CHAPTER XV

DICTATOR.

MR. DISRAELI was now in a position entirely different from any he had previously occupied. Up to this, when he had held office he was the Minister of a minority, and he was able to carry out nothing but the wishes of his opponents. Now he was in a

position of power, with an overwhelming majority, and he was left almost perfectly free play for the development of his own ideas and character. I shall pass over with just a glance or two the first years of his Premiership, because they had reference almost entirely to domestic concerns, and pass on as quickly as I can to the later years, which were principally concerned with foreign policy. His conduct on one domestic question is the only one that requires any particular comment. In 1874, Mr. Russell Gurney brought in a Bill which afterwards became law as the Public Worship Act. Bill, as is well known, was to repress what were considered the excesses of one of the parties in the English Church. The Bill met with the opposition of

The object of this

several able men in both Houses, apart altogether from considerations of party. However, it was a Bill for which there was at the moment a public outcry; and when its fate might still be said to some extent to hang in the balance, Mr. Disraeli intervened and made a vehement speech in favour of its proposals. "I take," said he, speaking of the purposes of the measure, the primary object of this Bill, whose powers, if it be enacted, will be applied and extended impartially to all subjects of Her Majesty, to be this, -to put down Ritualism."* And the result of this interference on the part of Mr. Disraeli was that the Bill was quickly passed through both Houses, and became law. Indeed, so violent was his advocacy of this measure that he went so far as to deliver an invective on one of his most important colleagues. He described the Marquis of Salisbury, who had opposed the measure, as "a master of flouts and gibes and sneers; "* and it is generally understood that but for some explanations on both sides this speech would have led to the resignation of that Minister. The reader has not, I hope, forgotten the contributions which Mr. Disraeli gave to the literature of Young England. If there be one thing more than another distinctly laid down in those contributions, it is a strong preference for that school in the English Church which has developed into Ritualism. I have quoted several passages in which some of the most characteristic practices of the Roman Catholic Church are * Hansard, 3 S. ccxxi. 78. * Ibid.

spoken of with a strong suggestion of the desirability of imitating them. I have quoted other passages in which an elaborate ritual is distinctly laid down as one of the greatest aids to devotion. In other words, I think I have shown clearly that the Young England party, of which Mr. Disraeli was the leader, if not the founder, was a party which in religion was in its days called Tractarian, and in ours would be, at least, partially represented by what are called Ritualists. Another thing worthy of attention is that in the speeches of Lord Beaconsfield's early manhood, there is constant denunciation of the Erastian system-of the interference of the State in the affairs of the Church. Yet this is the man who strongly supports a bill which introduces the interference of the State in the affairs of the English Church to a degree never before paralleled; and this is the man who supports a bill, the object of which, in his own words, is "to put down Ritualism."

We all know what the effects of that measure have been. A state of distraction and of incessant quarrel has been introduced into the English Church which is unprecedented in its history. These quarrels have been fought out in public law courts at great expense, with hot passion; and where there was before at worst an armed neutrality, there is now an internecine war. I say nothing as to the question whether the Church Establishment is or is not a good institution; but this I do say, that there is no man of sense who does not believe that, if it be ultimately disestablished, one of

the causes will be the Public Worship Act which Mr. Disraeli insisted on having passed. I do not suppose that the prospect of such a result would much disturb Lord Beaconsfield's peace of mind. Whatever the result of the bill, his conduct in the matter is inexcusable. He preached Ritualism at one time when Ritualism served his ends, and he preached the putting down of Ritualism when the putting down of Ritualism suited his purposes. In both the one case and the other he employed the sacred name of religion and men's spiritual instincts for the purpose of gratifying his own desires. I pass, without further comment on his home action during these years, to the consideration of his conduct on the Eastern question.*

* It is worth while, perhaps, devoting just an allusion or two in a note to an occurrence in Lord Beaconsfield's Premiership which bears a strong family resemblance to some of the other acts in his career to which I have called attention. In the course of the session of 1877 (July 16), Mr. J. Holms, the member for Hackney, drew attention to the appointment of Mr. T. D. Pigott to the office of Comptroller of the Stationery Department. Mr. Holms showed that this was one of the many departments which had been investigated by a special committee appointed in 1873 "to inquire into and report upon the existing principles and practice which in the several public departments and bodies regulate the purchase and sale of materials and stores." The Committee had discovered that this department had been very much mismanaged. It had been taken in hand by the Treasury from the year 1874, and the amount of waste on it in previous years will be judged from the fact that in the year 1876 there was a saving on certain items of the vote of £495,000 of a sum of £45,000, or nearly 9 per cent.-(speech of Mr. John Holms, Hansard, 3 S. ccxxxv. 1330); and according to the information of Mr. Holms an additional saving of £25,000 was anticipated on other votes in the following year, making altogether a saving of £70,000; all this being in the work done for the Home Department alone.-1bid. The Select Committee, not unnaturally, in the face of such facts, recommended that the head of the department should be a person practically as well acquainted with the trade as if he were a stationer.-Ibid. 1332. It should

Before dealing with the policy which Lord Beaconsfield pursued on this great question, it will perhaps be instructive to consider the dispositions with which

also be mentioned that up to this time the appointment to this office had been considered a reward for literary services to a political party. For instance, Sir Robert Peel appointed to the office the well-known Conservative littérateur, Mr. J. R. M'Culloch; and his successor, Mr. W. R. Greg, was also distinguished for the services his pen had rendered to political literature. On the resignation of Mr. Greg, Lord Beaconsfield had the disposal of the office, and the gentleman on whom he conferred it was Mr. T. D. Pigott. It was not easy to discover any public reasons for such a choice. Mr. Pigott was not a distinguished literary man, and as a civil servant " he was one of a hundred and one junior clerks in the War Office, being 69th upon the list.-Ibid. 1332. What made the matter worse was that the next officer in rank to Mr. Greg -a Mr. Reid-was generally regarded as a very efficient civil servant, and, if I be not mistaken, well qualified for the post. Mr. Holms very properly brought this strange transaction before the House of Commons, suggesting that the Premier's only reason for thus raising this young man to such a good post in the face of the recent recommendations of the Select Committee, and of the strong grounds by which these recommendations were backed up, was that Mr. Pigott was the son of the late rector of Hughenden, who, he believed, with his family, had rendered valuable assistance to the Premier (Ibid. 1333). So strong did the case appear that even in the present House of Commons a vote of censure on Lord Beaconsfield was carried by a majority of four votes-156 to 152. Lord Beaconsfield made a set speech in reply to this speech; and, indeed, actually took the trouble of announcing his purpose beforehand, so that he had the gratification of having a large audience. The address had an enormous success. According to the Times (July 20, 1877), the speech showed" that Lord Beaconsfield's "powers of defence were not impaired." "The defence, we hasten to say," wrote the Daily News (same date), "was complete." Let me very briefly discuss how far those eulogisms were deserved. The Premier met the recommendation of the Committee that the Comptroller should be a person acquainted with the stationery trade by the remark that if he had to follow such a recommendation-" to appoint a stationer or a printer,"-"I should have had to appoint some person who had retired from business, or some person from whom business had retired."-Ibid. 1480 (?). Of course the House laughed; it is not hard, however, to show-if it be necessary to deal seriously with such trifling