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 Eöthen. The Athenæum, 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 Athenæum, 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 individuality, 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 Beaconsfield'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 Strangford, 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 objections to his son appearing on the same platform with the future leader of the Tories, going so far as even to offer a formal prohibition. Eventually he yielded, on the understanding that no politics were to be talked. It was hardly worth while to have said much on this head. The occasion was the great soirée at the opening of the Manchester Athenæum 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

CHAPTER V.

LEADER OF THE TORIES.

Mr. Disraeli speaks on the Address (Nov. 1847)-Jewish disabilities-Speech of Mr. Disraeli-Lord George Bentinck retires from the Protectionist leadership -Mr. Disraeli succeeds him-Chartist disturbances-Irish disaffectionMitchel'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 amendmentProtectionist agitation-Mr. Disraeli returns to the charge-The aristocratic principle Declares war against the Ministry-his Motion "not a flash in the pan "-Advocates reciprocity as the principle of foreign commercial relations-Mr. Cobden recommends "a little agitation "-Mr. Disraeli at Castle Hedingham-Mr. Cobden at Aylesbury-Protectionist meetings-Session of 1850-Speech from the throne-Mr. Disraeli on agricultural distress-Returns to the subject-Criticises the budget-Agricultural interests-Papal aggression-The Durham letter-Mr. Disraeli's remarks upon it-Opening of Parliament Ecclesiastical Titles Bill-The Government saved by the Exhibition -Agricultural distress-Government defeated on Mr. Locke King's county franchise motion-Retires-Lord Derby sent for-Refusal to form an administration unless he may appeal to the country-Negotiations with the Peelites -Interregnum-Lord John returns to office-The amended Budget-Mr. Disraeli on the Income and Property Tax-Has long abandoned the idea of re-imposing a duty on corn-Beginning of the end-Address to Buckinghamshire farmers-Lord John Russell expels Palmerston from the CabinetInterference 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, 1847. 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 difficulties by which it was hampered. Naturally, therefore, the monetary crisis took the lead amongst the topics touched upon in the Speech from the throne. The assembled Houses were reminded

that the suspension of the Bank Charter "might have led to an infringement of the law," and were congratulated on the fact that it had not done so. No promise was, however, made that the working of the obnoxious law should be inquired into, and perhaps it was as well that it was not. The condition of England was very far from being satisfactory, and though, as the 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 Government, 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 Russia in direct violation of the Treaty of Vienna. He did not hesitate to stigmatise what had been done in the terms which were most appropriate at the moment, and the justice of which has been fully vindicated by time. His own view of the proper and judicious policy for this 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 Russia in Germany. To suppose that great powers like France and Russia would not have their own ambition to develop as England had hers, was to expect the impossible. But what was the use of the power of England except to combat those influences, whether in Spain or elsewhere, if they found them aiming at an inconvenient preponderance? He had often heard that peace could only be maintained by a cordial understanding between England and France, or a secret understanding between England and Russia, but peace could be maintained by England alone if she understood her 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

exercised a very important influence alike on the political career of Lord Beaconsfield and on the fortunes of the Conservative party. That subject was the removal of Jewish disabilities, which Lord John Russell introduced a few days after the opening of the session. On a subsequent occasion Lord Beaconsfield protested somewhat strongly against this way of dealing with the matter, pointing out that it had obviously been the duty of Lord John Russell, as leader of the Opposition, to introduce this subject from time to time, and so to take the sense of the 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 Christian Church, whether Roman 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 influenced by the darkest superstitions of the darkest ages that ever existed in this country. It is this feeling that has been kept out of this debate; indeed that has been kept secret in yourselves-enlightened as you are— and that is unknowingly influencing others abroad. . . . It is entirely on religious grounds and on religious principles that I venture to recommend the subject to your notice. If I do so with earnestness I hope I may be pardoned. This is not a subject which often comes under our consideration: I hope we shall not have to consider it again. But it is a question on which men, whatever may be the consequences-on which at least I, whatever may be the consequences-must speak what I feel. . . . Yes, it

...

...

is as a Christian that I will not take upon me the awful responsibility of excluding from the legislature those who are of the religion in the bosom of which my Lord and Saviour was born."

The results of this speech were important in no ordinary degree. Lord George Bentinck felt himself out of harmony 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 prejudiced in no ordinary degree-called upon the mob to raise the cry of "Down with the ministry; dissolve Parliament; the Charter and no surrender." 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 the agitation was to a great extent factitious. Not merely