a similar kind. Who 
 succeeded in obtaining the withdrawal of these unreasonable proposals ? 
 Why, my noble friend. My noble friend fell only into one error, which I 
 should have fallen into myself, and I believe every member of this House 
 would have done the same. He gave too much credit to the Turks for 
 common sense, and he could not believe that when he made so admirable 
 an arrangement in their favour they would have lost so happy an oppor- 
 tunity. My Lords . . I felt that to-night .... it was my duty to vindi- 
 cate the conduct of the Government. I hope I have shown that with 
 respect to our general conduct we have pursued and upheld the tradi- 
 tionary policy of England, because we believe it to be the best security for 
 general peace. I hope I have shown that with regard to the secondary 
 though important object, the condition of the Christian subjects of the 
 Porte, our course has been circumspect and consistent, proved as I think by 
 its having obtained the general approbation of the Powers. I will not 
 touch upon the Imperial issues involved in this subject. It has been said 
 that the peoj)le of this country are deeply interested in the humanitarian 
 and philanthropic considerations involved in it. All must appreciate such 
 feelings. But I am mistaken if there be not a yet deeper sentiment on the 
 pari of the people of this country, one with which I cannot doubt your 
 Lordships will even sympathise, and that is— the determination to maintain 
 the Empire of England." 
 
 Throughout the spring of 1877 negotiations were constantly carried on by 
 the Russian Government with the representatives of the Powers, and 
 General Ignatiefif made a tour of the Europeau capitals \t\ the moQth of 
 
RUSSIA DECLARES WAR WITH TURKEY. 539 
 
 March with fresh proposals for the settlement of the Eastern Question, 
 Turkey on her side was not inactive, and on the 19th of the same month the 
 first Ottoman Parliament was opened by the Sultan in person. On the 31st 
 aProtocol was signed at the Foreign Office, in which the Powersre-aBrmed 
 their interest in the improvement of the condition of the Christian popula- 
 tions, and took notice of the conclusion of peace with Servia. In the 
 Thterest of a durable arrangement with Montenegro the Powers were in 
 favour of a rectification of the frontiers and of freeing the navigation of 
 the Boiana. They invited the Porte to consolidate the arrangements 
 between the Porte and the two Principalities by replacing the Ottoman 
 army on a peace footing, excepting the number of troops indispensable for 
 the maintenance of order, and by putting in hand without delay the 
 reforms necessary for the tranquillity and well-being of the provinces 
 whose condition had been discussed at the Conference. Recognising the 
 fact that the Porte had declared itself ready to realise an important part of 
 those reforms, the Powers proposed to watch carefuU}'" the way in which 
 the promises of the Ottoman Government were carried into effect, and they 
 declared that failure on the part of the Porte to fulfil its obligations in this 
 respect would be considered incompatible with its interests and those of 
 Europe at large. Several declarations were attached to the Protocol, one. 
 of which was by Lord Derby to the effect that it should be null and void 
 in the event of its not attaining its proposed objects. It was very generally 
 considered that the Government had in this matter achieved a definite 
 success, inasmuch as it had, whilst yielding on a point of form to Russia, 
 left itself wholly unfettered. As a matter of course it was sharply criti- 
 cised both in the press and in Parliament, but much of the criticism fell to 
 the ground for the simple reason that the critics assumed the possibility of 
 England being able to act alone in a matter in which she was but one of 
 several interested powers. 
 
 The sequel is known to all the world. On the 2-1 th of April Russia 
 declared war against Turkey on the ostensible ground of her having failed 
 to carry out the stipulations of the Protocol. In the circular put forward 
 by Russia, that power represented herself as the mouthpiece of the " views 
 and interests " of Europe. Three days later Lord Campbell put a question 
 in the Upper House as to the correctness of that assertion, which was 
 answered on behalf of the Cabinet by Lord Derby. The impudent preten- 
 sion of the Northern Autocrat was at once repudiated. " We are in no way 
 bound," said Lord Derby, " by the expression of opinion issued by the 
 Russian Government, and as a matter of fact wo do not accept or 
 admit the arguments and conclusions embodied in that document." 
 The answer of Lord Derby thus given was ofiicially confirmed in a 
 despatch to Lord Augustus Loftus, which is undoubtedly an expression of 
 the opinion of Lord Beaconsfield and his Government on this subject. 
 Beplying to the Russian circular announcing the war, Lord Perby said 
 
540 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 with especial reference to the pretence that Eussia was acting in accord- 
 ance with the interests and sentiments of Europe, " It cannot be expected 
 that Her Majesty's Government should agree in this view. They have 
 not concealed their feeling that the presence of large Eussian forces on the 
 frontiers of Turkey, menacing its safety, rendering disarmament impossible, 
 and exciting a feeling of apprehension and fanaticism among the Mussul- 
 man population constituted a material obstacle to internal pacification and 
 reform. They cannot believe that the entrance of those armies on Turkish 
 soil will alleviate the difficulty or improve the condition of the Christian 
 population throughout the Sultan's dominions." True to his purpose of 
 embarassing the Government on every possible occasion and of serving his 
 Russian friends, Mr. Gladstone on the 7th of May brought forward his 
 famous five resolutions (afterwards reduced to two) on the subject. The 
 line of the Government was indicated by Mr. Cross, who as a member of 
 the cabinet unquestionably represented its opinions. He insisted that the 
 policy of the Government had two distinct landmarks, one of which was 
 opposition to the invasion of Turkey by any foreign power ; the other that 
 the Administration would not sanction niisgovernment and oppression in 
 Turkey, and that if the Porte by obstinacy or apathy opposed the efforts 
 then being made to place the Ottoman Empire on a more secure basis, the 
 responsibility for whatever consequences might follow would rest with the 
 Sultan and his advisers. Now that war had broken out the landmarks of 
 the British policy were as plain as ever. " We have nothing to do with 
 the war. Great Britain has declared absolute and strict neutrality." The 
 right honourable gentlemam went on to say, however, that other nations 
 might be drawn in ; other interests might soon be involved. . . . There 
 are English interests, there are European interests, there are Indian in- 
 terests." And then in words whose import there was no possibility of mis- 
 taking, Mr. Cross explained that if Constantinople should be " either 
 attacked, approached, or occupied," if the Suez Canal should be interfered 
 with, or if any attempt were made to occupy either Alexandria or Egypt 
 generally England would not sit by in peace. In concluding his speech 
 Mr. Cross contended that the meaning alike of the Besolutions before the 
 House and of the addresses of Mr. Gladstone and his friends at the Liberal 
 meetings throughout the country meant a desire on the part of the Oppo- 
 sition that this country should join Russia in her attack upon Turkey. 
 Mr. Gladstone shook his head, whereupon the Home Secretary replied, 
 "What he means is this — If you will only say that you will go to war if 
 they don't do these things (i.e. grant the reforms of administration pro- 
 mised by the Ottoman Government), although you don't mean to go to 
 war ; if you will only bark loud enough though you don't mean to bite, 
 Turkey will give way." It is hardly necessary to say that on behalf of the 
 Government Mr. Cross indignantly repudiated all complicity in a policy so 
 humiliating and so shameful. Mr. Gladstone wound up the debate in a 
 strongly pro-Russian speech, in the course of which he predicted " undying 
 
"AN OUTRAGEOUS JOB.'* " 541 
 
 renown '* for the northern autocrat. The division showed a majority of 
 131 in favour of the Government in a House of 577. 
 
 Whilst the attention of the country was occupied with the affairs of the 
 war a brief diversion was effected in consequence of an appointment to a 
 small post in the gift of the Prime Minister, which the purists of the 
 Liberal party represented as an outrageous job. On the night of the 
 16 th of July, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. Holms, 
 M.P. for Hackney, moved what was equivalent to a vote of censure 
 on Lord Beaconsfield for his appointment of Mr. Pigott to be head of the 
 Stationery Office. Mr. Pigott had been a clerk in the War Office, and 
 secretary to a Minister, and secretary to a Koyal Commission. He was 
 also son to a former Vicar of Hughenden, who, Mr. Holms asserted, had 
 rendered valuable political services to the Prime Minister. The meaning 
 was obvious, — that Lord Beaconsfield had made a corrupt appointment to 
 the public service for his own personal ends. Sir Stafford Northcote offered 
 a somewhat feeble defence, arguing that the Government were not abso- 
 lutely bound by the recommendations of a Select Committee until they had 
 been discussed in the House, and Mr. Bates announced his intention of 
 voting for the Government on the ground that the Stationery Office wanted 
 an infusion of new blood, and that it would best obtain it by such appoint- 
 ments as that of Mr. Pigott. On a division, thanks to some mismanage- 
 ment, the House condemned the appointment by a vote of 156 to 152. 
 Mr. Pigott of course resigned, but Lord Beaconsfield refused to accept the 
 resignation, and on the 19th of July explained his reasons. Mr. Pigott had, he 
 said in effect, been appointed because he was a man of exceptional ability 
 who had done good work in other departments of the public service. The 
 Government had not seen its way to the appointment of a practical " printer 
 and stationer," as recommended by the Select Committee, for the simple 
 reason that the salary annexed to the office (£1300 a year) would not 
 secure a really fii'st-rate man, but one "who had retired from business or 
 from whom business had retired." Nor was there any valid reason for 
 appointing a man of letters simply because of his literary pursuits, whilst 
 amongst the chiefs of the Civil Service there was no one who could be in- 
 duced to accept the post. Six names were therefore selected amongst those 
 of the junior members of the service, and from that list Lord Beaconsfield 
 selected Mr. Pigott as the man best qualified for the ix)sition by reason or 
 his past experience. To the charge of jobbery, the Premier had a very 
 effective answer. " Thirty years ago there was a vicar of my parish of tho 
 name of Pigott, and he certainly was father to Mr. Digby Pigott. Ho did 
 not owe his preferment to me, nor was he ever under any obligation to me. 
 Shortly after I succeeded to that property Mr. Pigott gave up the living 
 and retired to a distant county. I have never had any relation with him. 
 With regard to our intimate friendship and his electioneering assisUmce, 
 all I know of his interference in county elections is that before ho departed 
 from the county of Buckingham^he registered his vote against me. And, my 
 
642 THE PUBLIC tiJ'E OJ* I'HE EARL OF BEACONSI'lELt). 
 
 lords, it is thfe truth — it may surprise you, but it is the truth— that I havd 
 no personal acquaintance with his son, Mr. Pigott, who was appointed to 
 this office the other day. I do not know him even by sight." The ex- 
 planation thus given satisfied everybody whose opinion was of the smallest 
 value, and on the 23rd of July the House of Commons unanimously 
 rescinded its vote of censure, though not until after a prolonged debate. 
 
 During the remainder of the Session Lord Beaconsfield spoke but once, 
 leaving the defence of the policy of the Government to the Foreign Secretary. 
 The occasion of his solitary utterance was the withdrawal by the Earl of Fever- 
 sham of a notice of his intention to raise a debate on the Eastern Question. 
 A private intimation had been conveyed to Lord Feversham that such a 
 discussion would be not merely devoid of advantage but absolutely injurious. 
 He had accordingly postponed the matter, and Lord Beaconsfield in thank- 
 ing him for doing so, claimed for the Government the credit of consistently 
 maintaining a policy which had been clearly expressed. The Government 
 had announced its intention of adopting a policy of strict but conditional 
 neutrality. " The condition was that the interests of the country should, 
 not be imperilled. Subsequently to that declaration a communication was 
 made to the Kussian Government which more precisely defined what in our 
 opinion * British interests ' were held to consist of, and to this communica- 
 tion her Majesty's Government received a reply, which I think I am 
 authorised in describing as conciliatory and friendly. The Government," 
 he added, " have no reason to doubt that Russia will, in an honourable 
 manner, observe the conditions which were the subject of that correspon- 
 dence; but however that maybe, in any case the maintenance of those 
 conditions is the policy of her Majesty's Government." 
 
 The friendly attitude of Russia was also referred to in the Speech from 
 the Throne at the prorogation of Parliament on the 14th of August, the 
 paragraph relating to that Power being almost identical in its expressions 
 with those of which the Prime Minister had made use on several recent 
 occasions. The position of England was there declared to be one of strict 
 neutrality, but a promise was made that the Government would not fail to 
 use its best efforts for the restoration of peace when a suitable opportunity 
 offered itself, and for the purpose of securing " terms compatible with the 
 honour of the belligerents and with the general safety and welfare of other 
 nations." A further assurance was given, that " if in the course of the 
 contest the rights of the Empire should be assailed or endangered " the 
 Government would confidently rely on the help of Parliament to vindicate 
 and maintain them." 
 
 During the autumn endeavours were constantly made to create an im* 
 pression that the Government had determined upon going to war to secure 
 the integrity and independence of Turkey. There was not the smallest 
 reason for believing that the Government had deviated at any time from 
 the policy laid down by Lord Beaconsfield, or that there was any desire on 
 his part to plunge the country into a costly and sanguinary war. Those 
 
'THE QUE£n visits HUGHENDEl^. 543 
 
 wlio remembered the line which he had taken throughout the Crimean war, 
 and the earnestness with which he had protested against the notion of war 
 under any circumstances, unless British interests were threatened, were 
 ready to accept his view and to give him credit for perfect sincerity. It 
 suited the purpose of the Liberal Opposition to represent his attitude as 
 distinctly warlike and to treat his declarations as utterly false. Some of 
 the less conspicuous members of the Government, however, used language 
 which, though harmless enough in itself, lent a certain colour to this view 
 of Lord Beaconsfield's policy, and the Opposition were not slow to avail 
 themselves of it. Singularly enough, amongst those who were represented as 
 anxious for an appeal to arms Lord Derby was most frequently mentioned, 
 while the unscrupulous opponents of the Ministry classed Lord Beaconsfield 
 with him. One personage, and that the one whose knowledge of affairs is 
 probably greater than thatof any other in the kingdom, displayed the liveliest 
 sympathy with the Prime Minister in his difficult position. That personage 
 was Her Majesty, who in the month of December paid to Lord Beaconsfield 
 the rarely accorded honour of a visit at his home at Hughenden. 
 
 When on Lord Mayor's Day an opportunity was afforded for the Premier 
 to make a decided declaration of his policy, he spoke in terms which, read 
 calmly and deliberately now that the passions of 1877 are forgotten, point 
 distinctly in the direction of peace. " No sooner had war been declared," 
 said he " than her Majesty's Government felt it to be their duty to announce 
 at once in language which could not be mistaken the policy which under 
 the circumstances they intended to pursue. It was not a policy framed 
 for the occasion, and merely because war had been declared. It was a 
 policy, which from the opportunities which had been afforded us for some 
 time, we had deeply considered. That jjolicy we unanimously adopted, 
 that policy we have unanimously caiTied out, and from that policy we 
 have never swerved. What then was that policy ? It was a policy of 
 conditional neutrality. In the circumstances of the case we did not 
 believe it was to the honour or the interests of England or of Turkey, that 
 we should take any part in the impending contest. But while we an- 
 nounced the neutrality which we were prepared to observe, we declared at 
 the same time that that neutrality must cease if British interests were 
 assailed or menaced. Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of 
 every country save their own, have denounced this policy as a selfish 
 policy. My Lord Mayor, it is as selfish as patriotism. But it is the 
 policy of her Majesty's Government : it is the policy they have adopted 
 from the first. It is the policy they have maintained, and it continues to 
 be their policy to believe that it is their duty to protect British interests 
 abroad, and it is a policy which they believe the people of this country have 
 sanctioned and approved. ... I believe the policy of neutrality on the 
 part of this country was not more for the benefit of England than it was 
 for the benefit of Turkey. For some years it has been a dogma of diplo- 
 macy that Turkey was a craze and not a fact ; that its Government was a 
 
5M THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 phantom : that its people were effete ; and that it was used merely by 
 statesmen as a means to maintain a fictitious balance of power and secure 
 the peace of Europe. If that were the case, a repetition on the part of her 
 Majesty's Government of what took place in the Crimea would have been 
 the greatest error, and if the people were effete and the Government a pure 
 fiction, why then the sooner that is proved in the eyes of the civilised 
 world the better. Well, you know what proof has been given on those 
 subjects during the past year ; you have listened to the modest and 
 interesting speech of the representative of the Sultan this evening, and you 
 must have felt while he spoke that his Government and his country have 
 shown vigour and resource, which prove that they have a right to be 
 reckoned amongst the sovereign Powers. The independence of Turkey 
 was a subject of ridicule a year ago : the independence of Turkey whatever 
 may be the fortunes of war — and war changes like the moon — is not doubted 
 now. It has been proved by half a million of warriors who have devoted 
 their lives to their country without pay and without reward." As to the 
 prospects of peace, the Premier went on to say that he did not take the 
 desponding view of some people. " I cannot forget that the Emperor of 
 Eussia with a magnanimity characteristic of his truly elevated character, 
 announced on the eve of commencing this war, that his only object was to 
 secure the safety and happiness of the Christian subjects of the Porte, and 
 that he pledged his Imperial word of honour that he sought no increase of 
 territory. I cannot forget that his Highness the Sultan has declared in the 
 most formal manner that he is prepared to secure all these changes which 
 will give to the Christian subjects of the Porte that safety and that welfare 
 which the Emperor of Eussia desires. Therefore when I find these state- 
 ments made by those high authorities, and made in a manner so solemn 
 and earnest ... I think I have a right to say that peace ought not to be 
 an impossible achievement and conclusion of the struggle." 
 
 Something of the same kind it may be remarked had already been said by 
 Sir Stafford Northcote in a speech at Exeter, in which he had spoken of 
 " a patch of blue sky " in the East, and although the Marquis of Salisbury 
 had spoken less hopefully it was tolerably evident that the hope of a 
 peaceful settlement had not wholly abandoned the Government even in the 
 darkest hour. Lord Beaconsfield's speech did not, however, end with the 
 anticipation of an honourable peace. Eeferring to the argument that peace 
 could not be expected because of the injury which it would do to the mili- 
 tary prestige of Eussia, he contended at some length against the idea that 
 in any way the military reputation of Eussian generals or of Eussian 
 troops could be held to have suffered in the war, and argued that prestige 
 depended not upon the result of a single battle, but upon the general con- 
 duct of the campaign. " But my Lord Mayor," he went on, "you may 
 say to me, ' Have you really any hope ; can you encourage the citizens of 
 London on this occasion by giving them any hope of the restoration of 
 peace between these two Great Powers ? ' I would say in answer to such 
 
SURRENDER OF PLEVNA. 545 
 
 a question that which was said by a wise and witty gentleman of the 
 eighteenth century, to a friend who came to him and told him of his 
 troubles. That gentleman said he had no hope, and Horace Walpole 
 answered, ' Try a little patience.' Now with respect to the present war 
 her Majesty's Government have both hope and patience, and I trust the 
 time may not be far distant when with the other Powers of Europe we 
 may contribute to a settlement which will not only secure peace but the 
 independence of Turkey." 
 
 The war went on, but the policy of patience indicated by Lord Beacons- 
 field continued to be that of his Government. Amongst the public there 
 was, however, a very uneasy feeling. On the one hand, certain supporters 
 of the Government were unquestionably anxious for war for the relief of 
 Turkey ; on the other Mr. Gladstone and his friends were indignant at the 
 notion of supporting the " unspeakable Turk " in any way. The Liberal 
 press following its accustomed course charged the Government with 
 sympathy with the extremest members of the Conservative party in spite 
 of Lord Derby's refusal in reply to a deputation to depart from the policy of 
 " inaction " stigmatized with some severity by the various speakers. It 
 was, however, evident that the time was rapidly approaching when the 
 diplomatic action referred to by Lord Beaconsfield might come into opera- 
 tion. Disaster after disaster overtook the Turkish troops, and on the 10th 
 of December, 1877, Osman Pasha surrendered Plevna with his entire 
 army after a gallant resistance of five months. The Porte, as might have 
 been expected, entreated the mediation of the Powers with her relentless 
 adversary, but new troubles were preparing for her, and four days after 
 this catastrophe Servia formally declared ' war. Mr. Lay ard replaced Sir 
 Henry Elliot at Constantinople on the 1st of January, but in spite of his 
 good offices the war continued. 
 
 Parliament opened for the Session of 1878 nearly a month earlier than 
 usual, the Koyal Speech being read by Commission on the 17 th of 
 January. It was necessarily long, and was of course mainly devoted to 
 foreign affairs, concerning which unusually full and clear explanations were 
 given, showing that the efforts of the Government had been unceasingly 
 directed to the restoration of peace. The determination of Ministers to 
 retain an attitude of neutrality so long as British interests were not com- 
 promised was distinctly and firmly reiterated. In the debate on tho 
 Address Lord Beaconsfield naturally spoke, explaining with greater fulness 
 the exact position of the Government, and protesting against the habit in 
 which Lord Granville and other members of the Opposition were fond of 
 indulging of referring to the reports of the newspapers as though they were 
 authentic, and documentary evidence upon which the Government was 
 bound to act. He enforced the policy of " conditional neutrality " which 
 the Administration had adopted, and explained his use of the phraso 
 " British interests," protesting against the superfine morality which— for 
 party purposes — stigmatized a due care for those interests as selfishness 
 
 2 N 
 
646 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFlfiLD. 
 
 The Opposition had protested that the country was in a condition of isolatidn 
 amongst the Powers of Europe, but against that theory he protested most 
 earnestly, expressing his belief not merely that England was exercising a 
 potent influence, but that that influence was increasing. "If it does 
 increase," he concluded, " I will say on the part of the Government — and 
 divided in their councils though they are said to be — I feel that I am ex- 
 pressing their unanimous opinion . . that that influence will be exercised 
 for the greatest interests of humanity. It will be exercised for the ter- 
 mination of these hostilities : it will be exercised in every way for the 
 procuring of a peace which will be stable and enduring. But if we are 
 called upon to vindicate our rights and to defend the interests of this 
 country ; if our present hopes and prospects are baffled ; if there be cir- 
 cumstances which demand that we should appeal to Parliament again and 
 again for means to vindicate the honour of the realm, and to preserve and 
 maintain the interests of the Empire, I am sure that her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment will never hesitate to take that course." 
 
 What those words meant was shown by the despatch of the Fleet to 
 Besika Bay on the 23rd of January, 1878 — a step malignantly criticised at 
 the time, but known now to have saved Europe from a general war. It 
 was unfortunate for Lord Beaconsfield that his policy in this matter should 
 have been, as it was, misunderstood by some of his colleagues. He 
 explained on the 25th, in reply to the Earl of Sandwich, that there was no 
 intention on the part of the Government of deviating in the smallest 
 degree from the policy of neutrality which they had from the first 
 announced and maintained, but that the presence of the Fleet was necessary 
 in the Dardanelles for the defence of British subjects, property and 
 interests, then menaced by the presence of a Russian force before the walls 
 of Constantinople. This view of the matter failed to commend itself to 
 Lord Carnarvon, who resigned his position as Secretary for the Colonies on 
 the day after the order for the sailing of the Fleet was despatched — ^an 
 example which was followed two months later by Lord Derby, In view 
 of the threatening state of our foreign relations, preparations for war 
 became immediately necessary, and the first thing that was done was to 
 call upon the House of Commons for a supplemental credit of £6,000,000. 
 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader how ardently that proposal was 
 opposed by the Liberal party, or how Mr. Gladstone, speaking at Oxford 
 with reference to it, declared that " his purpose had been, to the best of 
 his power, day and night, week by week, month by month, to counter- 
 work what he believed to be the purposes of that man." What Mr. 
 Gladstone said outside the House, he repeated in other words within its 
 walls ; but in the end the vote was passed, only ninety-six members being 
 found to vote against it.* The effect was visible at once in the growing 
 willingness of the belligerents to agree upon terms of peace, and the hands 
 of the Government were greatly strengthened by the vigorous and out- 
 spoken support of the City of London, where a meeting of Radicals, 
 
THE Treaty of san sTefanO. 547 
 
 called to protest against the vote of credit, was prevented, the supporters 
 of the Administration afterwards adjourning to the Guildhall, carrying 
 their resolutions with great enthusiasm. Other demonstrations followed, 
 and it was speedily evident that, in spite of the complaints and agitations 
 of the extreme members of the Liberal party, the Government was 
 supported by the country in its eminently national policy. When, on the 
 21st of February, Lord Beaconsfield moved the second reading of the Bill 
 providing the £6,000,000 in the Lords, he was able to say that there was 
 " a general feeling that the termination of these terrible calamities was at 
 hand, or might be contemplated with at least a possibility of its occur- 
 rence." After a brief reference to the proposed Conference, he added : — 
 " What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is this, that whatever may 
 occur — whether we may be so fortunate as to contribute to an honourable 
 and durable peace — and I can assure your Lordships that no Government 
 is more ardently and arduously labouring for that result than the Govern- 
 ment of Her Majesty — or whether, on the other hand, those efforts may 
 fail, and the war be extended and the area of hostilities even increased, 
 there seems to be in either of those alternatives no doubt of the policy of 
 this country — that she could be in a position to make her word respected, 
 that she should not at this moment have recourse to feeble expression or 
 inefficient action, but that she should, by the confidence and liberality of 
 Parliament, do what she thjnks necessary to assert a sound policy. ... I 
 shall only express my own feeling, that whether England enters into Con- 
 ference or campaign, it is of the utmost importance that she should enter 
 into it with the spirit and influence of a united people." 
 
 The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on the 4th of March, and the 
 arrangements for the Congress went on. It was naturally the object of 
 Kussia to turn that assemblage into a species of court for the registration 
 of that Treaty in the exact form in which it had been extorted from 
 Turkey; but to any such arrangement the English Government firmly 
 refused to submit, in spite of the protestations of the Russian official press, 
 and of its servile echoes in this country, that whilst the " Divine figure of 
 the North " was doing everything in its power to insure peace, England 
 was wickedly bent upon war. A demand was made that the Sultan should 
 order the British fleet to leave Turkish waters, and there were some 
 Englishmen sufficiently unpatriotic to hope that this additional complica- 
 tion would be added to the difficulties by which the Government was 
 already embarrassed. It was then proposed that the Congress should be 
 held without the presence of a representative of England ; but to that 
 proposal Lord Beaconsfield would by no means assent, and he succeeded in 
 getting the other powers to support him in this particular also. His firm- 
 ness in this crisis probably saved the Turkish Empire from complete dis- 
 memberment; but he did not accomplish his task without considerable 
 difficulty. In order that there should be no mistake as to the intentions 
 
 2 N 2 
 
548 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of this country, he insisted upon calling out the reserves — a step which 
 cost the Administration the services of Lord Derby. 
 
 On the 1st of April the Message from the Queen calling out the 
 reserves was brought down to both Houses of Parliament, and on the 8th 
 Lord Beaconsfield reviewed the whole Eastern Question and formulated the 
 actually existing condition of affairs. From his account it appeared that 
 in the preceding January the assurances of Prince Gortschakofif had been 
 satisfactory. A change was, however, coming. Early in March Austria 
 had suggested the Conference, which England had accepted, but in conse- 
 quence of the continuance of secret negotiations and the movement of troops 
 on Constantinople it had been thought necessary to send a portion of the 
 Mediterranean Fleet to the Sea of Marmora. Speaking of the Treaty of 
 San Stefano he pointed out that in every particular it was a deviation from 
 the Treaty of 1856, and even from that truncated and unsatisfactory Treaty 
 to which Mr. Gladstone's Government had assented in 1871. It created a 
 Bulgaria not inhabited by Bulgarians, seized the ports of the Black Sea 
 and the iEgean, and laid upon the distant provinces of Greece — Epirus and 
 Thessaly — new laws to be imposed by Eussia. The Black Sea would 
 become as much a Kussian lake as the Caspian, while by the seizure of 
 Bessarabia, Eussia would become mistress of the Danube. Under these 
 circumstances and when all the world was armed, it could not be that Eng- 
 land alone should be unarmed, nor were her preparations to be stayed by 
 taunts that she was threatening when she ought to conciliate. The con- 
 clusion of his speech was an earnest appeal to the House to maintain the 
 integrity of the British Empire, some securities of which were at that 
 moment imperilled in the east of Europe. It is hardly necessary to say that 
 the Lords responded cordially to his appeal, or that when the question came 
 on for discussion in the Commons Sir Wilfrid Lawson succeeded in obtain- 
 ing the support of only 64 members for his motion for an absolute surrender 
 of the English position. 
 
 It was found necessary before the month was out to prove to Eussia that 
 the claims of England to a voice in the settlement of the Eastern Question 
 were not to be disregarded. An outbreak in the Ehodope Mountains 
 afforded a fresh opportunity to that Power to re-commence the coercion of 
 Turkey, and in view of these events the Government decided to call upon 
 India for the services of a portion of her army. A large contingent was 
 accordingly brought to Malta, to the infinite disgust of Mr. Bright and the 
 remainder of the peace-at-any-price party, but considerably to the discomfi- 
 ture of Eussia, with whom the relations of this country became ex- 
 ceedingly , strained. On the 20 th of May Lord Beaconsfield briefly 
 defended the action of his Government in this matter in reply to a very 
 elaborate indictment by Lord Selborne, contending that the Queen was 
 strictly within the limits of her prerogative in ordering the movement of 
 troops which had given so much offence. After urging that if the Opposi- 
 
THE ASSIGNMENT OF CYPRUS. 549 
 
 tion really disapproved the action of the Government they were bound to 
 move a resolution and not to make a grave matter a subject of mere conversa- 
 tion, he went on to say : — " We have been animated by one feeling through- 
 out this business Avhich sustains, and I hope, inspires us at present, and 
 that is to secure the blessings of peace and to maintain the freedom of 
 Europa and the just position of this country." This unexpected display 
 of firmness and resource on the part of the English Government produced 
 an immense effect on the Continent, and by the 3rd of June the German 
 Government issued invitations to the Powers to a Congress in Berlin on 
 the 13tli of the same month. Lord Beaconsfield had steadily refused to 
 enter upon such a Congress unless the whole Treaty of San Stefano could 
 be freely discussed, and in spite of the opposition of Russia — which at one 
 time was notoriously supported by Germany — he succeeded in attaining 
 his object. That he was more than justified in the course which he had 
 taken was plainly proved by a memorandum issued by the Porte in 
 reply to the invitation to the Congress, in which it was stated that the 
 Russians had extorted the concessions of the Treaty by "permanent 
 pressure," and that the resolutions were adopted by the Turkish represen- 
 tatives " blindly and hastily " under reiterated threats on the part of the 
 Grand Duke Constantino to move his army upon Constantinople. On the 
 same day a Convention between England and Turkey was signed, by which 
 it was agreed that if any attempt should be made by Russia to further 
 aggrandise herself at the expense of Turkey after the Treaty of Peace had 
 been definitely settled, England engaged to assist the Sultan by force of 
 arms. In return the Porte promised to introduce necessary reforms, to 
 protect the Christian populations and to assign the Island of Cyprus to be 
 occupied and administered by England. 
 
 On the 3rd of June Lord Beaconsfield made a statement in the House 
 of Lords with reference to the Congress, and in reply to certain criticisms 
 upon which Lord Granville ventured. The opposition of the Liberal chief 
 was based upon the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign 
 Secretary was a " trained diplomatist," and upon an assumption — wholly 
 gratuitous by the way — that if any important points arose in the negotia- 
 tions the Cabinet would be left entirely out of account. In his reply Lord 
 Beaconsfield pointed out that the absence of Lord Salisbury and himself 
 from the deliberations of the Government at home, so far from reducing 
 their importance, would really have the effect of increasing it, and that, so 
 far from there being any intention of slighting his colleagues, it was by 
 their own especial desire that they took this step. Replying to the demand 
 for a precedent, he frankly owned that there was none which would exactly 
 apply, but pointing to the fact that Austria and Germany would be repre- 
 sented by their chief Ministers, he contended that in such a case as the 
 present the Government must be guided by existing circumstances and not 
 allow itself to be fettered by inapplicable precedents. He did not again 
 speak in the House of Lords until his return from Berlin, for which city 
 
550 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 he left London on the 8ch of June, arriving at his journey's end on the 
 11th. Only the most meagre details of what took place at Berlin were 
 allowed to be made public, but by the middle of July it was known in 
 England that a treaty of peace had been signed at Berlin which effectually 
 displaced the one-sided Treaty of San Stefano and placed considerable 
 checks upon Kussian ambition. On the 16th of July the Duke of Eich- 
 mond laid on the table of the House of Lords a map showing the terri- 
 tories restored to Turkey by the action of the Congress, and a despatch 
 from Lord Salisbury, enclosing a copy of the Treaty of Berlin. 
 
 The Plenipotentiaries arrived in England on the same day amidst enor- 
 mous popular enthusiasm. For the time the anti-national part}"" could 
 obtain no hearing, and all England united in paying honour to the states- 
 man had vindicated her ancient character, who had restored her to her due 
 place in the councils of Europe, and who by universal consent had obtained 
 all the advantages for which great wars are waged, without the expenditure 
 of a single drop of blood. The return to London was a veritable triumph. 
 At Dover the day was observed as a general holiday, and a large party of 
 distinguished persons went down to welcome the returning diplomatists. 
 At Charing Cross the enthusiasm was enormous. The station was crowded 
 with persons who had been fortunate enough to obtain tickets, and outside 
 an immense multitude filled every available inch of ground from the 
 station to Downing Street. The cheering was incessant along the whole 
 route, and some wag having invented a story to the effect that the Queen 
 had determined to confer still greater honour upon her Minister by creating 
 him Duke of Cyprus, he was ecstatically saluted by a portion of the popu- 
 lation by that title. Arrived in Downing Street the crowd called for a 
 speech, to which Lord Beaconsfield replied in words which have now become 
 historical. '' Lord Salisbury and myself," said he, " have brought you back 
 Peace, but a Peace, I hope, with Honour, which may satisfy our Sovereign 
 and tend to the welfare of the country." Lord Salisbury responded in 
 somewhat similar terms, expressing his conviction that the English people 
 " would always support a Government which supports the honour of 
 England." On the following day Lord Beaconsfield went down to Windsor, 
 where he was duly received by her Majesty, who put off an intended visit 
 to the Isle of Wight in order to see him. On the 18th of July he made 
 his statement in the Upper House, the galleries of which were crowded 
 with all that was noblest and most distinguished in England. The greater 
 part of his speech, which occupied one hour and thirty-five minutes in its 
 delivery, was occupied by an elaborate description of what had been done, 
 and by an explanation of the terms of the Treaty — terms which had been 
 very angrily criticised in some quarters. He explained how Turkey had 
 obtained a compact territory in Europe of some 30,000 geographical miles 
 in extent, with a population of 6,000,000 ; how Bosnia and Herzegovina 
 had been handed over to Austria in the hope that she might govern them 
 more successfully than Turkey had done , how Prii^ce Bismarck had remarked 
 
BANQUET TO THE PLENIPOTENTIARIES. 551 
 
 at the Congress that " a European Turkey once more existed ; " how Greece, 
 though she had not obtained all she wanted— which would have included the 
 cession of Constantinople — had obtained a rectification of frontier ; and how 
 Kussia in return for enormous sacrifices was rewarded with Kars and 
 Batoum. British interests had not been forgotten, the Plenipotentiaries 
 having been especially anxious that an end should be put to those irritating 
 border warfares which threatened our approaches to India, and that in their 
 opinion that end could be best obtained by a protectorate of the Asiatic 
 dominion of Turkey and by the cession of Cyprus. He had said elsewhere 
 that there was room enough in Asia for both England and Russia : that 
 saying he repeated, but the room which England required must be kept 
 and guarded. It is worthy of remark that the somewhat acrid criticism in 
 which Lord Granville permitted himself to indulge was based upon the 
 assumption that the Berlin Treaty gave to Russia everything she demanded. 
 On the 27th of July a banquet was offered to the Plenipotentiaries by 
 the Conservative members of both Houses of Parliament. It took place 
 in the Duke of Wellington's Riding School at Knightsbridge, as many as 
 500 guests taking part in it. The Duke of Buccleuch presided ; and in 
 proposing the health of the Premier, spoke of him as " a conqueror who 
 had conquered war and brought back peace." In returning thanks, Lord 
 Beaconsfield paid a generous tribute to the merits of his colleague, and 
 declared that it was he who had " pulled the labouring oar." He entered 
 upon some explanations with regard to Greece and to the Turkish Con- 
 vention. Concerning the latter, he denied that the responsibility of Eng- 
 land was increased by it, but he claimed for it that it defined the position 
 of England. He added that he had learned at Berlin what he had long 
 suspected, that neither the Crimean war nor the war which had just ended 
 would have taken place if England had but spoken with firnmess at the 
 outset. Referring then to one of Mr. Gladstone's angry speeches on the 
 Eastern question, he went on to say ; " I was astonished to learn that tho 
 Convention of Constantinople had been described as an * insane Conven- 
 tion.' That is a strong epithet, but I do not pretend to be as competent a 
 judge of insanity as the right hon. gentleman who used it. I will not say 
 to the right hon. gentleman what I had occasion to say in the House of 
 Lords this year, * Naviyet Anticyram,^ but I would put this issue to an 
 intelligent English jury ; Which do you believe most likely to enter into 
 an insane Convention, a body of English gentlemen lionoured by the 
 favour of their sovereign and the confidence of their fellow-subjects, 
 managing your aflairs for five years, I hope with prudence and not alto- 
 gether without success, or a sophistical rhetorician, intoxicated with tho 
 exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination 
 that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of 
 arguments to malign his opponents and glorify himself?" The aptness of 
 the saying produced inextinguishable laughter, not merely in tho banquet- 
 
552 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 ing room, but outside as well, and it is generally believed that the victim 
 of this epigrammatic saying has never, as yet, forgiven the inventor. 
 
 Before the Session ended the usual banquet to Ministers was given by 
 the City of London on the 3rd of August. On this occasion the dinner 
 was preceded by the formal presentation of the freedom of the Corporation 
 to the Plenipotentiaries. Lord Beaconsfield's speech in the evening was 
 confined almost wholly to the Eastern Question, and dwelt much on the 
 prospects of peace which the Treaty of Berlin unfolded. On Lord Mayor's 
 day he again partook of the hospitality of the City of London, and in his 
 after-dinner speech addressed himself as usual to foreign affairs. The 
 troubles in Afghanistan had already broken out, and he therefore thought 
 it desirable to explain that, while the country craved no extension of terri- 
 tory, and while the Grovernment was not apprehensive of an invasion of 
 India from the north-west, the existing frontier was " a haphazard and not a 
 scientific one," and that the Government had consequently " made arrange- 
 ments by which, when completed, in all probability, at no distant day, 
 all anxiety respecting the North-Western frontier of India would be 
 removed." What he said concerning Cyprus deserves to be remembered. 
 " We shall live, I hope, on good terms with our immediate neighbours, and 
 not on bad terms, perhaps, with some neighbours that are more remote. 
 I do not wish, my Lord Mayor, in making these remarks that you should 
 understand that her Majesty's Government are of opinion that an invasion 
 of India is impossible or impracticable. On the contrary, if Asia Minor 
 and the Valley of the Euphrates were in the possession of a very weak or 
 of a very powerful State, it would be by no means impossible for an 
 adequate army to march through the passes of Asia Minor and through 
 Persia, and absolutely menace the dominions of the Queen ; but her 
 Majesty's Government have contemplated such a result, and have provided 
 means to prevent its occurrence by our Convention with Turkey and occu 
 pation of the island of Cyprus." He went on to explain that the island 
 would be no burden to this country, and that it had been selected as a 
 " strong place of arms." Complaints had been made that the provisions of 
 the Treaty of Berlin were not being carried out, and Lord Beaconsfield 
 availed himself of this opportunity to point out that there was no reason 
 for supposing that any of the signataries intended to repudiate their 
 engagements, and that the time allowed by the Treaty for carrying the 
 agreements into execution had by no means expired. In the name of the 
 Government he expressed his full determination to carry out the provisions 
 of the Treaty so far as England was concerned, and he significantly added 
 that he thought the other Powers entertained the same view, although 
 there had been paragraphs in the newspapers'to a different effect. " But," 
 he added, " the government of the world is carried on by Sovereigns and 
 statesmen, and not by anonymous paragraph writers, or by the hare- 
 brained chatter of irresponsible frivolity " — a snub which at least one so- 
 
WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN. 553 
 
 called " society journal " has never been able to forgive. The peroration of 
 the speech will be read with a melancholy interest now. After referring 
 to the greatness and growth of England, Lord Beaconsfield concluded by 
 saying : — " A nation of that character is more calculated to create empires 
 than to give them up, and I feel confident, if England is true to herself, if 
 the English people prove themselves worthy of their ancestors, if they 
 possess still the courage and the determination of their forefathers, their 
 honour will never be tarnished, and their power will never diminish. The 
 fate of England is in the hands of England, and you must place no credit 
 in those rumours which would induce you to believe that you have neither 
 the power nor the principle to assert that policy which you believe is a 
 policy of justice and truth." 
 
 During the autumn and early winter the troubles in Afghanistan con- 
 tinued to increase, and the Government, however unwillingly, felt itself 
 compelled to declare war. In accordance with constitutional precedent, an 
 autumn Session was thus rendered necessary, and on the 5th of December, 
 1878, Parliament opened with a very short Speech from the Throne, read 
 by Lord Cairns. In the Lords, an amendment to the Address was moved 
 by Earl Grrey, who strongly condemned the Government for entering upon 
 the war without allowing Parliament an opportunity of expressing an 
 opinion as to its expediency. On the other hand, the Duke of Somerset 
 supported Ministers and expressed deep regret at the factious line adopted 
 by some conspicuous members of the Liberal party, who had actually 
 formed what they were pleased to call an ' Afghan Committee,' for the 
 purpose of hampering the Government. A good deal of time was wasted 
 in a dispute over the accuracy of some passages of a despatch of Lord 
 Cranbrook, and when Lord Beaconsfield rose to sum up the debate, he had 
 to begin by a warm protest against the petty personalities which had 
 been imported into it, and against the insinuations of treachery and bad 
 faith in which Lord Granville had indulged. He defended the Berlin 
 Treaty at which the Opposition had chosen to sneer, and maintained not 
 merely the wisdom of retaining Cyprus but that every condition which 
 had been imposed had been absolutely fulfilled. For the rest he declined 
 to enter into the general question of the Afghan war, which was to come 
 on for discussion on the following Monday. At the end of the second 
 night's debate, Lord Beaconsfield summed up the case for the Govern- 
 ment with all his wonted skill, pointing out at the beginning of his speech 
 the inconvenience of the present frontier of the north-west provinces of 
 India, which had cost us in twenty-eight years no fewer than nineteen 
 expeditions to control the neighbouring tribes. A rectification of the frontier 
 was consequently highly desirable, though the war had not been under- 
 taken to obtain it. He expressed his astonishment that Earl Grey should 
 describe a rectification of frontier as " spoliation," when that noble lord 
 and some of his friends on the front Opposition bench cried out " Hear, 
 hear." At this Lord Beaconsfield said, amidst much laughter, that ho 
 
554 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 had expected that cheer and was glad of it. Between the civilised nations 
 of Europe there had been many rectifications of frontier in the interests of 
 peacC; and it was difficult to see wliy a step which approved itself to the 
 admirers of certain European powers should be thus denounced when the 
 safety of an Indian Empire was in question. After urging the value of a 
 genuinely scientific as compared with a haphazard frontier, he went on to" 
 say that matters might have gone on as they were for years but for the 
 sudden appearance of Eussia in the neighbourhood of Afghanistan. He 
 lield that the preparations made by Russia in Central Asia when it seemed 
 probable that there would be war with this country were allowable, and 
 the explanations given by Russia were in his view sufficient ; but still 
 matters could not be allowed to go on in the old way. With a strenuous 
 protest against the doctrine of the party of " peace-at-any-price," to which 
 he traced this Amendment, he wound up a vigorous and effective speech by 
 saying of that doctrine that it had done more mischief than any other ho 
 could recall as having been afloat in the present century. " It has occa- 
 sioned more wars than the most ruthless conqueror. It has disturbed and 
 nearly destroyed that polllical equilibrium so necessary to the liberties of 
 nations and the welfare of the world. It has dimmed occasionally even, 
 the majesty of England. And, my Lords, to-night you have an opportu- 
 nity, which I trust you will not lose, of branding these opinions — these 
 deleterious dogmas — with the reprobation of the Peers of England." The 
 appeal was successful ; and, on a division, in which nearly if not quite 
 every one of the goodly company of Mr. Gladstone's peers took part, the 
 policy of the Government was endorsed by a majority of 136 in a House 
 of 266. 
 
 The difficulties of the Government thickened about it throughout the 
 year 1879, and when Ministers again met Parliament in February of that 
 year a fresh source of trouble had sprung up in the ^hape of the Zulu war, 
 of which the humanitarians, the peace-at-any-price men, anS the extreme 
 section of the Liberals made the utmost. A prodigious outcry was raised 
 for the recall of Sir Bartle Frere, to whose action the outbreak of the v/ar 
 with Getewayo was undoubtedly due, though it may be doubted whether 
 in his position he was able to avoid the catastrophe. To that outcry Lord 
 Beacons field positively refused to listen, and on the 25th of March he 
 defended his action in the Upper House. After pointing out that Sir 
 Bartle Frere was a member of the Liberal party who had rendered at 
 various times great services to the State, he urged that a single mistake 
 ought not to wipe out the memoiy of years of faithful duty. More espe- 
 cially was this the case when it was practically impossible lo find anyone 
 else who v?-as fit to take his place. " We considered the matter," said 
 Lord Beaconsfleld, " entirely with reference to the public interest and the 
 public interest alone, and we arrived at a conviction that, on the whole, the 
 retention of Sir Bartle Frere in that position was a duty, notwithstanding 
 the Inconvenient observations and criticisms to which we are, of course, 
 
MERITS OF LORD LYTTON. ' 555 
 
 conscious it might subject us; and that being our conviction we have 
 acted upon it. It is * a very easy thing for a Government ' to make a 
 scapegoat, but -that is conduct which I hope no gentleman on this side, and 
 I believe no gentleman sitting opposite, would easily adopt. If Sir Bartle 
 Frere had been recalled — if he had been recalled in deference to the panic — 
 the thoughtless panic— of the hour, in deference to those who have no 
 responsibility in the matter, and who have not weighed well and deeply 
 investigated all the circumstances and all the arguments which can be 
 brought forward and which must be appealed to, to influence our opinion 
 on such a question, no doubt a certain degree of odium might have been 
 diverted from the heads of her Majesty's Ministers, and the world would 
 have been delighted, as the world always is, to find a victim." 
 
 The Session ended on the 14th of August, and Lord Beaconsfield went 
 to the country for a little well-earned repose. He returned, however, for 
 the Lord Mayor's dinner in November. In his speech he dwelt with pride 
 on the patience and courage with which the English had met the bad 
 times which had befallen them during the past three years, and expressed 
 his earnest wish that their fellow subjects in Ireland followed so good an 
 example, instead of taking up the fallacious theory that social troubles 
 were to be cured by political agitation. After a reference to the Cabul 
 Massacre he delivered himself of a warm and flattering tribute to the 
 merits and accomplishments of Lord Lytton, whom Mr. Gladstone and the 
 extreme section of the Liberals were never tired of vilifying. " For my 
 own part," said he, " I have rarely met a man in whom genius and 
 sagacity were more happily allied than in Lord Lytton, a man of greater 
 resource or one possessing in such degree the highest quality of public 
 life — courage in adversity and firmness and constancy in difficulty and 
 danger." Concerning the maintenance of peace he expressed himself as 
 perfectly easy' in his own mind so long as England maintained her just 
 influence in Europe. " I speak freely to the citizens of London," he went 
 on, "because I feel sure that they are not ashamed of one of the noblest of 
 human sentiments — patriotism — and would not be beguiled into the 
 belief that in maintaining their Empire they might forfeit their liberties. 
 One of the greatest of Romans," he added, " when asked what were his 
 politics replied * Imperium et Lihertas.' That would not make a bad 
 programme for a British Ministry. It is one from which her Majesty's 
 advisers do not shrink." 
 
 During the recess an immense multitude of rumours respecting the 
 impending revolution were constantly flying about and preparations for the 
 impending elections were made in various quarters. Mr. Gladstone, who 
 had received a very strong hint that his seat for Greenwich could not be 
 relied upon, spent the autumn in a campaign of excited rhetoric, in the 
 course of which he denounced his great rival in terms for which it is hard 
 for the most charitable to imagine an excuse. Lord Beaconsfield remained 
 quietly at home, occ\ipied with public business and with his favourite 
 
556 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 literary pursuits. When Parliament opened on the 5th of February — a 
 ceremony at which the Queen appeared in person — there was no sign of 
 approaching dissolution, and an impression got abroad that in spite of the 
 fierce denunciations of the more ardent spirits amongst the Liberals, Lord 
 Beaconsfield intended to follow the precedent of Lord Palmerston and allow 
 Parliament to expire by the effluxion of time. It was noticed, however, 
 that the programme of legislation announced in the Queen's Speech was 
 exceedingly meagre — the amendment of the Criminal Code, of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Laws, of the laws relating to Settled Estates, Lunacy and Con- 
 veyancing being the only subjects mentioned. In the debate on the 
 Address Lord Beaconsfield Jspoke at some length, referring to foreign affairs, 
 and to the state of things in South Africa, where from the information of 
 Sir Bartle Frere it would seem that there was every prospect of a peaceful 
 settlement. With regard to Afghanistan he protested that the policy of 
 the Government was not annexation but the peaceful settlement of a scien- 
 tific frontier. Some members of the so-called " Afghan Committee " had 
 sent him a memorial imputing brutality to the British troops engaged in 
 that expedition ; he had asked for further information, but had been unable 
 to obtain any. It may be remarked by the way that this charge so 
 repeatedly made whilst the present Government was in opposition, has 
 been completely dropped, now that it has served its purpose. With regard 
 to Ireland, Lord Granville had expressed a desire to see *' such a reform of 
 the local government bodies as would increase their responsibility and 
 afford Irishmen greater opportunities of managing their local affairs." To 
 this Lord Beaconsfield replied by expressing his regret that the leader of 
 the Opposition had not put forward his views on some occasion when they 
 might be less open to misconstruction. " But might not what the noble 
 Earl sajd about Irish business be said about the business of Yorkshire or of 
 any other part of England, until at length there would be no Imperial 
 Parliament at all? What the Home Eulers want is a Parliament in 
 College Green. He presumed, the noble Earl was not prepared — not yet 
 prepared — to accept a seat in such an assembly." Then with reference to 
 the Liverpool election, the polling for which had taken place on that day, 
 he added : — " I wish to say, whatever may be the result of that election, I 
 do trust that England will understand what the issue on the subject is at 
 this moment. I wish the country to understand that it means nothing 
 less than the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I do not care where 
 a man sits in this House — whether opposite me or on my own side — those 
 who favour such a policy are false to their Sovereign and to their country, 
 and will live, I feel confident, soon to regret the responsibility which they 
 by their conduct are incurring." 
 
 The difficulties of governing Ireland continued to increase, and the 
 factious conduct of the Opposition in the House of Commons rendered the 
 general work of the Government a matter of extreme difficulty. No one 
 was therefore surprised when, on the 9th of March, a letter from Lord 
 
VERDICT OF 1874 REVERSED. 557 
 
 Beaconsfield to the Duke of Marlborough, as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, was 
 given to the world announcing the approaching dissolution of Parliament. 
 After mentioning the various measures for the relief of Irish distress which 
 had received the Eoyal Assent, the letter goes on : — " Nevertheless a danger 
 in its ultimate results, scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and famine, 
 and which now engages your Excellency's anxious attention distracts that 
 country. A portion of the population is endeavouring to sever the consti- 
 tutional tie which unites it to Great Britain in that bond which has 
 favoured the power and prosperity of both. It is to be hoped that all men 
 of light and leading will resist this destructive doctrine. The strength of 
 this nation depends on the unity of feeling which should pervade the 
 United Kingdom and its widespread dependencies. The first duty of an 
 English Minister should be to consolidate that co-operation which renders 
 irresistible a community educated liise our own in an equal love of liberty 
 and law. And yet there are some who challenge the expediency of the 
 Imperial character of this realm. Having attempted and failed to enfeeble 
 our colonies by their policy of decomposition, they may, perhaps, now 
 recognise in the disintegration of the United Kingdom, a mode which will not 
 only accomplish but precipitate their purpose. The immediate dissolution 
 of Parliament will afford an opportunity to the nation to decide upon a 
 course which will materially influence its future fortunes and shape its 
 destiny. Karely in this country has there been an occasion more critical. 
 The power of England and the peace of Europe will largely depend upon 
 the verdict of the country. Her Majesty's present ministers have hitherto 
 been enabled to secure that peace so necessary to the welfare of all civilised 
 countries, and so peculiarly the interest of our own. But this ineffable 
 blessing cannot be obtained by the passive principle of non-interference. 
 Peace rests on the presence, not to say the ascendency, of England in the 
 councils of Europe. Even at the moment, the doubt supposed to be in- 
 separable from a popular election, if it does not diminish, certainly arrests 
 her influence, and is a main reason for not delaying an appeal to the 
 national voice." 
 
 It is hardly necessary to recall the way in which this manifesto was 
 received, or the catastrophe which befell the Tory party at the polls. 
 Some falling off in the majority for the Government was anticipated on 
 account of the prevailing distress and stagnation of trade — calamities 
 which resulted mainly from the four successive bad harvests with which 
 the country has been visited, but which were uniformly represented as the 
 effect of Imperialism in politics, and the ascendency of Lord Beaconsfield. 
 But no one expected so complete a reversal of the verdict of 1874. When 
 in that year Mr. Gladstone made his appeal to the country, his great 
 majority had dwindled ;down to nothing, whereas the Conservative 
 majority remained almost exactly what it had been at the outset. The 
 result was consequently a peculiarly disagreeable surprise. It had been 
 
558 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EAUL OP BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 thought impossible that the Liberal party should have a majority at all ; 
 and when seat after seat in the boroughs was found to be won by them, 
 the principal emotion was one of surprise, followed it may be by a less 
 agreeable feeling when it was found that Mr. Gladstone's tactics had placed 
 him once more in office, with a majority of no less than 112. After 
 this there was nothing more to be said. Lord Beaconsfield wound up the 
 business of his Administration as speedily as x3ossible so as not to hamper 
 his successor, and cheerfully retired into the cool shade of the Opposi- 
 tion, having previously recommended Mr. Gladstone as his only possible 
 successor. 
 
 Thus driven into exile by an unexpected turn of fortune's wheel Lord 
 Beaconsfield wasted no time in unavailing regrets, but accepted the inevit- 
 able with his accustomed stoicism, congratulating himself that he would 
 now be able, for the first time in his life, to see the roses at Hughenden 
 come into blossom. After such a defeat there was obviously nothing for the 
 leader of the Tory party to do within the walls of Parliament, and accord- 
 ingly he remained for the greater part of last year in seclusion. Very 
 speedily there were rumours that a new novel was on the stocks, and might 
 be looked for at a very early period. The name then crept out, and the 
 world began to look forward for " Eudymion " with sufficient curiosity and 
 interest. It is hardly necessary to add that as usual a host of fabulous stories 
 were told concerning the amount of money paid by Messrs. Longman & Co. to 
 the statesman author — stories which did much more credit to the ingenuity 
 of their inventors than to the good sense or good taste of those who believed 
 them. When at last the romance came out gay in scarlet cloth with silver 
 lettering it was found to be of a kind very different from what the world 
 had been led to anticipate. Instead of being a classical romance it was a 
 political novel, cast very much in the lines of those by which the author 
 had made his fame five-and-thirty years ago, and marked by certain auto- 
 biographical features which it is impossible to misunderstand. Endymion 
 Ferrars is obviously designed in some of his principal characteristics for 
 Lord Beaconsfield himself in the days of his youth. His sister Myra is as 
 obviously intended for that Sarah Disraeli for whom the Earl was well 
 known to entertain the deepest and most tender affection, while the wife 
 whom Endymion finds later on in his life corresponds in many important 
 respects with her whom the author described as " the most severe of critics, 
 but a perfect wife." For the rest nearly every personage of the story has 
 been identified with some more or less conspicuous figure in modern society 
 — not always with perfect success seeing that it has never been Lord 
 Beaconsfield's habit to turn a novel into a portrait gallery. What he has 
 done has been to take one characteristic from one person, and another from 
 another, and so to build up, as it were, a complete man from a dozen frag- 
 ments of portraiture. Of the book as a whole it is perhaps rather premature 
 to speak with much decision. To me it seems to approach more nearly 
 
tlian any other of its author's writings to the completeness and perfection 
 of " Coningsby "—the best political noVel of the century. There is, in 
 addition, a sense of rich and ripe maturity about the book which is pecu- 
 liarly seductive. Every page sparkles with an epigram, yet the sometimes 
 rather forced brilliancy of the author's earlier works is conspicuously 
 absent. Advancing age has mellowed and enriched the style, and has im- 
 parted a restraint, which was the only thing wanting to those earlier 
 romances by which Lord Beaconsfield made his reputation. One thing is 
 especially noticeable and especially characteristic, and that is the immense 
 prominence which is given to womanly influences. Those who knew Lord 
 Beaconsfield best, say that there was no feature in his character more 
 striking than the peculiar reverence and tenderness with which he spoke of 
 women, and that he never appeared in society to so great advantage as 
 when conversing with its queens. From a party point of view he gave no 
 small offence at one time by supporting some of the claims of the strong- 
 minded sisterhood to votes. The explanation of his action in this matter 
 may be found in the pages of " Endymion '* by those who know how to 
 read between the lines. 
 
 The publication of this romance may almost be said to have crowned 
 Lord Beaconsfield's public career. After its appearance he spoke in the 
 House of Lords on two occasions. On the 4th of March last a great debate 
 was raised on the abandonment of our position at Candahar, and on this 
 occasion Lord Beaconsfield spoke with much if not all of his old fire and 
 power. He began by justifying the refusal of the late Government to 
 publish the compromising correspondence of Kussia in the matter of Cabul, 
 and delivered himself of some exceedingly caustic criticism of a Ministry 
 which could deliberately contemplate the abandonment of our position in 
 Afghanistan at a time when the information contained in those papers was 
 in their possession. Lord Northbrook came in for a smart castigation as a 
 member not merely of the peace-at-any-price party, but as a graduate in 
 that higher school which negotiated while it waged war, and negotiated 
 with more readiness if our arms had been defeated. Lord Beaconsfield 
 admitted that, after the Congress of Berlin and the ^ explanation of tho 
 Russian Chancellor, he did announce to the House that of the proceedings 
 of Russia in Afghanistan at the time when war between that power and 
 England was supposed to be imminent we had no cause to complain. U'lie 
 conversation between him and the Russian Minister at our Court to the 
 same effect occurred in November, 1878, which was a year before the dis- 
 covery of the secret papers at Cabul. Lord Beaconsfield then went into 
 details to show that he could not have said to the Russian Minister that 
 the Government of India had forced the hands of the Government at home. 
 The mistake happened through a misapprehension on the part of Count 
 Schouvaloff, who was a most honourable man. The observation about 
 forcin^^ hands had reference not to an operation of war, but to the sending 
 
560 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 of the mission to the Ameer, which was an operation of peace, taken without 
 the concurrence of the Government at home, and of which they disap- 
 proved. With regard to the abandonment of Candahar, Lord Beaconsfield 
 feared that our withdrawal would leave the country in a state of anarchy. 
 He also blamed the Government for not obtaining trustworthy information 
 through the Indian authorities as to the cost of maintaining a garrison 
 there, and repudiated the idea that the Queen's Proclamation precluded us 
 from occupying territory obtained by right of conquest. He did not 
 despair of our ability to protect our Indian Empire from the Indus frontier, 
 but he strongly advised the retention of Candahar as a position of great 
 strategical importance. In his opinion, London was the real key of India, 
 as after all, it would have to be governed by popular opinion, expressed in 
 and ... of the English Parliament. It was wise, however, to avail our- 
 selves of local resources. This country had long acted on that principle, 
 and had generally managed to procure a precise and scientific frontier. 
 The fact that the power of England could be felt on the spot was the best 
 security for peace, and consequently of economy. He called upon their 
 lordships to enter a protest against the rash and precipitate step which the 
 Government appeared disposed to take. The speech was delivered with 
 much of the old fire and energy, but there were not wanting evidences of 
 a decay of physical strength which the friends of the orator could not con- 
 template without anxiety. Thus, for example, in the course of his speech, 
 having to mention Herat, his once extraordinary memory completely failed 
 him and he was compelled to substitute for the name of the place a rather 
 awkward periphrasis. When the division was over he walked mechanically, 
 not to his seat on the front opposition bench, but to that which he had 
 occupied as leader of the Government. There was a burst of laughter — 
 not ill-natured, one is glad to remember — and with a quiet "Not yet" 
 from Lord Granville the incident came to an end. 
 
 Yet once more his voice was to be heard controlling the Senate. He 
 spoke for the last time on the occasion of the Czar's murder, and it is 
 worthy of remark that his last recorded occupation was that of correcting 
 the proof of his speech for " Hansard," with the remark that he did not 
 wish to go down to posterity as speaking bad grammar. 
 
 Over the last days of Lord Beaconsfield's life it is impossible to linger in 
 this place. They were pathetic enough, but their pathos was lightened by 
 the fact that he enjoyed a larger share of friendship than most men, and 
 that the popularity which had suffered a temporary eclipse was as bright 
 and as great as ever during the last month of his life. He passed peace- 
 fully into the unseen world on the morning of Easter Tuesday (19th April, 
 1881), grasping the hands of devoted friends, and leaving behind him a 
 reputation which can but grow brighter as time goes by. 
 
 Amongst the many fables which group themselves round the death-beds 
 of famous men, there is a tradition that the last words of Mr. Pitt were. 
 
LAST WORDS. 561 
 
 " Oh my country ! in what a state I leave my country ! " Whether Lord 
 Beaconsfield said — as he might well have done — aught of the same kind, 
 his friends who knew his fastidious reticence will prohably never allow the 
 world to know. But that he loved England with all the deep passion of a 
 great, and strong, and noble nature, we are well aware, and that the 
 country has los.t by his death a man of rare judgment, of undaunted 
 courage, and of consummate ability, even his adversaries have been forced, 
 however unwillingly, to admit. 
 
 2 
 
1563 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELd's WILL. 
 
 " 1, the Eight Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount 
 Hughenden, of Hughendeu Manor, in the county of Buckingham, Knight 
 of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and First Lord of Her Majesty's 
 Treasury, hereby revoke all wills and other testamentary dispositions here- 
 tofore made by me, and declare this to be my last will. 
 
 " I desire and direct that I may be buried in the same vault, in the 
 churchyard of Hughenden, in which the remains of my late dear wife, 
 Mary Ann Disraeli, created in her own right Vicountess Beaconsfield, were 
 placed, and that my funeral may be conducted with the same simplicity 
 as hers was. 
 
 " I bequeath all my personal estate, including the copyrights of all my 
 published works (except chattels real, included in the general devise herein 
 contained of real estate, and except what I otherwise bequeath by this 
 my will or any codicil thereto, and except any articles belonging to me 
 which I may by any memorandum in my own handwriting or by any 
 paper signed by me designate as intended for personal remembrances to my 
 friends, and which memorandum or paper I direct may have the same force 
 and effect as if it had formed part of this my will), unto my friends. Sir 
 Nathaniel Mayer de Eothschild, of Tring Park, Hertfordshire, Baronet, 
 M.P., and Sir Philip Eose, of Eayners, Penn, Buckinghamshire, Baronet, 
 their executors, administrators, and assigns, upon trust that the}^ or the 
 survivor of them, or the executors or administrators of such survivor, or 
 the trustees or trustee who shall have succeeded in their place (hereinafter 
 called my trustees or trustee, or the trustees or trustee of this my will), 
 shall call in, sell, and convert into money such part of my said personal 
 estate as shall not consist of money. And I declare and direct that my 
 trustees or trustee shall, out of the moneys to arise from the calling in, 
 sale, and conversion into money of such part of my said personal estate as 
 shall not consist of money, and the money of which I shall be possessed 
 at my death, pay my funeral and testamentary expenses, and all my just 
 debts, and such other sums as are hereinafter mentioned, and apply the 
 residue of the said moneys upon the trusts with, and subject to, the powers, 
 provisoes, and declarations, and in the manner hereinafter declared and 
 directed, of and concerning the moneys to arise, and as if the same were 
 moneys arising from any sale of the hereditaments hereinafter devised in 
 strict settlement under the power of sale thereof hereinafter contained. 
 
LORD BEACONSFIELD'S WILL. • ^^ 
 
 " I devise all that the Manor of Hughenden, with the mansion-Iioiis^" <^^ 
 known as Hughenden Manor, and the pleasure-grounds, gardens, planta- ^ 
 
 tions, lands, easements, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, (irjtl^re- ^ % ^ 
 with held or enjoyed, 'together with the advowson of .the vicira^i ^f t?^ ^ ' 
 Hughenden, and all my messuages, farms, lands, tenements, and lii^tS- *^ ^ 
 ments situate in the parish of Hughenden and West Wycombe or elsl\^je, ^/l 
 in the county of Bucks, with their rights, easements, and appurtenances, -^ ; 
 but subject to all charges and encumbrances affecting the same, tot^e ^ ^ 
 use of my nephew Coningsby Kalph Disraeli (son of my brother Eai_ 
 Disraeli, Deputy Clerk of the Parliaments), during his life without 
 impeachment of waste, and after his decease to the use of each successively 
 according to seniority of the sons of the said Coningsby Kalph Disraeli 
 in tail male, with remainder to the use of the other sons of my said 
 brother Ealph Disraeli, who may hereafter be born successively according 
 to their respective seniorities in tail male, with remainder to the use of 
 Dorothy Disraeli, eldest daughter of my said brother Ealph DisraeH, for 
 her life, without impeachment of waste, for her sole and separate use, 
 independently of any husband with whom she may intermarry, and of 
 his debts, control, and engagements, and from and after her decease to the 
 use of her first and other sons successively, according to seniority in tail 
 male, with remainder to the use of Sybil Isabella Disraeli, second 
 daughter of my said brother Ealph Disraeli, for her life, without 
 impeachment of waste, for her sole and separate use, independently of any 
 husband with whom she may intermarry, and of his debts, control, and 
 engagements, and after her decease to the use of her first and other sons 
 successively according to seniority in tail male, with remainder to the use 
 of Marguerite Katharine Disraeli, third daughter of my said brother Ealph 
 Disraeli, for her life without impeachment of waste for her sole and separate 
 use, independently of any husband with whom she may intermarry, and 
 of his debts, control, and engagements, and after her death to the use of 
 her first and other sons successively according to seniority in tail male, 
 with remainder to the use of the daughters of ray said brother Ealph 
 Disraeli who may hereafter be born, successively according to their 
 seniority in tail, with remainder to the use of my own right heirs for 
 ever. 
 
 " Provided always, and I hereby declare that every person actually bora 
 in my lifetime (but not any person en ventre sa mere at my decease), who 
 under the limitations hereinbefore contained would be entitled or inherit- 
 able to an estate in tail male in the said premises hereinbefore devised, 
 shall in the place and order in which he or she would be entitled or in- 
 heritable as aforesaid, take therein in lieu of the estate in tail male to which 
 he or she would have been entitled or inheritable as aforesaid an estate for 
 life only without impeachment of waste (and if such person be a woman 
 the said estate shall be for her sole and separate use, independently of any 
 husband with whom she may intermarry, and of his debts, control, and 
 
 2 2 
 
664 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 engagements), with remainder after the decease of such person, and the 
 failure of issue male of his or her sons horn in my lifetime (if any) to his 
 or her sons horn after my decease successively according to seniority in 
 tail male. 
 
 "Provided always, and I herehy expressly declare it as my wish, 
 although I abstain from attaching any penalty to the non-performance of 
 this direction, that every person who under this my will shall become en- 
 titled as tenant for life or as tenant in tail male to the actual possession, or 
 to the receipt of the rents and profits of the said premises hereinbefore 
 devised in strict settlement, and who shall not then use and bear the surname 
 of Disraeli, shall within one year after he or she shall become so entitled, 
 and also that every person whom any woman so becoming entitled shall 
 marry, shall within one year after such woman shall so become entitled or 
 shall marry, whichever of such events shall last happen (unless in the said 
 respective cases any such person shall be prevented by death), take upon 
 himself or herself, and use in all deeds and writings which he or she shall 
 sign, and upon occasions, the surname of Disraeli only, and not together 
 with his or her own family surname. 
 
 " Provided always, and I hereby declare that, notwithstanding anything 
 herein contained, it shall not be lawful for any person who for the time being 
 shall, under the provisions of this my will, be actual tenant for life of the 
 premises hereinbefore devised, to fell or cut down, or cause to be felled or cut 
 down, any timber or timber-like trees for the time being standing in the park, 
 gardens, pleasure gardens, and woods, including the wood usually known 
 by the name of the ' German Forest,' or any part of the said lands and 
 hereditaments hereby devised, save and except such timber or timber-hke 
 trees as the trustees or trustee of this my will in their or his discretion, 
 and without being accountable for the exercise of such discretion, and 
 whose decision shall be final, shall declare ought in the ordi nary course of 
 good management of an estate to be felled or cut down. 
 
 " And I hereby declare that if any person who would, but for this pre- 
 sent declaration, be entitled to the possession or the receipt of the rents and 
 profits of my said real estate as tenant for life, or in tail male, under this 
 my Will, shall (being a child of my said brother Ealph Disraeli now living) 
 be under the age of twenty-six years, or (not being such child of my said 
 brother now living) be under the age of twenty-one years, then and so 
 often the trustees or trustee of this my will shall during such minority 
 receive the rents of and manage the said real estate, and may let the said 
 mansion house of Hughenden Manor either from year to year, or on lease 
 for a term of years not exceeding the period of such minority, and may fell 
 timber for repairs or sak or otherwise, and accept surrenders from and make 
 all allowances to and arrangements with tenants and others, and m.ay do 
 all other things which to them or him may seem expedient for the due 
 management thereof, as if he or they were the absolute beneficial owners 
 or owner thereof, without being answerable for any loss or damnge 
 
LORD BEACONSFIELD'S WILL. 565 
 
 which may happen thereby ; and after deducting the expenses of manage- 
 ment, repairs, insurance, and other outgoings, and satisfying any and 
 every annual sum and the interest of any and every gross sum which may 
 be charged upon the said real estate or any part thereof, shall invest the 
 residue of the said rents and profits in the names or name of the trustees 
 or trustee of this my will in any of the public stocks or funds or Govern- 
 ment securities of the United Kingdom or India, or any colony or depen- 
 dency of the United Kingdom, or upon freehold, copyhold, leasehold, or 
 chattel real, securities in the United Kingdom, or in or upon the stocks, 
 funds, shares, debentures, mortgages, or securities of any corporation, com- 
 pany, or public body, municipal, commercial, or otherwise, in the United 
 Kingdom or India, or any colony or dependency of the United Kingdom, 
 or in or upon the stocks, funds, bonds, debentures, mortgages, or securities 
 of any foreign Government, country, or State, or upon any real security in 
 any foreign country, and may, at their and his discretion, vary the said 
 stocks, funds, shares, and securities as to them or him shall seem meet, and 
 shall accumulate the dividend, interest, and income of the said stocks, 
 funds, and securities in the way of compound interest by similarly invest- 
 ing the same and the resulting income from time to time, and shall hold 
 the said residue of the said rents and profits and the said original and 
 accumulated stocks, funds, and securities, and the annual income thereof 
 upon the trusts, and with, under, and subject to the provisoes, powers, and 
 declarations applicable to moneys to arise, and as if the same were moneys 
 arising from a sale in pursuance of the power of sale hereinafter contained 
 and the stocks, funds, and securities in and upon which such moneys are 
 hereinafter authorised to be invested, and the dividends, interest, and 
 income thereof. 
 
 "Provided, nevertheless, that it shall be lawful for the trustees or 
 trustee during any such minority as aforesaid to apply any part of the 
 accumulations of such minority in such minority in such manner for the 
 permanent improvement of the property as he or they in his or their abso- 
 lute discretion shall think fit. 
 
 "And I hereby declare that every person hereby made tenant for life of 
 the said premises when he or she shall be in actual possession, or entitled 
 to the receipts of the rents and profits thereof, and also the trustees or 
 trustee of this my will, during the minority of any person who, if such mino- 
 rity did not exist (such minority being in the case of any children of my said 
 brother Ealph Disraeli now living considered to terminate at the ago of 
 twenty-six years), would be entitled to the possession or to the receipt of 
 the rents and profits of the said premises, may by deed apix)int by way of 
 lease all or any of the said premises for any term of years absolute or deter- 
 minable, not exceeding, for agricultural or occupation purposes, twenty-one 
 years, or for building or repairing purix)ses, ninety-nine years, to take 
 effect in possession, or within six months from the date of the npi)oiut- 
 ment, so as there be reserved the best yearly rent that can reasonably bo 
 
566 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 gotten without taking any premium; but in the case of building or 
 repairing leases any rent smaller than the rent to be ultimately payable 
 may be reserved during the first five years. 
 
 " Provided, also, and I further declare that the trustees or trustee of this 
 my will shall have an absolute discretionary power of sale and exchange 
 over all or any of the said premises hereinbefore devised (except my said 
 mansion house of Hughenden Manor, together with the park, park-like 
 grounds, gardens, pleasure grounds, and woods thereto adjacent, and neces- 
 sary or convenient for the proper enjoyment of the same) exercisable during 
 the life of any tenant for life of full age in possession of the said premises 
 under this my will, with his consent in writing, and during the minority of 
 any tenant for life, or of any tenant in tail by purchase in posssession of the 
 said premises under this my will, at the discretion of the trustees or trustee 
 of this my will ; and I hereby declare that the trustees or trustee of this 
 my will shall, with such consent or at such discretion as aforesaid, at such 
 time as they shall think proper (such time being in their absolute discre- 
 tion), lay out the money to be received upon any sale or exchange as 
 aforesaid in the purchase of freehold or copyhold hereditaments of inherit- 
 ance, in England or Wales, or in procuring the enfranchisement of copyhold 
 hereditaments, purchased or previously settled, and shall settle or cause 
 the same to be settled to the uses and subject to the powers hereby limited 
 of and concerning the said premises hereinbefore devised, so far as the 
 deaths of parties and other intervening circumstances will admit. 
 
 " Provided always that the trustees or trustee of this my will may at 
 their discretion apply any moneys to be received upon any sale or exchaiJ^e 
 as aforesaid, or any part thereof, in or towards satisfying any mortgage or 
 other charge or incumbrance which may then affect all or any of the 
 hereditaments which shall then be subject to the uses and trusts of this 
 my will. And I further declare that until the moneys to be received upon 
 any sale or exchange as aforesaid be invested in the purchase of real estate 
 as aforesaid, they may be invested, and the investments varied in the same 
 manner as is hereinbefore specified with regard to moneys to arise from the 
 accumulation of rents and profits during minorities as aforesaid, and that 
 the annual income from sucli investment shall be paid and applied in the 
 manner in which the rents and profits of hereditaments to be purchased 
 therewith as aforesaid would be applicable in case such settlement as afore- 
 said were then actually made. 
 
 ' "Provided always that if the trustees or trustee of this my will should 
 be required or should think proper to pay off any charge or incumbrance 
 upon the whole or any part of my said real estate, it shall be lawful for 
 my trustees or trustee at any time, or from time to time, to raise any such 
 sum or sums of money as may be necessary for such purpose, by way of 
 mortgage or charge, legal or equitable, upon the whole or any part of my 
 said real estate, upon such terms, and subject to such conditions as they in 
 their discretion shall think proper. 
 
LORD BEACONSFIELD'S WILL. 507 
 
 " And I hereby bequeath unto the trustees or trustee of this my will, all 
 such of the books, pictures, statues, furniture, works of art, articles of 
 vertu, and other articles of which I shall at the time of my death be 
 possessed, as they or he shall, in the exercise of their discretion, think fit 
 and proper to be selected and set apart, and be held as heirlooms with my 
 said mansion house of Hughenden Manor, and shall so specify in a docu- 
 ment in writing, signed by them or him upon trust, to allow the same to 
 go, devolve, and remain as heirlooms, together with my said mansion- 
 house of Hughenden Manor hereinbefore devised, so far as the rules of 
 law and equity will permit, but so nevertheless that the same shall not 
 vest absolutely in any person hereby made tenant in tail male, unless such 
 person shall attain the age of twenty-one years, but on the death of such 
 tenant in male tail under the age of twenty-one years the said articles so 
 specified shall so devolve and remain as if the same had been freeholds of 
 inheritance and had been devised in strict settlement accordingly. 
 
 " And I hereby expressly direct that all books and pictures and other 
 articles which have been presented to me either by Her Majesty the Queen 
 Victoria or the late Prince Consort shall be included in the articles to be 
 selected and set apart as heirlooms as aforesaid, and I further direct that as 
 soon as conveniently may be after the said selection shall have been made, 
 as aforesaid, an inventory shall be taken of the snid articles so specified, 
 and such writing (subject to its being revised as occasion shall require) be 
 signed by every person for the time being entitled to the enjoyment of the 
 said articles under the limitations hereinbefore contained, and also by the 
 trustees or trustee, of this my will, and the said articles shall at all times 
 be kept adequately insured against loss or damage by fire (so far as the 
 same are capable of being so insured), and properly preserved by and at 
 the expense of the usufructuary thereof for the time being. 
 
 " Provided always, that after the usufructuary for the time being shall 
 have signed the inventory aforesaid, the trustees or trustee of this my will 
 gliall not be bound to see to the insurances or preservation of the said 
 articles or any of them, and shall not be responsible for any omission or 
 neglect on the part of the usufructuary with respect to the insurance and 
 preservation thereof nor for loss or damage occasioned by any other act or 
 omission on the part of the usufructuary, but the trustees or trustee of this 
 my will shall not be precluded from interfering for the protection of the 
 property when and as they or he shall think fit. 
 
 " I give and bequeath to my friend and private secretary, Montagu CoiTy 
 Esq., all the letters, papers, and documents, whether of a private or of a 
 public character, and whether in print or in manuscript, and also all the 
 manuscripts of any writings published or composed by me of which I shall 
 die possessed, and also all the manuscripts and paj^ers of my late father, 
 Isaac Disraeli, Esq., iximi tlic trusts hereinafter declared concerning the 
 
 same. 
 
 " I hereby rc(iuest the said Montagu Corry, with all oonvenicBt speed 
 
568 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 after my death, to collect or aid in collecting the said documents, and I 
 hereby, relying on the discretion of the said Montagu Corry, do authorise 
 and request him to destroy any of the said documents, or any part thereof, 
 as he in the absolute exercise of sucb discretion shall think ought to be 
 destroyed, and I authorise the said Montagu Corry to keep and deposit all 
 or any of the said documents as he shall think ought not to be destroyed 
 in such place as he shall think fit during such period of time as he shall 
 require to have access to them for the purposes of examination or publication. 
 
 *' I give to the said Montagu Corry full discretion with regard to the 
 publication of all or any of such documents, leaving to him to decide as to 
 the time and mode of publication, and as many of the said documents are 
 connected with my ofi&cial and public life, and contain matters l)earing on 
 the character and conduct of contemporary statesmen, and on affairs 
 which it may be of importance to the public interests should not be pre- 
 maturely or indiscreetly disclosed, I give the above discretion to the said 
 Montagu Corry, in the full assurance that he will scrupulously respect every 
 confidence reposed in me, and will cause or allow nothing to be published 
 calculated to do injury to the public service or to inflict needless pain on 
 the living or on the families of the dead. 
 
 " And I especially and expressly desire and direct that no portion of my 
 correspondence with Her Majesty Queen Victoria shall be published or mado 
 known until the said Montagu Corry shall have ascertained and shall have 
 satisfied himself that no objection is entertained to such use of the said 
 correspondence on the part of Her Majesty herself during her life or after 
 lier death on the part of those who may, in^the belief of the said Montagu 
 Corry, be likely to be conversant with her wishes and opinions on the 
 subject. 
 
 " And I hereby authorise the said Montagu Corry to sell and dispose ol 
 the copyright of any of the said documents in the case of their publica- 
 tion, or to make such pecuniary arrangements as to the terms of their 
 publication as he may think fit, and if any less sum than £500 should 
 after payment of all expenses of publication be received by the said 
 Montagu Corry from the publication of any of such documents I hereby 
 give and bequeath such sum to the said Montagu Corry for his own use, 
 but if any greater sum than the sum of £500 after payment of expenses 
 as aforesaid shall be so received I desire and direct that the said Montagu 
 Corry shall pay such surplus as soon as the same shall have been actually 
 received and got in by him to the trustees of this my will, and that the 
 said trustees or trustee of this my will shall apply the same upon the 
 trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions applicable to 
 moneys arising from sales under the power of sale hereinbefore contained, 
 and investments respecting the same, but I expressly declare that this 
 provision shall not be construed to give to any person the right to interfere 
 with the discretion of the said Montagu Corry with regard to the time 
 and mode of publication of the said documents. 
 
LORD BEACONSFIELD'S WILL. 569 
 
 "And I hereby authorise the said Montagu Corry to give gratuitous 
 access, whether for historical, literary, or other purposes, to any person or 
 persons to whom, in his judgment, such access should be given ; and with 
 regard to the permanent disposal of the said documents, I direct and 
 desire that the said Montagu Corry will, when and so far as is consistent 
 with the due carrying out of the purposes of this my will as to publication 
 and otherwise, deposit the same at my mansion-house of Hughenden 
 Manor, and allow the same to so devolve and remain as heirlooms together 
 with my said mansion-house so far as the rules of law and equity will 
 permit, but so, nevertheless, that the same shall not vest absolutely in any 
 person hereby made tenant in tail male unless such person shall attain the 
 age of twenty-one years, but on the death of such tenant in tail male under 
 the age of twenty-one years the said documents shall go and devolve and 
 remain as if the same had been freeholds of inheritance and had been 
 devised in strict settlement accordingly. 
 
 " And I hereby declare that it shall be lawful for the said Montagu 
 Corry to seal up and keep sealed up all or any of such documents as he 
 shall think proper, and that it shall be lawful at any time for the said 
 Montagu Corry, or for any person bearing an order signed by him, to have 
 access to the said documents, and to make copies of the same or any part 
 thereof, and for the said Montagu Corry to remove to such place as he 
 shall think proper any of the said documents, and to make copies of the 
 same or any jjart thereof, and for the said Montagu Corry to remove to 
 such place as he shall think proper any of the said documents for such 
 length of time as he may desire for the purposes of examination or publi- 
 cation ; and, further, that a list shall be made and shall be signed by the 
 said Montagu Corry, and by every person for the time being entitled to 
 the use and occupation of my said mansion-house or during the minority 
 of any person who shall be so entitled as aforesaid, by the trustees or 
 trustee of this my will, provided always that the said Montagu Corry 
 shall not at any time be responsible for any inadvertent loss or damage 
 which may happen to any of the said documents, but shall not be pre- 
 cluded from interfering for the preservation and protection of the said 
 documents whenever he shall think fit. 
 
 " And I hereby declare that if and when the said Montagu Corry shall 
 die, or become incapable to act, or be desirous of retiring from the 
 execution of the trusts herein conferred upon him, it shall be lawful for 
 the trustees or trustee of this my will to appoint a successor or successors 
 to the said Montagu Corry in the execution of the said trusts relating to 
 the said documents, and thereupon the execution of the said trusts and all 
 powers and rights hereby conferred on the said Montagu Corry in relation 
 thereto shall devolve on the said successor or successors so apix)inted as 
 aforesaid, precisely as if he or they had been named in this my will. 
 
 " Provided always that all sums of money received by the said Mon- 
 ta<^u Corry, which he would be entitled to keep, shall remain the absolute 
 
 ° 2 3 
 
570 THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. 
 
 j)roperty of the said Montagu Cony, his executors, administrators, and 
 assio-ns, and shall not pass to such successor or successors as aforesaid, 
 and such successor or successors shall pay to and account for to the 
 trustees or trustee of this my will all sums of money received by him or 
 them on account of the publication of any of the said documents after 
 payment of all expenses incurred in connection with such publication, and 
 the trustees or trustee of this my will shall apply such sums in the same 
 manner as the money received by them from the said Montagu Corry in 
 respect of the publication of any of the said documents is hereinbefore 
 directed to be applied. 
 
 " And I hereby direct and desire that the trustees or trustee of this my 
 will shall collect or aid in collecting the said documents with all conve- 
 nient speed after my death, and jjlace the same at the disposal of the said 
 Montagu Corry, and I authorise them to pay all the expense of such col- 
 lection out of my personal estate. 
 
 " Provided always and I hereby declare that upon every or any appoint- 
 ment of a new trustee of this my will the number of the said trustees may 
 be augmented or reduced, and, in addition to the ordinary powers of 
 indemnity and right to reimbursement by law given to trustees, the 
 trustees of this my will shall bs at liberty to accept less than a market- 
 able title upon the purchase or taking in exchange of any hereditaments, 
 and shall not be answerable for any loss thereby occasioned, nor for any 
 default in the title or value of hereditaments purchased or taken in 
 exchange. 
 
 " I hereby appoint the said Sir Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild and the 
 said Sir Philip Rose executors of this my will. In witness thereof I, the 
 said Earl of Beaconsfield, have to this my last will and testament contained 
 in this and the ten preceding sheets of paper, set my hand, this sixteenth 
 day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 " Signed by the said Earl of Beaconsfield, the testator, as and for his 
 last will and testament, in the presence of us, both present at the same 
 time, who at his request, in his presence, and in the presence of each other, 
 have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses. 
 
 " (Signed) Beaconsfield. 
 
 " (Signed) P. Frederick Rose, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster, solicitor. 
 
 " (Signed) John Brewer, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster, solicitor." 
 
( 571 ) 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 i 
 
 Aberdeen, Cabinet, Constitution of 
 the, 201 
 
 Aberdeen (Lord), and Lord Lansdowne, 
 " sent for " (1853), 200 
 
 Aberdeen Government attacked by Mr. 
 Layard, 212 
 
 Aberdeen (Lord), "sent for" (1851), 
 165 
 
 Abolition of Purchase, 437 
 
 Abyssinian Expedition resolved upon, 
 407 
 
 Accepting the Situation on Protection, 
 169 
 
 Addington, Mr., on French demands, 
 256 
 
 Additions to Income Tax in 1859, 144 
 
 Address, Debate on the (1851), 188 
 
 Address to Glasgow students, 482 
 
 Adjournment of Autumn Session, 1867, 
 408 
 
 Adullamites on Irish Church Resolu- 
 tions, 416 
 
 AfFghanistan, trouble in, 553 
 
 Agitation for Reform, 1866, 378 
 
 Agitation, the O'Conncll, 103 
 
 Aggression, Papal, in 1850, 158 
 
 Agrarian crime, increase of, 81 
 
 Agricultural Distress, 156 
 
 Agricultural Labourer, Lord Beacons- 
 field on the, 469 
 
 Agricultural Loyalty, 148 
 
 Alabama Claims Convention (1868), 430. 
 
 Alliance of the Whigs with O'Connell, 
 46 
 
 Alroy, 29 ; the Athenaeum on, i.h. 
 
 Althorpe, Lord, resignation of, 40 
 
 Amendment to Address (1859), 302; 
 to Budget of 1862, 340 ; to Irish 
 University Bill, 474 
 
 Amendment, Mr. Kinglake's final on, 
 London Conference, 356 ; Mr. Dis- 
 raeli's to Mr. Villiers' resolutions, 
 1852, 188 
 
 American insolence, Lord Beaconsfield 
 on, 452 
 
 American War, Liberal Ministers on 
 
 the, 335 
 Andrassy note, 532 
 Annuals, Lady Blessington's, 80 
 Anstey, Mr. Chisholm, 183 
 Anti-Corn Law Agitation, 111 ; Bazaar, 
 
 112 ; League revived, 177 ; Petitions, 
 
 93 
 Appeal to the country on Irish Church 
 
 decided on, 420 
 Apocrvphal tales about Lord Beacons- 
 field, one of the, 422 
 Apprehensions of attack by France, 175 
 Arcot, Nabob of, 251 
 Argyll, Duke of, on Sir A. Cockburn, 
 
 466 ; attack on Government, 536 
 Armaments (additional) under Lord 
 
 Palmerston's Government, 310 
 Arrow, The Lorcha, 241 
 Asian Mystery, Mr. B. Hope on the, 
 
 395 
 Aspect of the House during Reform 
 
 Debate (1867), 383 
 Attacks of the Bucks Gazette on Mr. 
 
 Disraeli's Toryism, 34 
 Attacks on Election Address (1868), 430 
 " Atticus " and the Agitators, 398 
 Athenaeum on " Lothair," 393 ; on 
 
 " Tancred," 132 
 Attwood's, Mr. T., Speech on the Na- 
 tional Petition, 83 
 Austin's (Mr.) privileged libel upon 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, 95 
 Autumn Session (1867), 407 
 Ayrtou (Mr.) on the Tory Government, 
 
 421 
 
 B. 
 
 Bag and Baqgaqe Policy, 529 
 Baincs's (Mr.) Bill for extension of 
 
 Borough Franchise, 362 
 Ballot, The, 460 
 
 Bank Charter Act suspended, 133 
 Banquet at Merchant Taylors' Hall, 308 
 Bartle Frere (Sir), outcry for recall of, 
 
 554 
 
572 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Batavian Grace, Mr. Hope's, 395 
 Beaconsfield (Earl) ; see Disraeli, Ben- 
 jamin 
 Beaconsfield, Mrs. Disraeli created 
 
 Countess of, 432 
 Beadon (Sir Cecil) on Calcutta volun- 
 teers, 255 
 Bedchamber Plot, The, 81 
 Belgians, King of the, Vindicated by 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, 204 
 Bentinck's, Lord G., Irish Railway 
 
 Scheme, 108 
 Bentinck, death of Lord George, 145 ; 
 Lord George resigns the leadership 
 of the Tory party, 136 ; Lord 
 George a Whig, 115 
 Berkeley's (Mr. Grantley), proposed 
 Committee on Importation of Corn, 
 157 
 Berlin, Congress of, decided on, 549- 
 550 ; return of plenipotentiaries from, 
 550 ; freedom of City presented to, 
 552 
 Besika Bay, Fleet ordered to, 546 
 Berlin Memorandum, reasons of its 
 
 rejection, 531 
 Birmingham gets a third member, 
 301 ; Police Bill, 85 ; Riots at, 86 
 " Black Friday " (note), 365 
 Black Friday, effects upon finance of, 
 
 377 
 Blessington's (Lady) Annuals, 80 
 Blessington (Lady) on Disraeli the 
 
 Younger, 15 
 Bolingbroke, Henry St. John Viscount, 
 
 61 
 Bouvierie (Mr.) " the candid friend," 
 
 230 ; on the Liberal party, 412 
 Bowring (Sir John) declares war with 
 
 China, 241 
 Bribery Bill, 409 
 
 Bright (Mr.) claims Lord Beaconsfield 
 as a convert, 313; Free Breakfast 
 Table, 481 ; on the Budget of 1858, 
 283 ; on Liberal differences, 308 ; on 
 Mr. Lowe and Lord Derby, 369 ; on 
 Lord Beaconsfield in 1865, 363 ; cry 
 of "perish Savoy," 324; random 
 charges against Lord Beaconsfield, 
 422 ; on the " Residuum," 391 ; 
 "Temple Bar" speech, 380; the 
 Throne and the House of Lords, 295 
 British ambassador expelled from Ma- 
 drid, 139 
 Brougham, on the New Poor Law, 79 ; 
 and the Representative, on " Vivian 
 Grey," 16 ; supposed to be mad (note). 
 
 43 ; his progress through Scotland, 
 43, 59 
 
 Bruce, Mr. H. A., on the " infernal land 
 laws," 440 
 
 Brunet, Opinion of I. D'lsracli, 6 
 
 Buckinghamshire favourable to the 
 growth of Prime Ministers, 125 ; first 
 requisition to stand for, 39 
 
 Bucks Electors, Mr. Disraeli's address 
 to, 1852, 183 
 
 Bucks Gazette, attacks Mr. Disraeli as 
 a Tory, 33 
 
 Budget of 1850, 157; of 1851, 165; 
 Sir Charles Wood's amended, 166 ; 
 Mr. Disraeli's first, 180; Mr. Dis- 
 raeli's second, 192 ; Mr. Gladstone's 
 of 1853, 205; Sir G. C. Lewis's 
 (1855), 224 ; of 1856, 236 ; of 1857, 
 244; of 1859, 308, 310; of 1860, 
 318 ; of 1861, 330 ; of 1862, 337 ; of 
 1863, 351 ; of 1864, 358; of 1866, 
 367 ; of 1867, 392 ; of 1871, 454 ; of 
 1873, 480 ; of 1874, 495 
 
 Bill of Pius IX. establishing Papal hier- 
 archy, 159 
 
 Bulgarian Atrocities, 516, 520 
 
 Buller, Col. Warde, moves vote of no 
 confidence in Lord Melbourne's 
 Ministry, 88 
 
 Bulwer, Lord Beacnnsfield's opinion of 
 Sir Henry, 139 
 
 Burials Bill supported by the Liberal 
 Government, 480 
 
 Byng's (Mr.), Motion on French 
 Treaty, 322. 
 
 Cabal against the Government (1858), 
 
 276 
 Cabinet, split in the (1835), 40; Lord 
 
 Derby's of 1858, "269 ; Lord Derby's 
 
 second, 376 ; differences, 1853, 209 ; 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's, 436 ; of 1874, list 
 
 of, 490 
 Cagliari affair. The, 266 
 Callender, Mr. W. R., 467 
 Campbell's (Lord), opinion on Palmer- 
 
 ston's Conspiracy Bill, 257 
 " Candid friend," The : Mr. Bouverie, 
 
 230 
 Candahar, abandonment of, 559 
 Canning, Mr., on Reform 293 
 Canning's (Lord) Carmagnole, 273 ; 
 
 censured by Lord Ellenborough, 274 ; 
 
 Indian policy, 255 
 " Captain Popanilla," the voyage of, 20 
 
INDEX. 
 
 573 
 
 Cardwell (Mr.) on relations with 
 
 America, 360 
 Ganarvon, (Lord), retires from the 
 
 Cabinet, 387, 546 
 Case of Park and Watt, 267 
 Castilian style. Lord Palmerston's, 140 
 
 Cattle Plague of 1865, 366 
 Causes of the Italian war of 1859, 
 298; Russian war of 1854, {6. 
 
 Cavour on English prisoners at Naples, 
 267 
 
 Cecil (Lord Robert) on Paper Duty, 
 334 
 
 Changes of Party names, 61 
 
 Characters in " Vivian Grey," 16 
 
 Chartist National Convention, 82 
 
 Chartist Riots in 1848, 136 
 
 Chartists, Lord Eeaconsfield alienate I 
 from, 137 
 
 Chasles-Philar^te on Lord Beaonsfield's 
 novels, 126 
 
 Chelmsford's (Lord) retirement, 410 
 
 China, War with (1856), 241; defeat 
 of Government on the, 244; great 
 debate on the, 245 
 
 Cholesbury, 78 
 
 Church of England and " Tancred," 131 
 
 Citizen of Glasgow, Lord Beaconsfield 
 a, 483 
 
 Closing Theatres in Lent, 74 
 
 Coalition of 1853, 198 
 
 Cobden's (Mr.) attack on Lord Palmer- 
 ston, 341 ; Lord Beaconsfield on, 183, 
 320 ; definition of land as " the raw 
 material of food," 154 ; on the 
 Income Tax in 1845, 167; on the 
 Malt Tax, 165 ; recommends a " little 
 agitation," 154; visit to Aylesbury, 
 154 
 
 Cochrane (Mr. Baillie) on the factious- 
 ness of the Opposition (1867), 422 
 
 Collapse of Mr. Coleridge's Instruction, 
 394; of the Whigs (1855), 221 
 
 Collier Job, The, 465 
 
 Colonels, on Orsini, French, 256 ; cari- 
 catures on the French, 266 
 
 Commercial crisis, 1857, 253 ; trea- 
 ties, 100 
 
 Commissioners on Poor Laws, 78 
 
 Committee on Reform Bill, 1867, 395 
 
 Commons, Mr. Bright on the House of, 
 380 
 
 Compound Householder, The, 397 ; 
 extinguished, 399 
 
 Condition of England, 76 
 
 Confederate States, Recognition of the, 
 336 
 
 Conference of London, The, 354 
 Confiscation and Concurrent Endow- 
 ments, 476 
 " Confiscation is contagious," 429 
 Confiscation the principle of the Irish 
 
 Church Bill, 438 
 Congress of Berlin decided on, 549 
 " Coningsby," 126 ; Athen-num on, 129 
 " Coningsby," Keys to, 128 ; transla- 
 tions of, 129 
 Copyright, Lord Beaconsfield on, 74 
 Conservative Surrender, The, 402 
 Conspiracy to Murder Bill, Palmer- 
 ston's, 256 ; second reading, 258 
 Constabulary Bill, Lord John Russell's, 
 
 91 
 Conference of Constantinople, collapse 
 
 of, 534 
 "Constitution," Vinlication of the, 53 
 Constitutions should grow, 58 
 " Contarini Fleming," 27 ; reviews of, 
 
 28 
 Contributions to Annuals, 30, 31 
 Continent, state of, in 1848, 138 
 Conversational powers of Disraeli the 
 
 Younger, 19 
 Cooper's, Thomas, interview with Lorl 
 
 Beaconsfield, 130 
 Corn Laws, first speech on, 74 
 Countervailing Duties, 151 
 Coup d'Etat of Napoleon III., Queen 
 
 commands strict neutrality, 171 
 Cowley (Lord), in Walewski's dispatch, 
 
 264 
 Crampton's (Mr.) dismissal from Wash- 
 ington, 238 
 Cranborne (Lord) on his leader's 
 
 treachery, 400 
 Cranborne's (Loi'd) retirement, 387 
 Crisis examined. The, 42 
 Crimea, Allies land in the, 216 
 Crimean Committee, Palmerston tries 
 
 to evade the, 222 
 Cross (Mr.) explains policy of Govern- 
 ment, 540 
 Crystal Palace (1874), Mr. Disraeli at 
 
 the, 472 
 Cubitt, Lord BeaconsfieH's letter to 
 
 Mr., 481 
 Cyprus Convention, 549 
 
 D. 
 
 Daliiousie (Loud) retires from India, 
 
 241 
 Danish War, The, 352 
 
574 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 *' Dark Threats " of the Protectionists, 
 155 
 
 Dartmouth (Lord), letter to, 416 
 
 Death of Mr. Cobdeu, 362 ; of William 
 IV., 68 
 
 Debat sur L'Inde au Parlement Anglais, 
 Un (Montalembevt), 275 
 
 Debate on the Address, (1859), 288; 
 (1860), 310 ; (1861), 328; (November, 
 1866), 407 ; on China War (1856), 
 244 ; on Palmerston's Conspiracy 
 Bill, 257 
 
 Defeat of Lord Palmerston on the China 
 War, 244 ; of Mr. Gladstone's Gov- 
 ernment, 1873, 477 ; of Government, 
 ' 1859, 297 ; of Lord Russell's Govern- 
 ment on Reform, 372 
 
 Demand for " Lothair," 447. 
 
 Denmark (Lord John) Russell's advice 
 to, 347 
 
 Deputations, of Reform League on Bill 
 of 1867, 394 
 
 Derby (Lord), at Mansion House 
 Dinner, 333 ; is " sent for " (1852), 
 176 ; speech on assuming office, 177 ; 
 compromising speech of, 177 ; " sent 
 for" (1855), 221 ; unwilling to take 
 office, 260 ; forms his second Admin- 
 istration, 259 ; negotiations with the 
 Adullamites, 373 ; third Administra- 
 tion, 374 ; Mr. Bright's attacks on, 
 380; on Reform Bill (1867), 403; 
 opinion of Lord Beaconsfield, 414 ; 
 retirement, 410 ; on Radical policy, 
 1872, 471 ; retirement from cabinet, 
 541 
 
 Difficulties with France at an end, 
 266 
 
 Disobedience of Palmerston in the 
 matter of foreign dispatches, 171 
 
 Dissolution resolved upon, 1859, 299 
 
 « Ditto to Mr. Gladstone," 444 
 
 Divine right of Government, 64 ; of 
 the House of Commons, 58 
 
 Division on Irish Church Resolutions, 
 419; on Irish Church, 420; on 
 Irish Church Bill (2nd reading), 439 ; 
 on Personal rating Clauses, 396 
 
 Disraeli, Benjamin, the elder : settles 
 in England, 8 ; settles at Enfield, 4 ; 
 a lax Jew, 4 ; and the Russian loan 
 of 1815, 8 
 
 Disraeli family in Spain, 1 
 
 Disraeli, Isaac (born 1766), 4 ; traA-els 
 on Continent, 4 ; Sir Walter Scott's 
 ojnnion of, 5 ; his " Flim Flams," 6 ; 
 marries Maria Basevi, 7 ; only in 
 name a Jew, 7 ; final rupture with 
 
 the Hebrew community (1817), 8 ; 
 removes to Bloomsbury Square, 9 ; at 
 Bradenham House, ib.] epitaph on,i6., a 
 man of fortune, 10 ; his Charles I., 6 
 Disraeli, Mrs., made Lady Beacons- 
 field, 432 
 Disraeli, Benjamin (Earl Beaconsfield) : 
 birth, date of. 7 ; baptized at St. 
 Andrew's, Holborn, 8 ; accession to 
 power, 488 ; first address to electors 
 of Bucks, 124 ; address to Bucks 
 electors, 183, 247, 261, 309,435 ;. ad- 
 dress to electors of Maidstone, 69 ; a 
 generous opponent, 121 ; attacks 
 upon Peel, 117 ; attacks on (1858), 
 277 ; attorney's office, in an, 10 ; 
 ceases to represent Shrewsbury, 124 ; 
 ceases to represent Maidstone, 94 ; 
 challenges Morgan O'Connell, 50 ; 
 criminal information for libel against, 
 95 ; declines to form a Government 
 (1873), 478 ; elected for Shrewsbury, 
 97; epigrams on Peel, 116; first 
 Cabinet, 411 ; indifference to place, 
 116 ; Leader of the Opposition, 145; 
 Leader of the' House of Commons 
 (1852), 178; letter to Lord Dart- 
 mouth, 416 ; not a journalist, 12 ; 
 not like Peel, 191 ; position in the 
 Government, 1867, 399; received 
 into the covenant of Abraham, 8 ; 
 re-elected for Bucks (1866), 374; 
 reported to have a Disestablishment 
 scheme of his own, 422 ; resignation 
 (1853), 199 ; address to electors of 
 Bucivs (1868), 427 ; resignation 
 (1868), 433; stands for High Wy- 
 combe, 32 ; summoned to Bucking- 
 ham Palace (1873), 477; why he 
 did not at once join the Tories, 52 ; 
 why he rebelled against Peel, 116; 
 banquet at Merchant Taylors', 503 ; 
 Indian Policy, 513 ; last words in 
 House of Commons, 524 ; created 
 Earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount 
 Hughenden, 522 ; final address to 
 constituents, 523 ; partial retire- 
 ment, 524; defence of his policy, 
 527 ; why he accepted a peerage, 
 527 ; letter to Duke of Marlborough, 
 557 ; rural retirement, 558 ; last 
 weeks, 560-62 ; will, 562 
 Downing Street, meeting in, 1867, 411 
 Drifting into war with Russia, 212 
 Dunkellin's (Lord) Amendments (1866), 
 
 373 
 Ducane's (Mr.) Amendment to Budget 
 of 1860, 321 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Ducrow and his " snow white steeds," 
 
 45 
 " Dunciad " of to-day, The, 13 
 Buncombe (Mr.) on House Tax, 196 ; 
 
 on Reform, 290 
 Durham Letter, The, Lord Lansdowne 
 
 on, 160 
 
 E. 
 
 Eastern Cheistians, liberal sympathy 
 with, 527 
 
 Eastern programme of Mr. Gladstone, 
 527 
 
 Eastern Question, state of the (1853), 
 209-518 
 
 Edinburgh Revieio on " Captain Popa- 
 nilla," 21; on " Tancred," 132; on 
 " Lothair," 446 
 
 Edinburgh, Lord Beaconsfield's speech 
 at (1867), 404 
 
 Education (National) v. State, 76 
 
 Election : for Bucks, 1852, 186 ; 1857, 
 246 ; 1859, results of, 302 ; address 
 in 1865, 364 ; 1865 (general), 363 ; 
 1868, 431; 1868, results of, 432; 
 1874, 486 
 
 "Elijah Pogramism" of Palmerston, 247 
 
 Ellenborough (Lord), at th Board of 
 Control, 260 ; attack on, in Upper 
 House, 274 ; his censure of Lord 
 Canning's proclamation, 274 
 >, Empress of India, 516 
 
 « Endymiou," 559 
 
 England, Young, 127 
 
 England's attitude in 1856, 233 
 
 English ambassador withdrawn from 
 Naples, 266 
 
 " Enormous lies " about Secret Treaties, 
 301 
 
 Epigrams, Runnymede Letters, 67 
 
 " Epick," The Revolutionary, 21 ; 
 analysis of, 22-26 ; critics on, 26 
 
 Equalisation of the Spirit Duties (Irish 
 and Scotch), 283 
 
 "Equivocal and entangling engage- 
 ments," 487 
 
 Established Churches, Lord Beacons- 
 field's opinion of, 415 
 
 Europe affected by Opposition tactics 
 in 1859, 265 
 
 Ewelme Rectory scandal, 466 
 
 Extinction of the Compound House- 
 holder, 399 
 
 F. 
 
 Factory Acts Amendment Bill, 498 
 
 Fall of Sebastopol, 232 
 Fenianism in 1865, 366 
 Financial policy of the Whigs (1848), 
 
 142 
 Finlen the Fenian Agitator received by 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, 425 
 Fitzgerald, Mr. Seymour, announces 
 
 termination of Cagliari business, 
 
 269 ; on Canadian Defences, 360 
 First Budget, Lord Beaconsfield's, 350 
 " Five Millions " surplus. The, 495 
 " Flash-in-the-pan Motion," 152 
 "»Flim-Flams," a literary romance, by 
 
 I. Disraeli, 6 
 Follett, on Smith O'Brien, 72 
 Foreign Loans Committee, 509 
 Foreign policy in 1868, 432 
 Forum, Discussion, in Fieet Street, 266 
 Foreign Legion, Mr. Disraeli on the, 219 
 France and Ireland in 1843, 104; and 
 
 the peace, 232 ; Sir C. Wood's insults 
 
 to, 202 
 Francis attempts to shoot the Queen, 
 
 100 
 Free Breakfast Table, Mr. Bright's crv, 
 
 481 
 Free Trade, a cause of lower wages in 
 
 the cotton trade, 153 
 Free Trade Hall, Speech at the, 467 
 French Colonels, Punch on the, 266 ; 
 
 on Orsini, 256 
 French Commercial Treaty, 316 
 J^ Fraud and Dissimulation charged on 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, 397 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaselee's (Mr. Serjeant) amendment 
 
 on borough disfranchisement, 400 
 Geneva, award, 473 
 " Gentleman of the press," A, 202 
 German Emperor, alleged hostility to 
 
 Ministers, 505 
 Gibbs's (Mr.) candidature, 125 
 Gladstone's (Mr.) address to Greenwich 
 electors, 484 ; agree« with Mr. Dis- 
 raeli on the Budget of 1857, 21-4; 
 amendments to Reform Bill, 1867, 
 395; Ws Budget of 1853, 205; 
 changes ground on Irish questions, 
 414 ; on the Confederate States, 347 ; 
 defeated in Lancashire, 1868, 430 ; 
 defeat of, Mr. 1873, 477; defence of 
 his Reform Bill, 1866, 369; dis- 
 courages Debate on Budget, 1861, 
 333 ; ejected from Oxford, 36 5 ; ex- 
 planations, 478; inelTablo virtue, 
 198 ; letter to the electors of Wor- 
 
576 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 y 
 
 cestei-sliirc, 422 ; opposition to Mr. 
 Disraeli, character of, 392 ; on Re- 
 form resolutions, 385 ; receives Fin- 
 len the Fenian, 425 ; his resignation, 
 1874, 488 ; on the " scanty modicum 
 of enfranchisement," 1867,397; on 
 the Second Temple, 441 ; his rebukes 
 to Lord Beaconsfiald, 423 ; his sup- 
 plemental Budget for 1854, 214; 
 takes office, 436 ; why called to 
 Premiership, 434; retirement from 
 leadership of Liberal party, 506 ; on 
 " Bulgarian Horrors," 524 ; accusar 
 ^ tions against Govornment, 526 ; 
 
 campaign in Mid Lothian, 555 
 Glasgow, Lord Beaconsfield at, 482 ; 
 
 Reform Meeting, 380 
 Glohe, attacks Mr. Disraeli, 47 
 Government, change of the, 1865, 366; 
 defeat, on appropriation of vacant 
 seats, 1852, 183 
 Government of India Bill, 271 
 Graham (Sir James) as the " dirty boy," 
 198 ; attacks on Napoleon III., 203 ; 
 charges against the Tories, 303 ; on 
 " pottering over blue books," 203 
 Grant Duff (Mr.) rebukes Lord Bea- 
 consfield, 423 
 Granville (Lord) goes to Foreign Office 
 (1851), 172 ; sent for by the Qneen, 
 307 ; taken by surprise, 249 
 Greville on Mr. Disraeli in 1835, 256 
 Grey (Earl), resignation of, 40 
 Grey (Colonel) opposes Disraeli the 
 Younger at High Wycombe, 33 ; 
 summons Mr. Disraeli to the Palace, 
 411 
 Grey de Wilton (Lord), Mr. Disraeli's 
 
 letter to, 481 
 Griffiths (Mr. Darby), question in re 
 
 the French Colonels (note), 278 
 Guerroniere's (De La) pamphlet, 266 
 Guildhall Reform Meeting, 1866, 379 
 
 H. 
 
 Habeas Corpus suspended in Ireland, 
 1866, 367 
 
 Half-farthings, 100 
 
 Harcourt (Sir W.), his Rhodian elo- 
 quence, 520 
 
 Hardy's (Mr. Gathorne) amendment to 
 Irish Church Bill, 437 
 
 Hare's (Mr.) abortive scheme of mino- 
 rity representation, 399 
 
 Hartington (Marquis of) moves Amend- 
 
 ment to the Address, 1859, 123 ; 
 
 elected leader of Liberal party, 506 
 Hearsey's (Gen.) report to Government 
 
 on Indian disaffection, 241 
 Henley's (Mr.) explanations, 287 
 Henley and Walpole, I'etirement of 
 
 Messrs., 287 
 " Henrietta Temple," 67 
 Hereditary Legislation, On, 59 "' 
 Holy Places, Lord J. Russell's dispatch 
 
 on the, 201 
 Home Rule, 501, 556 
 Hope's (Mr. Beresford) attack on the 
 
 Premier, 396 
 Hope, Henry, 127 
 Horsfall's (Mr.) proposals in Reform 
 
 Bill (1867) accepted, 400 
 House of Detention, Fenian attempt on 
 
 the, 409 
 Household Suffrage, Speech on (1839), 
 
 75 
 House Tax proposed (1853), 195 
 How the Opposition was formed (1852) 
 
 179 
 Hughenden Manor, 9 ; speech on health 
 
 of the Queen at, 463 ; Queen's visit 
 
 to, 543 
 Hume and O'Connell, Letters of, 47-55 
 Hume on <' bloated eitablibhments," 
 
 153 ; moves amendment to motion 
 
 on Agricultural Distress, 149 
 Hyde Park Demonstrations (1867), 397 
 Hyde, tubulent Chartist meeting at, 86 
 
 Imperium et Libertas, 555 
 
 Importance of literature to men of 
 
 business, address at Manchester 
 
 (1844), 832 
 Income Tax, Lord Beaconsfield on the 
 
 (1858), 282 ; in 1860, additions to, 
 
 318 ; at 5c?. (1859). 310 ; a war tax, 
 
 335; in Ireland in 1853, 194 
 India, Bill for government of, 271 ; 
 
 dropped, 273 ; in 1857, speech on, 
 
 254 
 Indian Mutiny, outbreak of, 248 ; Lord 
 
 Beaconsfield on the causes of the, 
 
 251 
 Indian troops called to Malta, 548 
 India, Lord Beaconsfield's policy with 
 
 regard to, 301 
 Inquisition in Spain, the, 23 
 Insincerity of the Whigs on Reform, 
 
 328 
 Instruction, Mr. Coleridge's, 394 
 
IxN'DEX. 
 
 577 
 
 Insults of Liberal Press on Lady Bea- 
 consfield's peerage, 432 
 
 Intimidation of the Government at- 
 tempted (1866), 379 
 
 Intrigue, the Willis's Eooms, 306 
 
 Intriguing tastes of Lord John Russell, 
 296 
 
 Invective, Lord Cranborne's " wants 
 finish," 417 
 
 " Invective of Torquemada, and in- 
 sinuation of Loyola," 397 
 
 Ireland and Free Trade, 113 
 
 Ireland, state of, before the Famine, 
 103, 105 ; Mr. Maguire on the con- 
 dition of (1867), 413 
 
 Irish and Scotch Whisky duties equal- 
 ized, 283 
 
 Irish Church, speech on, at Edinburgh, 
 406 ; Bill (2nd reading), division, 
 439 ; (3rd reading), 439 ; Eesolu- 
 tions, 416 ; division, 419 
 
 Irish Coercion Bill (1844), Mr. Dis- 
 raeli's speech on, 108 
 
 Irish Fisheries, 497 
 
 Irish Municipal Corporation, 75 
 
 Irish Patriots in Paris, 137 
 
 Irish policy of Mr. Gladstone's Govern- 
 ment, 443 
 
 Irish Railways, Lord G. Bentinck's 
 scheme for dealing with, 108 
 
 Irish^Reform Bill, 416 
 
 Irish University Bill, 474 
 
 Irishmen, On, 432 
 
 " Iskander," 29 
 
 Italy, Palmerston's interference in, 141 ; 
 his policy criticised, 141 
 
 Jacobin Clubs, 147 
 
 Jacobin party. The, 142 
 
 Januarius, Blood of St., and Bank Char- 
 ter Act, 143 
 
 Jeaffreson, J. C, on Disraeli the 
 Younger, 19 
 
 Jews in Portugal, 3 
 
 Jewish Disabilities, 135 
 
 Kaye's (Sir John) " Indian Mutiny," 42 
 Kenealey (Dr.), 509 
 Key's " Vivian Grey," 15 
 Kinglake (Mr. Serjeant) on Cagliari 
 case, 268 
 
 Knightley (Sir Rainald), on Bribery, 
 
 Knightsbridge, banquet at, 547 
 Kossuth's visit to England, 170; ad- 
 dresses to Palmerston upon, ib. 
 
 Labour Rate Act (Ireland) Lord J. 
 
 Russell's, 110 
 Laing's (Mr.) Amendment on Borough 
 
 disfranchisement, 401 
 Lamartine's reception of the Irish pa- 
 triots, 137 
 Lambert, Mr. N. G., Member for Bucks, 
 
 431 
 Land, the " raw material of food," 154 
 Lansdowne (Lord) on the Spanish 
 
 quarrel, 140 ; refuses to form a 
 
 Ministry, 221 
 Lansdowne and Lord Aberdeen sent 
 
 for, 200 
 Late Session, a, 491 
 
 Layard (Mr.) on " The deplorable con- 
 dition of public affairs " (1855) 223 
 Leader of the Tory Party, Mr. Disraeli 
 
 becomes, 145 
 " Leap in the dark," the Reform Bill a, 
 
 403 
 Lee, Dr., of Hart well House, 126 
 Leech's children. Lord Beaconsfield 
 
 renews pension to, 425 
 Leeds gets a third member, 400 
 Leicester, the glass-blower, 380 
 Letter to the 2'imes on Reform in 1867, 
 
 405 ; — from Lord Beaconsfield to the 
 
 Queen, 479 
 Lewis's (Sir G. C.) Budget of 1857, 244 
 Liberal and Tory Finance contrasted, 
 
 481 
 Liberalism in Foreign Politics, 141 ; 
 
 effects of, 209 
 Liberal Ministers on the American War, 
 
 336 
 Liberal party working the Irish Church, 
 
 412 
 Liberal press attacks Lord Beaconfield's 
 
 " servility," 290 
 Liberty, the creation of Law, 57 
 Licensing Act Amendment, 497 
 Lichfield House Compact, 46 ; Lord 
 
 Melbourne on, i6. 
 Literary Magnet on "Vivian Grey," 16 
 Literature, Lord Beaconficld's love of, 
 
 143 
 Liverpool gets a third momb«r, 400 
 
578 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Local taxation, motion on (1849), 147 
 
 Lockhart, J. G., editor of the Represen- 
 tative, 11 
 
 Locke King, Mr. Gladstone's testimonial 
 to Mr., 475 
 
 London thi-eatened by Chartists, 136 
 
 Lorcha Arrow, The, 241 
 
 ^'Lothair," 445; origin of the name, 
 446 ; translations of, 447 
 
 Lovett and Collins. Mr. Duncombe's 
 speech, 91 
 
 Lowe (Mr.), his attack on the working 
 classes, 368 ; at Trinity House^ban- 
 quet, 1869, 441 ; on "educating our 
 masters," 407 ; on Mr. Disraeli's 
 " treachery," 400 ; opposition \ to 
 Abyssinian expedition, 408 ; power 
 of " spontaneous aversion," 417 ; re- 
 tirement from office, 370 ; returned 
 for Kidderminster 187 ; speech at 
 Retford, 517 
 
 Loyalty of the agricultural classes, 148 
 
 Loyola, insinuation of, 397 
 
 Lyndhurst, intimacy with Lord, 56 
 
 Lytton (Lord), merits of, 555 
 
 M. 
 
 McCuLLOCH on a countervailing duty 
 on corn, 174 
 
 Macknight's, Mr., " Literary and Poli- 
 tical Biography," 12 
 
 Madrid, Sir Henry Bulwer turned out 
 of, 139 
 
 Maginn, Dr., on "Alroy," 29 
 
 Magnet,\Litera7^ij, on " Vivian Grey," 6 
 
 Maguire, Mr., on the Condition of Ire- 
 land (1867), 413 
 
 Maiden Speech, Lord Beaconsfield's 72 
 
 Maidstone, Disraeli the Younger at, 68; 
 Result of the election, 70 
 
 Main Drainage Act, 1858, 285 
 
 Malleson, Col., on Indian Mutiny, 255 
 
 Malmesbury (Lord), in reply to Wa- 
 lewski, 265 ; on the price of corn, 
 150 
 
 Malthus on poor relief, 77 
 
 Malt Tax, Additions to the, 311 ; Col. 
 Barttelot on the (1864), 358 
 
 Manchester gets a third member, 400 ; 
 Lord Beaconsfield's first visit to, 132 ; 
 second visit to, 467 
 
 Manners, Lord John, 126 
 
 Mansion House Banquet (1853), 209 ; 
 (1867), 425, 512, 531 
 
 Manufacturers' fortunes, 81 
 
 Marlborough (Duke of), Letter from 
 Earl Beaconsfield to, 557 
 
 " Man in Masquerade," 500 
 Match Tax, 454 
 Mather's case (Mr.), 184 
 Maundy Thursday letter. Lord Beacons- 
 field's, 419 
 Maynooth, Mr. Disraeli's speech on 
 
 (1844), i. 108 
 Mayo (Lord), nominated Viceroy of 
 India, 427 ; on Irish policy of Mi-. 
 Disraeli's Government, 413 
 Midlothian, Mr. Gladstone's campaign 
 
 in, 555 
 Military Reforms, 457 
 Militia Bill, Lord John Russell's, 175 ; 
 
 Mr. Walpole's, 180 
 Mill, Mr. Stuart, at Manchester Reform 
 
 Club, 381 ; on Reform, 379 
 Ministerial explanations (1867), 411 
 Ministers at Manchester, 404 
 " Ministry of Progress," A, 205 
 Minorities, representation of, 400 
 Minto (Lord), his knowledge of the 
 intended Papal Aggression, 159 ; sent 
 on a special mission to Italy, 141 
 Mirasol, M., sent by Spain on a special 
 
 mission, 139 
 Misapprehensions about Lord Palme r- 
 
 ston's retirement, 205 
 Misprint, curious, in " Lothair," 445 
 Mitchel, John, excites Irish rebellion, 
 
 137 ; returned for Tippei-ary, 507 
 Meagher of the Sword, 137 
 Meagre programme for session of 1850, 
 
 556 
 Meaning of Reform Demonstrations, 
 
 379 
 Melbourne (Lord) hissed at Lord 
 Mayor's Banquet (1839), 87 ; retire- 
 ment, 81; his return to office, 68 ; 
 Runnymede on Loi'd, 61-62; (Lord), 
 his resignation, 99 
 Merchant Taylors' Banquet (1859), 308 ; 
 
 (1867), 423 ; (1874), 503 
 Mercy to Political prisoners, petitions 
 
 for, 93 
 Montalambert on the Imlian Debate, 
 
 275 
 "Mystic East," The, 21 
 
 N. 
 
 Napier, dinner to Sir Charles, in 1854, 
 
 280 
 Napoleon III. et I'Angleterre, 265 ; 
 
 Orsini's attempt to assassinate, 256 
 National Distress, 100 
 
INDEX. 
 
 579 
 
 National Convention, The Chartist, 82 ; 
 
 Dissolution of the, 87 
 National Party, The, 37 ; Petition, The, 
 
 82 
 National Prosperity in 1852, 181 
 Newcastle. Eord John Russell proposes 
 
 removing the Duke of, 219 
 Nevvdegate's (Mr.) Amendment to Mr. 
 
 Bernal Osborne, 356 
 New House and New Ministry, 489 
 New Poor Law, The, 76 : Brougham on 
 
 the, 79 ; working of the, 79 
 Newport (Monmouth) Riots at, 87 
 " New Social Departure," The, 469 
 New Year's Day, 1859 Speech of Em- 
 peror Napoleon on, 286 
 Newspaper v. Official Reports, 518 
 Ninepenny Income Tax in 1861, 332 
 Northcote (Sir Stafford), speech of, 544 
 
 0. 
 
 Oastler, Richard, and Sadler, on Poor 
 Law, 78 
 
 Objections to the Bribery Bill, 410 
 
 O'Brien, Smith, on election petition, 71 
 
 Obsolete incendiaries, 398 
 
 O'Connell, prosecution of Daniel, 104; 
 his Irish agitation, 103 ; Mr. Dis- 
 raeli's letter to, 50 ; his appeal, 105 ; 
 alliance with the Whigs, 46 ; attack 
 on Mr. Disraeli, 47 ; refuses satis- 
 faction, 49 ; and the " gloved hand," 
 ih. 
 
 O'Connell's, Morgan, duel with Lord 
 Alvanley, 50 
 
 O'Connor (Feargus) and the Chartists, 
 82 
 
 *' On the side of the Angels," 359 
 
 Opening of new Parliament in 1859 
 (Queen's Speech), 302 
 
 Opposition of 1852 — how formed, 180; 
 tactics of the, in 1859, 296 ; in 1861, 
 334 ; to Government proposals of 
 Reform, 386 
 
 Osborne (Mr. Bernal), his motion on 
 London Conference, 354; on Lord 
 Beaconsfield's leadership, 399 ; wild 
 shriek of liberty, 269 
 
 Orsini's attempt to assassinate Napo- 
 leon III., 256 
 
 Owen (Robert), introduced to the 
 Queen, 88 
 
 Oxford Professor in " Lothiar," The, 
 445 
 
 Oxford rejects Mr. Gladstone, 366 
 
 Oxford's attempt to shoot the Queen, 
 
 Pall Mall Gazette on Irish Church 
 Resolutions, 416 
 
 Papal Aggression of 1850, 158; Lord 
 Beaconfield's letter on, 160 
 
 Paper duty repeal, 326 
 
 Park and Watt case, 267 
 
 Party names, changes of, 61 
 
 Parliament dissolved, 1859, 300 
 
 Palmerston (Lord), his absurd ideas 
 about his dismissal, 172 ; again 
 Foreign Secretary, 201 ; his Amend- 
 ment to Mr. Villiers's Resolutions, 
 191 ; on the Budget of 1852, 181 ; 
 "The Coming Man," 221; defeats 
 the Militia Bill, 176 ; defeat of, 259 ; 
 death of, 366 ; his difficulties with 
 the Queen, 170; his dispatches to 
 Spain, 139 ; his " explanation," 171 ; 
 is offered Lord Lieutenancy, 172 ; re- 
 tires, 172 ; for once unpopular, 257 ; 
 his foreign policy in the Two Sicilies, 
 266 ; gives the lie to Lord Beacons- 
 field, 243 ; his quarrel with Lord 
 John Russell, 169 ; retires from the 
 Aberdeen Government, 210; returns 
 to office 1859, 307; his second Cabi- 
 net, i6, ; speech on foreign policy 
 (1860), 317; his "spirited foreign 
 policy," 266 ; his sympathy with 
 foreign Liberalism, 175 ; at Tiverton 
 (1859), 300 
 Peace the true policy of England, 313 ; 
 the peace of 1856, 235 ; a peace Bud- 
 get and War Taxes, 457 
 Peel and Pitt, 120 
 
 Peel (Sir Robert), his Corn Law scheme, 
 114; Cabinet order on Corn Laws, 
 
 113 ; on Free Trade (1849), 153; his 
 life " one great Appropriation 
 Clause," 119; recalled from Rome, 
 41 , return to office, 99 ; resignation 
 (1845), 113; resumption of office, 
 
 114 ; Runnymede on, 66 ; takes the 
 line of the member for Stockport, 
 121 ; his threat of a "good comfort- 
 able property tax," 148; veers 
 round on the Corn Lawf, 112; on 
 Whig agitation, 89 
 
 Peel's (General) retirement, 387 
 People, r. the Nation, The, 59 
 " Perish Savoy," 324 
 Persia, War with (1857), 242 
 
580 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Personal Rating the principle of Reform 
 
 Bill (1867), 396 
 Personal Government of Mr. Gladstone, 
 
 466 
 Personalities of " Lothair," 445 
 Petrel, Mr. Villiers, " the stormy petrel 
 
 of Protection," 190 
 Pigott's (xMr.) case, 541 
 Pitt, his French Commercial Treaty of 
 
 1786, 319 
 Plevna, surrender of, 545 
 Policy of Peace, 532 
 Policy of Sewage, A, 471 
 Political Prisoners, 93 
 Popanilla, The voyage of Captain, 20 
 Popiilarity of " Vivian Grey," 17 
 Poor Laws, Lord Beaconsfield's opposi- 
 tion to, 69 
 Poor Law Commission, Mr. Doubleday's 
 
 testimony, 78 
 Popular reception in 1867, 412 
 Precedent for resignation, 433 ; the 
 
 Tory respect for, 320 
 Prejudicial articles in French Com- 
 mercial Treaty, 323 
 Press on Budget of 1867, 394 ; on Mr. 
 Disraeli's premiership, 410 ; on 
 Hughenden Speech, 465 ; on resigna- 
 tion (1868), 433 
 Prince Consort, absurd scandals about 
 the, 210; death of the, 336; his 
 letter to Lord Aberdeen on Crimean 
 War, 216 
 Prince of Wales's visit to India, 573 
 Proclamation of confiscation by Lord 
 
 Canning, 273 
 Proposal to appropriate seats of Sud- 
 bury and St. Albans, 182 
 Prosecution of D. O'Connell, 104 
 Prorogation (1847), 125; (1852) 186; 
 (1855), 231; (1857), 264; (1858), 
 286; (1859), 314; (1860), 327; 
 (1861), 335; (1862), 344; (1863), 
 351; (1864), 358; (1866), 377; 
 (186J), 403; (1868), 427; (1869), 
 . 441; (1870), 450; (1871), 462; 
 
 (1873), 481 
 Protection, Lord Beaconsfield's final 
 
 severance from party of, 185 
 Protectionism entirely abandoned by 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 168 
 Protectionist meetings (1849), 154 
 Protectionism, Revival of, in 1849, 150 
 Public business (1861), committee on, 
 
 330 
 Public Health Bill of 1872, 471 
 Public Worship Regulation Act, 128, 
 498 
 
 Puffery' not the cause of "Vivian 
 
 Grey's" success, 16 
 Punch on French Colonels, 266 
 Psychological Romance, vide " Contarini 
 
 Fleming " 
 Pythagorean Policy, a, 461 
 
 Quarterly Heview on " Lothair," 387 
 on the new Poor Law, 79 
 
 Queen, displeasure of the, with Pal- 
 merston, 171 ; Francis attempts to 
 shoot the, 100 ; interview with the, 
 340 ; Oxford's attempt to shoot the, 
 91 ; hissed at Ascot, 82 ; her interest 
 in the war, 216 ; wish to end "gov- 
 ernment on sufferance,'' 200 
 
 Queen's Speech (1849), 145 ; in New 
 Parliament (1859), 302 ; Proroga- 
 tion (1871), 462; (1859), 288; 
 (1860), 315; (1861), 328; (1869), 
 436 ; (1871), 451 ; (1872), 465 
 
 Quixote, Sancho Panza and Whig Fi- 
 nance, 144 
 
 E. 
 
 Radical Policy in 1872, Lord Derby 
 on the, 471 
 
 Raglan, death of Lord, 232 
 
 Reception of Lord Beaconsfield at Man- 
 chester, 1872, 467 
 
 Reception of Plenipotentiaries to Berlin 
 in London, 550 
 
 Reception of the Reform Bill (1859), 
 293 
 
 Redistribution Bill (1866), 370 
 
 Reform Agitation (1866), 378; Mr. 
 Locke King's Bill (1851), 165 ; Lord 
 J. Russell's Bill of 1852, 175 ; Mr. 
 Disraeli's Bill of 1859 (second read- 
 ing), 294; Bill of I860, 324; of 
 1866, 367 
 
 Reform League, The, 379 (note) ; on 
 selfishness of Savings Bank deposi- 
 tors, 394 
 
 Reform Ministry, Disraeli the Younger 
 on the, 42 ; Resolutions, summary 
 of, 385 
 
 Regimental Exchange Act, 508 
 
 Renewal of the Reform Agitation, 1864- 
 5, 360 
 
 Repeal meetings, 100 
 
 Representative Government, true theorv 
 of, 59 
 
INDEX. 
 
 581 
 
 Hepresentative, The, '(newspaper), 10 ; 
 Whig falsehoods about the, 11 ; Lord 
 Beaconsfield's disclaimer of connec- 
 tion with the, 12 
 
 Requisition, first to stand for Bucks, 
 39 
 
 Reserves called out, 548 
 
 Resignations of Lord Carnarvon, Lord 
 Cranborne and General Peel, 387 ; of 
 Lord Derby (1853), 199; (1867), 
 410 ; of Messrs. Walpole and Henley, 
 287 
 
 Resolution, Mr. Disraeli's, on the am- 
 biguous language and uncertain con- 
 duct of Lord Palmerston's Govern- 
 ment, 225 
 
 Resolutions on Government of India, 
 273 
 
 « Rest and be thankful," 351 
 
 Results, of election of 1859, 302 ; 1865, 
 365 ; 1868, 433 ; 1874, 488 
 
 Resignation of Lord John Russell's last 
 Administration, 373 
 
 Retirement of Peel, 68 ; of Lord Chelms- 
 ford, 411 
 
 "Revolutionary Epick," The, 22; an- 
 alysis of, 22-24 ; critics on, 26 
 
 Revival of Protectionism (1849), 150- 
 154* 
 
 Ritualistic assaults on the Irish Chui-ch, 
 419-430 
 
 Robinson, H. C, on Disraeli the 
 Younger, 20 
 
 Roebuck (Mr. J. A.) moves for Com- 
 mittee on the condition of the army, 
 219; on Cagliari's case, 268 
 
 Royal Warrant abolishing purchase, 
 
 , 458 
 
 Runnymede Letters, The, 65 
 
 Rupert (Prince) of Parliamentary dis- 
 cussion, 177 
 
 Russell (Lord John) at Blairgowrie, 
 351 ; amendment to Reform Bill 
 (1859), 294 ; his criticism of Minis- 
 try of 1852, 1S4; his Crown and 
 Government Security Bill (1848), 
 137 ; his dealings with Irish Famine, 
 109 ; defeat of (1851), 165 ; defence 
 of the Durham Lcttor, 161 ; dis- 
 patch on the Holy Phices, 201 ; Mr. 
 Disraeli's criticism of, 226, 228 ; Dur- 
 ham Letter, 159; effect of, on the 
 Cabinet, 160 ; his explanation of Pal- 
 merston's dismissal, 172 ; fails to 
 form an administration (1845), 114; 
 his interference with Poland, 349; 
 interference in Tusc;my, 201 ; intri- 
 
 guing tactics, 296 ; at Irish Church 
 
 - meeting, 420 ; on mercy to the Hin- 
 doo race, 275 ; on National Petition, 
 83; opposition to Militia Bill, 180; 
 proposes to deal with the Corn Laws, 
 93; Reform Bill of 1854, 211; re- 
 turns to office (1851), 166 ; on the 
 Tory Reform Bill, 293 ; Reform 
 policy, 376; refuses to serve under 
 Lord Granville, 307 ; refuses to serve 
 under Mr, Gladstone, 436 ; resigns 
 (1851), 219 ; retires from the Cabi- 
 net of 1855, 230 ; Secretary for the 
 Colonies, 229 ; suggests removal of 
 Duke of Newcastle from the Cabinet, 
 219 ; threatens resignation, ib. ; use 
 of the Queen's name, 173 ; weakness 
 in office, 144 ; why he should have 
 been silent about Reform, 304; why 
 retired in 1852, 176 
 
 Russia Declares War against Turkey, 
 539 
 
 Russian War of 1854, causes of the, 
 298 
 
 Russian Pressure on the Porte, 530 
 
 S. 
 
 Sadler (Michael Thomas) on Poor 
 
 Law Commissioners' Report, 78 
 St. Albans and Sudbury disfrachiicd, 
 
 182 
 St John Viscount Bolingbroke, 61 
 Salisbury (Marquis), speech, 544 ; at- 
 tends Conference at Constantinople, 
 
 533 
 Sanitas Sanitatum omnia Sanitas, 471 
 San Juan Arbitration, result of the, 
 
 473 
 San Stcfano, Treaty of, 547 
 Saturday Review on " Lothair," 446 ; 
 
 on Reform Bill (1867), 390 
 Scandals about the Prince Consort, 210 
 Scene on defeat of the Government in 
 .. 1859, 298; of 6th July, 1871, 461 
 
 (note) 
 Scotch kirk, patronage in, 503 
 Scottish Reform Bill (1867), 308 
 Shrewsbury, Mr. Disraeli stands for, 
 
 94 ; elected for, 97 
 Sebastopol, Mr. Disraeli on the attack 
 
 upon, 218 ; fall of, 232 
 Second reading of Reform Bill (1S67), 
 
 390 
 Secret Treaty of 1856, 243 
 Sei»hardim, The, 1 
 Servian War, 529 
 Sepoy disaffection, 241 
 
582 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Session of 1839, 74; 1840, 88; 1844, 
 
 106; 1846, 114; 1847, 133; 1849, 
 
 145 ; 1850, 155 ; 1851, 161 ; 1852, 
 
 172; 1852, results of the, 183; 
 
 1854, 210 ; 1855, 219 ; 1855, results 
 
 of the, 231 ; 1856, 233; 1856, work 
 
 of the, 239 ; 1857, 242-248 ; 1859, 
 
 288; 1861, 328; 1862, 336; 1863, 
 
 847; 1864, 351 ; 1865, 360; ^1866, 
 
 366; 1867, 331; 1869, 436; 1870, 
 
 442; 1871, 451-453; 1872, 465; 
 
 1873, 475 ; 1874, 488 
 
 Slidell and Mason case, 366 
 
 Smith, Mr. Goldwin, on " Lothair," 445 
 
 Smith's (Mr. W. H.) Amendment to 
 
 Budget of 1873, 481 
 Smythe, George (Lord Strangford), 127 
 Sibthorpe (Col.), a source of _^weak- 
 
 ness, 156 
 Society, Disraeli tho Younger in, 18 
 Sonnets by "Disraeli the Younger," 
 
 30, 31 
 " Sophistical Rhetorician," 551 
 Spain, England's breach witk, 138 
 Speeches of Mr. Disraeli ; — on Abys- 
 sinian war, 408 ; on Agricultural 
 Distress, 1850, 156; 1851, 164; on 
 English relations with America, 360 ; 
 at Amersham on Church and State, 
 327; on attacks of 1858, 279; on 
 the Address (1844), 343; (1849), 
 145 ; on Amendment to Address 
 (1850), 155 ; on the Address (1852), 
 188; (1854), 211; (1856), 233; 
 (1857), 242; (Dec. 1857), 254; 
 (1859), 288; (1860), 316; (1862), 
 336 ; (1863), 347 ; (1864), 352 ; 
 (1870), 388; (1871), 451; (1872), 
 ^; (1873), 473; at Aylesbury 
 (1874), 486; to Aylesbury elec- 
 tors (1859), 301; at Aylesbury 
 (1852), 186 ; at Aylesbury (1865), 
 364; in reply to Mr. Ayrton, 
 421 ; on Ballot Bill (third 
 reading), 461 ; on Mr. Baines's 
 Borough Franchise Extension Bill 
 (1865), 362; on Brazilian dispute, 
 350; on Bribery (1866), 373; on 
 Bribery Bill, 409 ; in reply to attacks 
 on Budget of 1858, 284 ; on Budget 
 of 1850, 157 ; on Sir Charles Wood's 
 second Budget in 1851, 167 ; on 
 Budget, 192 ; in reply to criticisms 
 on second Budget, 197 ; on Mr. 
 Gladstone's Budget of 1853, 206 ; in 
 criticism of Supplemental Bunget 
 (1854), 215; on Budget on 1856, 
 
 236; 1858, 281; 1859, 311; 
 1861, 331; 1871, 481; at Bucks 
 election (1858), 261 ; on business of 
 the Session (1858), 270 ; on Public 
 Business (1861), 330 ; on the Cabal 
 (1858), 276 ; on Cabinet differences 
 (1854), 216 ; on the Gabinet of 1858, 
 279 ; on case of Lovett and Collins, 
 92; on Church Rates (1860), 327; 
 on death of Mr. Cobden, 362; on 
 Col. Buller's No Confidence Motion 
 (1840), 88 ; on Commercial Treaties, 
 100 ; on conduct of the War (1855), 
 220 ; on Conference of London, 354 ; 
 on Palmerston's Conspiracy Bill, 257 ; 
 (second reading), 258 ; to Conserva- 
 tive Association at Glasgow, 483 ; on 
 Copyright, 138 ; on Grantley Ber- 
 keley s proposed Corn Committee, 
 157 ; on County Franchises Bill (Mr. 
 Locke King's), 284; on Mr. Cramp- 
 ton's dismissal, 238 ; on maladminis- 
 tration in the Crimea, 217 ; on Cri- 
 mean Committee (1855), 222 ; on 
 Thanks to the Crimean Army, 236 ; 
 on Sir F. Baring's and Mr. Lowe's 
 Amendments on Crimean War, 227 ; 
 at the Crystal Palace (1872), 472. j 
 on the Declaration of Paris, •453'; on 
 Mr. Ducane's Amendment (1860), 
 321 ; in reply to Mr. Grant Duff 
 (1867), 423 ; on Ecclesiastical Titles 
 Bill, 161; (second reading) 164; on 
 Education at Edinburgh (1867), 406 ; 
 explanations after defeat (1859), 
 298 ; at Edinburgh, 404 ; on state of 
 - Europe (1859), 300; on Financial 
 policv (1851), 168 ; on Foreign 
 Affairs in 1861, 329; on relations 
 with France, 202 ; on Franco-German 
 War, 448 ; on French alliance, 263 ; 
 Reform, 263 ; on French Commercial 
 Treaty, 319 ; in answer to Mr. Villiers, 
 178; on Free Trade, 189; on Mr. 
 Gladstone's financial policy (1862), 
 338 ; on Mr. Gladstone's finance 450 ; 
 on government by Under-Secretaries, 
 357 ; speech on conduct of the 
 Government (1855), 225 ; on general 
 warrants, 124; at Glasgow City 
 Hall, 483; at Guildhall dinner 
 (1868), 430; on health of the 
 Queen, 463 ; on House of Lords, 335 ; 
 on Hyde Park meetings, 379 ; on In- 
 come and Property Tax (1851), 167 ; 
 on Income Tax, 455 ; on Indian des- 
 patches, 275 ; on Indian Mutiny, 248 ; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 583 
 
 second, 249 ; on Government of India, 
 272; on the Irish Arms Bill, 206; 
 on the Irish Church and Education at 
 Edinburgh (1867), 406; on Irish 
 Church Resolutions, 417 ; reply on 
 Irish Church Resolutions, 420 ; on 
 Irish Church Bill (second reading), 
 437 ; on third reading of Irish Church 
 Bill, 439; on Irish Coercion Bill 
 (1844), 108; on Irish disaffection 
 (1848), 137 ; on Irish Land Bill, 444 ; 
 on Mr. Maguire's Irish Motion, 414 ; 
 on Irish University Bill, 475 ; on 
 Italian affairs, 237 ; on Italian Con- 
 ference, 313 ; on Italy, 314 ; on 
 Jewish Disabilities, 135 ; on Local 
 Taxation (1849), 147 ; Maiden Speech, 
 73; on the Malt Tax (1864), 358; 
 in Manchester Free Trade Hall, 467 ; 
 at Mansion House Dinner (1861), 
 334 ; at Mansion House (1867), 425 ; 
 at Mansion House (1867), 403; at 
 Merchant Taylors' Banquet (1859), 
 308 ; 1867, 423 ; 1874, 503 ; on 
 Mr. Mather's case, 184; on Match 
 Tax Budget, 454 ; on Maynooth grant 
 (1844), 106 ; on state of the nation 
 (1849), 150 ; on the National Petition, 
 84; at Newport Pagnell (1871), 486 ; 
 on No Confidence Motion (1859), 303 ; 
 at Oxford Diocesan Meeting, 358 ; on 
 the Palraerston Administration of 
 1855, 223 ; on Lord Palmerston and 
 his Budget (1862) 341 ; on Palmer- 
 ston and China War, 246 ; on Pal- 
 merston's Dismissal ,173 ; on Palmer- 
 ston's Government, 234 ; on Palmev- 
 ston's Italian policy 93 ; on Papal Ag- 
 gression, 161 ; on repeal of the Paper 
 Duty, 326 ; on accession to the Tre- 
 miership, 412 ; to Agriculturists on 
 Protection (1851),168 ; on Protection- 
 ism (1852), 185 ; on Reciprocity,153 ; 
 on Re-distribution Bill (1866), 370 ; 
 on Reform Bill of 1854, 211; on 
 Reform, 270; introducing Reform 
 Bill (1859), 290 ; in reply to Lord 
 John Russell on Reform Bill of 1859, 
 293 ; on Second Reading of Reform 
 Bill (1859), 294; on Reform Bill of 
 1860, 325; on Whig Reform pro- 
 mises, and general policy of Lord 
 Palme rston's Government, 342; oa 
 Reform Bill of 1866, 368; in intro- 
 ducing Reform Resolutions, 382 ; on 
 introducing Reform Resolutions, 385 ; 
 on bringing in Refoi-m Bill (1867), 
 
 388 ; in reply to criticism on 
 Reform Bill of 1867, 391 ; works his 
 Reform Bill through Committee, 
 399 ; on Third Reading of Reform 
 Bill, 400 ; on refusing to form a 
 Government, 478 ; on Royal War- 
 rant, 458 ; on Russell's Constabulaiy 
 Bill, 91 ; in reply to Lord John 
 Russell's criticism (1852), 184; on 
 approaching war with Russia (1854), 
 212 ; on Lord John Russell's charge 
 of paltriness, 326 ; on Lord John 
 Russell's Polish interferences, 349 ; 
 on cession of Savoy and Nice, 317; 
 reviewing session of 1856, 139 ; on 
 Spanish disputes (1848), 239 ; on 
 Smith O'Biien, 72 ; on state of the 
 Thames, 285; at Trinity House 
 banquet (1869), 441 ; on Washington 
 Treaty, 466 ; on Whig finance, 142 ; 
 on cost of Whig foreign \ olicy, 284 ; 
 on Whig foreign policy (1847), 134 
 Speech of Emperor Napoleon on New 
 
 Year's Day, 1859, 286 
 Spencer (Lord) on the " glories of 
 
 Vinegar Hill, 443 
 Spirited foreign policy, Palmerston's, 
 
 266 
 Spontaneous aversion, Mr. Lowe's 
 
 power of, 417 
 Spouters of State sedition, 153 
 Spring Rice job, The, 90 
 Stanley (Lord) on the Malt Tax, 158 
 Stanley's (Lord) Irish Church Amend- 
 ment, 417 
 Stansfeld incident, The, 357 
 State of the country in 1840, 96 ; in 
 1852, 175 ; in 1865, 365 ; of the 
 Thames (1858), 285 
 State of the nation (1849), Lord Bea- 
 consfield asks for committee on, 150 
 Star Chamber, The, 12 
 Statement of Lord Beaconsfleld on 
 
 resignation (1868), 433 
 Stanhope's (Lord) protest against abaa« 
 
 doning protection, 169 
 Suez Canal shares, purchase of, 614, 
 
 515 
 Suflerance, not a Minister oh, 190 
 Sugar Committee, Lord G«orge Ben- 
 
 tinck's, 136 
 Sugar Duties, debates on, the (1846), 
 
 123 
 Supplementary estimates, 377 
 Surprising defeat of the Government 
 
 (1855), 220 
 Surrender, the Conservative, 402 
 
584 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Sybil," 129; a plea for the poor, 
 130 ; founded on Feargus O'Connor's 
 correspondence, 129 
 
 T. 
 
 Tactics of the Opposition in 1861, 
 334 
 
 « Tancred," 129 ; and the Church, 131 ; 
 reviews of, 132 
 
 Taunton, election for, 45 ; result of, 55 
 
 Tea Duties, proposed reduction in (1853), 
 193 
 
 Tea-room protest, the, 395 
 
 Thames, state of the, 285 
 
 Thanks of the House of Commons voted 
 to army in the Crimea, 218 
 
 Theories of Toryism, Lord Beacons- 
 field's new, 404 
 
 Thompson, Col. Perronet, at Maidstone, 
 70 
 
 Threatening aspect of affairs in the 
 East, 201 
 
 Times : Mr. Disraeli's reply to the at- 
 tacks of O'Connell and the Whigs in 
 the, 48; Mr. Disraeli's letter to 
 O'Connell in the, 51 ; Mr. Disraeli's 
 letter to the, on the O'Connell dis- 
 pute, 52 ; letter in the (1867), 405 
 
 Tories not opposed to Reform, 383 
 
 Toryism a democratic principle, 62 
 
 Tory Party, why Lord Beaconsfield 
 allied himself with the, 54 
 
 Town and Country, Feud between, at 
 an end, 208 
 
 Towns not to jroTern the Conntrv, 126 
 
 Travelsin the"^East, 21 
 
 Triennial Parliaments, Mr. Disraeli an 
 advocate for, 35 
 
 Tuscany, Lord John Kussell's inter- 
 ference in, 201 
 
 Trinity House Banquet (1869), 441 
 
 Trelawny's (Sir John) Church Rate 
 Bill, 327 
 
 Treaty, secret, of 1856, 243 
 
 Treatment of Mr. Disraeli by the 
 Liberal party, 421 
 
 Third Reading of the Irish Church 
 BUI, 439 
 
 "Three Rules," The, 474 
 
 Tory position in 1873, strength of; 479 
 
 Trafalgar Square Demonstrations, 374, 
 378 
 
 U. 
 
 Uxdee-Secbetabtes, Government bv. 
 357 
 
 Unpopularity of Reform Bill of 18G0, 
 325; of Lord Beaconsfield (1866), 
 380 
 
 University of Glasgow, Mr. Disraeli 
 Lord Rector of, 482 
 
 V. 
 
 Vacant seats, appropriation of (1852), 
 183 
 
 Yenetia, 67 
 
 Verses in Annuals, 80-81 
 
 Victoria, first Parliament of Queen, 71 
 
 Vienna Conference, Mr. Disraeli's de- 
 mand for papers on the, 223 
 
 Vienna Protocol, 233 
 
 Villiers (Mr.), "the Stormy Petrel of 
 Protection," 190 ; Resolutions on 
 Free Trade, 188 
 
 Vindication of the Constitution, 56 ; 
 analysis of the, 56-63 
 
 "Vivian Grey," 14; characters in, 16; 
 keys to, 15 : populai-ity of, 17 ; re- 
 views of, 18 
 
 W. 
 
 Wages, effect of Poor Law on, 80 
 
 Walewski's despatch on Oi-sini's at- 
 tempt, 256 
 
 Walpole and Henley, retirement of 
 Messrs., 287 
 
 Waltham, Speech at (1846), 126 
 
 Want of policy in Palmerston's second 
 Cabinet, 308 
 UWar with China (1856), 241 
 ^ War taxation in time of peace, 332 
 
 Wasted Session of 1866, 378 
 
 Watt and Park case, 267 
 
 Westbury, retirement of Lord Chan- 
 cellor, 363 
 
 Westminster Reform Club, 55 
 
 Wellington, Duke of, sent for in 1835, 
 41 ; on Birmingham riots, 86; 
 follows Peel on the Corn Laws, 113; 
 sent for to advise the Queen, 166 ; 
 death of the Duke of, 187 
 
 « What is he ? " 37 
 
 Whigs, Lord Beaconsfield on the, 24, 
 attack on the, at Wycombe, ?6 
 
 Whig defeats, 90 ; Ministers and Roman 
 Bishops, 159 ; misrepresentations of 
 Lord B^aconsfield's second Budget, 
 195 
 
 Whig and Torv Reform Bills (note), 
 293 
 
INDEX. 
 
 585 
 
 White's (Mr.) Amendment to the Ad- 
 dress, 328 
 William IV. and Lord Melbourne, 41 
 Winter of 1841-2, The, 99 ; Session of 
 1854, 217 ; Session of 1857, Queen's 
 Speech, 253 
 Will of Earl Beaconsfield, 562 
 Willis, N. P., on " Vivian Grey," 15 
 Willis's Rooms intrigue, The, 306 
 Wine Duties reduced (1862), 337 
 Wood's (Sir Charles) Budget of 1851, 
 165 ; on Mr. Disraeli's Second Bud- 
 get, 196 ; insults France, 202 ; on 
 state of the nation (1849), 299 
 Working of the New Poor Law, 79 
 Wycombe, High, first contest for, 32 ; 
 
 nomination day at, 33 ; result of first 
 contest, 34 ; second contest for, 35 ; 
 second address to the electors, ih. ; 
 result of second contest at, 39 ; third 
 contest for, ih. ; Tory dinner at 
 (1835), 45 
 
 " Young Duke," The, 27; reviews of, 
 
 28 
 Young England, 126, 499 
 
 Z 
 
 *ZULU War, 554 
 
 ,j Zanzibar, Sultan of. Treaty for suppres- 
 sion of slave-trade with, 512 
 
 THE END. 
 
 wndon: prihted by william clowks and sons, limited, stamfobd street 
 and charing cross. 
 
OiU 
 
 
 20 r 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 RbC'D LD 
 
 MAY 5 '65 -10 AM 
 
 , ^ '-^ ii LI> 21A-60m-3,'65 
 LD21-1' (F2336sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 I 1:101 
 
 J'i 
 
 LD 
 
 (ov'62GR 
 
 •fe 
 
 \^ 
 
 ni*^ 
 
 -/'651VC 
 

 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY