with Shelley; and the Literary Gazette, in its issue of the same day, did the same thing. There was, however, a marked contrast in the way in which the two journals dealt with, what some people may call, the personality of the story. Said the Athenæum, "Lady Monteagle is intended to represent Lady

Somebody Something, who did not disguise her criminal passion for the poet lord." Mr. Jerdan is less reticent, and talks about "Lady Monteagles apparently drawn for Lady Caroline Lamb, with a Tory fling at her easy, good-natured husband, now Lord Melbourne." Now that all the actors in the melancholy drama of Byron's broken life have passed away, it may not be uninteresting to recall the fact of this portrait, and to recommend Mr. Mac Cullagh Torrens's "Life of Lord Melbourne" as the best commentary on Lord Beaconsfield's youthful indiscretion, "Venetia." No better proof of the extraordinary accuracy of the portraits could be desired by the most fastidious critic ;-though he might, like Mr. Jeaffreson, complain that in this novel he "found the grand tragedies of his contemplations converted into a melodrama scarcely fit for the Surrey Theatre;" a criticism Philistine enough to have been uttered in a Peckham omnibus, but such as might not unreasonably bave been expected from a writer of well-known Liberal predilections. Mr. Jeaffreson, in fact, does but condense into a few lines the diffused bitterness of the article on "Venetia " and "Henrietta Temple," which appeared in the Edinburgh Review at the time of their publication.

Peel's tenure of office had not been prolonged, and when on the 20th of June, 1837, William IV., in the words of his chaplain, “exchanged an earthly for a heavenly crown," Melbourne was once more in office, though assuredly not in power. His

government was about as weak as an administration could be, and it was kept together rather by reason of the prehensile tenacity with which the Whigs habitually cling to office, than because of any hold which it had on the affection or respect of the nation. Its true position was speedily defined. As usual, the accession of the new sovereign was followed by a general election, and although that election did not result in a "notice to quit" to the Whig ministry, it afforded a very clear proof of the feeling of the country, and of the unpopularity of the administration. On such an occasion, an ambitious man like "Disraeli the Younger" naturally came to the front. He did not, however, again tempt fortune at Wycombe or at Taunton. Maidstone seemed to offer a more eligible opportunity, and to Maidstone he accordingly went. Mr. Wyndham Lewis, the senior member for the borough, was perfectly secure in his place, but Mr. Robarts was notoriously unpopular, and being of the opposite side in politics, was by no means likely to retain his seat. The electors who had seated Mr. Lewis were hardly disposed again to bestow upon a Whig the power of nullifying his vote in the House. A 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 out

The Maidstone Election.

129

lines 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 must 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

K

VOL. I.

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 prac tised on a very large scale, the Liberal employers of labour putting stringent pressure on their work-people 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

Member for Maidstone.

131

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.