What

Robert Peel of the result of the Shrewsbury election quite as soon as he cared to know. There was, therefore, no necessity for this letter, unless Mr. Disraeli and Robert Peel had been on terms of such close and such friendly intimacy that their respective fortunes were a matter of keen interest to each other. would Lord Beaconsfield think of one of his "humble but fervent supporters," who, at a general election, put him to the trouble of reading in a letter, news which he might learn at his club, or from his newspaper? We can imagine the cynic smile with which the author of "Vivian Grey" would peruse such a plain intimation that there was somebody who was badly in want of something, and who, to gain that end, was willing to do a very considerable amount of flunkeyish worship of the powerful.

But what makes this act of Mr. Disraeli's the more remarkable is that not only were Sir Robert Peel and he not on terms of close friendship, but that, in all probability, the Conservative chief kept his "humble but fervent" supporter at a very long arm's length. Subsequent events will pretty clearly show that even at this period Sir Robert Peel disliked Mr. Disraeli; and Mr. Disraeli was too keen a man, and too alive to his own interests, not to know who loved and who loved him not. It is very likely, then, that he was perfectly aware he was not an object of liking to Sir Robert Peel. It is bad enough to force oneself, by means of abject flattery, on the attention of any man; but to do this on a man whom you know to be your enemy, shows a more than ordinary degree of thickness of skin and bluntness of feeling. But that is the way these coarse-grained and pushing men of the world get on. What do they care for your significant frowns and your pained shrinking-away? You are weak, or good-natured; hate to be bored, or don't like to look unkind; and so the rude and calculating obtruder of self forces you to his wishes, and uses you to his ends.

Before passing from this part of my narrative, let me make a few brief observations on some of the literary productions of Lord Beaconsfield during the period the political history of which I have just given. In 1837 he published "Henrietta Temple" and "Venetia." "Henrietta Temple" is a love story, and has received a large amount of praise even from some critics who otherwise have little to say in favour of Lord Beaconsfield's literary skill. Indeed, one of those writers has gone so far as to declare it to be one of the most charming love tales in the language. This appears to me a most extraordinary verdict. The story is exaggerated, hysterical, and long-drawn-out. Many of the scenes remind one of the stilted rhetoric in which the lovers of some antiquated novelists used to indulge; and others bear a resemblance to the more modern fiction of which the Family Herald is the best type. The book is inscribed to Count D'Orsay, who under a fictitious name, figures as one of the characters.

"Venetia," Lord Beaconsfield dedicated to Lord Lyndhurst. In his preface he announces his intention to be "to shadow forth, though 'as in a glass darkly,' two of the most renowned and refined spirits that have adorned these our latter days." The "renowned and refined" spirits are Shelley and Byron, the former of whom is described under the name of Marmion Herbert, and the latter under that of Lord Cadurcis. This was certainly an extremely ambitious attempt, and the courage of Mr. Disraeli went so far that, in order to make his picture of these two remarkable men more_real, he wrote some poetry meant to pass as theirs. It certainly required all Lord Beaconsfield's boldness to attempt the production of verses equal to those of two of the most extraordinary poetic geniuses that have ever appeared in English or in any other literature. The effort, as might be expected, is creditable to Lord Beaconsfield's courage only. The verses bear the same resemblance to the poems of Shelley and Byron as might the rhymes of a clever schoolboy who had diligently learnt the images most common in poetic writing, and was not devoid of the tricks of "jingling sounds." However, a man who was bold enough to class his bathetic and impotent epic with the productions of Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Milton, might be excused for indulging in the minor ambition of writing poetry equal to that of the authors of "Queen Mab” and "Don Juan."

The reader will also see how like real life Mr. Disraeli's conception of these two men was, when he learns that Shelley is made a distinguished general in the American war of independence, and Byron an active political intriguer during the period subsequent to the Coalition Ministry of Lord North! "Venetia" is indeed a very mediocre performance; and in reading some of its pages of dreary inanity-its long-drawn-out descriptions of the most commonplace occurrences, its unspeakably vapid conversations,-one does not know whether to swear or smile, when one compares the pitiful result with the impudently bold project. Occasionally Lord Beaconsfield is successful in imitating something of the affected cynicism and gay flippancy with which Lord Byron used to talk and write; but the author of "Don Juan" would have smiled in derision or raved in fury had he been able to read the commonplace and poor stuff which his delineator puts into his mouth. Marmion Herbert is still more unlike the character it attempts to portray; and if it had any resemblance to Shelley, we should take him to have been a poor creature who was given to very prolix harangues and to very washy

sentiment.

Happily for both Byron and Shelley, we know too much of their natures and lives to take Lord Beaconsfield's wretched caricatures as in the least degree resembling them. But if posterity were to think of them as being such as are imaged forth in "Venetia," they might, even in their homes beyond the skies, wring their hands over the joy of the Philistines whom Lord Beaconsfield had so triumphantly avenged, and the wild delight of Little Bethel, whose worst judgments Lord Beaconsfield's portraits would justify.

Undeterred by the conspicuous failure of "Venetia," Lord Beaconsfield two years after announced another project equally ambitious. In that year he published "Alarcos," which, in the dedication to Lord Francis Egerton, he calmly described as an attempt to contribute to the revival of English tragedy." The work that was to perform this great exploit was scarcely heard of after its production, and would by this time have been completely forgotten, were it not for the political eminence to which its author has attained. But even the adventitious accessory of the writer's rank could not give it the semblance of life. When Mr. Disraeli was Prime Minister for the first time, an enterprising manageress thought it might draw. It was not, however, in any of the theatres identified either with the classic drama or refined comedy, or with anything whatever of even a decent reputation, that Mr. Disraeli's work was produced. This attempt to revive English tragedy-this dramatic masterpiece of the chief ruler of this vast empire -made its appearance on the boards of a house devoted to tame elephants and chained lions, waltzing horses, performing monkeys, and the equestrian drama; but even in this humble asylum of the houseless playwright, "Alarcos" was laughed off the stage after a few nights. 1

It is not uninstructive to pause for a moment to contrast the difference in the verdict pronounced upon Lord Beaconsfield's political and that on his literary and dramatic achievements. Pretentious inanity can make muddle-headed agriculturists or dining aldermen admire and cheer, but it cannot obtain a decent run for the worthless drama of even a Prime Minister. The arbiters of literature, too, are happily of somewhat brighter material than the fatuous aristocrat, or the dull farmer, or the rabid Jingo that lift political imposters to power. In the world of literature, as in the world of politics, Lord Beaconsfield has sought to succeed by continually shouting at the top of his voice that of all literary men he was the greatest. But literary, unlike political arbiters, have refused to take him at his own exaggerated estimate of his powers; and by them, the writer who

1 It was not an English theatrical authority that ventured to put " Alarcos on the stage; this bold exploit was reserved to what the Pall Mall Gazette (July 29, 1868,) calls "a venturesome American actress, one Miss Agnes Cameron." For an excellent critique of the tragedy itself, see the number of the Pall Mall Gazette just quoted; the issue of August 3, following, gives a most amusing description of how the play was "damned." The play was again produced, in the course of the present year (1879), and with equally unsatisfactory results.

ranked his epic beside that of Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Milton, who saw in his "Alarcos" a revival of the English drama, and who places his novels among the highest efforts of the human mind, is consigned to the region of poetasters, wrecked playwrights, and fifth-rate novelists.

CHAPTER IX.

YOUNG ENGLAND.

WHEN Parliament reassembled after the general election, there could be no doubt that the Government of Lord Melbourne was in a minority. The Conservative leader at once took decisive action, and, a few nights after the opening of the session, proposed a want-of-confidence motion. In the ensuing debate, Mr. Disraeli, of course, took a prominent part.

During the election, Protection or Free Trade was one of the many issues contested, and the Whig Cabinet had not obscurely hinted that they were ready to make some advances in the direction of mitigating the import duty on corn. The body of the Conservative party, of course, still adhered to Protection; but their discreet leader had taken care to leave himself unpledged on the subject.

Mr. Disraeli, naturally, took the cue from his leader. His speech, therefore, on Peel's motion, was directed to show two things: (1) that Free Trade was not a monopoly of the Whigs; and (2) that a Ministry under Sir Robert Peel would be far more likely to carry efficient Free Trade measures than the Ministry of Lord Melbourne. Such a line of argument, however inconsistent with Mr. Disraeli's expression of opinions on the same question a few years later, was yet in perfect consistency with his general plan of private and public life. The chief article of his own creed of conduct was that he should flatter the people who could be useful to him, and Peel was one of those. His chief article of belief on the conduct of political parties was that the Tories should filch all the cries and measures of the Liberals. Free Trade had the appearance, in 1841, of becoming a popular cry, which might be taken up very advantageously by a political party. And Mr. Disraeli may have thought that the Free Traders might be used for Tory purposes, just as he had formerly thought that the Radicals and the Chartists could be played off against the Whigs. Mr. Disraeli, of course, had taken very good care to watch Peel's conduct during the elections; and a keen observer like him would not fail to observe that Peel's reticence on the subject pointed to the probability of his proposing Free Trade measures. The influence of those ideas may be easily traced in Mr. Disraeli's speech.

He began by completely denying that the policy of Free Trade would be retarded by the accession of a Tory Ministry. The Tories, not the Whigs, he contended, were the true Free Traders. "Why," he exclaimed, "the progress of commercial reform was only arrested by the Reform Act."1 That is to say, the movement in favour of Free Trade would have been advanced by the virtuous Tories, had not the wicked Whigs intervened with their Reform Bill.

Then he went on to make another and perhaps still more important declaration. It will afterwards be found that one of the main assertions in Mr. Disraeli's philippics against Peel was that the Conservative chief had been elected as the champion of Protection. Mr. Disraeli also was most distinct in declaring over and over again that he himself had been returned to Parliament as an advocate of Protection. Such was his representation of the 1841 election in the Session of 1846 mark what his representation of it was in the Session of 1841.

1 Hansard, 3 S. lix. 173.

"No man could pretend" said Mr. Disraeli, "that the late dissolution of Parliament, or the want of confidence which the country had expressed in the Government, was in consequence of any sympathy in respect of the import duties; but it was because the Government was weak-inefficient-incapable of carrying those measures which they themselves believed to be necessary for the country.' 1

Can anything be plainer than the meaning of this passage? What can it mean but this-that the verdict of the constituencies had gone against the Whigs and in favour of the Conservatives, not because the Whigs were in favour of Free Trade, but because they could not carry such efficient Free Trade measures as the Conservatives? 2

There is another passage in this speech which it may be worth while to notice. In the "Vindication," one of Mr. Disraeli's favourite ideas was that the power of the Crown had been unduly diminished. This is an opinion, which-as will soon be seen-he took the trouble of preaching in several books, and which was one of the main principles of a political school he founded. And this is an opinion which, as Lord Beaconsfield and Prime Minister, he carried into most daring and far-reaching practice when he annexed Cyprus and assumed the protectorate of Asia Minor. It will not be forgotten that he justified the execution of these extraordinary measures without the consent of Parliament by pointing, among other things, to the confidence of the Sovereign in him and his administration. Well, during the election of 1841, as during the election of 1837, and in the debates in Parliament afterwards, the notorious preference of the Queen for the Cabinet of Lord Melbourne was brought forward as an argument in favour of Whig candidates. Mark how Lord Beaconsfield commented on the carrying out of his own principles by other persons. He declared that in former times, "when, if the name of the Sovereign had been mentioned as lately it had frequently been used and resorted to in the House in order to control and influence Parliament, such an attempt would have been held up to public scorn and indignation. Then he went on to denounce with violence the idea of a minister defying the House of Commons "by declaring the Government to which he belonged was supported by the Crown." Such language amounted to "profaning the name of the Sovereign, as if the Majesty of England was a second candidate upon some paltry poll."4

The vote of want of confidence in the Government was carried by the enormous majority of 90, and Sir Robert Peel was called to power. We have seen the pains Mr. Disraeli had taken to please the Conservative leader; how slavishly he had flattered him in the "Runnymede" letters; how loudly he had sung his praises on the hustings; how incessant he was in defending him from every assault in the House of Commons. We have seen how he had even condescended to write to Sir Robert Peel of his success at Shrewsbury. Vain labour! Sir Robert Peel would have none of him. When the list of the ministry was made out, Mr. Disraeli was not nominated even to an Under-Secretaryship.

However poignant may have been Mr. Disraeli's disappointment, he was able for the present to completely conceal his feelings. He continued to work with undiminished industry, and he continued to laud Sir Robert Peel with unabated zeal. On 8th March, 1842, he delivered a long and clever speech, filled with spicy personalities, and making an impracticable proposal to unite the diplomatic

66

1 Ibid. 176.

2 It is not necessary to overload my text with quotations in proof of this interpretation of Mr. Disraeli's position in 1841; but I will append one more. It follows the one just given. This, then," Mr. Disraeli went on, "brought him to the consideration of the real question before the House: the question was, not whether the proposed measures were necessary, but it was whether a discussion of those measures ought to be discussed or entered upon under the auspices of the present possessors of official power."-Hansard, lix. 174. Among the measures of the Ministry was a reduction of the duty on Corn to eight shillings.

and consular services. 1 Some of his attacks on individuals were unjust and ungenerous, and drew down upon him a biting rebuke from Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston added sting to his remarks by twitting Mr. Disraeli with his disappointed hopes of office. 2 Mr. Disraeli, of course, had no scruples then, or at any other period of his life, in assailing individuals, so long as he thus made his speech more palatable; and he replied to the sarcasm of Lord Palmerston with sarcasm quite as effective. 3

It was much more disappointing to him to find his proposal treated with as scant courtesy by Peel as by Palmerston. But he smothered his feelings; and on the next great opportunity came forward as one of the most earnest supporters of the Prime Minister.

It was on the 9th February, 1842, that Sir Robert Peel unfolded his plan for dealing with the Corn Laws. The speech which he delivered on this occasion, and on other occasions during this session, are somewhat astonishing. In those speeches Free Trade doctrines are distinctly enunciated; the policy of 1846which seemed to fall upon the political world like a summer cloud--is clearly foreshadowed; and the Premier bursts forth frequently into sentences which are as distinct an enunciation of Free Trade doctrines as we could find in the addresses of Cobden. 4

When, however, we come to examine what Peel's proposals were, we perceive still more clearly their thoroughly Free Trade character. Indeed, one cannot help wondering that the Prime Minister should have been able to pass at such a date measures so sweeping. The duty was removed off more than a hundred and fifty articles of food, among them bacon and ham. But this was not the part which showed most the boldness of Peel. He dared also to interfere with the three commodities in which the Protectionists were most deeply interested. The duty on live cattle was reduced to £1 per head, so that live cattle were practically admitted for the first time into England; fresh beef, which also was, to all intents and purposes, excluded from the home market by the high tax, was admitted at 8s. per hundredweight; and the duty on corn-on corn, the very heart and essence of the Protectionist interest-was reduced by considerably more than one-half! 6

The effect of those proposals on the supporters of Sir Robert Peel also plainly indicates that they were generally regarded as a partial adoption of Free

1 Hansard, lxi. 220.

2 "The hon. Gentleman" said Lord Palmerston, "had indeed affirmed the general principle, that political adherents ought to be rewarded by appointments, and he regretted to observe an exception to that rule in the person of the hon. Member himself. After the proof, however, of talent and ability, which the hon. Gentleman had afforded, although, perhaps, not of great industry in getting up the details of his case, he trusted, that before the end of the Session, the Government would overlook the slight want of industry for the sake of the talent, and that the House would see the maxim of the hon. Member practically applied to his own case."-Hansard, lxi. 264.

3 Thus Mr. Disraeli replied to this taunt: "Mr. Disraeli, in reply, said that he must offer his acknowledgments to the noble Viscount for his courteous aspirations for his political promotion. Such aspirations from such a quarter must be looked upon as suspicious. The noble Viscount was a consummate master of the subject; and if the noble Viscount would only impart to him the secret by which he had himself contrived to retain office during seven successive administrations, the present debate would certainly not be without a result."-Hansard, lx 280.

"It is " he exclaims, "utterly beyond your power, and a mere delusion, to say, that by any duty, fixed or otherwise, you can guarantee a certain price to the producer. It is beyond the reach of the Legislature.”—Annual Register, lxxxiv. 24.

5 Prentice, "History of the Anti-Corn Law League," i. 334.

6 Sir Robert Peel thus himself described the changes made by his sliding scale: When corn is at 598. and under 60s., the duty at present is 278. 8d. When corn is between those prices, the duty I propose is 138. When the price of corn is at 508., the existing duty is