THE MAIDSTONE ELECTION.

69

requisition was accordingly presented to Mr. Disraeli, and on the 4th of July his address appeared. The placard gave no uncertain sound. Mr. Disraeli announced himself as "an uncompromising adherent to the ancient Constitution which was once the boast of our fathers, and is still the blessing of their children." He declared himself prepared on all occasions to maintain the prerogative of the Crown, the privileges of both Houses of Parliament, and the liberties of the people. He further announced his readiness to support the Church, and his anxiety to watch over the threatened interests of the British farmer. His election speeches filled up the outlines of his address. He was entertained at dinner; and after dinner he told his friends, in a brilliant and most able speech, that he had a very distinct and intelligible policy on Church matters; that he was quite willing to abolish Church Rates, but that in doing so, he inust see his way to some substitute, as for example, Peel's proposal to create in their stead a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Turning from the Church to the Poor Laws, he declared himself the uncompromising opponent of the Whig measure-the cruellest and most heartless which even the apostles of laissez faire had at that time produced. That law, it should be remarked, was at no time a popular enactment, and when it was first put into force, it was worked with great harshness. Complaints were universal, not merely from the poor, who were the principal sufferers, but from magistrates, agriculturists, and the middle classes. Crime had greatly increased, especially in the rural districts; and the offences of rick-burning and machinery-breaking were in many instances traced to the exceptional harshness with which the Poor Law was administered. Lord Beaconsfield had taken a prominent part in the agitation against this enactment. As he reminded his audience on this occasion, he was the first county magistrate in England to sign a petition against it, and it was his hand which drew up the first petition of the kind ever presented to Parliament. The ground of his opposition was that the measure was based upon an erroneous conception of the rights of the people. The framers of this act had gone upon the assumption that poor relief was of the nature of charity; Lord Beaconsfield and the Democratic Tory party contended that such relief is a matter of right. The lands of the monasteries were, in fact, if not in name, the property of the poor, and if they were alienated for the aggrandisement of the "great families," the duty of maintaining the poor fell upon those families. How this view was afterwards enforced in his literary work, and how it influenced his political action, will speedily be seen. The rest of the speech was a bold and vigorous defence of his own consistency, and a reply to the attacks based upon the famous O'Connell correspondence by the Maidstone Whigs. The only point calling for notice is, however, the stress which the speaker laid upon the fact that he had from the first been consistent; and that that fact was evidenced by the circumstances of the contest of 1832, "when there was not a Conservative gentleman in the neighbourhood but was my supporter, not a clergyman

but wished me success, not a farmer of respectability but was found in my procession."

The election was carried on with great enthusiasm, and the partizans of Colonel Perronet Thompson, left no stone unturned to ensure his success. The trick of representing the Queen as personally interested in the success of the Whigs, which has been so often and so unscrupulously adopted in later years, was put in practice on this occasion to an extent which created a good deal of indignation among those to whom election tricks are not familiar. It was said also that intimidation was practised on a very large scale, the Liberal employers of labour putting stringent pressure on their workpeople to support their own candidate. Had Colonel Thompson been elected there were, according to one of the local papers, at least thirty persons whose votes could be proved to have been extorted under pressure. Another little device was also resorted to-that of putting up a sham candidate, in the person of Mr. Erskine Perry, at three o'clock on the day of the polling. The popular feeling was too strong, however, and the event proved that Mr. Robarts, who had represented Maidstone in the Liberal interest in seven successive Parliaments, had estimated the situation correctly when he retired before the nomination day. Colonel Thompson was, perhaps, as good a candidate as could be obtained. He was a Kentish man, and an unquestionably able one. His personal character was unblemished, and his weight and influence as editor of the Westminster Review would have insured him a respectful hearing in the House whenever he chose to speak. But the country was weary of Whig domination and Whig mismanagement, disgusted with the incompetence of the Melbourne ministry, and anxious for a change of some kind. Maidstone represented the all but universal feeling by returning two Tories, instead of allowing the representation to be divided. The poll closed at four o'clock, and the numbers were then seen to be conclusive. Mr. Wyndham Lewis, as was natural-he having represented the borough for a considerable time-was at the head of the poll with 782 votes, Mr. Disraeli followed with 668, and then came Colonel Thompson with 529, and the "bogus candidate, Mr. Erskine Perry, with 25. The victory was complete. No attempt was made to impeach the return, and, in due course, Lord Beaconsfield commenced his long career in the House of Commons as Member for Maidstone.

CHAPTER III.

MEMBER FOR MAIDSTONE.

Meeting of the New Parliament-An Irish debate-Mr. Disraeli's maiden speech -Not a failure-Watches his opportunities-Session of 1839-Supports removal of restrictions on theatres in Lent-Household Suffrage-EducationPopular discontent-The "Condition of England"-The old and the new Poor Law-Malthus--The Poor Law Commission-Cholesbury, the "frightful example "-The Bill-Working of the New Poor Law-Workhouse plan -Popular discontent-Wages lower rather than higher after the introduction of the new system-Sufferings of the peasantry-The state of the Black Country-Retirement of Lord Melbourne - The Bed-Chamber Plot - Unpopularity of the Queen-Chartism - Attwood's speech in the HousePopular dissatisfaction with the contempt of the House for the great Chartist petition-Mr. Disraeli supports the petition and retorts on Lord John Russell-The country on "the verge of civil war"-Riots at Birmingham -At Hyde-At Newport-Trial of the rioters-Opening of ParliamentQueen's speech-Lord Melbourne and Robert Owen-Mr. Disraeli speaks on the Address-Peel winds up the debate-Lord Melbourne still in office -Government defeats-Mr. Disraeli on the New Police Bill-Chartist prisoners-Mr. Disraeli on the side of mercy-Chartist petitions-The Chartists oppose the repeal of the Corn Laws-Vote of want of confidence in the Ministry-Mr. Disraeli's speech-Prorogation and dissolution-Mr. Disraeli breaks with Maidstone-Mr. Austin's privileged libel-Declines to stand for Wycombe-Elected for Shrewsbury.

"WE shall meet at Philippi," had been the parting challenge of "Disraeli the younger" to the big beggarman O'Connell. And meet they did. The first Parliament of the present reign assembled on the 15th of November, and was opened by commission in the usual way. Mr. Abercromby was re-elected Speaker, and on the 20th the Queen made the accustomed declaration, and delivered the usual speech. Debates on the Address followed, but no opportunity was afforded for an encounter with O'Connell until the 7th of December, when an Irish debate was raised on the motion of Mr. Smith O'Brien. He had been returned for the county of Limerick, but his seat had been made the subject of a petition. In order that this petition might not fail for want of means, a subscription was got up by its promoters, and amongst the subscribers were certain English members of Parliament, Sir Francis Burdett in particular distinguished himself by a contribution of £20, and the Protestants generally had contributed somewhat largely. Smith O'Brien was naturally extremely indignant, and presented a petition of his own on the subject. After a somewhat

excited speech, he moved "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition presented by William Smith O'Brien, complaining of the subscriptions which had been raised to encourage the presentation of petitions against Irish members, and of the conduct of a member of the House in having contributed to such subscription." The debate was a very lively one. Mr. Bulwer delivered himself of an able speech in support of the petition, in which he pointed out that Burdett had himself denounced such subscriptions as a breach of privilege. He was followed by Follett, who defended the subscription on the ground that Smith O'Brien was "as much a representative of the people of England as of the electors of Limerick,”-a plain constitutional doctrine which it would seem to be impossible to induce the Irish mind to appreciate. Then followed O'Connell, who, having soldered up his feud with the Whigs, turned his kindly attention to the Tories, whom he accused, with much vehemence, of insulting the people of Ireland by this subscription.

This tirade, the report of which occupies ten columns and a half of Hansard, brought Mr. Disraeli to his feet. He had pledged himself to take the first opportunity of attacking the Liberator, and he kept his word. Amongst the lies which have clustered around the reputation of the late Premier, none is more commonly accepted than the statement that his maiden speech was a failure. It was nothing of the kind. It is, however, perfectly true that O'Connell and his satellites did their best to make it one and that they succeeded in creating such a noise that at times he was inaudible. An eye-witness of the scene has described to the present writer the astonishing uproar which the Irish brigade kept up almost, from the moment of his beginning to speak. Hisses, groans, hoots, catcalls, drumming with the feet, loud conversation and imitations of animals went on throughout the speech, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the reporters could do their duty. But because a gang of disorderly Irishmen chose to behave in a more unmannerly fashion than a "Boxing Night" audience at a Transpontine Theatre, it does not follow that the maiden speech of the member for Maidstone was a failure. It was, indeed, in one sense, a very hopeful business, inasmuch as the reports prove that the preliminary training of the hustings had not been thrown away, and that the speaker was quite capable of holding his own amidst extraordinary interruptions. The reports furthermore disprove the charge of his having utterly broken down. A speaker who breaks down is not usually honoured with a report in the newspapers more than a column in length, or with five and a half columns of Hansard. The report of the speech, too, is full of points. The first part was a protest against the terrorism exercised by the Roman Catholic clergy, and a vindication of the right of Protestants to subscribe for the purpose of putting an end to the system of denouncing from the altar persons who had made themselves politically obnoxious to the priests. Turning then to the question more immediately at issue, Mr. Disraeli pointed out that this much

vilified subscription list contained the names of a great number of sober middle-class Englishmen, who ought not to be made the scapegoats of a Parliamentary Committee which it was notorious was asked for only for the sake of whitewashing certain particularly disreputable transactions. In the close of his speech, after a little banter about "the noble Tityrus of the Treasury Bench, and the learned Daphne of Liskeard;" and after an allusion to the supposed affection of the Whigs for the Roman Catholics, which was received with tremendous clamour, Mr. Disraeli wound up in these words :-" Now, Mr. Speaker, we see the philosophical prejudices of man. [Laughter and cheers.] I respect cheers, even when they come from the mouth of a political opponent. [Renewed laughter.] I think, Sir, [Hear! Hear! and repeated cries of Question!] I am not at all surprised, Sir, at the reception I have met with. [Continued laughter.] I have begun several times many things [laughter], and I have often succeeded at last. [Question.] Ay, Sir, and though I sit down now, the time will come when you will hear me." Hansard adds the following note: "The impatience of the House would not allow the hon. member to finish his speech, and during the greater part of the time the hon. member was on his legs, he was so much interrupted that it was impossible to hear what the hon. member said." The Morning Chronicle gives the additional information that "the hon. member resumed his seat amidst cheers from the Opposition, and much laughter from the Ministerial benches,"-a spiteful commentary which it is not difficult to understand when the strength of the Irish element in the gallery of the House of Commons is considered.

Temper has been said to be the half of religion: it is assuredly considerably more than the half of statesmanship, and Lord Beaconsfield's temper had always been his strong point. But there must be something more and better than even an exquisite temper in the man who, fifteen years after outrages such as those perpetrated by O'Connell upon Lord Beaconfield, could write as he did in his "Life of Lord George Bentinck," Chapter IX., of the Irish agitator's last speech in the House of Commons. "His appearance was of great debility, and the tones of his voice were very still. His words, indeed, only reached those who were immediately around him, and the Ministers sitting on the other side of the green table, and listening with that interest and respectful attention which became the occasion. It was a strange and touching spectacle to those who remembered the form of colossal energy, and the clear and thrilling tones that had once startled, disturbed, and controlled Senates."

O'Connell and his fellow "Yahoos" had succeeded. They were beaten on a division by an immense majority. The very Government refused to support them, and only ninety-one members were found to go into the lobby with them. But they had been successful in shouting down a new member, to whom, by immemorial tradition, it is customary to extend a special amount of courtesy and consideration, thus affording the means of settling