ADDRESS TO CONSTITUENTS.

177

it was understood that the Government 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 offered 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 pernicious 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 Rupert of Parliamentary discussion," adding that "his charge 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.

N

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 opposition of Lord John Russell and the Whigs-Budget-Renewal of Income and Property Tax-General satisfaction with the finance of the Government-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-Convocation 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 PeelTheir position defined-Attacks upon the former-Lord Palmerston's amendment-Accepted by the Government-Defeat of the Whigs-Mr. Disraeli's second budget-Analysis of its details-Ways and Means-Whig misrepresentations-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 15th of March, 1852, and at once assumed the Leadership of the House of Commons. He was supported 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 Office; Sir John Pakington, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Herrics, 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 occupying 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 catechising 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 whom the nation now deplores," was to be withdrawn; 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 upon was equal to the occasion. Mr. Villiers had described the condition of England as one of distrust, of apprehension, of anxiety, of uncertainty; he had even found that the feeling of distrust amounted to paralysis. Mr. Disraeli had met a considerable 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 intended 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 difficult 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 legislation before the dissolution of Parliament, in order that members might go to the country on the question of Free Trade v. Protection." Mr. Disraeli's answer was brief and to the purpose: "It is not the intention of 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 was 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 principles her Majesty's Opposition had been formed. Lord John Russell, he had been informed, "within a fortnight of resigning the Government of the country, from avowed inability to carry it on,-within a fortnight of having communi

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 Russell, and the more extreme members of the Liberal party, under the guidance of Mr. Cobden, for the purpose of breaking up the Government, and of obstructing legislation. The effects of this coalition-which was not denied by Lord] John Russell in his reply, were visible as soon as the first of the more important measures of the Sessionthe Militia Bill-was brought in.

This measure was introduced on the night of the 29th of March by Mr. Walpole, 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 Russell, 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. The 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 difficulties 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 military 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 ycar 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 continue 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 considerable, and an amount of time which I am sure no member of the Government 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 generally 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 Whigs 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 prosperity 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 development 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 exception, 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 Palmerston had refused to enter the Cabinet because he found