The nomination took place on the 10th December. There were three candidates for the two seats. Mr. Smith, afterwards the second Lord Carington, who had held the seat for many years, and was Lord of the Manor, was considered certain of success; and the real contest accordingly again lay between Colonel Grey and Mr. Disraeli. I would willingly pause over Mr. Disraeli's speech on this occasion; but I am able to glance at but one or two of its points.

There is a possible misapprehension with regard to the political character in which Mr. Disraeli appeared at these elections, against which I have already cautioned the reader; but it is a point to which, as will afterwards be seen, it is necessary to recur again and again. That misapprehension is that, because Mr. Disraeli abused the Whigs, he is on that account not to be considered a Liberal. I have stated that this very attitude towards Whiggery must be taken in his case at that time as it would be taken in the case of men like Sir Charles Dilke or Mr. Chamberlain in our days: that is to say, as proof of the more than ordinary intensity of his Liberalism. In confirmation of this contention, I point to the fact, familiar to everybody acquainted with our political condition in 1832, that in the speeches of such unquestioned Liberals as Joseph Hume, Daniel O'Connell, and Mr. J. A. Roebuck, and in the writings of such equally staunch Liberals as James and John Mill and Albany Fonblanque, there is abuse of Whigs and Whiggery quite as vehement as any in the speeches of Mr. Disraeli at Wycombe.

But the strongest proof that Mr. Disraeli meant his abuse of the Whigs to pass for intensity of Liberalism is to be found in Mr. Disraeli's own utterances. I have already pointed out this in commenting on the first Wycombe election. Now let me take an extract or two on the same point from this speech in the election of December.

"He was objected to" said Mr. Disraeli, according to the report in the local paper,1 "by the gallant Colonel, who nominated Colonel Grey, (Colonel Bristow), because of his alliance with the Tories: he would object to the gallant Colonel, because of his alliance with the Whigs. The Tories had tendered him their support, and if they were inclined to serve the purposes of the people, and help them to obtain their object, would he as a friend of the people, be justified in rejecting their aid-(cheers and continued hooting.)"

This passage, I think, indisputably means that if the Tories supported him, that was their affair; it was not that he was the less a Liberal. But there is a

still more remarkable passage-I am quoting from the same report :— "He charged the Whigs with having violated, in his case, a solemn pledge never to oppose a Reformer. He had been assured by his friends in London that this was the principle on which the Whigs acted. When, therefore, Col. Grey offered himself, he instantly went to London and got a personal friend of his to wait on one of Col. Grey's relatives. The reply was, that he (Mr. Disraeli) had no chance of being elected, and if Col. Grey did not offer, a Tory would come in."

And, finally, the speech wound up with an indictment of the Whigs for their treatment of Mr. Joseph Hume; and mark the manner in which Mr. Disraeli points this charge :—

"The orator next drew a parallel between the case of Mr. Hume and that of Burke, who having helped the Whigs to power, found himself neglected by them, because he was no part of the high aristocracy. The secret of the enmity of the Whigs to himself was, that he was not nobly born."

We now see clearly what was the nature of Mr. Disraeli's hate of the Whigs. He hated them, not because they were Liberals, but because they were an aristocratic and selfish clique. That charge was brought against the Whigs in 1832, and has been brought many thousand times since by men whose Liberalism no one can gainsay; and that charge most Liberals will willingly admit to be true. And therefore Mr. Disraeli cannot escape from the fact that he stood for

1 Bucks Gazette, Dec. 13, 1832.

Wycombe in 1832 as an advanced Liberal, by pointing to his attacks on Whigs and Whiggery.

The second Wycombe election ended, like the first, in Mr. Disraeli's defeat. Nothing daunted, however, and determined, if he could not have election, to at least have notoriety, he rushed across to the county nomination at Aylesbury, and in the noisy proceedings of the day took a characteristically noisy part.1 And then, to call still more attention to the occasion, he wrote an indignant letter to the Times,2 complaining of misrepresentation in the report of his implacable enemy-the Bucks Gazette.

We have seen that Mr. Disraeli of June 1832, and Mr. Disraeli of December in the same year, are just a little different. At the first Wycombe election he is the Radical pure and simple; at the second, he can go so far as to tolerate Tories. We now follow him to a Metropolitan stage, and here we shall find that he appears once again as the Radical, pure and undisguised.

In the early part of 1833, a vacancy was expected in Marylebone, and Mr. Disraeli issued an address, which is purely Radical, if ever such a thing as a Radical address was published. He is in favour of triennial Parliaments, vote by ballot, and the abolition of taxes on knowledge. But not satisfied with proclaiming himself the adherent of the two principles which were then the distinctive and prominent badges of the Radical party, Mr. Disraeli pledges himself to minor articles also of the Radical gospel. He talks of himself as one "of a family untainted by the receipt of public money," and an attack on the pension list was daily made by the Radicals; and an announcement of himself as unsupported by either of "the aristocratic parties" was evidently a sop to the levelling tendency supposed to reside in Radicalism.

But he does even more than this. "Believing," he says in this address, "that unless the public burdens are speedily and materially reduced, a civil convulsion must occur"-Lord Beaconsfield has been always fond of prophesying the most dire consequences from the neglect of his counsels-"I am desirous of seeing a parliamentary committee appointed to revise the entire system of our taxation, with the object of relieving industry from those incumbrances which property is more capacitated to endure. Thus Mr. Disraeli joins in the cry for a land-tax-a cry dístinctive even more than vote by ballot and triennial Parliaments of the Radical party.

Assuredly the proposition that a land-tax is a Radical, and not a Conservative proposal, requires no proof. But the time and place selected for the statement of a political opinion are also of importance. It is one thing to pronounce an opinion on a question which belongs to the distant future, and another thing to pronounce an opinion on a question which is at the moment dividing parties. Now the property tax was at the moment of Mr. Disraeli's address a question of the hour. The address is dated April 9, 1833. On 18th February of that same year-that is, less than two months before the issue of the address-Mr. Cobbett had proposed a series of resolutions in the House of Commons, the general intention of which was to transfer a considerable portion of the public burdens to the land. And to these proposals O'Connell and Hume-whe are still, it must be remarked, the leaders to whom Mr. Disraeli swears allegiance-gave a general support. On several occasions, too, during March-the month preceding the issue of the Marylebone address-Cobbett and Hume recurred to this idea of a property tax. It is, therefore, quite evident that a tax on property was a Radical cry of the hour, and that, as a consequence, Mr. Disraeli sought election at Marylebone as a Radical of the most pronounced type.

The expected vacancy at Marylebone did not take place, and so Lord Beaconsfield was prevented from explaining on the hustings his political creed. However, he took another form of doing so. In his early years, when his tongue was at rest, his pen was sure to be at work.

He published a pamphlet, entitled "What is He?" Of the hundreds of candidates who had sought election since the passage of the Reform Bill, probably Lord Beaconsfield was the only one who thought it necessary to explain in pamphlet form the articles of his creed. But in failure as in success, whether his position were mean or exalted, as a stripling and as a septuagenarian, Lord Beaconsfield has acted as if the eyes of an admiring world were fixed upon him. The title page of the pamphlet is worthy of the writer. "What is He? by the author of "Vivian Grey,"" and underneath are the words-"I hear that is again in the field; I hardly know whether we ought to wish him success. "What is He?""-Extract from a Letter of an eminent Personage." The "eminent personage "what a characteristic phrase!—was understood to be Earl Grey, and thus the world was taught how deeply important the candidature of Mr. Disraeli appeared to the most influential politicians.

The tone of reasoning in "What is He?" is one with which the reader has already been made tolerably familiar.

Setting out with the statement that, before the passing of the Reform Bill, the Government of the country was established on an aristocratic principle, the writer declares that Government is now established on no principle at all. Searching for a principle, then, we are left to choose between a return to the aristocratic, or an advance to the democratic. "A Tory, and a Radical," writes Lord Beaconsfield, "I 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 nick-names to merge in the common, the intelligible, and dignified title of a National party."1 Here again, the reader sees, Lord Beaconsfield tells his Radical friends how they are to make use of the benighted Tories.

The writer next enquires "what are the easiest and most obvious methods by which the democratic principle may be made predominant? It would appear that the easiest, and the most obvious methods are, the instant repeal of the Septennial Act, the institution of Election by Ballot, and the immediate dissolution of Parliament."2 "What is He?" is, it will be seen, a repetition of the programme of the second Wycombe election. A comparison between it and the Marylebone address shows the same change of front as occurred between the elections of June and December of 1832. In the Marylebone address, as in the first election at Wycombe, Lord Beaconsfield is the Radical, pure and simple; and in the pamphlet, as at the second Wycombe election, he betrays an inclination to conciliate the Tories. The reader, however, ought to take note of the care with which, while even making these advances to the Tories, Lord Beaconsfield preserves the purity and rigour of his own Radicalism. He proposes a junction with the Tories, it is true; but to any of his Radical patrons who might object to this as inconsistent with his own Radical creed, he has a very ready answer. He proposes reconciliation of the Tories with the Radicals; but he proposes it on the truly Radical basis that the Tories shall surrender all their principles. Of course, when Mr. Disraeli was talking to the Conservatives, he gave his scheme a very different complexion.

The great principle and the great secret of Lord Beaconsfield's success has been to play on the meaner passions of men.

"Yes," exclaimed Vivian Grey, "we must mix with the herd; we must enter into their feelings; we must humour their weaknesses; we must sympathise with the sorrows that we do not feel, and share the merriment of fools." And Lord Beaconsfield has fully acted up to these ideas. The three weaknesses on which he has played most frequently are the vanity of the aristocracy, the stupidity of the agriculturist, and the lunacy of the urban population. We have seen his appeal to the more rabid doctrines of the dwellers in the town; in the next scene, he is discovered in the somewhat opposite part of bowing to the nobility and glorifying the farmer.

The scene of this second appearance is a dinner in the Town Hall, at Aylesbury, on 17th December, 1834. Between this meeting and the Marylebone address, an important change had come over the political world. The Ministry of Lord Grey, sunk to the last degree of impotence, had required recasting. Lord Melbourne, who succeeded Lord Grey, was not much more successful; towards the end of the year he was dismissed, and the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were sent for.

Mr. Disraeli's game was quite clear in such a state of parties. In the first place, Toryism had approached the haven of office; and while a Tory may ally himself with Radicals to drive out the Whigs, such a union becomes unnecessary and dangerous when the Tories are "in." It was full time that Mr. Disraeli should abandon the dangerous creed of Radicalism.

At this period, too, there was a section of Sir Robert Peel's supporters who offered excellent material for Mr. Disraeli's arts. The rural districts were in a state of great distress. The landlords complained that they could get no rents; the farmers that they could get no profits; and the labourers, maddened by their misery, had committed wild outrages in several parts of the country.

In those days people had still a strong belief in the omnipotence of Government, and everybody was convinced that "something should be done." It was not quite so easy to discover what that something" should be. King's speech after King's speech alluded to agricultural distress, but Ministers could agree on no measure; and committees sat for months on the subject, and could agree on no report. But one thing was certain: the British farmer was more than ever convinced that he was the chief bulwark of the State, and that absolute ruin stared this bulwark in the face.

Thus the agriculturalists-needy, exasperated, and bewildered-stood in need of a leader, bold, vehement of tongue, and clear of head; and they were, besides, the very best of parties for a young politician. They were Tories, for the most part, it is true; but they put forward claims that even a Tory Minister would find it difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy. The lead of a section of the party in power, which is excited, mutinous, and rather stupid,-could an ambitious youth ask more?

The party, besides, had at that moment its Marquess of Carabas, whose influence the uninfluential Vivian Grey could use, and whose mind the clever Vivian Grey could sway. The Marquis of Chandos had become, within the last few years, the leader of the agricultural party. The son of the Duke of Buckingham, an owner of wide estates, member for Mr. Disraeli's own county, influential in every Buckinghamshire constituency, the idol of the farmers,-what better Marquess of Carabas could Vivian Grey find?

When, at length, a friendly Administration had come into power, the farmers raised their voices louder than before; and it was determined that the Adminis tration should be told what they were expected to do.

The rumour had gone

In Bucks, the excitement was particularly intense. abroad, and had actually been confirmed, that the Marquis of Chandos was to have no place in the new Administration. Alarming as this rumour was, the cause assigned was still more alarming, and deepened the dark suspicion that the friends of the farmers were about to play false to their promises. The Marquis of Chandos would not be a member of the Ministry, because the Ministry refused to promise the repeal of the malt tax!

The County Agricultural Association accordingly organised a great meeting, which was to warn Ministers against evil courses; and no means were spared to make the demonstration imposing.

The report of this dinner, at Aylesbury Town Hall, in the December of 1834, must be very pleasant reading now-a-days to an enemy of our aristocracy. It is amusing to see the fatuous insolence of the Buckinghamshire magnates-their pomposity, their condescension, their belief in the eternity of their influence, and, above all things, their insulting patronage of the man who was at that moment using them as tools, and at this moment uses them as footstools.

The meeting developed into an apotheosis of the Marquis of Chandos. The Marquis of Chandos was mentioned in every speech; his name was proposed in three different toasts; the farmers hailed him at every possible moment with enthusiastic cheers; he spoke three different times.

Mark, to, how conscious son and father show themselves of their dignity! The Marquis of Chandos speaks of his father as "the noble Duke in the chair;"1 as to say, "Vulgar folk, behold how even I bow before the ducal dignity of my sire!" And the Duke is no less conscious of the overwhelming importance of the child of his loins. "Can any man feel prouder than I am," says the Duke in a burst of self-complacency, "surrounded by so many of my friends, I received your confidence, which was transmitted to me by those you loved, who went before me, and which I have also transmitted THERE."

Here," says our gushing rural reporter, "his Grace pointed to Lord Chandos, and the cheering that followed was so long and loud as for a long time to interrupt the speech of the Duke."2

But where, amid all this self-gratulation, all this complacent chuckling of the aristocrats,-where is poor Mr. Disraeli? Apparently he is not thought much of by these magnates; and his presence at this banquet is an incident of the most trifling importance. Indeed, I find in one of the reports that his name occupies the last place on the list of those present; and from the newspaper accounts I am inclined to think he occupied a seat among the general ruck, and not on the Olympian height of the dais, where the dii majores of the meeting ate, drank, and orated.

Poor Mr. Disraeli! Toast after toast has been proposed, local magnate after magnate has spoken, and the time is gradually approaching when no toast will be left but "The Press," and "The Ladies," and still you have not had an opportunity of uttering a word.

What a picture Mr. Disraeli presents at this dinner to our eyes, enlightened by future events. How he loathes the gormandising farmers, among whom he is compelled te sit; with what eyes of envy and hate he looks up to the dais, on which the "quality" sit; how he sickens at the oft-repeated name of the heritor of the Duke's title and land; what are his feelings as he hears the tame sentences of this man, who, merely by his position, can call himself the leader of a parliamentary party; while he-Benjamin Disraeli, with his tongue of fire-the twice-rejected of Wycombe,-has to sit below the salt, and listen in silence to the foolish utterances of titled dullards.

Such must have been Mr. Disraeli's bitter thoughts; but when he rose to speak, his words were all honey and flattery; for Vivian Grey, we know, had "the tongue of a serpent." Proposed by a "Mr. John Rolfe, of Beaconsfield," as a gentleman "firmly attached to the cause of agriculture," he attempted to justify this description by a eulogium of the agricultural interest, so wild as almost to read like burlesque. He states, among other things, that "He had long been of opinion that a conspiracy existed among certain orders in the country against what was styled the Agricultural interest." 3

And again: "No nation could ever do without agriculture, and a peasantry attached to it; and as for the manufacturers of Birmingham or Manchester, they would, if it suited them at any time migrate to Belgium, France, or Egypt. (Cheers.) The agriculturists had a spirit of patriotism,"4-but I need give no

more.

A number of stupid farmers, their stomachs well filled with meat and drink, of course wildly cheered these testimonies to their own supernal virtues; but assuredly any one, with even the slightest sense of humour, or with an even less than ordinary degree of penetration, could hear underneath this exaggeration and flattery the tones of utter insincerity.

The farmers, however, were not the only persons who came in for the sweetnesses of the orator's tongue. I have already spoken of the part the Marquis of 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

1 Bucks Gazette, Dec. 20, 1834. 2 Bucks Herald, Dec. 20, 1834.